SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1983

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 89
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 6, 2008
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: March 23, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3690 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 23, 1988
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
an amendment prepared which I am question is on the amendment.
going to offer, but I will wait just a Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will
few minutes while the amendment is not take much time because we have
being modified in accordance with an reached agreement on this amend-
agreement that we have just reached ment with the chairman of the Com-
with the chairman of the committee. mittee.
Let me just say a few words about
the amendment while it is being modi-
fied. The modification should not take
more than a few minutes.
The general thrust of the amend-
ment is to provide a credit to small
businesses for the increase in social se-
curity payroll taxes in 1984 that em-
ployers will have to pay under the
committee's bill.
As you will recall, Mr. President, the
national commission recommended,
and the House and the Senate Finance
Committee have agreed, that the pay-
roll tax increase scheduled to go into
effect in 1985 will be accelerated to
1984. In addition, employees will get a
full credit against their income taxes
for that increase in 1984. The amend-
ment that I am offering will provide a
similar credit to small businesses.
The Senator from Colorado (Mr.
ARMSTRONG) yesterday offered an
amendment to repeal the proposed ac-
celeration of payroll tax increases in
this decade. This body did not agree
with that amendment. This Senator,
in fact, voted against that amendment
because such an amendment would, in
my judgment. jeopardize the national
commission's package, which I think
in the main most of us want to sup-
port.
AMENDMENT NO. 135, AS MOD[FIID
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at this
time I send the amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consid-
eration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is so modified.
The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
The Senator from Montana (Mr. BAUcus)
proposes an amendment numbered 535, as
modified.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The modification is as follows
MODIFICATION TO BAUCUS AMENDMENT No.
535
On page 4 Hne 17 substitute the following
line:
(1) Shall not exceed $300.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do
not know if the version of the amend-
ment at the desk contains the modifi-
cation or not. I will read the modifica-
tion if it is so appropriate:
On page 4, line 17, substitute the follow-
ing line: (1) shall not exceed $300."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will
the Senator send the modification to
the desk?
Mr. BAUCUS. I do so, Mr. President.
Mr. President, what is the pending
business?
Let me say at this point that the
amendment I originally planned to
offer would have provided for a $500
cap on the tax credit. That is, no em-
ployer would be entitled to receive
more than $500 in credits during the
year.
The amendment also provides that
the credit would go to only those firms
with 50 or fewer employees.
In discussing the amendment with
the chairman of the committee, we
were somewhat concerned about the
cost of this amendment. The estimates
are approximately $900 million with a
$500 cap. Like the credit being given to
workers in 1984, this money comes
from general revenues, not from the
Social Security trust funds. Employers
will simply take this credit into ac-
count when they make their regular
FICA payments.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that
because this amendment is designed
for small business it is reasonable to
lower the cap to $300.
This is a small business amendment.
It is especially targeted to provide full
relief for out very smallest business-
es-those with 10 or fewer employees.
We all know the importance of small
business in our country. We also know
that increased payroll taxes tend to
adversely affect small business more
compared to big business. Even
though all businesses as employers
will have to pay the increase in payroll
taxes, big business is more easily able
to accommodate those increases be-
cause bigger businesses generally can
more easily pass on those costs in
terms of the products they sell. In con-
trast, the nature of small business is
such that it generally is in less of a po-
sition to pass on increased costs.
Mr. President, small business is our
most productive and, at the same time,
most hard-pressed economic sector.
They need this relief. Although this
proposal represents a modest draw on
the Treasury, we believe that this
amendment will encourage and assist
small businesses as they begin to
expand production and employment
during what we hope will be a period
of economic recovery in 1984. This
amendment is all the more ijnportant
since we look to our small business
community as a key force in creating
new jobs. According to recent studies,
small business accounts for more than
half of all new jobs in America. It
would be counterproductive for us to
impose higher regressive payroll taxes
on the same employers we are depend-
ing on to hire our unemployed.
If any sector of our economy de-
serves special consideration within the
context of the social security debate, it
is the small business community.
These employers ought to be given at
least the same relief that we have ex-
tended to their employees.
The value of this credit to our small
business community is immense. In
fact, the National Federation of Inde-
pendent Business has called this
amendment "The most important
small business vote of the 98th Con-
gress to date."
I favor the National Commission's
package. I think most of us do. I do
not want to offer an amendment or
support an amendment which, in my
judgment, will break open the pack-
age. This amendment does not do so.
It does not break open the package.
The revenue loss, not to the trust
funds but to the general fund, will be
significantly lower than $900 million.
We do not have the estimates. It will
certainly be much lower than $900
million.
Mr. BOSCHWITZ. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. BAUCUS. I am delighted to
yield.
Mr. BOSCHWITZ. Will the Senator
add me as a cosponsor?
Mr. BAUCUS. I would be very happy
to.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. BoscHWITZ) be added as a cospon-
sor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this
amendment has broad support from
many. Members and from many small
business groups. In addition to Sena-
tor QUAYLE and Senator BOSCHWITZ,
cosponsors of this amendment include
Senators NuNN, SASSER, GORTON,
PRYOR, HUDDLESTON, and ARDNOR.
I want to compliment particularly
the Senator from Indiana (Mr.
QUAYLE) who has worked with this
Senator in drafting this amendment.
He has made many very helpful sug-
gestions. We have included those in
this effort, and I think this body
should be aware of his help.
I also want to pay particular tribute
to the chairman of the committee, the
Senator from Kansas, who has worked
with us and suggested this compro-
mise, which I will agree with, which is
to lower the cap from $500 to $300 per
employer.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the following four letters
from supporting small business organi-
zations be included in the RECORD, as if
read
There being no objection, the mate-
rial was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
W H OLESALER-DI STRIBUTORS,
Washington, D.C., March 22, 1983.
Hon. MAx BAUCUS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR BAucus: This is to express
the strong support of the National Associ-
ation of Wholesaler-Distributors' 121
member national associations and their
45.000 member companies for your proposed
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3692 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 23, 1983
As we have repeated several times, we Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the confi-
are advancing this idea as a small dence of the Senator. Obviously, a
measure to ease the burden of the in- rollcall vote would help persuade the
crease in the employer contribution House conferees of the seriousness of
next year on this Nation's small busi- this amendment. The basis of my con-
nesses. We all know that the economic cern is that it would represent to the
and regulatory burden on small busi-
ness because of Federal statutes can
often make the difference between
success and failure.
Our amendment allows qualified
businesses to take a $300 credit against
their tax liabilities, and defines quali-
fied small businesses as those with
fewer than 50 employees. It is not our
intent to generate a new set of report-
ing requirements or forms for certify-
ing eligibility for this credit. For a
credit this size, especially for very
small businesses which often have no
more than one or two employees, such
an addition to the paperwork and re-
porting requirement would be contra-
dictory to the intended purpose of the
amendment. So let me just insist that
we intend that a simple self-certifica-
tion mechanism be used to establish
eligibility for this credit, and that no
new reporting requirements be im-
posed as a result of this amendment.
Mr. President, I urge all of my col-
leagues to support this amendment as
a small yet much needed measure of
relief to the small businesses which
are leading us in the emerging eco-
nomic recovery.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have
no other points to make at this time,
since we have reached an agreement.
Therefore, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kansas.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I appreci-
ate the distinguished Senator from
Montana modifying the amendment to
lower the cap to $300. I would point
out that this was not part of the rec-
ommendation of the National Commis-
sion. We felt employers could already
deduct their payroll: tax contributions
against income tax. Employees do not
have this benefit, so there was not
much reason to give a double benefit
to employers. However, I think we
have now been able to reduce the cost,
and I am certainly prepared to take
the amendment. As I have indicated
privately to the Senator from Mon-
tana,, I will do what I can to keep the
amendment in conference.
I think it does provide some equity.
The Senator has limited it to 50 em-
ployees or less. It is directed toward
small business. I know that a lot of
small business groups, including NFIB
and others, have a strong interest in
this amendment.
I hope the Senator will let us accept
it without a rollcall vote, because I will
not be impressed by that. The rollcall
will be 99 to 0-I will stipulate that.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
other body the opinion of this body.
If the chairman will fight hard for
this amendment in conference, I will
not ask for a rollcall vote.
Mr. DOLE. We did some checking in
advance and found there was a lot of
support for this. So I can safely say
that had it not been modified, in my
view, it would have 60 or 65 votes; and
with the modification. I think it has
substantially every vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BAUCUS. I think the Senator
from Kansas has the floor.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I just want to say
that a 99-to-0 vote is trivial compared
to the good will and energetic advoca-
cy of the Senator from Kansas. So I
congratulate the Senator from Mon-
tana on his prudence.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I rise
today as a cosponsor to the Baucus/
Quayle amendment which provides
small business relief from the 1984
payroll tax increase contained in this
bill.
This amendment is rather modest in
its scope but provides the type of
relief that is urgently needed in the
small business community. The in-
crease of social security costs to em-
ployers contained in this package will
prove most burdensome to our Na-
tion's small firms. This amendment
decreases the economic shock of this
increase without jeopardizing the
basic funding structure set forth in
the social security package.
We need to take this type of action
Mr. President because of the role
small businesses play in our economy.
This is our most productive segment of
our economy, it is the major source of
innovation in our country and unfor-
tunately it is the hardest hit segment
of the economy during this recession.
In Tennessee; 58,922 firms out of a
total of 77,328 firms have fewer than 10
employees. The amazing fact about
these small establishments is the
impact they have had on employment
in Tennessee. Between 1979 and 1981
overall employment in the State de-
creased by 0.2 percent. However, those
firms with fewer than five employees
saw a 16.8-percent increase in employ-
ment for this same period.
In addition, firms with less than 100
employees constitute 80 percent of the
manufacturing companies, 99 percent
of the construction firms, 61 percent
of the wholesale operations, 98 per-
cent of the service companies and 99
percent of the finance, insurance, and
real estate business in Tennessee.
These small firms contributed about
45 percent of the State's total payroll
last year while producing roughly half
of Tennessee's $59 billion in goods and
services.
The sad truth of the situation Mr.
President is that these firms, which
mean so much not only to the econo-
my of Tennessee, but also to our Na-
tion's economic well-being, are not re-
ceiving their fair share of tax breaks.
The Internal Revenue Code is full of
items that benefit our large business-
es, but there is little in the Tax Code
that serves as an incentive to or comes
to the assistance of small business.
The amendent we offer today seeks
to rectify that situation at least in
regard to this social security bill. The
small business men and women of this
country are willing to support the
social security compromise so long as
it is an equitable solution. The
Baucus/Quayle amendment takes a
large step ? in that direction, and I
strongly urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
The amendment (UP No. 535), as
modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, before the
Senator from Montana offers the next
amendment, I wonder if we might take
up a couple of noncontroversial
amendments. It will take about 1
minute..
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question recurs on the Quayle amend-
ment
Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent
that that amendment be temporarily
laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that
my name be added as a cosponsor of
the Baucus amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 121
(Purpose: To provide that payments to
PRO's shall be treated the same as pay-
ments for benefits for purposes of trans-
fers from the trust fund)
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent, I send an unprinted amendment
to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota (Mr. DuREN-
BERGER) proposes an unprinted amendment
numbered 121.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that
reading of the amendment be dis-
pensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 S 3694
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 23, 1983
(1XCXii)). In the case of an individual who
has more than 24 years of coverage but less
than 30 years of coverage (as so defined),
the percent specified in subparagraph
(B)(ii) shall, if larger, be".
On page 23, strike out lines 1 and 2.
On page 23, line 3, strike out "(ii)" and
insert "(I)".
On page 23, line 4, after "years" insert "of
coverage".
On page 23, line 5, strike out "(iii)" and
insert "(ii)".
On page 23, line 7, strike out "(iv)" and
insert "(iii)".
On page 23, line 9, strike out "(v)" and
insert "(iv)".
On page 23, line 11, strike out "(vi)" and
insert "(v)".
On page 23, line 15, strike out "was not"
and insert "first becomes".
On page 23, line 16, astrike out "for" the
second place it appears and insert "after".
On page 23, line 20, strike out "or" and
insert "including".
On page 23, line 21, after "(D)" insert "but
excluding a payment under the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974 or 1937".
On page 23, line 24, strike out "for pur-
poses of" and insert "during".
On page 23, line 25, after "benefits" insert
"and effective with the initial month for
which the individual becomes concurrently
eligible for such benefit and such periodic
payment,".
On page 24, line 11, strike out "entitled"
each place it appears and insert "eligible".
On page 24, line 12. after "his" insert
"concurrent". placation) to benefits under section 202 (e)
On page 24, line 13, before the period or (f) of the Social Security Act after De-
insert "and such periodic payment". cember 1984.
On page 24, line 19, before "bears" insert On page 33, between lines 3 and 4, insert
"(but only counting any such months occur- the following:
ring after 1956)". (7) Section 202(m)(2)(B) of such Act (as
On page 24, strike out lines 22 through 24, applicable after the enactment of section 2
and insert "recomputed under subsection of Public Law 97-123) is amended by strik-
(f OW).". ing out "subsection (q)(6)(A)(11)" and insert-
On page 27, line 3, strike out "In" and ing in lieu thereof "subsection (q)(6)(B)".
insert "Notwithstanding paragraph (4), in". On page 40, line 23, strike out "2014" and
On page 27, line 8, insert after "payment" Insert "2011".
the following: "effective with the month of On page 41, strike out lines 17 through 23
such change". and insert "duction factor applicable shall
On page 27, line 9, -strike out "202 be.the same as under paragraph (1) for the
(eX2XBXi) and 202(ine 9 XB)(iY' and insert first 36 months included in either the reduc-
"202(e)(2) and and 23)". tion period (as defined in paragraph (6)) or
On page 27, line 21, after "60" insert "(or the adjusted reduction period (as defined in
after attaining age 50 if she was entitled paragraph (7)), and shall be five-twelfths of
before such marriage occurred to benefits one percent for all additional months in-
based on disability under this subsection)", cluded in such period; and".
On page 28, line 5, after "60" insert "(or Beginning on page 41, line 24, strike out
after attaining age 50 if he was entitled through page 42, line 6, and insert the fol-
before such marriage occurred to benefits lowing:
based on disability under this subsection)". 11 (B) for widow's insurance benefits and
On page 28, line 25, after "individual" dower's insurance insert "who died before attaining age 62 the amount of the benefits-
reduction at early
mod., retirement age (as defined in n section tion 216(a))
8
2.6
1989
....................................................
3.1
1983-89 .............................................. 12.5
Armstrong amendment: Cover em-
ployees of nonprofit organizations-
which are not currently covered-who
are hired on or after January 1, 1984.
(Similar to treatment of Federal em-
ployees.) Also, prohibit any nonprofit
organization from terminating cover-
age after the date of enactment of the
provision.
OASDI savings
Calendar years: Buttons
1984 .................................................... $0.3
1985 .................................................... 0.6
1986 .................................................... 1.0
1987 ................................................:... 1.3
1988 .................................................... 1.8
1989 .................................................... 2.3
1983-89 .............................................. 7.3
The 1983-89 revenue loss from this
proposal is $5.2 billion, out of the
$12.5 billion we hoped to raise with
this provision.
This proposal was considered and re-
jected in committee by a vote of 4 to
11.
I think it is important to note that
already 85 percent of all nonprofit em-
ployees have opted to be covered by
social security. The provision would
just bring in the remaining 15 percent
and treat them the same as the rest of
private sector employees who are al-
ready covered.
I am not persuaded by the argument
that we should treat nonprofits the
same way we do Federal employees.
Social Security coverage has been ex-
panded repeatedly over the years to a
variety of private sector employees.
Each time, coverage was extended to
the new group on a mandatory, cur-
rent employee basis.
In addition, private sector pension
plans should be better able to adjust
to coverage-they are often newer
plans, and more flexible than the huge
Federal Service Retirement System,
for example.
I might add that many of the people
employed in nonprofit organizations
want to be covered by social security,
but the choice was taken away by the
organization itself, without the con-
sent of employees.
In testimony we received in the Fi-
nance Committee, we were reminded
that many of the nonprofits that are
not now covered or that are opting out
of social security are hospitals, for ex-
ample, whose employees would prefer
to be a part of the social security
system. People who are not under
social security do not have p6rtable
pension rights; frequently they do not
have disability protection.
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 S 3748
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 28, 1988
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I be added as
a cosponsor to the Levin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Is all time yielded back?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time is yielded back. The question is
on agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from Michigan.
The amendment (UP No. 138) was
agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 139
(Purpose: To provide health care coverage
for the unemployed)
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an
unprinted amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
The Senator from Kansas (Mr. Dots) pro-
poses an unprinted amendment numbered
139.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title III add the following
new section:
HEALTH SERVICES FOR THE UNEMPLOYED
Sac. 308. (a) Title XX of the Social Secu-
rity Act is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new section:
"HEALTH SERVICES FOR UNEMPLOYED WORKERS
"SEc. 2008. (a)(1) Notwithstanding section
2005 (aX4) and any other provision of this
title, any State may establish a program
under this section for providing health care
coverage for unemployed workers, subject
to the provisions of this section.
"(2) The State may .choose those groups
of individuals (and their immediate fami.
lies) who shall be covered under the pro-
gram, the duration of such coverage, and
the duration of the program, as the State
determines to be appropriate, except that-
"(A) no coverage may be provided to any
individual (or his immediate family) unless
such individual (I) is receiving regular, ex-
tended, or Federal supplemental compensa-
tion (or, at the option of the State, railroad
unemployment compensation), or (ii) is un-
employed and has exhausted his rights to
such compensation (by reason of payment
of all such compensation for which he is eli-
gible, other than for cause) within the prior
six months, or (iii) was eligible for such
compensation within the prior 30 days but
lost such eligiblity on account of employ-
ment;
"(B) no coverage may be provided for the-
first 6 weeks during which an individual is
eligible for compensation (referred to in
subparagraph (A)) in a benefit year (as de-
termined under the State unemployment
compensation law);
"(C) no coverage may be provided to any
individual unless such individual was en-
rolled in a group health plan of the employ-
er by whom he was employed at the time he
last became eligible for compensation de-
scribed'in subparagraph (A) (and in making
a determination with respect to prior enroll-
ment, the State may use the broadest possi-
ble determination of proof);
"(D) no coverage may be provided with re-
spect to any services provided prior to June
1, 1983, or with respect to services provided
for an individual prior to the time such indi-
vidual is determined to be eligible under
such program; and
"(E) no coverage may be provided for any
individual who is otherwise eligible for
medical assistance under the State plan
under title XIX.
"(b)(1) Services under the program estab-
lished under this section shall include only
inpatient and emergency outpatient hospi-
tal services and physician services, including
those.provided in health clinics but not in-
cluding those provided in nursing care facili-
ties, and prenatal and postpartum care. No
drugs or biologicals shall be included within
the covered services described in the proced-
ing sentence unless provided as part of inpa-
tient hospital services.
"(2) The State shall determine the
amount, duration, and scope of the covered
services described in paragraph (1) which
shall be included under the program, but in
no event shall the amount, duration, or
scope of such services under the program
under this section exceed the amount, dura-
tion, or scope of such services included
under the State plan for medical assistance
for individuals described in section
1902(a)(10)(A).
"(3) Services may be provided through
varying arrangements made with providers
by the State, but no such arrangement may
provide services which are more generous
than those provided under the State plan
for medical assistance for individuals de-
scribed in section 1902(a)(10)(A).
"(cX1) The State may provide for a
weekly premium charge for individuals par-
ticipating in the program under this section,
but no such premium charge may exceed an
amount equal to 8 percent of the amount of
compensation (referred to in subsection
(aX2)(A)) for which such individual is eligi-
ble for such week. Such premium charges
may vary for individual coverage and family
coverage and by provider arrangement.
"(2) The State may provide that deducti-
bles and coinsurance amounts be imposed
under the program, but the estimated aver-
age monthly amount of such deductibles
and coinsurance amounts for users of serv-
ices may not exceed an amount equal to 10
percent of the average monthly benefit
amount in such State for compensation (re-
ferred to in subsection (a)(2XA)). No such
deductible or. coinsurance may be imposed
with respect to prenatal or postpartum care,
and no such deductible or coinsurance may
be imposed until after public hearings
which provide adequate notice and opportu-
nity for public participation have been held
by the State with respect to such imposi-
tion. Such deductibles and coinsurance may
vary with respect to different groupings of
eligible individuals, different types of serv-
ices, different provider arrangements, and
varying coverage periods.
