[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1839-1843]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here 
with my fellow Republican, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), who 
was instrumental in helping us get the Social Security earnings limit 
off today.
  I introduced this bill 1 year ago, after hearing from many folks 
around the Dallas area and surrounding cities who are over 65 who want 
to continue to work. One of them is named Tony Santos. That is his 
picture right there. Tony is a part-time operator of a television 
camera now at Channel 4 in Dallas. He started there in 1951, when he 
was just 18 years old, and he retired in 1992. I first met him when I 
got back from being a POW in Vietnam; and he helped cover that return 
back to Dallas, which was really emotional for me.
  Not just anyone can operate a television camera. It is a technical 
job and it requires specialized skills. So when folks take a vacation 
or get sick, Channel 4 finds itself in a bind and they call on Tony. 
Tony is over 65 and, after all, has a lot of experience, and he is 
happy to fill in. But the station needs him more than he is able to 
work due to the Social Security earnings penalty, which says that if he 
works more and earns more than $17,000 in this year he starts losing 
his Social Security benefits. He worked for and paid for those 
benefits, and it is not Washington's money. It is his money.
  Tony's beautiful grandchildren, over here, are also shown: Daniel, 
Emily, Jacob, Jason, and Stephanie. She is just 8. Tony wants to be 
able to help them buy school books and get the best education possible, 
but he is penalized by the government just for working to support his 
grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, that is un-American. It is not right that 
Tony should not be able to work all he wants to, he is in great health, 
and still receive his Social Security benefits which he worked so hard 
for.
  I wonder sometimes why we try to punish other Americans with the laws 
we pass. I want America to know that Tony Santos, here in this picture, 
heeds the words of Thomas Edison: ``There is no substitute for hard 
work.'' And I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I both 
have heard workers in America say that to us; that when they get to be 
65, they are not necessarily ready to retire. But they have worked and 
put into the Social Security fund and they would like that little extra 
benefit that it provides.
  This morning, believe it or not, the Democrats, some of them, said 
this bill only helps the rich. Well, I am sure it will come as news to 
Tony Santos that he is rich, because he is not. And why we always hear 
this class warfare created is beyond me. This bill provides relief for 
all hard-working seniors. And today we took the first step in making 
sure that Tony Santos and the other close to a million seniors just 
like him can work and be rewarded and not be penalized.
  I was pleasantly surprised President Clinton has decided to endorse 
the bill, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, to eliminate the 
Social Security earnings penalty. One day earlier the President's chief 
spokesman spoke out against it. The gentleman from Florida may remember 
that. But today at least I am thankful the President has changed his 
mind and decided to support the repeal of the Social Security earnings 
limit without any strings attached. And that is exactly what happened 
today on the floor of this House. We passed a clean bill with no 
strings attached. Just a bill to eliminate the Social Security earnings 
limit.
  Our Republican leadership has always understood the importance of 
this issue, and they made it a top-10 item for this Congress. For the 
past three sessions I have introduced repealing the Social Security 
earnings penalty, but by no means was I the first sponsor of this 
legislation. My colleagues will remember Barry Goldwater and his 
efforts in 1964. Repealing the penalty on seniors was his initiative 
way back then, and I am elated to finally be standing here so close to 
the repeal of the penalty that we can finally give every American the 
freedom to work.
  I must confess, though, that I have a feeling that the close to 
65,000 seniors affected by this penalty in Texas, and the close to a 
million seniors affected nationwide will be more thrilled than I am to 
see it passed.
  Would the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) care to comment on that? 
I know the gentleman has been the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Social Security in the Committee on Ways and Means, and he has been an 
interested person in this issue. And not only this issue but, as my 
colleagues know, he has been a supporter of the Shaw-Archer Social 
Security reform bill, which I consider this step one toward addressing 
that problem.
  Mr. SHAW. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) first of all, for being so persistent. The 
fact that that bill is named H.R. 5 shows that that was one of the 
first filed here, and those first numbers are usually set aside by the 
leadership to show that these are bills that we really plan to move. 
The gentleman's having filed that over a year ago to have gotten that 
number I think really speaks very well of his foresight and his faith 
in this Congress, and his persistence, in that he filed several of 
these bills in the past.

