E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider in the House without intervention of any point of order the bill (H.R. 5) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age; the bill be considered as read for amendment; the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill be considered as adopted; the bill, as amended, be debatable for 2 hours, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and the previous question be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me under his reservation. I would like to compliment the gentleman from Texas as well as the gentleman from Arizona and many more Members of this body for having a genuine desire and actually having stepped forward with regard to some genuine steps to prolong the life of Social Security and even to bring it about as a permanent program that would no longer be concerned about the amount of funding. The gentleman has taken some bold steps, and he is to be complimented on that. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the full committee, and I have also put a plan on the table that has a great deal in common with the Stenholm-Kolbe plan, and we had hoped to bring this forward. History tells us, however, that there is no genuine Social Security reform without the inclusion of the President. Every single major change that has been made in Social Security has been made with the encouragement and the joinder of the White House. Also, it would be wrong and extremely difficult for one party to reform Social Security without being joined by the other party. We have sent out many, many feelers to the White House. I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has been down and talked personally with the President. He is well aware of your plan, and he is well aware of our plan. We have also spoken with members of the leadership on the Democrat side and we have also spoken to organized labor and various senior groups. We find now that everything seems to be getting down into presidential politics and to actually quote the President from an interview he had, I think it was a Wall Street Journal some weeks ago, he said that this reform would be left to the next President. I regret that. But I think that that is a fact of life and it is something that we are going to be faced with. I look to next year, perhaps we could still do it this year. I would like to reach out to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and all those who want to reform Social Security. We are going to have more hearings. We are not going to waste the rest of the year. However, I will say this, and I think this is tremendously important. Part of Social Security reform has been to lock away the Social Security surplus so it cannot be spent. The House has done that. Also, an important part is a bill that we have today, and that is to get rid of this shameful earnings penalty that should have been done away with many, many years ago and was not. This is a great day, and it is a day for us to celebrate that we are coming together, we have a piece of Social Security reform. This is a very important piece for our seniors. I compliment the gentleman from Texas, and I look forward to continuing to work with him for the rest of the year. We are going to have hearings; we are going to have hearings on this and many issues pertaining to Social Security between now and the end of this term, and we all will come back next term and really put it away. We are not wasting time, we are going ahead with the hearing process. However, we need a coming together, we need a joinder, we need to get the presidential election behind us. I would hope whoever the President is, the next President is, that that President, that he will be anxious, willing and reach out to the House and the Senate to reform Social Security for all time.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I obviously strongly support H.R. 5, legislation that would repeal the earnings penalty for hard-working seniors age 65 and over. Many seniors are shocked to learn that if they work past the age of 65 they may lose some or even all of their Social Security benefits. This is due to something called the Social Security ``earnings limit'' or ``earnings penalty.'' This rule has been in place since Social Security started in the 1930's, but that does not make it right. Because of this rule, many older people left the workforce, making their jobs available for younger workers. That policy may have made sense during the Great Depression when those jobs were needed. However, that clearly does not apply today. Today's economy needs the experience and ability of seniors; yet the earnings penalty has lived on. Seniors affected by this penalty lose an average of $8,000 in benefits per year. Nationwide, about 800,000 lost benefits just last year, and thousands more avoided losing benefits by cutting back on how much they worked in order to avoid this unfair penalty. Some might recall that in 1996 we eased the earnings limit for seniors who reached the full retirement age. As a result, seniors aged 65 through 69 have been able to earn a bit more each year since then without experiencing the cut in their benefits. While that was a positive step, many of us have long felt that it was wrong to punish hard-working seniors, period, many of whom just want to work, and many of whom have to work. Mr. Speaker, what message does the earnings penalty send? That the contributions of seniors are no longer needed? That seniors should head for the sidelines of the economy due to age alone? That seniors do not deserve the benefits that they paid for simply because they continue working? I do not think anybody in this chamber or in this Congress feels that way. That is why so many of us have expressed support for H.R. 5, this bipartisan bill before us today, that will eliminate this penalty for good. A broad spectrum of business and senior groups, including the AARP, support this bill. They know it is good for seniors, it is good for business, and it is good for this country and its economy. I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the original sponsors of the bill. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for his years of tireless work in relaxing and now repealing this earnings penalty. The gentleman has been a personal testament to what hard-working seniors can do. The gentleman especially should be gratified that all of his years of hard work to repeal this unfair limit are paying off. Mr. Speaker, eliminating the earnings penalty is the right thing for seniors who have spent a lifetime working for their Social Security benefits. They should get all the benefits they earn and that they have paid for. Today we are taking one major step closer to seeing that occur. I encourage the Senate to approve this legislation quickly so it can be signed into law as promised by the President.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAW. The gentleman has brought up a very sensitive point.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) brought up a point that we are waiting for the Commissioner of Social Security to reply to, because he has raised a very good point and something that our committee intends to address. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) for yielding to me.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), an esteemed member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House. (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). (Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), an esteemed member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a respected member of the committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn). (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).

Mr. SHAW

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.

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.