"(3) Any amounts imposed by the State
for premiums, deductibles, or coinsurance
which are imposed by the State must be
used by the State to pay the State share of
the cost of the program under this section,
or to provide additional services or periods
of coverage to individuals eligible for cover-
age under such program.
"(d) Payment by the State for services
provided to individuals eligible for the pro-
gram under this section shall be made
through the same adminstrative mecha-
nisms through which payments are general-
ly made under the State plan for medical as-
sistance under title XIX; however, the State
may provide for contracts with cost effec-
tive financing and delivery systems among
carriers or providers, and may selectively
contract with a specific group or' provide for
capitation reimbursement, but no such con-
tract may provide for services which are
more generous than those provided under
the State plan for medical assistance for in-
dividuals described in section 1902(a)(10)(A).
Any limitations under the State plan for
medical assistance on the amount that a
provider of services may charge the recipi-
ent of such services shall also apply to the
program under this section, except that pre-
miums, deductibles, and coinsurance may be
charged in accordance with subsection (c).
"(e)(1) Determinations of qualification for
coverage under the program under this sec-
tion shall be made by the State agency ad-
ministering the State's unemployment com-
pensation law under section 3304 of the In-
ternal Revenue Code of 1954, and the pro-
gram shall be administered by the State
agency administering the State plan for
medical assistance under title XIX of this
Act.
"(2) Upon becoming eligible for compensa-
tion (referred to in subsection (aX2)(A)), an
individual shall be informed of the eligibil-
ity criteria for coverage under the program
established under this section and the bene-
fits provided, and shall have four weeks in
which to voluntarily enroll in such program.
Such individual shall also be informed of
the possibility that such individual may be
eligible to enroll in a health plan of his
spouse or parent. If the individual declines
the opportunity to enroll, or later voluntar-
ily terminates his enrollment, he may not
again enroll in such program unless he sub-
sequently becomes eligible for compensation
(referred to in subsection (a)(2)(A)) for a
new benefit year (as determined under the
State unemployment compensation law). In
the case of any State which chooses to re-
quire the payment of a premium, the State
may deduct the amount of the premium
from the amount of such compensation paid
to an individual enrolled in such program.
"(f)(1) Notwithstanding sections 2002 and
2003, payments to States having programs
established under this section shall be made
in accordance with the provisions of this
subsection. Payments under this subsection
are in addition to any amounts to which a
State is entitled under section 2002, and
payments made under section 2002 may not
be used for purposes of this section. An
amount, not to exceed the State's allotment
determined under paragraph (2), equal to
the Federal percentage (as determined
under paragraph (6)) of the amount expend-
ed by such State for its program established
under this section (excluding administrative
costs) shall be paid to the State in the same
manner as payments are made under section
1903(d).
"(2) The Secretary shall allot $750,000,000
to carry out this section for each of the 12-
month periods beginning on June 1, 1983,
and June 1, 1984 among the States as fol-
lows:
"(A) One-half of such amount shall be al-
lotted among the States on the basis of the
relative number of insured unemployed indi-
viduals who reside in each State as com-
pared to the total number of insured unem-
ployed individuals in all the States.
"(B) One-half of such amount shall be al-
lotted among the States on the basis of the
relative number of individuals who have
been unemployed for 28 weeks or more and
who reside in each State as compared to the
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
March 29, 1989
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 3749
total number of such individuals in all the
States.
"(3) Allotments shall be made on the basis
of the most recent 12-month period, preced-
ing the month in which the Secretary
makes such allotments, for which adequate
data is available.
"(4) Funds shall be allotted at the begin-
ning of each 12-month period referred to in
paragraph (2), but payment shall be made
as described in paragraph (1). Amounts al-
lotted for the 12-month period beginning
June 1, 1984, may be paid to States for ex-
penses Incurred in providing services under
the program for individuals who are en-
rolled in the program on May 31, 1986, until
their eligibility for such program termi-
nates, or November 30, 1986, whichever is
earlier.
"(6) Any funds allotted to a State which
did not establish a program under this sec-
tion shall be reallotted to those States
having a program, at the end of the 12-
month period beginning June 1, 1984. Such
funds may be expended in the same manner
as described in paragraph (4).
"(6) For purposes of this section, the Fed-
eral percentage is-
"(A) 95 percent with respect to services
provided in any State during a week fof
which the State's rate of insured unemploy-
ment (as determined for purposes of section
203 of the Federal-State Extended Unem-
ployment Compensation Act of 1970) for
the period consisting of such week and the
preceding 12 weeks is equal to or exceeds 5.0
percent; and
"(B) 80 percent for any other week, except
that if a State qualifies for the 95 percent
Federal percentage under subparagraph (A)
for any week. such 95. percent Federal per-
centage-shall remain in effect with respect
to such State for the duration of such
State's 4-month initial period of qualifies-
tion (in the can of a State which qualifies
for the 95 percent Federal percentage for a
week ending on or before September 30.
1983), and for the duration of such State's
6-month period of qualification (as deter-
mined under subsection (gxl)) (in the can
of a State which qualifies for such percent-
age for a week ending after such date).
"(7) The Secretary shall make payments
to States for administrative costs incurred
in carrying out the program established
under this section. in a total amount not to
exceed $150,000,000 for each of the 12-
month periods beginning on June 1, 1983,
and June 1, 1984, as he determines appropri-
ate. Seventy million dollars of such reim-
bursement for each fiscal year shall be
made to the State agencies administering
the State program under this section, and
$80,000,000 of such reimbursement for each
fiscal year shall be made to the Department
of Labor for payment to the State agencies
administering the State's unemployment
compensation law. Payments-to any agency
administering the State program under this
section shall be made in an amount equal to
the Federal percentage, in effect under
paragraph (6), of the amounts expended by
such agency in carrying out the program.
Payments under this paragraph may be
made with respect to program costs insured
after November 30, 1985.
"(gXl) With respect to services Provided
to individuals who are enrolled during the
period beginning on June 1, 1983, and
ending on September 30, 1983, any State
may qualify for payments under this section
if it has a program which meets the require-
ments of this section. With respect to serv-
ices provided on or after October 1, 1983,
only a State having a rate of insured unem-
ployment (as determined for purposes of
section 203 of the Federal-State Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970)
for a period consisting of any week ending
after September 30, 1983, and the 12 preced-
ing weeks, of 4 percent or more, may enroll
new individuals in the program under this
section. If a State qualifies to enroll new in-
dividuals under the preceding sentence,
such qualification shall continue' for a
period of not less than 8 months beginning
with the first week in which such State so
qualifies, and any State may subsequently
requalify upon reaching the required rate of
insured unemployment after the end of
such 8-month period, but not such period
may extend beyond November 30. 1985.
"(2) During the period in which a State
may not enroll new individuals in its pro-
gram by reason of paragraph (1), payment
under this section may be made with respect
to individuals previously enrolled in such
program until their eligibility expires, or, if
sooner, November 30, 1985.
"(h) Any State establishing a program
under this section shall submit a report to
the Secretary on March 1. 1984, on the pro-
gram's implementation and impact. A final
report shall be submitted in January 1986
by any state which carries out its program
for any period after September 30, 1983,
upon expiration of its program.
"(I) The State shall provide that the pay-
ment for any services received by an individ.
ual under the program shall be reduced by
the amount of any other payment which is
or could be made with respect to such serv-
ices under any other health plan or public
program. or from a third party, and shall re-
quire each individual enrolled in the pro-
gram to assign all rights to such payments
as he may have to the State as a condition
of enrolling lb the program.".
(b) Section 3304(a) of the internal Reve-
nue Code of 1954 Is amended by redes-
ignating paragraph (17) as paragraph (18)
and inserting after paragraph (16) the fol-
lowing:
"(11) If the State establishes a program
under section 2008 of the 'Social Security
Act, the State agency administering the
State -unemployment compensation law
shall carry out the functions required of it
under such section;'and".
(cxl) Subsection (i) of section 162 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to
group health plans) is amended by redes-
ignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and
by inserting after paragraph (1) the follow-
ing new paragraph:
"(2) Denial of 50 percent of deduction in
cases where employer does not provide open
enrollment if the spouse or parent or the
employee becomes unemployed.-
"(A) In atiaw..-In any can in which a
group health plan does not meet the re-
quirements of subparagraph (B) for any
portion of the taxable year, no deduction
shall be allowed under this section for 50
percent of the amount of the expenses paid
or incurred for such taxable year by an em-
ployer for such group health plan.
"(B) Rneuua ra,Ts WHICH MAN MUST
peer.-A group health plan shall be treated
as meeting the requirements of this subpar.
agraph if, in the case of an individual cov-
ered (or eligible to be covered) under such
plan who has a qualified spouse or parent.
such plan allows such individual during the
qualified open period-
"(I) to change coverage from self-only to
family, except that in the case of a plan of-
fering different levels of benefits, such plan
meets the requirements of this clause even
if the change in coverage does not include
the ability for an employee to elect a higher
level of benefits, or
"(u) to commence coverage for himself
and his family.
"(C) Tams Aim coxDrrtons SANS As MR
oTHs optic ssnoLLMmrrs.-The terms and
conditions of the coverage required under
subparagraph (B) during any qualified open
period shall be at least as favorable to the
employee as the terms and conditions of-
fered by the group health plan under any
other opportunities offered to employees to
commence or change coverage under such
plan.
"(D) Quaw'r spouss on FAR=T: For
purposes of this paragraph, the term 'quali-
fied spouse or parent' means the spouse or
parent of an individual who-
"(I) becomes unemployed (other than for
cause), and
"(11) as a result of such unemployment,
loses eligibility under a group health plan of
the employer of such spouse or parent.
"(E) QvALrsisa optic naroD.-For pur-
poses of this paragraph, the term 'qualified
open period' means the 30-day period begin-
ning on the day on which the appropriate
State agency notifies the qualified spouse or
parent of an individual covered under a
group health plan that such spouse or
parent has become eligible for receipt of un-
employment compensation under any Fed-
eral or State law by reason of the unem-
ployment described in subparagraph
(Dxl).".
(2XA) Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), the amendments made by this para-
graph shall take effect on the 60th day
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) In the case of a group health plan
which.waa subject to a collective-bargaining
agreement In effect on the date of the en-
actment of this Act, the amendments made
by this Act shall take effect on the later
of-
(i) the date under subparagraph (A). or
(ii) the date on which such agreement ex=
pares (determined without regard to any ex-
tensions agreed to after the date of the en-
actment of this Act).
(dxl) Paragraph (4) of section 3304(a) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1964 (relating
to requirements for approval of State unem-
ployment compensation laws) is amended by
striking out "and" at the and of subpara-
graph (A), by adding "and" at the end of
subparagraph (B), and by adding after sub-
paragraph (B) the following new subpara-
graph:
"(C) nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed to prohibit deducting an amount
from unemployment compensation other-
wise payable to an individual said using the
amount so deducted to pay for health em
if the individual elected to have such deduc-
tion made and such deductiof was made
under a program established under section
2008 of the Social Security Act;".
(2) Paragraph (5) of section 303(a) of the
Social Security Act is amended by striking
out "; and" at the and thereof and inserting
in lieu thereof ": Provides fattier. That
nothing in this paragraph shall be con-
strued to prohibit deducting an amount
from unemployment compensation other-
wise payable to an individual and using the
amount so deducted to pay for health care
if the individugl elected to have such deduc-
tion made and such deduction was made
under a program established under section
2008 of the Social Security Act; and".
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what I
want to discuss just for a very few mo-
menta is the amendment I have Just
introduced. Then I would hope to
withdraw the amendment:
Earlier this evening when the distin-
guished Senate majority leader (Mr.
Bmm) was proposing a unanimous-
consent request, we came to an area
where there was some agreement and
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3750
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 23, 1983
State administered program would be
voluntary on the part of unemployed
workers and their dependents. States
could require payment of an enroll-
ment premium for such coverage.
States would be entitled to Federal
matching payments for the costs of
benefits for enrolled unemployed
workers and their dependents up to a
maximum payment amount for each
State determined ,by a special alloca-
tion formula. The allocation formula
takes into account State insured un-
employment rates in comparison with
the national unemployment rate and
other factors.
The program would begin on June 1,
1983, with all States entitled to Feder-
al matching payments to finance the
program through September 1983. Be-
ginning on October 1, 1983, only
States with insured unemployment
rates-determined on the basis of a 3-
month moving average-at or above 4
percent could elect to continue to re-
ceive Federal matching funds. The
program would end on May 31, 1985,
with any fund allocation balances re-
maining available for 6 months to fi-
nance program benefits for those still
on the rolls.
PUBLIC SECTOR PROVISION
Program eligibility: Unemployed
workers, and their immediate family
members, who are entitled to receive
benefits under a State unemployment
compensation system and who were
enrolled in an employer or other
group health benefit plan when they
lost their jobs, would be eligible to
enroll in the program. Entitlement to
unemployment compensation means
entitlement to receipt of regular State
unemployment benefits, Federal sup-
plemental program benefits or bene-
fits provided under the extended bene-
fits program.
This provision would allow States to
provide coverage to anyone who had
received Federal supplemental bene-
fits in the past and those who would.
again receive these benefits as a result
of the FSC extension contained in S.
1. So those who have, as of the date of
enactment, exhausted regular unem-
ployment compensation benefits and
extended benefits, but had received
FSC benefits, would be eligible. This
could cover people who had received
benefits as far back as December 1979.
For those who elect to enroll, cover-
age under the program would begin no
sooner that 6 weeks following the
week in which the unemployed worker
is first entitled to unemployment com-
pensation benefits and has applied to
enroll in the unemployed health bene-
fits program. States could at their
option, establish a longer waiting
period before coverage first begins.
Coverage under the program would
end no later than 6 months following
the date on which the eligible worker
is no longer entitled to compensation
benefits or for a lesser period at the
Eligible workers would have to sat-
isfy the State agency administering
the program that they, and, if appro-
priate, their dependents, were enrolled
in an employer or other group health
benefits plan at the time they lost
their jobs. It is expected that States
will rely upon the broadest possible
evidence of such previous enrollment,
and may, upon their election, satisfy
such requirement by obtaining a decla-
ration from the worker of such previ-
ous enrollment.
Benefits: Program benefits would be
limited to inpatient hospital services;
emergency, outpatient hospital serv-
ices; physiciap services, including
those provided in health clinics and
hospital outpatient departments, but
excluding those provided in connec-
tion with nursing home care; and pre-
natal and post partum care, which
may be provided by a hospital, physi-
cian, clinic, or nurse midwife.
No coverage is available for prescrip-
tion drugs or biologicals, except those
provided on an inpatient hospital
basis.
States may determine the amount,
duration and scope of covered services.
However, in no case may the benefits
offered under this program exceed
those offered under the State's medic-
aid program for the categorically
needy.
States would be allowed to provide
for cost-effective financing and deliv-
ery structures, and to contract with
specific providers for the provision of
covered services to the enrolled popu-
lation. State's electing this option
would be limited to contracting with
providers eligible to serve the States
medicaid population.
Payment could only be made for
services provided on or after the date
the State begins participation in the
program and only on behalf of eligible
enrolled individuals.
Premiums: The plan permits the
State to establish a premium for
health care coverage equal to an
amount no greater than 8 percent of
the individual's weekly UC benefit.
Separate premium schedules could be
established for self-only and family
coverage.
Patient cost sharing: The proposal
would permit a State to impose cost
sharing-that is deductible and coin-
surance-requirements after public
hearings for which adequate notice
and opportunity for public participa-
tion have been provided. Cost-sharing
requirements could not, on the aver-
age, exceed 10 percent of the State's
average monthly UC benefit. Further,
no cost sharing could be required for
prenatal or post-partum care.
The proposal would permit deducti-
bles and coinsurance to be applied on
a differential basis with respect to the
target population, services provided,
provider arrangements and the cover-
age period
it involved a very important program
that I had hoped to address in this
bill. It is health benefits for the unem-
ployed.
The Senator from Kansas, the Sena-
tor from Minnesota (Mr. DuREN-
BERGER), the.Senators from Pennsylva-
nia-Senator HEuiz, a member of our
committee, and Senator Spzcrs, who
has had an interest in this matter for
some time-Senator Rizci s, and many
other Senators have been trying to
come up with some package that we
could properly present and for which
we could have rather widespread sup-
port.
I have met with White House offi-
cials; I have met with FMS officials.
We have spent a lot of time at the
staff level trying to come up with
some package that we thought we
could sustain on the Senate floor this
evening.
I want to make it clear that I intend
to do something about health benefits
for the unemployed, but I am con-
vinced that without administration
support, this would not be the right
vehicle.
In addition, I have made some in-
quiries on the House side, and they
have indicated that they prefer we.not
attach such an amendment to this leg-
islation. But I do intend to propose
legislation in this area as soon as possi-
ble-in fact, tomorrow.
I hope that Senators who have an
interest in either the legislation on
which we have been working together
or some separate legislation, if they do
not already have their own legislation,
might join as cosponsors.
The loos of health benefits by those
who have lost their Jobs is a serious
issue and one that should be addressed
by our committee.
As I have indicated, we considered
offering this proposal as an amend-
ment to S. 1, but I honestly believe
that the proposal warrants hearings,
so that those who are interested can.
comment and make suggestions as to
how we might improve this proposal.
Our proposal is not the only way to
proceed. It is Just one option, but one'
that we believe makes some sense.
The point is that we have a problem,
which I hope will be short-lived, but it
is one that must be dealt with. We
cannot postpone it. Someone might
say that we should postpone it to
June, July, or August. We will still
have the problem, and in the mean-
time, hundreds of thousands of people
are without health coverage. It is a
matter of great urgency, and we
should face it at the earliest possible
time.
GENERAL cowcsPr OF PROPOSAL To COVSR THE
UNEMPLOYm
Under the proposal, title XX of the
Social Security Act would be amended
to provide certain unemployed work-
ers and their immediate families with
inpatient and outpatient hospital serv-
ices, physician services, except for
nursing home care, and prenatal and
post-partum care. Coverage under the
option of the State, or 1 month after The proposal would require that all
reemployment, whichever occurs first. premium and cost-sharing revenues
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
March 29, 1989 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
must be used to offset the State share
of program benefit costs, to provide
covered services to eligible individuals,
or to reduce the cost sharing require-
ments placed on eligible individuals.
Reimbursement: The proposal would
require States to utilize the same reim-
bursement mechanisms currently uti-
lized under their medicaid programs.
They could, within that limit, choose
to use a variety of arrangements, in-
cluding capitation, as long as no ar-
rangement is more generous than
those provided to their medicaid cate-
gorically eligible. Providers would be
required to accept the program's pay-
ment as payment in full for covered
services except for any required cost-
sharing amounts.
Administration: State unemploy-
ment offices would be responsible for
determining program eligibility. VA
Upon initial application for unem-
ployment compensation benefits, or
after enactment for those already on
the unemployment compensation
rolls, a worker would be Informed of
his potential eligibility for health
benefits under the open enrollment
opportunity provided his working
spouse or parent and under the State-
administered program. He would then
be allowed a 4-week period In which to
elect or decline coverage under the
State program. Once covered, an indi-
vidual could opt out of the program at
any time. However, once out he could
not reenter until he again became eli-
gible for a new benefit year as defined
under the State unemployment com-
pensation program.
The State unemployment compensa-
tion office would inform the individual
concerning the date of eligibility, and
the actuarial value of the benefits pro-
vided. Premium payments, at the
option of the State; would be deducted
from the individual's unemployment
compensation check. Alternatively,
the State would be permitted to estab-
lish some other collection mechanism.
The administration of the health
benefits provisions under this program
would be the responsibility of the
State agency established or designated
to administer the State's medicaid pro-
A State participating in the program
would be entitled to Federal matching
payments for the costs of services pro-
vided to unemployed workers and
their families up to a cap amount de-
termined by the - allocation formula.
Funds would be allocated at the begin-
ning of each program year although
the States would not be provided the
money in a lump sum at that time.
Funds would be expended in adminis-
tratively the same manner as they are
under the State's medicaid program.
At the end of the second year, Individ-
ual State fund allocation balances re-
maining would be available for 6
months to expend on already enrolled
beneficiaries whose coverage periods
have not expired.
The Federal matching rate would be
80 percent for States with insured un-
employment rates below 5 percent,
and 95 percent for States with IUR's
equal to or greater than 5 percent,
during the Initial 4-month and any 6-
month participation period beginning
after September 30, 1983. The match-
ing rate would remain stable for a par-
ticipation period unless the rate was
80 percent and the State's IUR rose to
5 percent or greater, based on a 3-
month moving average. In that can
the Federal matching rate would be
increased from 80 to 95 percent for the
rempdnder of the period.