                              {time}  1530

  We had hoped that this H.R. 5 was going to be folded into the Archer-
Shaw bill, which was going to be a much larger bill that would have 
saved Social Security for all time. But when you get into presidential 
election years, sometimes it is hard to really bring people together 
and pass good, common sense legislation, as the Archer-Shaw bill is; 
and it is one that would save Social Security for all time without 
privatizing Social Security.
  This is one of the things that really concerns me more than anything 
else. And I was very concerned to hear the President's last proposal in 
which he was going to take the money coming into Social Security and 
play the stock market with it.
  I think Americans do not want that. That is something that we on the 
Republican side are going to oppose. And my guess is that the majority 
of the Democrats will also oppose it.
  But we do have to change the way that we view Social Security, but we 
can do it without increasing the FICA tax, no more burden upon the 
American worker; and we can do it, too, without in any way, any way, 
changing the benefits so that the cost-of-living increases stay in the 
Social Security system.
  The example that my colleague has pointed out with his constituent 
reminds me of a call that came into our

[[Page 1840]]

office. A young lady who works in the office, Elizabeth Richardson, who 
received the call just in the last day or two. It was someone calling 
from California. It was not from a constituent. I think it was San 
Diego or somewhere out on the West Coast. The person wanted an 
explanation of what it was that we were doing. And she explained to him 
that we were removing that onerous tax from seniors that takes a dollar 
out of every $3 of benefits that they receive should they go over the 
earnings limit.
  And he paused for a moment, and she heard a little silence; and after 
she explained it all to him, he said, Would you go give the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Shaw) a big hug.
  Well, we have a policy in my office against young ladies giving the 
boss a big hug. However, I can say that this shows the gratitude that I 
think so many of those seniors out there are going to really feel when 
they really understand what we have done.
  This is not something that we are delaying until next year. This 
earnings penalty will be done away with as of January 1, 2000. That is 
2 months ago. So the monies that these people have already lost will be 
given back to them. And it is the right thing to do.
  That is why we had every Member of this House step up and put their 
card in the electronic device that we vote on and put their vote up on 
the scoreboard, which is right here above the press gallery, and I 
think it shows the widespread support that this has.
  A lot of people have wondered, how did this possibly get into the 
Social Security law in the first place. Well, very simply put, the 
Social Security bill was written during the Great Depression back in 
the 1930s; and at that time it was the feeling of the Congress, and I 
believe probably of Franklin Delano Roosevelt at the time, that the 
older workers should move aside to make room for the younger workers. 
But remember, we had huge unemployment of 25 percent.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me add if I might what 
Roosevelt did in that first bill. He created a Social Security program; 
and if they worked, they could not have any Social Security. And then 
it kind of reformed throughout the years, and we finally got the 
penalty up.
  I see the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) here, too, who is also 
on the Committee on Ways and Means, that maybe can help us.
  But, in 1935, seniors could not receive any benefits if they worked. 
And then, believe it or not, it was modified 4 years later, in 1939, so 
that if they earned up to $14.99 a month, they did not have to pay a 
penalty. Can you believe that?
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I do believe it. But, you know, back then it 
might have made a little bit of sense when you had unemployment of 
about 25 percent, people desperately needed jobs.
  Now we have the other problem. We need more workers in this country. 
The economy is doing good, and we need more workers. And we 
particularly need the skills of our seniors. We are losing so much 
talent.
  The gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. Foley) and I have I 
think it is 81,000 seniors that are going to be directly affected by 
this. Nationwide it is, as my colleague said, just under a million. It 
is a little over 800,000 of the seniors that are going to be affected.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is close to 1.1 million 