Any State which experiences a break
in program participation because their
IUR falls below 4 percent based on a 3-
month moving average, would be re-
quired to stop enrolling eligible Indi-
viduals. Federal matching at the rate
in effect at the time of the break in
participation will continue to be pro-
vided for services to enrollees until
their State determined individual cov-
erage period expires, but In -no case
beyond November 30, 1985.
Under the program, $150 million
would be authorized for the 12-month
period beginning June 1, 1983 and
$150 million for the 12-month period
beginning June 1, 1984 to cover the
costs of program administration. Up to
$70 million would be allocated each
year to each State by the Department
of Health and Human Services to
cover the costs Incurred by the State's
medicaid agency in administering this
program. $80 million in each year
would be allocated by the Department
of Labor to the State unemployment
programs for their administrative
costs. All States participating in the
program would be required to report
to the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) by March 1,
1984 on the program's implementation
and impact on the target population.
A final report due in January of 1986
would be required of all States that
participate in the program after Sep-
tember 30, 1983.
Benefit dollars allocation formula:
The Secretary of HHS is directed to
allot amounts appropriated under the
act for services for any year among
the States as follows:
S 3751
First, one-half on the basis of the
number of insured unemployed in
each State to the total number of in-
sured unemployed in all States;
Second, one-half on the basis of the
number of persons unemployed for 26
weeks or more in each State to the
total number of such persons in all
States.
Allotments are to be determined on
the basis of the most recent 12-month
period, preceding the month of the de-
termination, for which adequate data
are available.
PRIVATS.SSCTOR PROVISION
Special open enrollment provision:
Under the proposal, employer-spon-
sored-and other qualified group-
health benefit plans would be subject
to a loss of 50 percent of the deduction
for employer-provided health care
costs if they fail to provide an open
enrollment opportunity for persons to
change from self-only to family cover-
age or to commence coverage for him-
self and his family. By providing these
opportunities to certain workers, we
are hoping to avoid the situation
where a worker or a worker's family
loses, or will lose, group coverage be-
cause the second worker in the family
is laid off or involuntarily separated
from his job-other than for cause.
The provision would permit such open
enrollment for a 1-month period fol-
lowing the date of notification to the
employer of the second worker's eligi-
bility for receipt of unemployment
compensation. Since the determining
event, namely, job loss, is unrelated to
the health status of either the depend-
ent or the laid-off worker, virtually no
adverse selection should develop for
the employer of the dependent person.
Coordination of benefits: Any bene-
fits for which an Individual or family
is eligible under the new health bene-
fit program for the unemployed would
be reduced to the extent that support
or payments for items and services are,
or could be, made under any other
group health insurance plan, public
program providing benefits to such in-
dividual or family member, or by any
third party. An assignment of rights,
to any support or payments for medi-
cal care from any third party must be
made at the time coverage Is elected.
Mr. President, I understand that
other Senators want to make com-
ments. I emphasize that I know that
some Members may desire to pursue
this matter, notwithstanding the com-
ments of the Senator from Kansas. I
again indicate that we are serious
about the proposal. It is a need that
should be met. There will be hearings
at the earliest possible time. I am cer-
tain that what I have outlined in a
brief fashion could be improved.
I do not believe we should give the
American public the idea that we do
not view health benefits for the unem-
ployed as a very serious issue-to con-
sider a solution to this problem In
such a hasty fashion does not do jus-
tice to the complexities of this issue.
Federal/State funding: Under the
program, $750 million in Federal
matching funds would be authorized
for the 12-month period beginning
June 1, 1983, and $750 million for the
12-month period beginning June 1,
1984.
All States would be entitled to Fed-
eral matching payments to finance the
program through September 1983. Be-
ginning on October 1, 1983, only those
States with insured unemployment
rates, based on an average of the pre-
ceding 3 months, equal to or exceeding
4 percent could elect to participate.
Any State making an election after
September 30, 1983, would be guaran-
teed participation in the program for
at least 6 months, not to go beyond
May 31, 1985, regardless of any change
in its insured unemployment rate.
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3752
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 23, 1989
That is why I hope we might get some
agreement tonight that we would have
hearings.
Let there be no mistake about my in-
terest in working out a solution, but I
think all the parties involved should
have an opportunity to comment.
That is the purpose of public hearings.
Adoption of this amendment this
evening means the House has had no
opportunity to review any aspect of
this new program, and are likely to
object to its consideration at this time.
We should have an opportunity to
work something out that is amenable
to both sides-a late-night, last-minute
conference is not the place to do that.
I have a commitment from the ad-
ministration to work with us closely in
drafting a proposal. I think we should
give them this opportunity.
I did discuss this ma ,tter with some
who will be House conferees, and I
hope we will not include this provision
in this bill, because the House is still
in the process of trying to put togeth-
er a package. They have not had suffi-
cient hearings.
As I Indicated earlier, I have been
unable to receive a commitment from
the administration on this proposal,
but I do have a commitment from the
administration that they will try to
work with us on developing a compre-
hensive proposal.
And we will await that assistance
and if it is not forthcoming we will
proceed with hearings, and I am cer-
tain we will have the opportunity then
to hear administration witnesses and
others.
Mr. President, having made that
statement, and I know others may
wish to comment, I am happy to yield
the floor.
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield without losing his right
to the floor.
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, I might
say I am intimately familiar with the
amendment the Senator from Kansas
has sent to the desk. It represents the
work of about 2 or 3 months of con-
certed effort on the part of my col-
league from Pennsylvania, Senator
Sracvzi, my colleague from Minneso-
ta, Senator DvRzws=aM and myself,
together with the Senator from
Kansas, Senator Dor.s.
It is in many respects quite similar
to the bill introduced by Senator Srac-
Tao and myself a week or so ago. It is
somewhat similar in concept, Slightly
less expensive in terms of cost.
It is my understanding that, and if
the Senator from Kansas will yield,
his amendment would cost roughly
$900 million a year, Is that correct?
Mr. DOLE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HEINZ. I happen to think we
need a program such as this. I am
pleased the Senator from Kansas has
indicated his interest and a commit-
ment to moving ahead in this area.
I think the amendment he has sent
to the desk, although he intends to re-
trieve it shortly, is responsible in every
respect. It will meet the pressing medi-
cal needs of the Jobless and their fami-
lies who cannot obtain affordable
health insurance coverage. The Sena-
tor from Kansas made the point that
perhaps this is not Cadillac coverage
in terms of the benefit package, but
let me assure him it will provide a very
meaningful package of health benefits
for people who right now have no
benefits at all.
In my home State of Pennsylvania
we have 716,000 Pennsylvanians who
are unemployed and in most cases,
they have no access to affordable
health insurance. Pennsylvania is reel-
ing from layoffs in steel, mining, tex-
tiles and related industries. My State
is fast approaching an insured unem-
ployment rate of 8 percent.
It is also my understanding that
States particularly hard hit in terms
of unemployment would get a little bit
more of a break under this proposal.
Such States only will have to come up
with 5 percent matching funds to par-
ticipate in this program This program
is maybe 95 percent of the health cost,
as I understand it, 100 percent of the
administrative cost. Is the Senator
from Pennsylvania correct in that
regard?
Mr. DOLE. Yes.
Mr. HEINZ. I have listened carefully
to the Senator from Kansas and hope
to have his attention shortly because I
am concerned about the extent to
which we-
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent, does the Senator care to yield
until the Senator from Kansas re-
turns?
Mr. HEINZ. I will yield without
losing my right to the floor.
Mr. DURENBERGER. I will get the
attention of the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. HEINZ. I wish to say this before
I yield.'
Mr. DURENBERGER. All right.
Mr. HEINZ. I hope irrespective of
what the Senator from Kansas does
here tonight, that the administration,
which has not been very forthcoming
in their support for what I believe is
an essential legislative initiative, will
realise there are a group of Republi-
can Senators in this Chamber who are
very committed to doing something in
this area. We would rather do some-
thing with them than without them.
We do not want to get the hopes of
unemployed people up to see them
dashed by Presidential veto.
If that is the road that we are forced
to go down, then each will choose our
own paths. I know where I will be
compelled to go, which is toward
making sure that my constituents are
not left out in the cold freezing with-
out a home, and without access to
health care services.
I do hope the administration will
listen carefully, and look carefully at
tonight's debate; because unless we do
something soon, we are going to cause
an irreparable amount of harm.
I am happy to yield to the Senator
from Minnesota.
Mr. DURENBERGER. I thank my
colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent, let me begin by expressing my
appreciation to the two Senators from
Pennsylvania for their broad efforts In
the area of the problems that face the
unemployed in this country and to
thank our colleague, the chairman of
the Finance Committee, for his efforts
and for introducing this amendment.
Let me just start with the comments
the Senator from Pennsylvania made
about being forthcoming.
Look around the Chamber. Not only
are the galleries empty but the Cham-
ber is also. I imagine that when Sena-
tors and Congressmen return to their
States, with the hundreds of thou-
sands of unemployed persons, the
speeches about the plight of the un-
employed flow readily from their lips.
That is why it is unfortunate that
there are only a few Senators here to
discuss this very, very important issue.
It is also unfortunate that no one
has endeavored to address the subject
before now. Unemployment has been
with us for a long time, and the lack of
health care coverage for persons who
are unemployed and their families has
been with us for a long time.
I presume that one of the reasons
health care coverage is a more diffi-
cult problem for people today than it
has been in the past is that health
care costs have risen so high. The
senior Senator from Pennsylvania, be-
cause of his long commitment to
health care policy issues, recognises
that finally Congress is addressing the
role that individuals play, the role
that the insurance companies play,
the role that doctors, hospitals, and
the Government through its medicare
and medicaid programs have to play in
doing something about the high cost
of health care.
I happen to think that despite the
fact that only 2 or 3 months have been
spent on the specifics of this bill, it is
an excellent piece of legislation. Were
it not for the fact that we are amend-
ing this particular piece of legislation
and the problems that were referred
to by the Senator from Kansas, I
would strongly recommend it as a
very good program that will provide
health care for unemployed Americans
and their families.
The reason it is a particularly good
amendment and the reason that I
intend, as a chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee's Health Subcom-
mittee, to start hearings on this sub-
ject, whether the administration is
forthcoming or not, and why I intend,
as I am sure the Senator from Penn-
sylvania does, to press the chairman of
this committee to report out a bill
within the next several months is very
simply that this amendment proposes
to build health care for unemployed
off of the very same principles that
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3754 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
of the Finance Committee has, and
the Senators from Pennsylvania. But I
just do not know how we justify the
fact that there are people out there
right this minute who desperately
need this kind of response from us
and, in a sense, we are sidestepping
the issue and letting the clock run I
think for an unconscionably long
period of time. I guess I do not under-
stand why that is necessary, given all
the work that has been done here.
Mr. DURENBERGER. I would re-
spond by saying that I share that con-
cern. The States represented on the
floor right now certainly represent the
regions that are heavily populated
with basic industries that are failing.
In the short term it is very difficult
for us to promise a great deal of relief
via the employment route.
But so far as this Senator is con-
cerned, my concern is twofold: One, it
may be a well-thought-out plan, but it
has been thought out by a few people
like me and Senator HEINZ and a few
others, and I do not know that we are
necessarily the best thinkers in this
country.
On the other hand, I would say that
when we do go to the American people
with a plan, I want to be able to indi-
cate to them that the plan is a com-
mitment, a national commitment, to
build a program providing for health
care for the unemployed. I think we
ought to be totally confident that this
is the best kind of a program we put
together.
We should have a plan we are totally
confident with. We should not come
back next fall and start tinkering with
it, or next year and start playing with
it.
It is for that reason I feel we should
take a little time and work to improve
this plan.
Those who have been unemployed
for 1 year, for 2 years or even longer
need our assistance now. Last week
the Senate passed the jobs bill. Now
we have the opportunity to lend an-
other helping hand to the unemployed
by giving them the peace of mind that
comes with health coverage. I urge my
colleagues to work with us in further
refining and forging a proposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. President, I
would be glad to defer to the Senator
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from Colorado for
yielding to me.
The presentation by the distin-
guished Senator from Kansas was
most eloquent in his outline of the
need for health coverage for the un-
employed and in his outline of a pro-
gram to meet that need.
My colleague from Pennsylvania,
Senator HEINZ, my colleague from.
Minnesota, Senator DURENBERGER,
Senator DOLE and I have been discuss-
ing this matter for the past several
days, and it is apparent from the text
of Senator DOLE'S speech that it could
have gone either through an advocacy
approach, an amendment to this bill,
or simply a limited move forward and,
as he has indicated, a withdrawal.
But my sense of the situation is that
the unemployed who are without
health benefits have been asked to
wait too long already. The statistics
have already been outlined, and Sena-
tor HEINZ has stated the statistic in
Pennsylvania is several hundred thou-
sand.
Senator HEINZ and. I have collabo-
rated for the past several months on a
health program, and its importance
was emphasized to us when we were in
Midland, Pa., about a month ago. We
had a high school auditorium full of
people who emphasized that health in-
surance was their No. 1 concern, even
above the rising cost of fuel and the
unemployment problem generally.
In that context, we have been press-
ing Senator DOLE to try to come for-
ward with an amendment which would
be attached to this bill at this time.
One of the difficulties is to attract
the attention of the administration,
and I think we have to some extent at-
tracted their attention at this time.
But my thought is we ought to pro-
ceed to move on this amendment now.
I ask the distinguished Senator from
Kansas if we do not press an amend-
ment and press it to a vote, how soon
can we have the meeting which the
White House officials have stated they
would be willing to undertake? I also
ask whether such a meeting can be ac-
complished this week?
Mr. DOLE. The Senator from
Kansas is willing to meet this week. If
we can dispose of this bill tonight and
go to conference tomorrow we can
meet as early as Friday, and the Sena-
tor from Kansas and, I think, the Sen-
ator from Minnesota, who is chairman
of the subcommittee, are certainly
willing to commence hearings soon
after we return. The Senator from
Kansas may be tied up on withhold-
ing, but I am serious about the com-
mitment, I can tell the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
I have tried to make my case. Again
I cannot quarrel with those in the
White House who have overall respon-
sibility because they just have not had
time to focus on it.
They do not suggest that ours is a
bad idea. They just have not had a
chance to make a judgment.
So what I hope we would do is to
make it clear this evening, as we
have-I think the record is very
clear-that we are going to move
ahead with or without a stamp of ap-
proval.
Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator
from Kansas yield for a question?
Mr. DOLE. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. What timetable
would the Senator from Kansas be
willing to commit to move ahead with
or without a stamp of approval from
the administration?
Mr. DOLE. In visiting with White
House officials today, they indicated
March 29, 1983
they would be prepared to come for-
ward and help us-that is not to say
they will agree with everything we
do-to put together a package in the
immediate future. I assume we are
talking about some time right after we
come back.
Mr. SPECTER. Would it be possible
to have such a meeting with the White
House officials yet this week on
Friday, as was originally stated, and
have a commitment for hearings for
the week when we . return, which
would be Tuesday, April 5, sometime
during that week?
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent, keeping in mind that the week
we come back I have 3 days of hear-
ings in the Governmental Affairs
Committee, if it would not be too
much trouble to the Senator from
Pennsylvania to use the second week
after we come back, I cannot recall
what we are having that week, but we
will try to postpone those, and I would
be happy to do it in that second week.
Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator from
Minnesota would commit to that kind
of timetable and if we could meet on
Friday with the administration offi-
cials.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Sena-
tor from Kansas will be in town Friday
and certainly will be willing to arrange
a, meeting with the appropriate offi-
cials. I understand Secretary Heckler
has made a number of calls today. I
was not able to return the calls, but I
think she has indicated an interest in
us not moving ahead tonight, but at
least some commitment that she
would be helpful.
Mr. DURENBERGER. The Secre-
tary made that commitment to me and
she may have to the Senator from
Pennsylvania, also. I am available on
Friday.
Mr. RIEGLE. Will the Senator from
Kansas yield?
Mr. DOLE. Yes.
Mr. RIEGLE. Would. the Members
on this side of the aisle who happen to
have an interest in this matter have
an opportunity to participate in that
meeting? I do not presume we would
not, but I would like to make sure that
we have a chance to participate.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I was only
responding to the question of the Sen-
ator from Pennsylvania. Obviously, as
far as this Senator is concerned it
would include everybody who has an
interest. There may come a time when
we will have to visit privately with the
administration, as you will under-
stand.
But I have no pride of authorship. I
think there is a need that must be
served. So the Senator from Kansas
believes this is the best way to pro-
ceed. We believe we have a good idea.
The Senator from Michigan has good
ideas and other Senators have good
ideas. But it may take some refine-
ment. Obviously, it will take some
hearings, bringing in the private
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3756 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 23, 1989
going to press it, but I wanted to dis- change included in the package, I be-
cuss it, as other Senators do with lieve that it is probably the best com-
amendments. Most demand rollcalls. I promise possible-one that is fair to
have not done that. I am going to recipients as well as workers paying
withdraw the amendment. taxes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Social security is a vital part of the
Senator has a right to withdraw the fabric of our society. It is the best ex-
amendment. The amendment is with- pression of community that we have-
drawn. with workers willing to pay in because
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we they expect there will be others sup-
have consumed 37 minutes, perhaps porting them when they reach retire-
now up to 42 minutes, not at the most ment. Over the past I % years I have
convenient hour, but there have been held social security conferences
many of us who have been waiting for throughout New Jersey for senior citi-
several days to have this amendment tens-both to lay out the facts about
heard. I understand that I have a the present crisis and to get reaction
right to offer an amendment if I to possible suggested proposals and to
choose to do so. But, with the assur- involve them in arriving at a solution.
ances that have been made here this The participants in these forums have
evening about a specific timetable, a generally agreed that all citizens-
meeting with the administration on social security recipients and taxpay-
Friday, the commitment to hearings ers-must share the burden of keeping
by the subcommittee during the week the system solvent in years to come.
of April 11, and the commitment by And Mr. President, I believe that the
the Senator from Kansas that he will reform legislation generally meets the
move ahead at an early date with or criteria established by participants in
without administration approval, that these forums for a fair'solution. If ev-
is satisfactory to the Senator from eryone had refused to make any sacri-
Pennsylvania. fice the check would not go out this
Mr. BAKER addressed the Chair. July. But because everyone has seen
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The the need to pitch in we will resolve
majority leader. this problem and keep this important
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I hope life support system going. We will
we can finish now. I do not know what have saved social security.
other amendments are scheduled, but Mr. President, this legislation is
I think we are close to the end. I urge based largely on the recommendations
any Senator who has an amendment made by the National Commission on
to come quickly to the floor and offer Social Security Reform. Both the
it. Senate and the House versions of the
Mr. BUMPERS. Third reading. reform, legislation closely follow the
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I do not Commission's recommendations. The
want to upset anybody over here, be- four major provisions included in the
cause those of us who have to go to bill are as follows:
conference have some things to do, First, delaying cost of living adjust-
also, ments. Beginning this year, the COLA
I understand the Senator from New for social security benefits will be de-
York, Senator D'AMATO, sent word layed by 6 months. Under the current
that he might have an amendment. law, COLA's are paid in July; from
Has that been taken care of? now on, COLA's will be paid in Janu-
Mr. LONG. It is my understanding ary.
that the Senator from New York does Second, taxing social security bene-
wish to make a brief statement, but he fits. The bill includes the provision
is not going to insist on offering his that social security will be subject to
amendment. income tax based on thresholds of
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, we $25,000 for single taxpayers and
should make sure. If the Senator from $32,000 for married taxpayers. To de-
New York sent word that he would termine whether the taxpayer's
have something, I think we ought to income exceeds these thresholds, one-
wait a while for him. half of social security benefits would
Mr. DOLE. The Senator has the be added to adjusted gross income. For
same rights as any other Senator. taxpayers over the threshold, one-half
Mr. LONG. Might we just take a of social security benefits would be
moment to have someone check with subject to income tax.
the Senator from New York? Third, coverage of nonprofit employ-
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, we ees and newly hired Federal employ-
have worked hard to resolve a very dif- ees. The bill extends social security
ficult problem-how to find the money coverage as of January 1, 1983, to all
to save one of our most basic institu- persons who work for nonprofit orga-
tions-the social security system. None nizations and to all current members
of. the choices are painless, none are of Congress, the President, Vice Presi-
particularly pleasant. I have made dent, and the Social Security Commis-
clear from the beginning that we must sioner. In addition, all new Federal
develop a solution in which everyone and congressisonal employees hired
is asked to share a part of the burden. after 1983 will be covered by social se-
And I believe that the bill before us is curity as soon as supplementary civil
a reasonable attempt to do just that. service retirement plan has been devel-
Everyone is asked to sacrifice a bit. oped for them. To alleviate the fears
While I do not support each and every of Federal workers that the current
civil service retirement system will go
bankrupt, the bill includes a provision
which I cosponsored that:
Nothing in this act shall reduce the ac-
crued entitlements to future benefits under
the Federal retirement system of current
and retired Federal employees and their
families. The full faith and credit of the
U.S. Government is pledged hereby in sup-
port of the payment of said accrued entitle-
ments.
Fourth, increased payroll taxes. The
bill includes a provision to move the
scheduled 1985 tax increase to 1984,
with a tax credit to offset the increase.
In addition, the 1985-87 tax rate
would remain as scheduled under pres-
ent law, part of the 1990 rate would be
moved to 1988, and the rate for 1990
and after would remain unchanged.
Mr. President, the bill includes two
other major provisions to resolve
social security's long-term deficit prob-
lem.
The first provision relates to increas-
ing the retirement age. The bill gradu-
ally raises the social security retire-
ment age to 66 by the year 2012, begin-
ning with those who attain age 62 in
2000. Early-retirement benefits would
continue to be available at age 62 for
workers and spouses and at age 60 for
widows and widowers, but the benefit
reduction for early retirement would
be larger. The minimum age for eligi-
bility for medicare benefits would con-
tinue to be tied to the age at which
unreduced retirement benefits are
first available.
The second provision reduces by 5
percent the initial social security bene-
fit level for workers that first become
eligible for social security benefits in
the year 2000. -
Mr. President, as I stated earlier, I
do have some strong concerns about
some parts of this proposal.
One of my deepest reservations
about the reform package relates to
taxing social security benefits. The
provisions in the bill amount to chang-
ing the rules after the fact. -People
who have already retired made finan-
cial decisions during their working
lives based on the premise that social
security benefits would not be taxed.
Now we are changing the rules after
the fact-for people who have already
retired.
If we must to tax benefits, I believe
that the fairest way would be by ex-
cluding from taxation people who
have already retired or who are about
to retire-for example, people who are
55 years of age. and older. But given
social security's severe fiscal problems,
such a proposal was never given seri-
ous consideration by the Congress. I
offered an even more modest amend-
ment in committee that would only
tax social security benefits after the
person has received back in benefits
all that he or she paid into the system,
plus interest. This seems to me to be
the minimal acceptable proposal for
taxing benefits; unfortunately, the
amendment was also not accepted.
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
March 2S, 1989 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Mr. President, another area of con-
cern to me relates to increasing the re-
tirement age. It seems to me that if we
must raise the social security retire-
ment age we need to develop a safety
net for older workers who, for health
reasons, simply cannot keep working.
I offered an amendment on the
Senate floor that would have estab-
lished a new social security program to
aid older workers with major health
problems. Under the proposal, begin-
ning in the year 2000, a limited
number of workers between the ages
of 62 and 66 would have received a
new "disability-retirement" benefit if
they were unable to work in their cur-
rent occupation because of poor
health. -
I believe that it is imperative that we
take this step in conjunction with any
increase in the social security retire-
ment age. If the retirement age is in-
creased, as now seems inevitable, it
will mean a hardship for many older
workers who cannot stay in their jobs
because of poor health and also can
not qualify for regular disability insur-
ance benefits. These workers should
not be shortchanged in any way, but
that will happen in a lot of cases
unless steps are taken to protect these
workers.
My amendment would have allowed
workers to qualify for these benefits if
they could demonstrate inability to
perform the major occupation they
had held in the recgnt past. Benefici-
aries for this program would have
been paid the benefits they are enti-
tled to under the current social secu-
rity law. In effect, these workers
would be "held harmless" to the pro-
posed increase in the retirement age
and reduction in early retirement
benefits.
Mr. President, a majority of the
members of the Social Security Com-
mission, including Senators Dots and
Haxxz, recommended that the retire-
ment age be raised. In addition, these
same recommended a liberalization of
the disability program for those aged
62 and above.
I quote from the Commission
Report:
Disability benefits are now available
under somewhat less stringent definitions
for those aged 60 to 64. However because
some workers, particularly those in phys-
ically demanding employment, may not.
benefit from improvements in mortality and
be able to work longer, we assume that the
disability benefits program will be improved
prior to the implementation of this recom-
mendation to take into account the special
problems of those between age 62 and the
normal retirement age who are unable to
extend their working careers for health rea-
sons.
Mr. President, the Senate bill only
raised the retirement age-it did not
make improvments to the disability
program. Unfortunately, my amend-
ment, which merely followed through
on the recommendations made by a
majority of the members of the Social
Security Commission, was not adopted
by the Senate. Instead the Senate has
requested that a study be conducted to
determine how to best deal with the
problem. I am hopeful that a measure
similar to mine will be adopted by the
Congress. prior to the implementation
of the increase in the retirement age,
and I will continue to press for its pas-
sage.
Mr. President, there is one other
provision included in this bill that I
'strongly oppose. The Senate Finance
Committee included a provision that
would allow the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to scale back or
even eliminate social security COLA's
if the trust funds are running low.
I- oppose this idea for two reasons.
The first and most important reason is
that the proposal is unfair to social se-
curity recipients; benefits may be cut
over time if we are faced with another
economic period similar to the past 5
years-high inflation coupled with
slow growth.
The second reason why I oppose the
provision is that it ties the hands of
future Congresses in dealing with po-
tential funding problems. During com-
mittee consideration of the social secu-
rity reform legislation, I offered an
amendment which was not adopted
that would have allowed the Social Se-
curity Administration to borrow from
general revenues if the trust funds run
out of money. My amendment also re-
quired the Congress to develop a plan
for repayment of the borrowed funds,
leaving the decision as to how to repay
the funds up to future Congresses. I
believe that my approach is fairer
than the one adopted by the Senate. A
person's benefits should not be arbi-
trarily cut back without serious con-
gressional debate.
Mr. President, the House did not in-
clude a provision for cutting COLA's
in future years if the trust funds run
low. And the Commission did not rec-
ommend cutting future COLA's. I
hope that the conferees realize the se-
rious mistake that has been made, and
I hope they strike this provision from
the final bill.
The financing of the social security
system is extremely sensitive to the
health of the economy. Recently, high
unemployment reduced the number of
people paying taxes into the trust
fund while high inflation caused social
security benefits to rise. That combi-
nation of high unemployment and in-
flation has caused a serious, Immedi-
ate cash-flow problem that needed im-
mediate attention. It is my belief that
the legislature changes included In the
reform package should be sufficient to
solve this cash-flow problem, so long
as the economic picture continues to
gradually improve.
But some people are afraid that we
have not made sufficient changes to
keep the system afloat. They believe
that the social security system is fun-
damentally flawed and that the pro-
posals included in this reform package
only delay for a few short years the
final day of reckoning. I simply do not
agree with this assessment. Social se-
curity is a sound and durable system
that has worked well for the past 45
years, and with these adjustments,
should continue to work well for the
next 45 years.
Mr. President, it is my belief and my
hope that this social security reform
package will eliminate the current un-
certainty about the future of social se-
curity and assure continuation of one
of the most significant achievements
of the 20th century. As long as we all
work together, social security will con-
tinue to provide benefits to our chil-
dren's children. The Congress,
through its work on social security, is
showing that it can grapple with a
very serious issues in a fair and sound
way, which should give us confidence
as we face the challenges of the 1980's
and 1990's.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I wish
to voice my strong support for the bill
now before the Senate with one sig-
nificant reservation. H.R. 1900 will im-
plement the recommendations of the
National Commission on Social Secu-
rity Reform. The Commission was
charged with restoring the short- and
long-term solvency of the social secu-
rity system. Its recommendations do
so without altering the system's basic
financing and benefit provisions, and
in a manner which is responsive to the
needs of all aspects of American soci-
ety. Moreover, the reforms in this bill
added to the Commission's recommen-
dations add to its responsiveness and
long-term soundness.
The importance of social security to
its beneficiaries-present and future-
cannot be overstated. Monthly social
security checks are the primary-if
not the only-dependable source of
income for millions of Americans. The
system assures active workers and
their families of financial protection
in case of their disability, retirement,
or death. Obviously, public support for
a viable and fair social security system
is overwhelming.
The Commission actually was
charged with two problems. First was
the financing issue; second, the need
to restore the public's confidence in
the system. Using reasonable economic
and demographic assumptions, the
Commission put together a package
which meets both goals: fiscal and po-
litical. The bill before us, which em-
bodies this package, with the excep.
tion of the Long amendment, together
with amendments proposed by Con-
gressman Pxcxaa, Senator Dote, and
Senator ApmsTRoxa, strikes a good bal-
ance between the financial needs of
social security beneficiaries and the
need to limit the burden placed on
workers and employers who finance
the system through payroll taxes. The
passage of this bill will renew the con-
fidence of all Americans in social secu.
rity.
Mr. President, it Is also appropriate
to comment on the process which has
led to the consideration of - this bill.
Passage of the 1983 social security
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3758 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
amendments will demonstrate that
our democratic political system works
and works well Everyone who cared to
participate has been heard, and the
result is a bill which responds to the
concerns and the needs of all citizens.
Significant differences of opinion have
been resolved. Guidance from the
President and the leaders of Congress
was essential to this result, as was the
participation of the nonelected mem-
bers of the Commission who repre-
sented important constituencies.
Equally valuable to the process was
the dedication of experts and ordinary
citizens alike who made their views
known to the Commission and to their
elected representatives in Congress.
The distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Finance, Mr. Dora, de-
serves the special recognition of the
Senate. The Senator from Kansas con-
tributed mightily to the compromise
package before us today. In my view,
his work, in collaboration with the
other members of the Finance Com-
mittee, most particularly Senator
Aunts owo and Senator MorxuAx,
has resulted in a bill which improves
upon the work of the Commission, on
which he served, and on the measure
already passed by the House. I com-
mend the Senator from Kansas for his
work and leadership.
Mr. President, in terms of the future
solvency of the social security system
and the equity of the proposed
changes, the package before us was to-
tally sound and deserving of support
before the adoption of the Long
amendment. That amendment, which
destroys the consensus which created
this package, effectively strips from
the bill the mandatory coverage of
future Federal Government employ-
ees. That, in turn, means that the sol-
vency of the system is not assured and
thus that recipients of benefits may
have those benefits threatened before
the end of the 1980's. Moreover, the
Long amendment undercuts the vital
principle of universal coverage.
The Long amendment seriously calls
in question the long-range soundness
of the bill. Because of my belief that
the conference committee will drop or
correct the Long amendment, I remain
firmly in support of the bill.
What remains for Congress to ad-
dress, however, are features of the
social security system which may well
remain unsound and flawed. These
problems relate to the fundamental
design of the system and its relation-
ship to the Nation's economy.
Let me briefly discuss these short-
comings. The automatic growth fac-
tors built into the social security
system trouble me. Benefits of current
recipients grow without congressional
action. But these escalators also will
cause the initial benefits of future re-
cipients to increase in real terms well
above levels paid today, and well above
those that can be supported by today's
contributions, even with the modest
reductions ? included in the bill before
us. These automatic, uncontrolled in-
creases led. in large part, to the solven-
cy problem addressed by this bill.
My reservations about the automatic
benefit increases of the social security
system run deeper than simple dismay
over the short-run solvency problem
they caused. These escalators-in
social security and many other Federal
programs-pose a threat to the solven-
cy of the Federal Government. The
enormous budget deficits we face
today are ample proof of that fact.
The ability to alter spending programs
is a fundamental attribute of free gov-
ernment. The features of the social se-
curity system which lead to these un-
legislated increases encroach on this
necessary function. Reform of these
escalators must be addressed in the
future.
I am also unconvinced that we have
dealt adequately with the increasing
long-run system costs which stem
from the advancing average age of our
population. This bill does include a 1-
year increase in the retirement age
which will take full effect in 30 years.
As this change is part of the compro-
mise which enables us to have such a
fine package before us, I do not want
to press debate on this issue now. Per-
haps we should, however, reexamine
the merits of having a fixed age of
"normal" retirement which does not
respond to the inevitable trend of our
population toward longer lifespans.
The present system also fails to rec-
ognize the changes which have oc-
curred in the roles women play in soci-
ety. The benefit structure is based on
the assumption that families are com-
posed of a single wage earner and-a de-
pendent spouse.' This assumption is
naive by today's norms, and is becom-
ing increasingly outdated. I would be
receptive to reforms in the system
which were developed from careful
study of women's increased participa-
tion in the labor force and the growing
frequency with which they live inde-
pendently or are heads of households.
I call on women's groups and other af-
fected parties to come forward with
proposals which are designed with an
eye sensitive to both costs and bene-
fits.
The final structural problem of the
social security system I want to discuss
was acknowledged but not addressed
by the Commission. The Commission's
recommendations affect the oper-
ations of only two of the system's four
trust funds. Nonpolitical experts point
out that the long-term deficits facing
parts A and B of medicare-the social
security system's other two pro-
grams--are at least as large as the
funding shortage in the combined re-
tirement and disability programs
which are addressed by this bill. Title
III of this bill phases in a revamped
hospital reimbursement system. The
theoretical incentives of this system
bode well for the future, but are un-
tested. And the system is designed to
be "budget neutral" in the near term.
Although individual hospitals will ex-
perience changing medicare revenues,
March 23, 1989
aggegate Federal spending will not
change markedly. This is only a first
'step toward better health care policies
at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Such improvements are necessary to
slow the growth of health care spend-
ing, as well as to preserve the solvency
of the medicare trust funds.
In summary, Mr. President, I would
like to reiterate my support for this
bill. We have addressed the immediate
problems before us in a responsible
manner. The public should be assured
that we are taking action which will
yield a solvent and more affordable
social security system. But we will not
have served our Nation well if we are
content to stop with the reforms con-
tained in this bill. The issues which I
have identified must be given careful
attention.
Mr. DzCONCINI. Mr. President, I
intend to cast my vote today in favor
of final passage of S. 1, the Social Se-
curity Act Amendments of 1983. This
is a difficult vote for me to cast be-
cause I continue to have reservations
about some elements of the bill. On
balance, however, I believe that the
legislation should be passed and that
it will significantly add to the final
stability of the social security system.
Most Americans regard the social se-
curity system as the single most im-
portant Government program. Origi-
nally conceived as a retirement supple-
ment, it has for millions become either
the sole or at least the primary source
of retirement income. Because social
security is so fundamentally impor-
tant, I am absolutely committed to in-
suring its financial integrity. And that
is precisely what S. 1 does.
As in any piece of major legislation,
the many provisions represent com-
promises between differing points of
view and a balancing between differ-
ent interests. On the whole, this legis-
lation succeeds in the dual goals of ef-
fectiveness and fairness. With the en-
actment of S. 1, the future solvency of
the social security system will be as-
sured for the foreseeable future.
During the last Congress, the admin-
istration proposed solving social secu-
rity's financial problems by reducing
benefits. Indeed, it succeeded in per-
suading Congress-over my opposition
and that of a number of colleagues-to
eliminate the minimum benefit. A few
months later, Congress reversed itself
and decided to find an equitable solu-
tion. A National Commission was es-
tablished to study the problem and
propose a legislative solution.
The members of that Commission
met for many months, listening to all
points of view, and ultimately crafted
a compromise proposal which is trans-
mitted to Congress. That document
became the starting point for Senate
Finance Committee hearings which re-
sulted in the legislation before us
today.
It is in order, Mr. President, to con-
gratulate not only the members of
that Commission but my colleagues on
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
March 23, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
the Senate Finance Committee. espe-
cially its chairman. Senator Dais, and
its ranking member, Senator LONG.
Whether we agree on every point or
not, I doubt if anyone can legitimately
accuse S. 1 of fundamental unfairness.
I have been an avid opponent of cuts
in social security benefits for the
simple reason that too many retired
Americans need that income to sur-
vive. My opposition to cuts has contin-
ued during the Senate deliberations on
S. 1. My preference is to balance the
books by other means, primarily
through various revenue-raising de-
vices and interfund borrowing.
In sum, Mr. President, this legisla-
tion is both fair and reasonable. I be-
lieve that the present legislation keeps
benefits intact and, more importantly,
it retains the principle of readjusting
benefits to keep pace with inflation.
Had I been its sole architect there are
things I would have done differently.
But, on balance, it should be support-
ed.
(By request of Mr. Loxa, the follow-
ing statement was ordered to be print-
ed in the Racoon:)
t Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it
was only in 1977 that Congress last en-
acted a social security reform bill. A
bill, we should all remember, that was
to put the system on a firm financial
footing for at least the next 50 years.
Unfortunately, that reform lasted only
5, not 50, years. And, more unfortu-
nately, there are parallels to that ear-
lier, failed effort in this present legis-
lation.
First of all, this bill relies too heav-
ily on tax increases. In 1977 we en-
acted the largest tax increase in our
history, only to be here a few years
later to add on more. Fully two-thirds
of the total fiscal impact of this legis-
lation is due to tax increases.
Mr. President, the problems of social
security are not due to people paying
too few taxes. Indeed, the average
American now pays more in social se-
curity taxes than he does in Federal
income taxes. The maximum social se-
curity tax quadrupled in the 1970's,
and it will triple again in the 1980's.
Surely, this trend cannot continue.
And more assuredly, it cannot contin-
ue without serious economic and social
consequences. The tax increases in
this bill will mean fewer jobs during,
the next few years-perhaps as many
as 100,000 to 200,000 Jobs according to
economists that I have spoken to. In
addition, it burdens our current and
future workers-our children and
grandchildren-with the bulk of the fi-
nancial cost of this compromise. These
taxes will be with them for life while-
changes such as the cost-of-living
delay will only be temporary. And it is
this imbalance that has led such
groups as the American Association of
Retired People and the National Alli-
ance of Senior Citizens To Oppose the
Higher Payroll Taxes.
Furthermore, Mr. President, this
legislation disrupts many of tl}e funda-
mental principles that are the founda-
tion of our social security program.
For example, it begins a means test on
benefits and .it taxes benefits for the
first time. it also infuses general rev-
enues into the system and thereby
erodes the distinction between social
security and welfare. And, finally, it
increases the retirement age for our
elderly. Those people who need to or
want to retire at our established re-
tirement age will no longer be able to
do so without a penalty.
While all of this is bad enough, it is
intolerable in view of the fact that a
fair and efficient alternative exists.
For the past 2 years now I have advo-
cated a temporary freeze in cost-of-
living adjustments as part of a total
Government-wide freeze on expendi.
tures. Such a proposal would restore
social security solvency and I am sure,
from conversations that I have had
with retirees, that most people would
be willing to give up a bit of their
COLA if it insured that the system
would survive. Also, such a proposal
would not make drastic cuts in basic
benefits or the retirement age-it only
slows up the increase in benefits. And,
finally. it restores some equity be-
tween retirees and the workers who
now support the system but who do
not get automatic COLA's on their
wages every year.
Mr. President, it is heartening to see
bipartisan agreement on the social se-
curity problem. But it does us no good
to agree on a set of poor, policies. In
1977 we tried to get out of a similar
fiscal dilemma by relying onitax in-
creases and failed. For the past 2 years
both parties have avoided addressing
the root causes of social security's-fl-
nancinftroblems and we are now only
delaying the day of reckoning. Indeed,
this compromise appears to be bits and
pieces of the worst of all suggestions-
massive tax increases that penalize the
young, benefit taxes that penalize the
retiree, retirement age increases that
penalize the blue collar worker, and
general revenue funding that penalizes
the dignity derived from an insurance
program, not welfare.
We certainly can do better than
that. We do not need more partisan
politics, but we also should not be rub-
berstamps to poor policy. We owe
more to current retirees, current work-
ers, and future generations than an-
other round of stopgap, shortrun rem-
edies. For all these reasons, Mr. Presi-
dent, I oppose this legislation.*
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am
obliged to vote against H.R. 1900 the
Social Security Act Amendments of
1983, because I am convinced that the
bill will not solve the social security
crisis. It is a bandaid, pure and simple,
and while it might patch up the pres-
ent system and pay the bills for a few
more years, it does not address the
long-term problem.
I commend my good friend, the dis-
tinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Dols), for his diligent work on this
bill. He has done his best to work out
the problems in difficult circum-
S 3759
stances. I also commend the Senator
from Colorado for his interest in real
reform. But this bill simply does not
go far enough.