they are saying now according to the 1999 Census Bureau.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, this is just the right thing to do. Now, 
people have wondered why in the world Congress did not do it earlier. 
Well, it simply means that that money was being spent by the Congress 
to run the Government, so they were taking it away from our seniors, 
taking their pension away, so they could spend the money on other 
things. That was wrong. It was wrong then. It is wrong now.
  That is why we have had this great support and the support from the 
White House that I am pleased to see that we are getting at this point. 
The President said he did not want to reform Social Security on a 
piecemeal basis. But I think when he took a good look at this, he said, 
this is one that I have got to support. It is a great initiative, and I 
am so pleased the result we have had here in the House.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, what is 
this going to cost?
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, over the long-run, it does not cost us 
anything.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and that is great. Absolutely 
no cost, according to the actuaries, to the Social Security Trust Fund. 
So we are not invading the Social Security Trust fund at all.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, let me explain that for a moment. Because that 
sounds impossible, but it is.
  What happens when that money is taken away from the seniors in the 
form of an earnings penalty, it is given back to them very slowly after 
their 70th birthday, so that their benefits actually increase a little 
bit in order for them to get some of that money back. And if they live 
long enough, they get it all back.
  But the problem with that is that the Government is using their money 
which they earned, which they are entitled to at the retirement age, 
which the Congress said is 65 and that is what they are entitled to. So 
it is wrong, even though they get it back over a long period of time.
  In the long run, it does not cost anything. In the short run, it does 
cost something and it is going to cost something. The money is there 
now. We have walled it off to save Social Security. We have walled it 
off in the lockbox, which I think most of the Members support. And it 
certainly passed the House of Representatives with good support from 
the Democrats as well, but a Republican idea in which we walled it off.
  We do not spend the Social Security surplus on governmental expense. 
It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thought it was amazing that 
one of the ladies that testified before our committee, and I do not 
think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) heard it, or maybe he did, 
it was the full committee, because she said, they are stealing that 
from me. That is my Social Security earnings that I am supposed to be 
receiving, and you are taking it away from me. You are stealing it from 
me. And guess what, you get it back later, but not with interest.
  So the Government is kind of putting it to you when you have a 
penalty like that.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague, what does he think?
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson) and, of course, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for 
their comments.
  I was delighted to see on this House floor today a unanimous vote for 
the measure that he introduced in our committee. It is a beautiful 
thing that people are finally recognized. At least in America, seniors 
are recognized for the value that they bring to our communities.
  It is interesting to think about back in Social Security's 
origination, of course, the longevity tables were much different; and I 
can understand maybe why initially they thought there may be a penalty 
because people were not expected to live past 68 or 72 years of age. 
And now they are longer, and they are more productive and healthier.
  One of the most important things I want to strongly note is that the 
seniors are the most important life link not only to the past but to 
the future. We can learn so much. Many people in my generation and 
below my generation, particularly all these new Internet people and 
Internet-challenged children, if you will, they are looking to the 21st 
century as the new unique and opportunistic place in time; and they are 
forgetting the wonderful gains made by those who are now over 65 and 
those who have brought so much insight and wisdom to our communities.
  I mentioned today on the House floor that my father retired at the 
age of 77 from the Palm Beach County school system. He continued to 
work. And, of course, he had a penalty back when he worked between 65 
and 70. And I think that was patently unfair. He worked from his early 
youth, served in the Marines, served in World War II, came

[[Page 1841]]