I predict that within a short time,
the social security system will face an-
other funding crisis that will make the
present one seem mild by comparison.
Already, there is a commission study-
ing ways, to avert a medicare funding
crisis. In an likelihood, the panel will
recommend still higher taxes, benefit
cuts, or both.
However, Mr. President, I am
pleased that 11 of the 20 provisions in
the comprehensive reform bill I intro-
duced a month ago are in this bill.
These 11 provisions address a number
of substantial problems. Unfortunate-
ly, they do not address the long-term
social security funding problems. This
bill does little to provide Americans
the retirement security they so badly
need.
Let us examine for a moment how
this bill addresses the looming social
security crisis. First, it raises payroll
taxes signficantly. We have Just com-
pleted work on the so-called jobs bill,
which provides almost $5 billion for
porkbarrel, make-work projects.. If-
Congress is so concerned about Jobs,
why is it raising the payroll tax when
the Congressional Budget Office has
told us the 1977 payroll tax increase
cost 500,000 working men and women
their jobs?
The American people cannot stand
another round of tax increases. If any-
thing, we should be talking about cut.
ting taxes.
The bill also reduces social security
benefits by raising the retirement age,
postponing cost of living adjustments,
and so forth. The U.S. Government
has a commitment to millions of social
security beneficiaries-a commitment
that ought not be broken. But here is
Congress, breaking that trust. Any
government that cannot keep its com-
mitments cannot maintain its credibil-
ity.
This bill does not solve underlying
problems. It is merely another bailout,
and I predict it will be just another
disaster. Just like 1977. The bill does
not provide for any long term means
of establishing private, fully funded
retirement plans to ensure the secu-
rity of elderly Americans. It does not
eliminate the dependence people have
on government programs.
Mr. President, my colleagues are
aware of what I have tried to do to
help solve the social security problem.
I offered a comprehensive plan to save
social security-S. 541-that would
have allowed workers to establish for
themselves in the private sector an In-
dividual Retirement Security Ac-
count-IRSA. These IRSA accounts
would have accumulated billions of
dollars for individuals to draw on
when they retire, stimulating the
economy by lowering interest rates
and creating jobs.
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S3760 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Mr. President, obviously Congress is
not yet ready for such a reform. I am
pleased that this bill requires the
Treasury Secretary to conduct a study
of the feasibility of my proposal, and
to report back to the Senate Finance
Committee by July 1, 1984. Perhaps
then the value of my proposal will
become clearer. Thousands of citizens
across America have endorsed my pro-
posals.
Mr. President, I believe in incre-.
mental success. I intend to continue to
advocate my reform proposal. Progress
has been made, and I believe the
American people now understand my
proposal. Judging from the mail I
have received on the subject, they not
only understand it, but they want it.
One dory, Mr. President, Congress
Will no longer be content to "paper
over" the social security problem. It
will be obliged to adopt a private re-
tirement system along the lines of my
proposal to replace the bankrupt Gov-
ernment-run system we have today. If
we begin to take prudent steps now,
however, the transition will be smooth
and gradual and not a penny of bene-
fits will be jeopardized
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I cannot
support H.R. 1900 which is alleged to
restore the financial soundness of the
old age and survivors' insurance-
OASI-program.
The recommendation of the Nation-
al Commission on Social Security
Reform provided a good point from
which to begin. The changes made in
the House of Representatives gradual-
ly raising the retirement age were in
the right direction. They reflect cur-
rent demographic reality but standing
alone do not overcome the quick-fix
solution contained in the bill being
touted as a bipartisan solution to a se-
rious problem.
Mr. President, in my view the funda-
mental structural deficiences of social
security were not addressed. Instead
we further increased the regressive
payroll tax; introduced a back door
means test in the method by which
benefits are taxed; increased the use
of general revenues to fund social se-
curity and created a break in parity in
employer-employee PICA tax contri-
bution.
Mr. President, my colleague Senator
AsM$TaoerG, a member of the National
Commission and chairman of the Sub-
committee on Social Security of the
Committee on Finance, has indicated
that high taxes account for 75 percent
of the proposed deficit reduction in
the system between now and 1990.
That is $126 billion out of the $169 bil-
lion total. In the long run, tax in-
creases constitute 91 percent of the
Commission's total recommendation.
Further, during the 1970's, maxi-
mum -payroll tax rates quadrupled.
Without the Commission's recommen-
dations, they are scheduled to triple
again during the 1980's. During the
period from 1970 to 1981, pretax wages
increased 122 percent. The consumer
priced index went up 136 percent.
Social security benefits rose 205 per-
cent. Such trends make it almost im-
possible to justify further payroll
levies on wage earners, many of whom
already pay more in social security
taxes than Federal income taxes.
It is obvious that higher payroll
taxes will have a serious effect on un-
employment. As employers also pay
social security taxes equal to what
their employees pay, the tax rate in-
crease will raise the cost of employing
each worker. These higher labor costs
will make the employment of labor
relatively more expensive than the
employment of capital in the produc-
tion process. Since labor is now more
expensive, employers will tend to
reduce the amount of labor they use
and increase the amount of capital
used. This substitution of capital for
labor, due to higher labor costs caused
by the increase in social security taxes,
will contribute toward increasing un-
employment.
Mr. President, the bill provides for
the taxation of benefits and thereby
penalizes those who save, and rewards
those who do not. It penalizes a dis-
abled Individual by taxing his benefits
if his spouse takes a job to help pay
for his special needs, thus raising the
family income above the tax thresh-
old. For some individuals now at the
earnings limitation level, the combina-
tion of taxes and loss of benefits re-
sulting from additional earnings could
actually exceed 100 percent of those
earnings. This is a strong disincentive
for those who otherwise want to con-
tinue working to supplement their
income.
This provision radically alters the
fundamental nature of the system by
imposing a means test. Even worse,
this particular form of means test
vastly overemphasizes the social ade-
quacy features of social security and
reduces the individual equity element
which is so essential to the credibility
and popularity of the system.
Mr. President, the bill further
changes the nature of our social secu-
rity system by its use of general rev-
enues. This is an abrupt deviation
from the discipline of a self-contained
system, recognized as being essential
in the original design of the program.
It is also a fiscally irresponsible
change, given the projected deficits in
the Federal budget for the foreseeable
future.
The injection of general revenues,
without any significant structural
reform to restrain the growth in bene-
fit outlays, creates serious questions
regarding the ability of workers to sus-
tain the system in the future.
Finally, Mr. President, this bill de-
stroys the parity of treatment between
employers and employees. In order to
ease or partially cushion the impact of
higher payroll taxes, the bill provides
employers with a credit against pay-
roll tax and eliminates the parity of
cost.
Traditionally, the employer and the
employee have shared the cost burden
March V, 1988
of the system. The tax on earnings
covered by the system was to be com-
puted on the same basis and the same
rate for employer and employee alike.
If we are serious about providing a
cushion to the employee we would not
accelerate the payroll tax increases
that were enacted in 1977.
Mr. President, in summary, the bill
fails to address squarely the problems
which remain in place in the social se-
curity system. The bill merely focuses
on symptoms while allowing the basic
problems to continue to grow un-
checked.
By relying upon general revenues
and new payroll taxes, we have squan-
dered a historic opportunity to bring
about the structural changes which
would provide greater assurance of
stability in the system for the future.
That stability can come about only
by altering the basis structure of the
program, by designing a system which
relates benefits more directly to taxes
paid by an individual.
SOCIAL SECURITY: A NATIONAL COMkITMENT
? Mr. JEPSEN. Mr. President. I sup-
port the social security reform pack-
age put together by the Senate Fi-
nance Committee. I believe it is a
sound package which will go a long
way toward restoring our Nation's con-
fidence in this very important pro-
gram.
It has been a long and sometimes
rocky road we have followed to this
point, Mr. President. As you will
recall, it was only a few short months
ago that many in Congress were still
trying to convince the American
people that there was not a problem.
But through the dedication and deter-
mination of those people who faithful-
ly served on the National Commission
on Social Security Reform, we were
able to come up with the basis for this
proposal.
As the legislation has worked its way
through the legislative process, I think
changes have been made which make
this a much stronger package. While
there are still a number of changes
which I do not personally believe are
necessary, I, like so many others, am
willing to support those changes in the
interest of securing the long-term sol-
vency of the social security system.
I would like to take a few minutes,
Mr. President, to speak briefly about
some of the changes which I believe
are of utmost importance.
EARNINGS LIMIT REPEAL
During the Senate Finance Commit-
tee's deliberations, Senator ARM-
sTROxG offered an amendment to
phase out the social security earnings
limitation. I cannot tell my colleagues
how extremely important this change
is to the future of social security. As
my good friend from Colorado knows,
I have been working to get the earn-
ings limit repealed since shortly after I
was elected to the U.S. Senate. While I
would prefer to see the ceiling lifted
sooner than the bill specifies, I am
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
March 23, 1983
pleased that the oommitte was at least
willing to take this important step.
In conjunction with the earnings
limit repeal is another important
change, and that is the increase in the
delayed retirement credit. This, com-
bined with the earnings limit repeal,
will be a strong incentive for people
who want to continue working to
remain In the work force. Although
these two provisions have not received
the media attention they deserve, I
belive that history will show that-
these changes will prove very signifi-
cant to the long-term solvency of the
social security system.
I commend the Senator from Colora-
do for his efforts on this Issue, and I
look forward to working with him In
the future on other issues of mutual
interest.
DROPOUT YRARS FOR CRUD CARS
Another provision, also recommend-
ed by the Senator from Colorado.
deals with the Increase In the dropout
years for child care. I was most
pleased to see the committee's accept-
ance of this proposal, and I commend
Senator ARMSTRONG for having the
foresight to offer this amendment In
committee.
For years, Mr. President, women
have suffered significant losses of
benefits because of time out of the
paid work force during childrearing
years. While this increase does not
correct all of the inequities In the
system, it is a start. I would hope that
the committee will continue to consid-
er further changes to remove some of
the penalties married couples face
with regard to the social security
system. I understand that the Com-
mittee has agreed to give serious con-
sideration to Senator CRANsTON's earn-
ings sharing proposal, and I think that
is an Important step. I look forward to
studying the committee's recommen-
dations in this area.
WIDOW (RR)5 AND DIVORCZD SPOUSES B 5 rLTm
Another important change recom-
mended by the committee deals with
improved benefits for disabled widows
or widowers and divorced spouses, as
well as the ability of divorced spouses
to receive benefits despite the retire-
ment decision of the former spouse.
Again, both of these changes are ex-
tremely important In eliminating some
of the provisions in the social security
law which discriminate against
women.
While it Is true that the social secu-
rity law is "blind" with respect to sex,
it is also true that because of the his-
torical makeup of this country's work
force, there are certain provisions
which impact more heavily on women
than on men. More specifically, these
are the provisions which deal with
widow's benefits and spouses' benefits.
I believe these changes are extremely
important and will go a long way
toward making social security a more
equitable and fair system.
PAn aArs/sTARn.Imd Psovssioxs
Before concluding, Mr. President, I
want to point out two additional
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S 3761
changes which are recommended by
the committee which will perhaps do
the most to restore confidence in the
social security system: the fail-sate
mechanism and the stabiliser pro*
lions.
As my colleagues know. the fail-safe.
mechanism is intended to prevent the
type of situation that forced us into
the current reform proposal--chang-
ing economic conditions. I cannot tell
my colleagues how many times I have
been asked by people why this reform
package is necessary. After all, they
state, we were told by President Carter
that the system was solvent for the
next 75 years.
Well. unfortunately, the social secu-
rity system is extremely sensitive to a
changing economy. Prior to the Carter
administration. the thought at prices
Increasing faster than wages was
simply unheard of. The sad fact is, it
can and did happen.
The fail-safe mechanism will not
prevent prices from rising faster than
wages, but it will help the social secu-
rity system adjust if this continues to
occur. Specifically. the Secretary of
Health and Hunan Services will have
the authority to reduce cost-of-living
adjustments if trust fund reserves fall
to dangerously low levels. In additionk
the stabilizer provision will also
change the way the cost-of-living ad-
justment is computed It the trust fund
reserves fall too low.
Of equal importance, however, is the
"catch-up" provision which will allow
larger cost-of-living adjustments if the
trust fund reserves exceed a certain
level. This, Mr. President, will Insure
that social security beneficiaries will
be able to benefit from a strong econo-
my.
Clearly there were some other
things which could have been done to
further protect trust fund reserves
frdml a changing economy, but as with
many of the other changes, these are
important first steps. If we did noth-
ing else, we have tried to exercise some
restraint on the cost-of-living adjust-
ments, and I think this was extremely
important.
I close, Mr. President, by commend-
ing all those people who served on the
National Commission on Social Secu-
rity Reform. Theirs was not an easy
task. I dare say that at times it ap-
peared impossible. But in the end,
what some people said could not be
done, has been done-a social security
reform package with bipartisan sup-
port has been brought to the floor of
the Senate and it will be approved. If
nothing else, I hope we have sent a
signal to the American people that
says that when the chips are down, we
can join hands and try to resolve a na-
tional problem in an honest and re-
. sponsible manner.0
? Mr. BOSCHWITL. Mr. President,
almost 2 years ago, I began studying
the social security program and sug-
gesting ways to Insure its fiscal sound-
ness and integrity. It became increas-
ingly clear to me, through my work on
the Budget committee, that serious
thought and effort needed to be given
to controlling the rate of growth of
the so-called entitlement programs-
particularly the nonmeans tested
ones-social security, medicare, civil
service, railroad retirement, veterans
pension, and so forth. Social security
is nearly half-43 percent-of all the
entitlements combined. Total entitle-
ments that cost $3e billion in 1961
Loomed to $350 billion in 1982-a
1,150-percent growth. I do not criticize
the existence of these programs at all.
They fulfill vital needs.
Although It has traditionally been
considered close to political suicide to
even suggest slowing the growth rate
of entitlement programs, I have be-
lieved for a long time that If we do not
do something, social security will not
be around for the children and grand-
children of those people receiving
social security today,
How did we get where we are? How
did we get to the point where 63 per-
cent of our workers, in a spring 1982
Oall_up poll, believe that they will get
no benefits when they retire? There
are several problems unique to the
social security system that have
caused us to be facing a short-term
and long-term crunch. But, while we
have many economic problems, the
thread of inflation is interwoven In all
of them-the social security' problems
are no exception.
What specific factors have led to
social security's funding problems?
First, when the system was in its
early years there were many more
people paying in per beneficiary draw-
ing benefits: In 1945 there were 42
workers paving in for every 1 benefici-
ary, currently the ratio is 3 to 1 and.
when the baby-boom generation starts
retiring in about 2013, it will bring the
ratio down to only 2 to 1 by the year
2030.
Second, people are living longer
today, and consequently drawing bene-
fits for a longer period of time than
they did when the social security pro-
gram was inaugurated. According to
the Commission's report, men live on
the average 15 years past retirement,
and women 19 years; a lifespan in-
crease of 20 percent over 40 years.
Compounding this problem is the
fact that more Americans are opting
for retirement before age 65-96 per-
cent. of Americans who retire, do so
before age 65. Therefore, beneficiaries
are drawing benefits sooner, and they
are living longer, extending on both
ends the period during which they re-
ceive benefits.
Third, the average social security re-
cipient now gets back $5.60 for every
$1 they put Into the system. Social se-
curity is a pay-as-you-go system and
was never intended to be a retirement
system where social security taxes
would build up In a pension fund for
an individual or group to meet their
eventual benefits, as it is in private
pension funds. Nevertheless, a 5 to 1
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3762 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 23, 1989
payback ratio cannot be maintained sion's proposals and seven of my own. how much they earn. People under 72
while the ratio of workers to retirees Of the 12 possible solutions, only 2 lose $1 of social security benefits for
declines to 2 to 1. were supported by less than half of each $2 of income they earn over
And last, but certainly not least, the those responding. I--believe this dem- $6,600. My proposal would have ex-
effects of inflation have been devastat- onstrates that if people are given a tended this to anyone under 75.
ing to the OASDI trust fund. In 1975, chance to review some of the changes Ninth, tax social security payments
we began to fully index benefits for in- in social security without the usual if the social security recipient has
flation commensurate with increases politicking and demagoguery that ac- income exceeding $20,000 besides
in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). companies them, they will make social security ($25,000 for couples).
Certainly the goal of protecting thoughtful, reasoned judgments. The Tenth, raise the 65-year-old retire-
beneficiaries from the effects of infla- dialog was heated at times, to be sure, ment age to 65 plus 3 months (and the
tion is laudable, but we could not have but generally pretty constructive. 62 year early retirement age to 62
chosen a time in the history of our The thoughtful, pragmatic approach years plus 3 months).
Nation when the cost-of-living adjust- taken by the National Commission on Eleventh, raise the retirement age to
ments (COLA's) indexed to the CPI Social Security Reform, the House of 65 years plus 6 months.
would have been more costly to the Representatives, and the Senate dem- Twelfth, lower the cost-of-living ad-
social security system. onstrate that others have gotten the justment (COLA) to 3 percent less
Since 1975 COLA's for all benefici- same reaction from the folks back than the inflation rate for 3 years,
aries have cost the system more than home. except for the lowest 25 percent of
$200 billion. We have experienced I am pleased to see that many of the social security recipients who would
double digit inflation since COLA's changes suggested in my 19-point continue to receive the full COLA.
were implemented; and the CPI, and "laundry list" have been included in Thirteenth, delay the COLA 3
consequently the OASDI benefit in- the social security reform package. months to October 1, to coincide with
creases, have outstripped the increases The 19 possible changes I suggested the beginning of the Government's
in average wages. The bottom line is were: fiscal year.
that social security benefits have gone First, limit social security benefits Fourteenth, index "bendpoints" by
up faster than the wages which pay paid to foreigners not living in the one-half of the wage index for 4 years.
the benefits. United States. Fifteenth, eliminate survivor bene-
No one would argue that social secu- Second, increase immediately the fits for minor children if the remain-
rity recipients are getting rich. My number of quarters needed to qualify ing parent has income exceeding
point is simply that when the amount for full social security benefits. $25,000.
being paid out of the system is increas- Third, only allow 1 quarter's credit
ing at a faster rate than the amount for 1 quarter's work. A quarter is cur- Sixteenth, lengthen the benefit com-
coming in, we are jeopardizing the sta- rently measured as a 3-month period putation period by 3 years. Benefits
bility and solvency of the social secu- during which a worker earns more are determined by applying a formula
rity system. than $370. Suppose a worker earns to a worker's average monthly. earn-
About a year ago, I prepared a $1,480 (4 times $370) in that quarter. ings over a certain period of time. In
"laundry list" of ideas, consisting of 19 Under present rules a worker gets most cases the averaging period is the
ways to slow the rate of growth of the credit for 4 quarters, even if he does number of years after 1950 up until
social security system. I sent out not work at all the rest of the year. i the year the person reaches 62 less the
50,000 copies of my newsletter enti- proposed changing this rule, 1 quar- 5 lowest years. I proposed dropping
tled, "Saving Social Security." Thou- ter's work should only get 1 quarter's only the 2 lowest years rather than
sands of Minnesotans responded. credit. the 5 lowest.
Most-not all-agreed with most of my Fourth, require all new government Seventeenth, eliminate parent's
ideas. In fact, I received positive re- employees (Federal, State and local) benefit when the youngest child is age
sponses from all over the country be- to pay into social security. This is a 6. The child would continue to receive
cause the Minneapolis Tribune, the proposal that deserves serious consid- survivor's benefits until he or she is
Washington Post and many other eration and presents an opportunity 18, but I proposed eliminating the sur-
newspapers published my ideas. I tal- for Congress to examine the retire- viving parent's benefits when the
lied the results of this poll. More re- ment system for Federal employees. youngest child reaches age 6-not 16. I
cently I held town meetings through- Fifth, eliminate children's benefits felt this proposal acknowledged the
out Minnesota to conduct further sur- for early retirees. If a worker takes major increase in the number of
veys on the Commission's proposals as early retirement at 62 and has chil- women working in outside jobs.
well as some of my own. I ask unani- dren under 18, the worker receives Eighteenth, expand workers' com-
mous consent that the results of my benefits and the children receive sepa- pensation offset. About 165,000 people
poll and surveys conducted at the rate benefits as well. I proposed not al- now receiving social security disability
town meetings be printed at the end of lowing the children to get benefits benefits also receive payments from
my remarks. until the retiree is 65, unless he or she other Federal programs: veterans com-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- retired early for health reasons. pensation, civil service, military dis-
out objection, it is so ordered. Sixth, increase the self-employed ability retirement benefits and black
(See exhibit 1.) person's taxes withheld for social secu- lung benefits. All these benefits are
Mr. BOSCHWITZ. The results of my rity by 2 percent, calculated without regard to what
informal surveys taken at the town Seventh, give incentives to people to other benefits the person is receiving.
meetings suggest that both retired and keep working beyond age 65 by in- After February 1981, people eligible
ponretired people understand and ap- creasing benefits each year the person for social security disability payments
prove of some reasonable modifica- works beyond 65. Specifically, my pro- have a "cap" on their total combined
tions in the social security system de- posal would give an extra 5 percent benefits equal to 80 percent of their
signed to make the system solvent. (105 percent of the regular social secu- average predisability earnings. I pro-
The survey was taken of about 800 rity -benefit) if a person retires at 66; posed extending this provision to all
people attending the town meetings in at 67 an extra 11 percent (5 percent recipients of social security disability
Willmar, Worthington, Rochester, plus 6 percent); at 68 an extra 18 per- benefits.
Duluth, and Roseville. I also made the cent (5+6+7 percent); at 69 an extra Nineteenth, increase the number of
presentation to a group representing 26 percent (5+6+7+8 percent); and if required quarters in covered employ-
the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce the worker retires at 70, an extra 35 ment to be disability-insured to 30 out
and the Metro Senior Federation in percent (5+6+7+8+9 percent). of 40 quarters. To receive disability
Minneapolis. Eighth, raise the offset age to 75. benefits, a person must have worked
I presented 12 different proposals at Currently people over 72 who keep at least 1 quarter for each year of age
the meetings-five of the Commis- working receive benefits no matter above 21 and have worked a total of at
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3764
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 29, 1983
York (Mr. MoY Im I) both served significant degree that important and
upon the National Commission on fundamental purpose.
Social Security Reform and played an Mr. President, it Is also important to
enormously important role In guiding point out what this legislation does
this legislation through the Finance not do. It does not alter the funda-
Committee and the Senate. Develop- mental structure of social security or
tog a compromise proposal in an area propose Its replacement with some
of many so deeply felt views is an awe- other system, as some have recom-
some task and the mere fact that the mended. The Commission and the
Commission was able to reach a com- Congress in passing this bill are reaf-
promise is commendable in and of firming the basic soundness, fairness,
itself. The Finance Committee's work and necessity of continuing the social
adhered closely to the basic frame- security system. That message needs
work of the Commission's proposal. to be communicated throughout the
'Mr. President, I also pay tribute to country.
the distinguished Senator from Louisi- RAISING THE AGE OF RETIREMENT
ana (Mr. Loxo), the ranking minority
member of the Finance Committee.
Senator LONG has contributed signifi-
cantly to the refining of this proposal
and I was pleased to cosponsor his
amendment dealing with equitable im-
plementation of the provisions in the
legislation relating to coverage of Gov-
ernment workers. As always, the expe-
rience and wisdom of the Senator
from Louisiana adds immeasurably to
the legislation that emerges from the
Senate Finance Committee.
Mr. President, I want to also recog-
nize the enormous contribution and
leadership which has come from the
distinguished chairman of the House
Rules Committee, Representative
CLAUDE PEPPER. Representative PEPPER
has long been the outstanding ehampi-
on of the needs of older Americans
and his support for this proposal has
influenced the views of many Mem-
bers of the Congress.
Mr. President, I intend to vote for
H.R. 1900, as amended in the Senate.
This is a decision I have not come to
lightly. I have had, and I continue to
have, grave reservations about certain
aspects of this legislation. Certain pro-
visions, if presented to the Senate
alone, would not have my support.
However, it is a reality of the legisla-
tive process that compromises must be
reached in order that important goals
can be achieved.
At stake here is the confidence of
the American people in our ability to
assure the continuation of the social
security system. Social security affects
the lives of every single American,
whatever his or her age or walk of life.
For older Americans, It is often the
lifeline for basic survival. For young
workers, it provides the security of
knowing that they will be protected in
the event of disability and in retire-
ment. Every American has an enor-
mous interest in the continuation and
stability of the social security pro-
gram, and each has an obligation to
share in the process of restoring this
important program to a stable and
secure fiscal status.
The legislation before us seeks to
spread the burden of stabilizing the
Mr. President, I do not intend to
take the time of the Senate to discuss
each and every provision of the legisla-
tion. However, there is one provision
that has caused considerable con-
cern-the raising of the age of retire-
ment to 66 after the turn of the cen-
tury-which I wish to discuss.
Mr. President, on January 26, I in-
troduced legislation, S. 2, the proposed
Employment Opportunities for Older
Americans Act, which contains a
number of provisions to encourage
older workers to stay in the work
force, particularly in part-time posi-
tions. Public opinion polls over the
past few years have demonstrated that
older workers in - overwhelming num-
bers would generally like to remain in
the work force. Demographic data also
clearly indicate that in the next cen-
tury we will be entering a labor scarce
era when the contributions of older
workers will be greatly needed. I be-
lieve that we ought to take every step
possible to encourage employers to
provide work opportunities for older
workers and to encourage older work-
ers to delay retirement. Two issues ad-
dressed in S. 2-the increase in the de-
layed retirement adjustment factor
and modification of the earnings limi-
tation test-are included in the legisla-
tion before us today and are aimed at
encouraging continued work effort by
older workers.
My bill focuses on creating incen-
tives and eliminating or reducing disin-
centives for delayed retirement; it did
not, as does the present bill, reduce
signficantly social security benefits for
those who choose or must retire
before age 66. I would prefer to follow
the approach of S. 2-creating incen-
tives, rather than penalties.
I also think that it is unrealistic and
inequitable to raise the age of retire-
ment without taking the necessary
steps to assure that the employment
opportunities will be available for
these older workers and that adequate
protections are provided to those indi-
viduals who will be unable to continue
in the work force.
The amendment offered by the Sen-
ator from New Jersey (Mr. BRADLEY),
social security program between the to establish a new disability program
various segments of the population. for those over age 62 in ill health and
While not necessarily agreeing with unable to continue in their prior occu-
the exact balance reached. I recognize pational fields, but not disabled
that this proposal does achieve to a enough to meet the current SSDI to-
tally disabled criterion, would deal
with a portion of this problem.
Unfortunately, the Senate did not
adopt this amendment. It is clear,
however, that some type of protection
along the lines proposed by the Sena-
tor from New Jersey for workers who
fall into this category must be devel-
oped before the increase in the retire-
ment age is implemented, and the
amendment of .the Senator from Penn-
sylvania to require a study of this
matter should be helpful In moving
toward the development and enact-
ment in a timely fashion of provisions
relating to early retirements forced by
Ill health.
There are other individuals, particu.
larly older women and minority Indi-
viduals, who are likely to lack employ-
ment opportunities as older workers.
We need to take new steps to make
sure that all segments of our popula-
tion will have equal access and ability
to continue working if the benefits are
to be reduced for retirement before
age 66. If we fail to do this, we will-
very unfairly-be simply reducing
benefits for those who have no alter-
natives to supplement their income.
Fortunately, the effective date of
the increase in the age for full bene-
fits is almost two decades away-
longer under the House bill-and
there will be ample opportunities to
reassess the impact of these provisions
and our progress in rectifying these
problems in employment opportunities
before a new retirement age actually
takes effect.
However, I believe that it is in the
interests of both our Nation and older
workers themselves to begin a process
of reevaluating our policies regarding
retirement and older workers. Each
year, thousands of older workers are
forced against their wills out of the
work force by mandatory retirement
policies, age discrimination, and the
existence of fiscal disincentives in
public and private pension programs. I
think it is time for our Nation to being
to foster a new perspective on retire-
ment that would be premised upon a
shift from the concept of an abrupt,
total withdrawal from the labor force
to one of gradual withdrawal where
older workers are afforded the oppor-
tunity, if they choose, to reduce their
work pace, shift to less demanding
work roles, or participate in more
flexible work schedules. My legisla-
tion, S. 2, is designed to.encourage this
shift and I intend to devote substan-
tial effort to achieving its goals. In tie
near future, I plan to reintroduce S. 2
in two separate bills so that the provi-
sions which relate to matters within
the jurisdiction of the Labor and
Human Resources Committee will be
separated from those within the juris-
diction of the Finance Committee. If
the two aspects of S. 2 in the legisla-
tion before us today are enacted, those
provisions will be deleted. I very much
hope that both committees will con-
duct hearings on these separate bills.
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
March 28, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Covsrtnas Or 1IDSRAL n[YLOYaaS
Mr. President, I also have had strong
reservations regarding the manner in
which the committee bill dealt with
Federal employees. The Commission
recommended that new Federal em-
ployees be brought into the social se-
curity system, but also recommended
the development of a supplemental
civil service retirement program-like
that available to private employees
covered by social security-for Federal
workers. The Finance Committee bill.
however, dealt only with bringing new
workers into social security; it pro-
vided no assurances that a new supple-
mental system would be developed or
that the interests of present Federal
workers in the existing civil service re-
tirement system would be protected.
I was therefore pleased to be an
original cosponsor of the amendment
offered by the distinguished Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. LoNO) to delay
bringing new Federal employees into
the social security system until such
time as Congress has provided a modi-
fied Federal retirement system which
coordinates benefits with the social se-
curity system and protects the integri-
ty of the Federal retirement system. I
was delighted that this amendment
was adopted.
CONCLUSION
Mr. President, as I stated at the
outset, I will support the social secu-
rity reform legislation. I have strong
reservations about certain aspects of
the package but, on balance, the enor-
mous importance of demonstrating to
the American people that the social
security system will continue overrides
the specific shortcomings in the pack-
age.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I sup-
port the Social Security Amendments
of 1983 because they will restore fi-
nancial solvency to the social security
system and will, in future years, pro-
vide the reforms necessary to insure
the stability of the system for tomor-
row's retirees.
I want to commend all of those who
have played a major role in fashioning
this bipartisan, compromise package:
Senator Dons, the distinguished chair-
man of the Committee on Finance;
Senator Hanvz, chairman of the Aging
Committee, on which I have been hon-
ored to serve for many years; Senators
MOYNIHAN and ARMSTRONG and the
other members of the Finance Com-
mittee.
Putting together this package re-
quired making very difficult choices. I
am not aware of one Senator that sup-
ports each and every provision of the
bill There are parts of it that I do not
support. Many of my Illinois constitu-
ents have serious concerns about var-
ious provisions of the bill. I conducted
a special survey of elderly Illinoisans-
their concerns are quite evident. But
even they as a group do not agree on
which measures should be adopted.
Given this disagreement on all parts
of the bill and the urgency of dealing
with the social security financing
problem. H.R. 1900 Is a fair and rea-
sonable compromise which should be
supported.
The Social Security Amendments of
1983 are a major accomplishment for
two reasons. First, it will allay the
fears of millions of elderly Americans
who have been living for 2 years with
a social security system teetering on
the brink of bankruptcy. H.R. 1900
will insure the timely payment of all
social security benefits from 1983 to
1989, the 7-year period for. which the
National Commission on Social Secu-
rity Reform has identified a $165 bil-
lion deficit.
Second, the Social Security Amend-
ments of 1983 address the long-range
deficit expected to occur under the ex.
isting system when the baby boom
generation begins to retire in the next
century. Confronting this problem is
even more significant because it has
served to undermine the confidence
and popularity the social security
system has so long enjoyed. Recent
polls have shown that three out of
four people under age 45 believe the
social security system will collapse
before they reach retirement age. H.R.
1900 will eliminate the long-term defi.
cit within a reasonable range of eco-
nomic projections through several
modifications in the system. Along
with the automatie\stabilizers included
in the bill, these reforms will avert
funding crises like 'the one we now
face.
H.R. 1900 essentially embodies the
recommendations of the National
Commission on Social Security
Reform. It is a solution that requires
sacrifice on the part of all parties who
have a stake in social security-cur-
rent and future beneficiaries and tax-
payers alike.
Contained in the bill are measures
which restore the solvency of the
system for the foreseeable future with
no benefit reductions in current social
security benefit levels and no increases
in payroll tax rates above those al-
ready scheduled in the law. The bill
reaffirms the soundness of the basic
structure of social security by making
balanced and minimal adjustments to
provide immediate relief from the
short-term financing problems and to
restore the long-term solvency of the
program.
First, the bill would expand cover.
age. Newly hired Federal employees,
the President, Vice President, Mem-
bers of Congress the Social Security
Commission and employees of non-
profit organizations would be covered
by social security. State and local gov-
ernments would no longer be granted
the. privilege of opting out of the
system. To deal with the problem that
will exist as long as coverage is not
universal, windfalls will be eliminated
for people who earn disproportionate-
ly large benefits because of long peri.
ods in noncovered employment. To
moderate the impact of this provision,
the bill would phase in the windfall
provision and provide additional guar-
83765
antees for persons with long periods of
covered employment.
Second, the annual cost-of-living ad-
justment (COLA) of social security
benefits and supplemental security
income payments would be delayed by
6 months, from July to January. To
protect the needy elderly during the
transition to the new payment sched.
ule, the maximum payment under the
88I program would be increased $20
per month-$30 for couples. This
would allow the income of all 88I re.
cipients to rise by $20 per month be-
ginning in July even though his or her
COLA is delayed.
Third, for beneficiaries with high in-
comes, half of social security benefits
would be included in taxable income.
The "notch" resulting under the Com-
mission's recommendation to tax one-
half of benefits for persons with ad-
justed gross income of $20,000 or more
was eliminated by specifying that half
of social security benefits be added to
the individual's adjusted gross income
and his income from tax-exempt obli-
gations to determine whether any of
his benefits will be subject to taxation.
Counting adjusted gross income, tax-
exempt interest and half of social se-
curity benefits in this manner result in
thresholds of $25,000 for an individual
and $32,000 for a couple. The lesser of
one-half of social security benefits or
one-half of income above the thresh.
olds would be subject to income taxes.
Fourth. Part of the payroll tax in-
creases now scheduled by law would be
accelerated, as recommended by the
National Commission. The 1985 in-
crease in the tax rate would take place
in 1984, and part of the 1990 hike
would take place in 1988. A direct
credit against FICA tax would exactly
offset the increase in the employee's
tax in 1984 so that the acceleration in
the rate increase originally set for
1985 will increase trust funds receipts
without increasing an employee's tax
liability.
Fifth, for the self-employed, the tax
rate on self-employed income would be
increased so as to equalize his or her
contribution to the social security
trust funds with the combined contri.
bution paid by workers and their em-
ployers. To offset partially- the in-
creased tax burden, the bill would pro-
vide a tax credit against self-employ.
ment taxes equal to 2.9 percent of
income in 1984, 2.5 percent in 1985, 2.2
percent in 1986. 2.1 percent for 1987
through 1989, and 2.3 percent in 1990
and thereafter.
Sixth, the bill would raise the age at
which full retirement benefits are pay-
able from 65 to 66, by 1 month a year,
between 2000 and 2012. Early retire.
ment benefits would continue to be
payable at 62.
Seventh, H.R. 1900 would gradually
reduce the level of present law bene-
fits payable to people who retire after
the turn of the century by about 5
percent. In conjunction with the rest
of the bill's provisions, these two
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
83766
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 23, 1983
changes would eliminate the long-term
deficit projected by the National Com-
mission on Social Security Reform.
Eighth, for the elderly who continue
to work and who do not now receive an
actuarially fair increase in benefits
when they delay retirement, the de-
layed retirement credit would be in-
creased from 3 percent to 8 percent a
year.
Ninth, to further eliminate the dis-
incentive for older persons who wish
to continue working, the bill would
gradually phase out the retirement
earnings test for people 65 and older. I
have long supported this change and
applaud its inclusion in the Senate
bill.
Tenth, the bill also includes several
provisions designed to address a
number of inequities that have mostly
affected women. Benefits are im-
proved for widows and widowers and
for disabled widows and widowers.
Last, the social security amendments
contain fail-safe and stabilizer provi-
sions to insure that the social security
system never again finds itself at the
brink of bankruptcy. First, to stabilize
the system, the bill includes the rec-
ommendation of the National Commis-
sion to trigger a new method of index-
ing benefits if reserves are critically
low, beginning in 1988. H.R. 1900 also
includes a provision that requires the
Secretary of Health and Human Serv-
ices to determine whether the full
amount of the annual cost-of-living ad-
justment (COLA) can be paid without
reserves falling below 20 percent of
outgo. If reserves would fall below
that amount, the Secretary is required
to announce by the preceding July 1
the amount of the COLA that could be
provided without further depleting re-
serves. Should Congress then fail to
respond by providing the additional fi-
nancing necessary to keep the reserves
from falling, the lower COLA would
then go into effect in January. The
bill directs the Secretary to adjust the
COLA first for persons with monthly
benefits above $250 to protect the el-
derly poor who receive social security
benefits.
To further bolster the trust funds in
the event of adverse economic condi-
tions, the bill includes tnterfund bor-
rowing among the three social security
trust funds. Also, when trust funds are
unable to pay at least 1'/z months of
benefits, the Secretary of the Treas-
ury would be required to transfer to
the old age and survivors and disabil-
ity insurance trust funds on the first
day of the month the full amount of
payroll tax revenues expected to be
collected during the month. This "nor-
malizing" of tax transfers would pro-
vide income to the trust funds at the
start of the month when benefit ex-
penditures are heavily concentrated.
Interest would be charged on the
excess sums so transferred. Together
these provisions will, for the first time,
provide the safety valve necessary to
insure the-continued solvency of the
social security system during the
eighties and beyond.
Mr. President, as I said before, this
package strikes a balance which
spreads the cost of a sound social secu-
rity system among all of us. That is
why I opposed a number of amend-
ments offered on the floor of the
Senate to make major changes in the
bill.
I opposed two amendments which
would have made reductions in the
COLA. One would have eliminated the
COLA for 1983 rather than delay it 6
months. The other would have had
the effect of cutting next year's
COLA.
I also voted against an amendment
to raise the retirement age to 68,
rather than 66 in the committee bill
and to raise the early retirement age
to 65. The committee bill preserves the
age 62 early retirement option. I op-
posed this amendment for two rea-
sons. First, the bill contains long-range
reforms that will meet the deficit ex-
pected in the next century, according
to the best economic assumptions we
have. Second, splitting the long-run
solution between raising the retire-
ment age and reducing replacement
rates spreads the added costs of fi-
nancing the projected growth in bene-
ficiary population equitably among
those who will be beneficiaries in the
21st century. This in my view is a
better approach than raising the early
retirement option to age 65 because it
would place the heaviest burden on
those who are forced into early retire-
ment by disability or job loss.
All three of these amendments
would have essentially cut benefits
beyond the reforms contained in this
bill and beyond those needed to meet
the estimated deficits in the short-
and the long-term. They went beyond
the commitment I have to my con-
stituents to support measures neces-
sary to put the system back on firm fi-
nancial footing.
This brings me to my support of the
Heins amendment which would have
removed from the Federal unified
budget the old age and survivors insur-
ance trust fund (OASI) and the dis-
ability insurance (DI) trust fund. I
agree with Senator Hsnvz that this
measure is necessary to fully restore
confidence in the social security
system, to guarantee its independence
now and in the future and to assure
that the changes made here today are
made for one and one reason only-to
restore fiscal solvency to the system so
that benefits can continue to be paid.
There should be no fear that Congress
will "balance the budget dm the backs
of the elderly." This fear is height-
ened every year during the annual
debate on the budget resolution when,
because the social security trust funds
are included in the unified budget, we
give the impression that the flow of
benefits Is dependent upon the health
of the entire Federal budget. This is
simply not true. The social security
system is an independent one which
pays benefits with the contributions it
receives from workers. Congress
should not consider changes in the
social security system beyond those
necessary to insure that it can meet its
own commitments. I regret that the
amendment was not adopted by the
full Senate.
Last, Mr. President, I voted against
an amendment to delete coverage of
new Federal workers, which was de-
feated by a vote of 86-12. I opposed
the amendment because it would have
eliminated a key part of the social se-
curity compromise package, creating a
short-term deficit of $9.3 billion and a
long-range deficit of 0.2 percent of
payroll in the long run, rather than
the modest surplus now in the bill. I
could not support the amendment be-
cause it would have unraveled the
package.
I was, however, concerned about new
Federal workers coming into the
system without a supplemental pen-
sion plan which was recommended by
the National Commission on Social Se-
curity Reform. For that reason, I sup-
ported an amendment to establish a
timetable for developing a supplemen-
tal pension plan by October 1, 1985.