home to raise a family, became a proud member of the community, and 
chose a profession that he deeply loved. He could have made money in 
the private sector and done some things, I am certain. He is very 
talented and smart. But he chose to instill the knowledge he had with 
our children in the school system.
  He was a coach, much like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), 
the Speaker of the House, back in his days of high school. He then 
decided after 65 that he wanted to stay vigorous and involved in 
helping change children's lives. So he did. And lo and behold, our 
Government slapped a penalty on his Social Security income.
  As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) said clearly at one of our 
conferences, he said, under any other circumstances, this would be 
discriminatory; there would be an age discrimination suit filed.
  And so I applaud the leadership. I applaud certainly both the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert). I know they have worked on it for years and years. But I 
particularly applaud the two of my colleagues, because they really 
spearheaded the initiative. They brought it to fruition.
  More importantly for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I, who 
represent Florida, I am the seventh oldest, if you will, Medicare-
eligible district in America. And I know that this is fabulous news for 
our citizens. We have adjoining districts, so we have so many similar, 
if you will, constituents who want to be a part of the great economy, 
who want to be part of the dynamics that are now evolving; and they 
want to be feeling like they are appreciated.
  But somehow that light goes out in the Federal Government at the age 
of 65. No, no. Why do they not go sit down, go rest, go lounge around 
somewhere, because they are no longer valuable, they are no longer 
needed.
  What the Archer-Shaw bill does today is say to senior citizens 65 to 
70, not only are you needed, you are wanted. We want you as part of our 
country. We want you as part of our economy. And we want you to not 
only have your Social Security money that you paid for and that you 
earned, but we want to give you the chance to make more money in your 
pockets to safeguard your financial security.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and guess what? They pay taxes 
on that money, too.
  This is a letter from AARP, which has given their support to this 
project, which says, ``Older workers have the skills, expertise, and 
enthusiasm that employers value.'' They support reducing or eliminating 
this penalty totally, and that is what we have done.
  As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said, it is a good first 
step toward getting Social Security reform totally. At least we are 
looking at it. As chairman of the committee, my colleague is going to 
have hearings to talk to this issue and others that have come up during 
the debate.
  I see we are joined by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, can I ask one question if the gentleman would 
continue to yield.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has been in Congress since 
1980. And I am not certain of the start of the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 1991.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, why was this not 
considered before? Why was this issue not brought to the forefront?
  It seems like, with 422 votes, this is a child looking for adoption 
and it found it today. But what was wrong in all those years?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the 
Democrats controlled the Congress for such a long time over 40 years, 
and they did not brother to introduce this bill or make it go. And now 
they realize that this is an important issue, and they are with us on 
it for a change. That is good. I think it is time for a little bit of 
partisanship.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, I think it is also 
important to note that we have walled off Social Security with the 
lockbox. That money is out there and held sacred. It goes to pay down 
the debt if it is not being used to reform Social Security or Medicare. 
It is money that has been paid in by workers for their retirement 
years. We quit spending it.
  The direct answer to the question of why was it not done before: in 
the old days, the Congress spent that money. They spent it as if it 
were unencumbered tax dollars. They spent it on all kind of problems. 
In fact, they spent even more than that, and that is what ran up the 
national debt. That is why we owe so much money.
  But things are changed around here. We are living within our means. 
We are paying down the national debt. We are reforming Social Security. 
We are not taking Americans' pensions away. We are allowing the older 
American workers to keep what they have earned.
  Social security is an earned right of the American people. It is that 
simple. That is black letter law. And it is not for any Congress to 
take away any of that or compromise any of those benefits. It is a 
contract, a sacred contract, between the Government and the people of 
this country, the American workers. And this is what has to be 
preserved.
  You know what I was thinking when I was sitting here managing a 
portion of this bill today, I sort of felt the spirit of Claude Pepper 
coming into this area. A portion of my district down in Miami-Dade 
County was in Claude Pepper's. He would have been very proud of this 
Congress today and what we have been able to accomplish. Because he was 
Mr. Social Security when he was there, and I think we are taking his 
place as Mr. Social Security.
  Our job is to protect the sacred, contractual right of our American 
workers.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, did my colleagues know that by 
2030, one-fifth of the entire population will be age 65 or older?