This amendment was defeated by a
majority of the Senate, and coverage
of new workers was subsequently de-
layed until a supplemental pension
plan can be developed.
On balance, Mr. President, the
Social Security Amendments of 1983
are equitable and accomplish the very
crucial task of preserving the social se-
curity system. I st}pport this biparti-
san compromise and urge my col-
leagues to join me in voting for.it. It is
a vote for maintaining the flow of
benefits to today's retirees and a vote
for restoring confidence in the future
of the system for generations to come.
? Mrs. ICASSEBAUM. Mr. President,
the major elements of the social secu-
rity financing package are widely
known and have been thoroughly dis-
cussed and analyzed. This comes as
little surprise, as these provisions will
affect millions of Americans; and all of
us find things to like and dislike about
the package. I would like at this time
to turn to several features of the
measure which I like very much. They
are not well known due to their more
limited impact, but they can be enor-
mously important to many people-
particularly women.
These provisions take a number of
positive steps toward improving the
system in Ways which are helpful
largely to women. I commend the Na-
tional Commission on Social Security
Reform and the Finance Committee
for having acknowledged the need in
this area. Although these are small
steps, I think it is useful to draw to.
the attention of the Senate the need
for improvement and to the role of
this legislation in meeting a part of it.
Discussion of the treatment of
women under social security quickly
becomes complex because the Social
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
March SS, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Security Act, for the most part,, is a marriage has particularly severe con-
gender-neutral on its face. In fact, the sequences for those women who have
few remaining gender-based distino- spent most of their adult lives working
tions in the law are eliminated in the in the home. Without recent training
House version of H.R. 1900. These dis- or outside work force experience,
tinctions are highly technical and these women experience serious diffi-
many have already been effectively culty In finding jobs. In addition. they
negated as a result of court actions, have little time In which to build Inde.
The problems that many women ex pendent eligibility for benefits. The
perience occur because the assump- Social Security Act does recognise this
tions upon which the act is based no situation through provisions which
longer hold true in an increasing allow a divorced spouse to receive
number of cases. Social security is benefits based upon the earnings
built on the assumption that a mar- record of . a former spouse if the mar-
ried couple is, composed of a breadwin- riage lasted 10 years or longer.
ning husband and a homemaker wife. Thus, the current law is helpful, but
It further assumes that marriages last not without its flaws. Because benefits
a lifetime and that a wife will outlive made available to the divorced spouse
most. These logical assumptions for
the late thirties-when fewer than 20
percent of married women worked out-
side the home, when 1 in 7 marriages
ended in divorce, and when life expeo-
tancies between men and women
varied little. Today, the experiences of
more and more women fail to fit the
pattern which existed In the thirties.
What we now we is a diversity of
patterns, each raising separate Issues
with respect to social security. The
most useful framework for examining
the changes made by this legislation In
to look at its treatment of women as
workers, as divorced spouses, and as
widows.
WORKING VV03 f
Female participation In the paid
work force has increased dramatically
and Is continuing to do so. From the
standpoint of social security coverage,
this trend is helpful in that women are
increasingly able to establish inde-
pendent entitlement to benefits. How-
ever, the work patterns of women vary
from that of men as many workingwo-
men drop out of the labor force for
some period of time to raise young
children. These nonworking years are
counted as zero-earnings years for the
purpose of determining the average
earnings upon which social security
benefit amounts are based. Currently,
up to 5 years of lowest career earnings
are dropped before this calculation is
made-thereby reducing the impact
which low or zero-earnings have in
bringing down average earnings levels.
The legislation reported by the
Senate Finance Committee allows up
to two additional "dropout" years for
persons who leave the work force to
care for a child under the age of 3 in
the home. A worker must have no
earnings during the year in order to
take advantage of this new provision.
This change will have the effect of in-
creasing the social security benefits of
women who interrupt their working
careers for the purpose of child rear-
ing, recognising the growing preva-
lence of this pattern.
DIVORCID SPOUSZS
The Incidence of divorce has in-
creased substantially since social secu-
rity was first enacted, with the mar-
riages of I In 3 women age 26 to 40 ex-
pected to end In divorce. Dissolution of
are based on the earnings record of
the former spouse, the dependent
spouse--generally the woman-cannot
receive any benefits until the working
spouse receives benefits. Take the situ-
ation of a divorced couple, both aged
65. The former wife spent most of her
adult life- as a homemaker and, at age
65. is no longer able to find employ-
ment. If she has any Independent enti-
tlement to social security benefits at
all, it is extremely small. Should her
former husband choose to continue
working until age 68 or 70. she would
be unable to receive any benefits based
on his record until that time. Alterna-
tively, he may retire at age 65 and sub-
sequently decide to return to work at
age 67. If his earnings are high
enough. he would not be receiving
benefits: and benefits to his former
wife would be terminated as well.
Although such situations are ram
they do impose substantial hardship
and uncertainty upon older divorced
women. This legislation addresses this
problem by permitting spouses who
have been divorced for at least 2 years
to draw benefits at age 62 If the
former spouse is eligible for benefits-
even if the benefits are not being col-
lected at that time.
Wmowa
Approximately 75 percent of older
men are married and living with their
wives, while 52 percent of older women
are widows. Currently. 59 percent of
Individuals 65 and older are women. At
the oldest ages, women outnumber
men2to1.
Many of these widows have been de.
Pendent upon their husbands' incomes
and long years of widowhood have
often exhausted supplemental. re-
sources. On the average, total death
benefits left by husbands to widows
amount to $12,000 from all sources. It
is not surprising therefore to realize
that older women living alone are
among the poorest groups In our soci-
ety.
Although changes in the Social Se-
curity Act alone cannot be expected to
deal with all these serious problems.
the legislation under consideration
does offer assistance to certain groups
of widows and widowers. First. the bill
provides for changes in the method of
indexing a deceased worker's earnings
for purposes of determining a survivor
83,767
benefit. Under the measure, these
earnings would be indexed to reflect
economywide wage Increases up to the
year the worker would have reached
age 80 or 2 years before the survivor
becomes eligible for benefits-which-
ever is earlier. This change would pro-
vide particular assistance to survivors
of workers who die long before their
survivors are eligible for benefits. In
these situations, surviving spouses now
receive a benefit based on outdated
wage levels. Under the bill, benefits
would be calculated an a basis that
more closely reflects current wage
levels.
A second group which would benefit
from this bill Is disabled widows and
widowers. In general, surviving
spouses are first eligible to receive
benefits at age 80 at an actuarially re-
duced level of 71.5 percent of the de-
ceased workers' full benefit amount.
However, disabled survivors may re.
ceive benefits between the ages of 50
to 59. Benefit amounts are also actu-
arially reduced, so that an individual
who begins receiving benefits at age 50
receives a benefit amount-equal to 50
percent of the full benefit. This bene-
fit level is quite low-averaging about
$242 per month-particularly consider-
ing that the recipient's disability pre-
vents him or her from working. This
measure provides that benefits to dis-
abled widows and widowers between
the ages of 50 to 59 will equal 71.5 per-
cent of the workers' benefit amounts-
the same level provided survivors who
begin receiving benefits at age. 60.
Thirtt earlier today the Senate ap-
proved an amendment offered by the
Senator from Michigan. Mr. Lsvnr,
which would provide transitional as.
sistance to widows between the ages of
55 and 59.1 was pleased to have joined
in cosponsoring this ,amendment,
which offers support at a critical time
In the lives of many women confront-
ing widowhood. Currently, a widow
under age 60 does- not qualify for
social security benefits unless she is
disabled or is caring for a child who Is
either disabled or under the age of 18.
Consequently, there are a number of
women who, having spent most of
their adult years as homemakers, are
Ill-prepared for the paid labor force
immediately upon the deaths of their
husbands. The amendment would pro-
vide these women with 8 months of
transitional benefits to permit them
sufficient time to obtain training or to
seek employment. These benefits
would be subject to the social security
outside earnings limitation. so that
they would not be provided to Individ-
uals who do receive Income after being
widowed.
One final feature I want to mention
is one which treats benefit eligibility
upon remarriage In a consistent
manner for all types of beneficiaries.
Currently. -surviving spouses may re-
marry after age 60-the time at which
they first become eligible for bene-
fits-and continue receiving benefits.
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
83768
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 29, 19M
However, benefits for disabled surviv-
ing spouses and disabled divorced sur-
vivors are trmi~ted if the individual
remarries prior to age e0, even though
they may first become eligible for
benefits from age 59 to 59. Benefits
are temi:mted for suviving divorced
spouses in remarriage at any age.
This measure eliminates these dis?
tinctions, providing that remarriage
after the date of first eligibility for
benefits will not result in the termina-
tion of benefits.
Obviously, the revisions made by the
legislation fall short of meeting the
broader concerns expressed regarding
the treatment of women under social
security. For example, many married
women who have worked and paid
social security payroll taxes for several
years have expressed deep concern
that they receive no more in benefits
than they would have received had
they never contributed to the system.
The earnings sharing approach, allow-
ing married couples to combine and
divide- their earnings records for pur-
poses of establishing social security
eligibility, is one which has received
considerable attention as a more far-
ranging reform of the system. During
earlier consideration of this measure,
the Senate adopted an amendment re-
quiring the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to prepare an imple-
mentation report on earnings sharing.
This is an area which will continue to
receive attention. I am pleased that
my colleague from Kansas. Mr. Dons,
has indicated the intentions of the
Senate Finance Committee to hold
hearings this year on the issue of
women and retirement income.
Again, I applaud the effort of those
who have worked hard on behalf of
positive improvements in the system.*
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I cast my vote in support of this
legislation after much reflection and
despite the fact that I have grave res-
ervations about many of its individual
provisions.
This is a compromise bill, arrived at
after many days of arduous and occa-
sionally acrimonious debate, delibera-
tion, and negotiation. Like every com-
promise, it contains its share of bitter
pills to swallow.
i, for one, am especially troubled
that this legislation will raise the re-
tirement age to 66 in the next century.
Raising the retirement age will mean
real hardship for many older Ameri-
cans who simply cannot continue to
work until age 66, but who are not so
totally disabled that they can qualify
for disability benefits under the very
stringent disability definition in cur-
rent law. This provision will particu-
larly hurt blue collar workers, those
who earn their living by working with
their hands. Many of these people will
be forced to retire early at age 62, and
will suffer even deeper reductions in
their benefits as a penalty. It is my
fervent hope that Congress will recon-
sider this change in future years, and
substitute a better alternative for
meeting the long-term deficit facing
the social security system.
Nor is this the only provision in this
bill which I could not support, were it
not part of a larger, bipartisan com-
promise. I do not like asking older
Americans to delay their cost-of-living
increase, or to pay taxes on their
social security benefits. I do not like
asking self-employed Americans to
contribute a greater share to social se-
curity or asking working Americans
and their employers to pay social secu-
rity tax increases on an accelerated
schedule. I wish that none of these
provisions were part of this legislation.
Despite these serious concerns, I be-
lieve that this is a fair and reasonable
package, one which meets the test of
evenhandedness and balance in the
sacrifice it asks of all our citizens to
make the social security system whole
again. Under this bill, all those who
have a stake in social security's
future-the 116 million Americans
whose taxes support the system, the
36 million beneficiaries who depend
upon social security for their liveli-
hood, and those Federal workers and
Members of Congress not now a part
of the system-would share in the
burden of restoring the system to sol-
vency.
I wish that it were not necessary to
ask that these sacrifices be made, but
what is at stake here is nothing less
than the. very future of our most im-
portant and enduring social program,
a system which touches the lives of
virtually every American. Today, that
system faces a financing crisis of un-
precedented magnitude, as well as a
crisis in confidence on the part of the
American people, whose faith in the
system has been deeply shaken by the
recurrent crisis surrounding social se-
curity in recent years.
We must act decisively to end this
crisis of confidence. We owe a debt of
gratitude to all of those who worked
so hard to bring this compromise bill
before us, to the National Commission
on Social Security Reform, to all the
Members of the House and Senate
who have worked to improve and pass
this legislation, and to the many out-
side individuals and organizations that
have contributed to its development.
In passing this legislation, we take
the necessary steps to restore- social se-
curity to both short- and long-term
solvency. In voting for this bill, we
send a clear message to the American
people that this Congress has the po-
litical will to keep its promises to
those Americans who have faithfully
paid into social security in the expec-
tation that it would be there for them
when they retire.
In sum, I do not like this bill and I
wish that the problem would just go
away. But when faced with the alter-
native-bankruptcy of the social secu-
rity system-I have no other choice.
? Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I want
to take this opportunity to comment
on this critical legislation we have
been considering over the last few
days designed to assure the financial
integrity of the social security system.
The social security system has been
one of the most important initiatives
undertaken by the Federal Govern-
ment during this century. By provid-
ing a guarantee of basic retirement
income for senior Americans, no
longer will older workers have to fear
retirement. While social security does
not provide, nor was it ever intended
to provide, a full retirement pension, it
does nevertheless supply a basic
income, protected against inflation,
for retired workers and their families.
This is not welfare or Government
charity. Social security benefits are
based on contributions made by work-
ers and their employers throughout
their working career. Congress has a
solemn obligation to assure that social
security remains on a sound financial
footing, and that is the reason we are
acting on the legislation before us
today.
Mr. President, I strongly believe that
the recommendations of the National
Commission of Social Security Reform
and the bill before us today are a re-
markable achievement in compromise.
The burdens resulting from the pro-
posals contained in this legislation fall
upon all sectors of society where all
have been asked to sacrifice. Neverthe-
less, I have strong reservations regard-
ing several of the proposals included
in this package. We voted on many
amendments, several of which were
designed to lessen the inequitable
hardships created by particular provi-
sions. The Long amendment which I
strongly supported, was adopted and
that was an important improvement.
Mr. President, on balance, I believe
this is the best possible compromise
that can be achieved at this time with
the Reagan administration in control
of the executive branch of Govern-
ment. It is profoundly in the national
interest that we deal now with the fi-
nancial problems facing social security
growing out of years of major reces-
sion and high inflation. It is essential
that the social security system be kept
solvent and strong and absolutely
guaranteed into the future for our
workers, retirees: and their families.
We must take social security out of
the line of attack of the Reagan ad-
ministration.
This package, while imperfect, is the
best compromise we are able to
achieve at this time. Perhaps we can
make other positive modifications and
changes in the future when the politi-
cal balance of power again shifts in
our country. For now, we have suc-
ceeded in the struggle to prevent the
major cuts in benefits originally
sought by the Reagan administration.
That is a major accomplishment.
I did not cosponsor this legislation
due to my reservations about several
aspects of the package. Mr vote for
final passage does not withdraw those
reservations. Further beneficial
changes will have to come from future
?
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3770
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 23, 1983
I do not need to remind my colleagues
about the severe financial problems we
face in the near future in medicare.
Finally, the legislation contains ad-
ditional unemployment benefits for
the long-term jobless which are crucial
to the many individuals who have ex-
hausted their current benefits. With-
out swift passage of this legislation,
hundreds of thousands of workers
across the Nation will be left without
any unemployment benefits. In my
own State of New Mexico, 5,000 indi-
viduals will be affected immediately.
In summary, the welfare of most
Americans is affected by this bill and
therefore, I must vote for it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the synopsis be printed in
the Racoiw.
There being no objection, the syn-
opsis was ordered to be printed in the
REcoRD, as follows:
SOCIAL SscmRITY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1983:
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS
The Senate Finance Committee-reported
bill would correct the financial problems of
the social security retirement trust fund,
provide for a prospective reimbursement
system in medicare, extend long-term bene-
fits for the unemployed, and provide relief
for states which must borrow to pay regular
state unemployment benefits.
SOCIAL SECURITY (OASDI) PROVISIONS
Coverage of newly-hired federal employ-
ees.-Extend social security coverage to all
new federal civilian employees, all current
members of Congress and the President,
and all employees of non-profit agencies
(new federal employees would be brought
under social security after a supplementary
pension plan is established; non-profit em-
ployees would be covered effective January
1984). Prohibit state and local governments
from terminating coverage for their employ-
ees.
Eliminate "windfall" benefits.-Reduce
social security benefits for recipients who
become eligible for pensions based on non-
social security employment, subject to cer-
tain limitations.
Six month COLA delay.-Delay the cost-
of-living adjustment by six months from
July 1983 to January 1984 in the retirement
and disability insurance programs and the
supplemental security income (SSI) pro-
gram. Increase the SSI benefit by $20 for in-
dividuals and $30 for couples to compensate
for the COLA delay.
Emergency COLA provisions.-Scale back
COLA increases when the trust funds are
expected to dip below a 20 percent reserve
ratio, continue to decline, and interfund
borrowing is exhausted. Provide for COLAS
equal to lower of wages or prices if the trust
fund reserves dip below a 20 percent level in
1988 and beyond, with a "catch-up" when
the reserves exceed 32 percent.
Increase delayed retirement credit.-
Gradually increase, between 1990 and 1995,
the delayed retirement credit from 3 per-
cent to 8 percent per year.
Increase social security retirement age.-
Gradually raise the social security retire-
ment age to 66 by the year 2012, beginning
with those who attain age 62 in 2000. Early
retirement benefits would continue to be
available at age 62 for workers and spouses,
but the benefit reduction factors would be
larger.
Long-range benefit change.-Reduce ini-
tial benefit levels by about 5 percent after
the year 2000 by decreasing the percentage
factors in the benefit formula.
Eliminate retirement earnings test.-
Gradually phase out, between 1990 and
1994, the retirement earnings test for people
65 and older.
Child-care dropout years.-Allow two
years. to be dropped out of the formula for
computing social security benefits for per-
sons who leave the workforce to care for
children under age 3 at home.
Tax social security benefits.-Subject
social security benefits to income tax based
on thresholds of $25,000 for single taxpay-
ers and $32,000 for married taxpayers. To
determine these thresholds, one-half of
social security benefits and all tax-free
income would be added to adjusted gross
income. For taxpayers over the threshold,
the lesser of one-half of social security bene-
fits or one-half of the excess combined
income over the threshold amount would be
subject to income tax. Transfer the rev-
enues to the trust fund.
Increase FICA taxes.-Revise the OASDI
tax schedule so that the 1985 rate would be
moved to 1984, the 1985-87 rate would
remain as scheduled, part of the 1990 rate
would be moved to 1988, and the rate for
1990 and beyond would remain unchanged.
For 1984, a refundable tax credit would be
provided for employees equal to the in-
crease in the employee taxes. The credit
would be allowed against 1984 employee
FICA taxes rather than against income tax.
Self-employed tax increase.-Increase the
social security and medicare tax rate for the
self-employed to equal the rate paid by em-
ployers and employees. Provide a tax credit
equal to about 15 percent of the combined
social security tax rate.
Military transfer credit.-Require the
Treasury to pay social security in fiscal year
1983 for free social security credits extended
in the past to members of the armed serv-
ices. Require the Treasury to credit the
social security trust funds with uncashed
benefit checks.
Reallocate OASDI tax rate.-Reallocate
the OASDI tax so that both the OASI and
DI trust funds will have about the same re-
serve ratios.
Extend interfund borrowing.-Authorize,
through 1987, interfund borrowing between
the OASI. DI, and HI trust funds, with pro-
tections provided for each fund.
Women's equity provisions.-Provide for
several changes in the way women are treat-
ed under social security. These would affect
divorced and surviving spouses, and disabled
widows.
Alien benefits.-Eliminate benefits to alien
workers who live abroad, except for certain
aliens who would receive back their contri-
butions plus interest. Also, prohibit social
security benefits to aliens who have worked
illegally in this country.
Miscellaneous provisions.-Eliminate
benefits to felons; modify trust fund invest-
ment procedures; add two public members
to the Board of Trustees; normalize tax
transfers; expand the social security wage
base to include certain deferred compensa-
tion; and provide that local governments
shall directly deposit social security taxes to
the U.S. Treasury rather than to the State
government.
MEDICARE (HI AND SMI) PROVISIONS
Prospective payment.-Establish a pros-
pective payment system for hospitals which
would set a specific payment for each of 467
diagnoses.
Delay in Part B Premium.-Delay the in-
crease in the Part B (medical insurance)
premium from July 1, 1983, to January 1,
1984, to make it consistent with the delay in
the social security cost-of-living adjustment.
Increase the tax on the self-employed.-In-
crease the hospital insurance tax paid by
the self-employed to the combined employ-
er-employee rate of 2.6 percent of covered
wages.
Cover employees of non-profit institu-
tions.-Consistent with the extension of
coverage in OASDI, require medicare cover-
age of employees of non-profit institutions.