                              {time}  1545

  According to a Manpower Inc. study released this week, nearly one in 
three U.S. companies will hire more workers in the upcoming second 
quarter, of this year. Tight labor conditions are going to continue to 
persist and demand for workers is at the highest level in 20 years. 
Those seniors that we have taken the earnings limit off of now have an 
incentive to go back to work, and I think that these companies will 
hire them.
  Mr. SHAW. We need them. It is not only what they are entitled to. We 
need them in the workforce. There is so much talent that we have lost. 
Go into the hospitals today, go down the corridors, see the age of the 
nurses that are about to retire. When the baby boomers come through and 
when they start using the hospitals more, who is going to be there to 
take care of them? We have a shortage of nurses in this country.
  The school teachers, some of the greatest teachers that we have are 
age 65 and older. We need to keep them in the workplace to train our 
kids. On a construction job, the supervisors are older people and they 
are there to train the apprentice, the young people coming in. We need 
to pass these skills down. It is wrong when people are living longer, 
enjoying life more, want to work or even have to work that we come back 
and penalize them. That is just so wrong. It is so wrong.
  We talked earlier about class warfare. What about this one? For so 
long, if you were wealthy, if you had stocks and bonds, if you had real 
estate, if you had income that was not what we call earned income, that 
is stuff that you actually earn by working, you were not penalized. But 
if you were a working person, whether you had to work or just wanted to 
work, you were penalized. What kind of class warfare is that? We are 
getting rid of that. We are getting rid of that. It is an earned 
penalty whether you are living off of dividends, interest or living off 
of the sweat of your brow, you are not going to be penalized anymore 
once you pass retirement age and go on to Social Security.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. That was a good statement. I yield to the

[[Page 1842]]

gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. First I would like to express my appreciation to my 
colleagues for moving that bill through the committee, moving it to the 
House floor and being able to come out on the floor of the House and 
getting unanimous support.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I have never seen a faster subcommittee 
than this guy ran. It was bang, bang and it was out, with a unanimous 
vote.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. A unanimous vote, bipartisan, all the right 
characteristics. I think you are going after one of the most unfair 
things in the tax code. You have identified that. I did nine town 
meetings last week. In my first town meeting, it is the exact issue 
that came up.
  There was a gentleman who had retired from teaching, had been 
substitute teaching and said, I reached the threshold. The school 
wanted to keep me in the classroom. I wanted to stay in the classroom. 
It is one of my rural communities, Fremont, Michigan. He said I wanted 
to stay in the classroom but I looked at it and it made no sense for me 
to stay in the classroom, in effect, it would almost cost me money for 
the privilege of being in the classroom to teach those kids.
  That gentleman now is going to be able to come back and he will be 
able to do it this year. He will be able to call up that school 
district and say, I can teach as much as you now want me to teach this 
year and as much as I am available to teach because the other nice 
thing about this bill is that, as you said in your closing statement 
today on the floor, the bill goes into effect on January 1, not of 2001 
but of 2000, correct?
  Mr. SHAW. That is correct.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. When this bill gets signed by the President, it will in 
effect be retroactive, a retroactive tax cut for workers for this year. 
It fits in perfectly. It was 2 weeks ago that we had a hearing in my 
subcommittee about the shortage of workers that we are facing. So 
whether it is the school teacher and qualified teachers in Fremont, 
Michigan or whether it is other industries around the country today, we 
know that there is a shortage of workers and that seniors have so much 
to add in terms of their skills and their expertise to filling that 
need that it is not only the fair thing to do, it is the right thing to 
do.
  We need these workers if they want to. We need them to stay in the 
workforce. The least we could do is make the tax code neutral to that 
decision rather than penalizing them for staying in the workforce, at 
least now as they consider whether they are going to work or whether 
they are going to enjoy their retirement, they do not have to take a 
look at the tax code and see, now, what does the tax code want me to do 
and how many hours does it want me?
  What a ridiculous process to go through. It is the fair thing to do; 
it is the right thing to do. Again I think as the chairman pointed out, 
when you take a look at what we are doing with Social Security, the 
lockbox this past year, not spending one dollar of the Social Security 
surplus and dedicating that all to paying down the debt, we are doing a 
number of things that are starting to shore up and save Social Security 
so that we can address the next issue which the chairman is also 
working on with a great passion which is doing the fundamental reforms 
to ensure that this program will not only be there for the seniors of 
today but for the baby boomers of tomorrow and for our kids.
  So we really are taking a step by step approach. I again appreciate 
the work that the chairman is doing there and also appreciate the 
chairman's support for one little thing, we call it the worker right to 
know. Again it is an issue of the American people deserve to know how 
much money we are putting into Social Security and one of the things 
that is kind of a little bit of misinformation out there is all the 
workers get their W-2 at the end of the year and they see the portion 
that they have paid in and it is a pretty good size number, it is 6.5 
percent of what they have made, they say, wow, that is my Social 
Security contribution. That is the money that was sent to Washington 
for me.
  What they do not recognize and what they do not know is that for 
every dollar that they paid in, their employer was forced to match 
that, and so really it is 13 percent of their income is coming here for 
Social Security, supposedly with their name on it.
  Mr. SHAW. I think that is something that people sort of miss, that 
kind of goes over their head, because Social Security, both the 
employer and the employee's portion of it is part of the compensation 
of the American worker, so they are paying in, I think it is 12.4 
percent of their wages is going into the Social Security 
Administration. That is plenty high. When you start thinking about it, 
particularly for low-wage people, we can save Social Security without 
in any way raising that tax, and it would be wrong to raise that tax. 
We do not need to tax American workers one dime more and we can save 
Social Security just by getting busy and doing it.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Most people do not realize that that tax 
was 2 percent to start with. It is up to 13 percent now. It has been 
raised eight times since 1939. That is atrocious. You are absolutely 
right that we should never ever increase that. In fact, we ought to 
start decreasing it. Most of the options show the way to do that.
  Mr. SHAW. Actually under the Archer-Shaw bill which you pointed to 
earlier, it would be many years from now, but the future Congress could 
many years from now actually reduce that tax substantially and still 
keep Social Security fully funded and paying out the benefits for all 
times.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Our seniors are paying a penalty, a severe 
penalty today, where they are paying a 33 percent tax really on their 
earnings. Some of them because of the situation are as high as 80 
percent tax bracket, marginal tax bracket. So they are really getting 
penalized. I think it is a credit to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) that we sent the 
President a clean bill, and I have to tell you that we got a clean bill 
out of the House.
  You will admit that. There is nothing else on it. It is an 
elimination of the Social Security earnings penalty. He has promised to 
sign that bill if it reaches his desk without other provisions. 
However, I am a little worried about the Senate. Some of the Senate 
Democrats are claiming that they would like to offer amendments to end 
the penalty on seniors. Although we have bipartisan support, some 
Democratic obstructionists want to alter the core objectives.
  I think we should all plead with our friends across America to write 
their Senators and tell them we do not need an amendment to this 
Freedom to Work Act because we want the President to sign it, and he 
said he would if it comes out clean. I am hopeful, I think it is 
Senator Ashcroft that has submitted the bill over there and Senator 
Lott says that they are going to push for expeditious passage. I look 
forward to a big signing with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) of 
the total bill when it is done. Your mention that it will take effect 
retroactively is exactly correct, January 1, this year.
  Mr. SHAW. I am sure that we will all be in the Rose Garden smiling 
together with the President and be there when he signs it. I am 
certainly looking forward to that day.
  I again want to congratulate you and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Peterson), your original cosponsor in carrying this through. I 
want to congratulate the entire House on the decorum we had today. 
There was a little fringe politics, a little boxing going in. I felt a 
couple of jabs coming from the other side but on the whole the debate 
was of the highest caliber I have ever seen, just like a fresh air 
blowing through this institution. I made note during the debate that 
people tuning in and looking at it would think they were looking at 
another parliamentary body somewhere else and not here in Washington at 
the United States Congress. This was certainly one of the finest days 
that I have seen. My congratulations to you.

[[Page 1843]]


  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. It is a rare day in Washington.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Again I would like to express my appreciation to my two 
colleagues for sponsoring it and moving this bill forward. I think the 
reason we had such a great debate on the floor today is that Members on 
both sides of the aisle recognized that it was the right thing to do.
  The end result is we have provided seniors the opportunity to 
continue doing what many of them want to do, which is to continue 
working because they love their jobs and in many cases they are in 
professions where they can mentor, train, and teach young people. This 
provides a wonderful avenue to keep those skills and those resources in 
the workplace. Congratulations to my colleague from Texas for 
spearheading this effort and getting it done. Now we will watch as we 
see what we can do to move it over to the other body.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I appreciate the support of the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). I yield to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. There are a lot of parents of this bill. The 
gentleman from Texas is one of those parents. This is something that 
has been in the works with bills introduced for the last 15 or 16 years 
trying to correct an injustice.
  It is interesting it has taken us this long. Then there is a 
unanimous vote to move ahead. When it is an injustice and it is moving 
ahead with fairness, then I think there is a general attitude in this 
Chamber when it is reasonable, when it is fair, when it is getting rid 
of something that is unjust, then it is very good.
  I would just say there is another provision that I hope we can move 
ahead with in terms of fairness, in terms of encouraging individuals to 
work, and, that is, to increase benefits for individuals that, at age 
65, decide to delay taking those Social Security benefits. And so if 
they wait a year, they should end up with more benefits. It is called 
delayed retirement credit. A provision of this bill that would make an 
8 percent increase in benefits for every year was an amendment that I 
hoped to incorporate in this bill someplace along the line.
  I talked to the White House, the President has agreed to it, the 
Democrats and Republicans have agreed to it. The actuaries at the 
Social Security Administration have suggested that it does not cost 
money because actually it might save money encouraging individuals that 
want to delay taking Social Security to have an increased benefit later 
on, to make it actuarially sound. Another point that I think is 
important in this issue is that widows eventually would have the higher 
benefit when they become widows. This kind of action, the kind of 
piecemeal approach of sending one bill at a time to the President I 
think is the right policy decision, so you can measure the merits, the 
pros and cons of each policy. Again my congratulations and thanks to 
the gentleman from Texas for having this hour.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I appreciate those comments. Do you want to 
tell people what the percentage is right now, because you are not 
raising it very much.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Right now under the legislation as we amended 
it in 1983, it started at 2 percent per year increase after age 65, 
then it went to 4. This year it is going to 6 percent. The amendment 
that I have proposed would move it up to 8 percent, which is the 
actuarially sound amount. If you are going to live an average life 
span, then it is reasonable if you put off taking benefits and continue 
working, continuing paying the FICA tax to support Social Security, it 
ends up ultimately being somewhat of an advantage and so moving that 8 
percent per year up until you are age 70 is a reasonable step to take.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. But what you are saying, they will get 
their money back where they are not now.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Especially if you exercise and you live longer 
than the average, then you of course are going to get more than your 
money back. So everybody should exercise, all seniors should contribute 
to the workforce and contribute their talents, now they can do it under 
this legislation.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. We can all live to be 100 and earn our 
Social Security benefits, right?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. It is so interesting. I chaired the Social 
Security task force. The futurists for health care are suggesting that 
within 25 years, anybody that wants to live to be 100 years old would 
have that option.

                              {time}  1600

  Within 35 to 40 years, anybody that wants to live to be 120 years old 
will have that option. This is just another signal that everybody, 
especially younger people, better save now, so save and invest now, 
because who knows what medical technology is going to do.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Well, I thank the gentleman for joining us 
today. I would just like to say that I want to repeat that this 
legislation will take effect retroactively, from January 1 of this 
year, which is important to a lot of seniors. That means you can go to 
work right now.
  Republicans agree, we have got to set in motion steps to reform 
Social Security overall. I think the gentleman is involved in some 
issues like that. I can think of no better way than by repealing the 
Social Security earnings limit as a start.
  I always tell people, you know, I fought in two wars, Korea and 
Vietnam, for freedom; and I think that that entitles our seniors the 
freedom to earn the savings they have been putting away and paying for 
during their years of employment, year after year.
  I think Nick probably agrees with me, America's seniors need, want, 
and deserve a penalty elimination. No more penalties. This is a day of 
freedom. I salute the gentleman and all America. Thank you.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Sam, everybody salutes you. You are a great 
American and a great veteran.

                          ____________________