Military wage credits.-Reimburse the
hospital insurance trust fund for liabilities
incurred as a result of providing credit
toward medicare coverage based on pre-1957
military service.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROVISIONS
Long-term benefits.-Extend and restruc-
ture the program of benefits for the long-
term unemployed (FSC) which expires at
the end of March 1983. Basic FSC benefits
of up to 14 weeks would be available be-
tween April 1 and September 30, 1983, de-
pending on a state's insured unemployment
rate (New Mexico would receive 10 weeks of
benefits, compared to 14 weeks under the
current program)., Additional FSC benefits
of up to 8 weeks would be available to work-
ers who have already exhausted all benefits
(New Mexico would receive 4 weeks of bene-
fits, compared to none under current law).
Unemployed workers receiving benefits
when the program ends on September 30,
1983, could continue to receive one-half of
the remaining benefits.
Intererst on loans.-Provide relief to
states which owe interest on loans from the
federal government made to pay regular
state unemployment benefits. Make the in-
terest provision permanent, but allow States
to defer interest payments and pay a dis-
counted interest rate if the state takes steps
to ensure the solvency of the state's' unem-
ployment program.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, as a
result of the work of the National
Commission on Social Security
Reform and the prompt consideration
of the Commission's proposals by the
House of Representatives and the
Senate Finance Committee, we are
today acting on H.R. 1900, the Social
Security Act Amendments of 1983. All
Americans have an interest in this leg-
islation, for social security-in one way
or another-affects us all.
The Commission faced a difficult
challenge. The President proposed its
creation only months after the end of
a bitter and prolonged fight regarding
the administration's early proposals to
cut social security benefits by $88 bil-
lion over 5 years. That May 1981 plan
would have immediately and perma-
nently made deep cuts in social secu-
rity retirement and disability benefits.
It was met with widespread outrage
and protest from the public and the
Congress. Several months later, after
the President withdrew his social secu-
rity plan and indicated his intention to
separate social security from the poli-
tics of reducing the Federal budget, he
established the National Commission
on Social Security Reform.
The National Commission on Social
Security Reform recognized that the
retirement trust fund-the largest of
the social security program-faces two
separate financing problems. The first,
between now and 1990, is largely the
product of severe economic troubles. It
began with an outburst of inflation
when the OPEC cartel began flexing
its muscle and the historic trend of
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3772
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 29, 1983
of a homemaker to our society by al-
lowing individuals who leave the labor
force to care for a child under the age
of 3 to drop up to 2 years of earnings
in computing their wage history. Addi-
tionally, as recommended by the Na-
tional Commission, benefit protection
would be improved for surviving, di-
vorced, and disabled spouses.
In the near future, we must further
reform social security so that the
benefit structure is more reflective of
marriage as an equal partnership. The
legislation requires the Department of
Health and Human Services to pre-
pare a report by the end of the year
on specific ways to implement an earn-
ings sharing concept for the social se-
curity program. We need to take
action soon, for poverty among the
aged has become a women's issue.
Older women represent the fastest
growing poverty group in America. We
must start now to change our retire-
ment system so that younger women
will not face the same economic hard-
ship so many elderly women today and
in the past have had to endure.
I am hopeful that the legislation
presently before the Senate will ade-
quately meet the social security sys-
tem's financing needs through the
year 1990, without imposing undue
hardship on any one group. In some
part, this will depend on our ability to
revitalize our economy. In the first
year of the Reagan Presidency, the
Congressional Budget Office estimated
that the social security system could
meet its short-term cash-flow prob-
lems by Interfund borrowing authority
among the three trust funds. The
CBO estimate was based upon econom-
ic assumptions more pessimistic than
those upon which the administration's
own tax-cutting and defense-spending
plans were premised. As we reexamine
the financing needs of the social secu-
rity system, perhaps it is only appro-
priate to review these costly programs
as well.
The National Commission on Social
Security Reform unanimously agreed
that the Congress, in considering fi-
nancing options, should not alter the
fundamental structure of the social se-
curity system or undermine its funda-
mental principles. The Commission de-
termined that one of the best ways to
uphold this commitment was to spread
the financing sacrifice around so that
the burden of keeping the system sol-
vent would not be unduly borne by
one group. Just as social security em-
bodies a compact between generations,
the bill requires that these genera-
tions share in the cost of keeping the
system working.
Despite concerns regarding the Com-
mission's refinancing package, I will
support it. I am aware that some be-
lieve the agreement places too much
of the financing burden on business
and workers, and that elderly citizens
have not been asked to sacrifice
enough. To this argument, I can only
say that our Nation has a compact
with our aged to maintain their social
security benefits. Social security is the
primary source of retirement income
for a majority of recipients, and for
many it is the sole source of support to
keep pace with the cost of food, shel-
ter and medical care. The average
social security beneficiary now re-
ceives approximately $5,000 annually,
barely above the poverty level. I do
not believe that we can ask people like
this to sacrifice beyond what this
reform plan requires of them.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
rise today in support of the Social Se-
curity Amendments of 1983, legislation
that is vital to the financial solvency
of the social security system and all
who depend on it for retirement secu-
rity.
The members of the Bipartisan Na-
tional Commission on Social Security
Reform, appointed by President
Reagan in December 1981, deserve
commendation for the job they have
done in bringing to Congress the pack-
age of recommendations which forms
the core of this bill. I also wish to pay
tribute to the distinguished chairman
of the Senate Finance Committee, BoB
DoLa, to the brilliant and articulate
chairman of the Social Security Sub-
committee, BILL ARMSTRONG, to the
distinguished ranking members of the
Finance Committee and the Social Se-
curity Subcommittee, Senators LoNG
and Mo4NIHAN, respectively. I also
commend the other distinguished
members of the Finance Committee of
both parties who have diligently pur-
sued the common objective of restor-
ing financial health to the social secu-
rity system, both in the immediate
future and in decades to come.
Because the individual features of
this bill have been described in detail
in the Finance Committee report and
in the opening statement of the man-
ager of the bill, Senator DoLa, I shall
not reiterate them here. Instead, I
wish to briefly comment on the back-
ground, necessity for, and objectives of
this virtually important legislation.
Mr. President, this bill is not perfect,
in my opinion. Indeed, it probably
does not satisfy any single Senator or
Member of Congress. It is a fragile
package whose whole is strengthened
by its somewhat imperfect parts which
require some reasonable sacrifice by
retiree, wage earner, and wage payer
alike. My fervent hope is that this leg-
islation adequately addresses, as it is
represented to do, both the short and
long term financial needs of the social
security old age, survivor and depend-
ents insurance (OASDI) program, for
that is our legislative task and re-
sponsibility in this endeavor.
Mr. President, in the first instance,
this bill must effectively address the
concerns of the millions of older
Americans who presently look to social
security for part or all of their retire-
ment income. Some 38 million retired
Americans, survivors of insured per-
sons, and insured dependents count on
social security for part or all of their
income. These older Americans,
widows and widowers, and dependents
are fearful that the imminent bank-
ruptcy of the trust fund will cause an
interruption of their checks unless
corrective action is promptly taken.
For those presently receiving social se-
curity, this bill provides the necessary
assurance that their benefits will con-
tinue and, beyond this, that there will
be no reduction in the current level of
benefits.
Mr. President, I believe this bill is
eminently fair and responsible to pres-
ent recipients of social security. The
only sacrifices asked of this group,
many of whom depend on social secu-
rity for their very survival, are, first, a
6-month delay in the next scheduled
cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) from
July 1, 1983 to January 1, 1984, with
benefits to be increased for inflation
annually thereafter at the beginning
of each calendar year. Second, the bill
incorporates a "fail-safe" mechanism
beginning the latter part of this
decade to insure that benefits are not
increased disproportionately to in-
creases in wages and the expected
growth in trust fund receipts through
increased FICA taxes. This latter pro-
vision is designed to prevent another
solvency crisis in the OASDI trust
fund in the event of either an unex-
pected resurgence in inflation or a
future recession. Third, the bill will
make subject to the Federal income
tax up to one-half of social security
benefits for the more affluent social
security recipients, with those rev-
enues earmarked for the social secu-
rity trust fund.
In addition to reassuring those now
dependent on social security, this bill
should calm the fears of those still in
the labor force who are within a few
years of retirement. Many persons
who are in their fifties or early sixties
have been worried about possible
bankruptcy of the OASDI system,
which they have supported through
FICA taxes throughout their working
lives. They also fear that there will be
either an abrupt reduction in retire-
ment benefits or an abrupt increase in
retirement age. The Bipartisan Social
Security Commission, as well as the
Congress, have been understanding of
these concerns in crafting a bill that
will not impose sudden changes on
those who do not have sufficient time
to alter their retirement income plan-
ning prior to their expected eligibility
for social security retirement benefits.
Those for whom retirement is just
around the corner can take comfort in
knowing that this bill maintains their
expected level of benefits and will
allow them to retire at the age for
which they have planned.
Finally, Mr. President, this legisla-
tion should calm the skepticism
among younger participants in the
work force and provide reassurance to
them that the social security system
will remain financially solvent into the
next century when they can expect to
receive a return in benefits for their
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
March fit, 1988 CONGRESSIONALRECORD -t SENATE
years of wage tax contributions..r have
received. numerous Communications
from younger workers asking why
they should pay higher and higher
taxes to support a retirement system
which may not be sufficiently solvent
to even return their investment to
them upon retirement, much less
guarantee them the lifetime supple-
mental source of retirement income
which their forced participation in the
social security system entitles them
and their families.
Mr. President, I certainly under-
stand these concerns among young,
and even middle-aged, employees and
employers alike. That is why it is so vi-
tally important that this legislation re-
store the social security system to ac-
tuarial soundness for the longer term,
as well as meet the more immediate
needs. The best actuarial estimates
that can be obtained at this time pro-
ject that this legislation .win accom-
plish these goals. While I have reser-
vations about the heightened FICA
tax burden imposed under thi6 bill, it
is clear that some acceleration of al-
ready scheduled tax increases is both a
political and a financial necessity to
achieve enactment of this package and
restore solvency to the trust fund.
As we move forward with this essen-
tial legislation, Mr. Pendent, it is im-
portant that Congress recognize and
emphasize the purpose and limits of
the social security program. Social se-
curity was intended to be, at best, only
a supplemental retirement income
source. Congress must resist the temp-
tation to add new benefits or expand
existing benefits beyond levels which
can be afforded by those who support
the system through employment
taxes.
Similarly, it would be unwise and ir-
responsible for Congress to make
social security into another welfare
program, as some wish to do, by de-
stroying its nature as an earned enti-
tlement. As we know, social security
benefits are paid to those who have
earned them through tax contribu-
tions, rather than being allocated
based solely on need. Several of the
provisions of this bill edge toward a
needs-based welfare program, a tend-
ency which I feel is ill-advised. Again,
however, this legislation must be
taken together as a package, and on
balance, I have concluded that the
package is necessary and worthy of
support.
Mr. President, I would like to espe-
cially take note of two provisions of
this bill which I believe are meritori-
ous and needed. First, the bill will
phase-out, by 1994, the so-called earn-
ings test, which limits the amount
which social fecurity retirees under
age 70 can earn from continued em-
ployment without suffering a reduc-
tion in their social security checks.
Consistent with my view of social secu-
rity as an earned benefit, and also
with my belief that our Government
policies should not discourage from
working those who, regardless of age,
are willing and able-to do so, I believe
elimination of the earnings test is long
overdue. As one who has for a number
of years either sponsored or cospon-
sored legislation to do away with this
limitation on earned income for older
Americans receiving social security, I
only regret that the phaseout does not
occur sooner.
Mr. President, I also strongly ap-
prove of the provision In this bill
which limits social security benefits
for aliens to the amount of their FICA
tax contributions plus interest. This
concept is shnilar to that of a bill I
have cosponsored with Senator Luosa.
It has been strengthened by adoption
of the Nickles amendment, which I
also cosponsored. The social security
system is simply not rich enough to
provide overly generous benefits to
those who have entered this country
illegally, or who only worked here for
a period of time before returning to
their home abroad.
I amalso pleased that the State took
care of several potential problem areas
relating to those who receive deferred
compensation through adoption of the
Bentsen amendment, which I cospon-
sored.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I wish
to reiterate my support for this legis-
lation, which is the product of much
hard work and compromise. The social
security program simply must be re-
stored to a sound financial condition,
which makes prompt passage of this
bill, absolutely necessary. That goal of
financial solvency must be accom-
plished in a way that is fair and rea-
sonable to both those who are sup-
porting the social security system
through taxes and those who are re-
ceiving social security benefits that
have been earned. I believe this legis-
lation satisfies these fundamental cri-
teria of fairness and reasonableness,
and I hope it will be enacted.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to
speak concerning final passage of H.R.
1900, the social security reform bill. I
voted in favor of this measure, but I
would like my colleagues and the
people of my State to know the reser-
vations that I had concerning the bill,
and the reasons which overcame my
reservations and convinced me to vote
for this bill.
There is no doubt, Mr. President,
that the social security trust funds
will be in deep trouble in a short time
unless the present law is changed.
There is no one that disputes the
enormity of the deficit that faces social
security in this decade under present
law. Expenditures will exceed revenues
in this decade by $150 to $200 billion.
And there is no one that disputes that
social security law must be changed
now, this year, in order to prevent
that deficit from taking place in a
system that is designed to be self-suffi-
cient.
The National Commission on Social
Security Reform worked long and
hard to arrive at a package of changes
for the social security system. Many of
S 3773
the changes proposed by the Commis-
sion or adopted by the Senate Finance
Committee, however, detract rather
than add to the fundamental fairness
that should be the hallmark of this
bill.
There are three elements of this bill
that deeply disturb me. One element is
the 6-month delay in the cost-of-living
adjustment. A delay of 6 months in
this annual adjustment for inflation
may seem minor, but for the 65 per-
cent of social security recipients who
rely on their benefits as their primary
source of income, it works as a cut in
income. The 4-percent in in-
flation we have seen in the past year
means a 4-percent cut in benefits fQr
the retired, unless their benefits are
adjusted. Asking many recipients to
wait for another 6 months for their
cost-of-living adjustment is asking
them to continue surviving with less
and less money for food, for heat, and
for rent.
Another element of this bill that I
find disturbing is the inclusion of new
Federal workers. The future of the
civil service retirement system is a cru-
cial factor in the fairness of this bill
toward Federal employees, yet the
future of civil service retirement has
been left entirely unclear, This uncer-
tainty, coupled with the administra-
tion's proposals for major changes in
civil service retirement, place an ex-
traordinary burden on Federal em-
ployees. Taken as a whole, these pro-
posals clearly threaten the future of
the civil service retirement system.
That would be a tragic loss, not only
to Government workers, but also to
the public which depends on qualified
Federal workers for essential services.
The third element which concerns
me is the combination of reduced
benefits and a higher retirement age
that would take place after the year
2000. At the same time that we would
reduce benefits for our younger work-
ers, we propose to raise payroll taxes
for them. Such a triple blow to today's
workers seems unduly harsh.
Despite these reservations, Mr.
President, I have voted in favor of pas-
sage of this bill. I have done so be-
cause of my larger concern that the
social security system, the basic bridge
between Government and retirees,
cannot wait for another compromise
bill which could be months or years in
the 'making. The expected failure of
the National Commission on Social Se-
curity Reform, and the last-minute
saving of its mission by the hard nego-
tiations and compromises by Commis-
sion members, demonstrate the fragil-
ity and difficulty of compromise on so
sensitive a problem I believe that the
compromise package worked out by
the National Commission and reflect-
ed in the House bill and iii the Senate
bill before us offers the best possibility
for saving social security benefits that
we have.
I am not in favor of delaying the
COLA. I am not in favor of including
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3774
Federal workers within social security
without agreement on a supplemental
civil service retirement system, and I
am not in favor of raising the retire-
ment age while lowering benefits and
raising taxes. I am in favor of a solu-
tion to the social security crisis which
can be agreed on by Democrats and
Republicans, liberals and coriserva-
tives, and I think that the bill before
us offers us the best, and the only, so-
lution in sight. As much as there are
elements with which I very much dis-
agree, there are other elements strong-
ly opposed by Senators with different
points of view. A bill which no one is
happy with. yet most Senators can
accept, is a rare and valuable means to
resolve a complex and emotional prob-
lem. I have therefore voted in favor of
the social security bill, and I will work
in the future with my constituents and
my colleagues to soften and change
the elements which need improve-
ment.
DRG REGIONS
? Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, inflation
in the health care industry has oontin-
ued to rise at double digit levels even
though the Consumer Price Index rose
only 3.9 percent in 1982. This has had
especially grave Implications for the
Federal budget as medicare spending
has risen an average of 19.2 percent
over each of the last 4 years.
Clearly, Mr. President, something
must be done to curb health care infla-
tion. In this spirit, the Department of
Health and Human Services has pro-
posed a system in which hospitals
would be reimbursed by medicare so-
cording to a series of diagnostic relat-
ed groups (DRG's); 467 classifications
of diagnoses would be established, and
hospitals would receive a flat rate for
whatever particular ailment has
brought a patient to the hospital. Re-
imbursement levels for the various di-
agnoses would be set on a regional
basis, depending upon health care cost
patterns and hospital utilization rates
within that region. The House,has al-
ready approved one version of this
proposal providing for nine regions,
and the Senate Finance Committee
has approved a version providing for
four regions.
There is, however, a problem, Mr.
President. While I believe the DRG
system should be given a chance to
prove itself, I am afraid the regions
provided for in the House bill, and to a
greater extent those provided for In
the Senate bill, would have unintend-
ed effects on urban hospitals in var-
ious States, especially in the Middle
Atlantic area.
For example, Mr. President, take the
cases of Delaware and the District of
Columbia. Under the House bill, Dela-
ware and Washington D.C. have been
placed in the South Atlantic region.
together with States such as Georgia
and South Carolina. The Senate ver-
sion goes even further, adding States
such as Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Oklahoma to the region including
Delaware and Washington D.C.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 23, 1983
Clearly, Mr. President, the State of
Delaware and the District of Columbia
have little in common with these
States. Just as clearly, Mr. President,
these two jurisdictions have much
more in common with States in the
Northeastern region.
I am not planning to offer an
amendment to address this problem,
Mr. President. I do hope, however,
that the conferees who will meet to
iron out differences in the House and
Senate versions of this legislation will
give this problem special considera-
tion.. If I may offer a suggestion. Mr.
president, I hope the conferees will
consider crafting language in the con-
ference report so as to allow the Secre-
tary of Health and Human Services to
take into account regional differences
and give him or her the authority to
make such adjustments in the regional
structure as may be necessary to
insure equitable treatment of all
States under the DRG legislation..
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
call the roll.
Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TSONGAS. Could I inquire why
we are waiting?
Mr. BAKER. Before we go to third
reading, I have a commitment that all
Senators have had an ample opportu-
nity to present amendments. There is
one additional Member on this side
who may have an amendment, but I
am not sure of that. It is the tradition-
al role of the leadership on both sides
of the aisle to protect their Members.
Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I cer-
tainly do not wish to prolong the ses-
sion. I was going to rise to offer an
amendment because I feel very strong-
ly that what we did in accepting the
provision which includes Income from
municipal bonds when calculating
taxes to be paid on the portion of
social security above the threshold ig-
nores the damage that provision will
do.
The results will be devastating to
the finances of already hard-pressed
local municipalities.
There are some people who will put
that aside because they want to create
the perception of equity, the percep-
tion of fairness. So while I will not
offer my amendment, I want you to
know, Mr. President, I feel quite
strongly, and would like to take just 3
minutes to touch on the facts.
The Finance Committee says that
that revenue provision does not actual-
ly place a tax on bond interest income.
But it does, in essence, use the income
from previously tax-exempt municipal
bonds in the calculation of this tax. It
will raise $5 million over 7 years. That
is what it is going to raise. And it is
going to play havoc with the financial
markets for State and local bonds.
Local governments are going to have
to raise money to pay higher interest
rates, and those taxes are going to be
raised by increases in sales and real
property taxes.
Of course, the magnitude of the neg-
ative impact of this provision on the
municipal bond market will be a seri-
ous one. The questions of this decision
to use tax-exempt interest to calculate
tax increases will raise in the minds of
bond-market buyers is something that
is very important.
I have spoken to three municipal fi-
nance officers within the past 20 min-
utes.
Bob Odell, city treasurer of the city
of Los Angeles, indicated to me that it
will cost Los Angeles a minimum of 25
basis points. That minimum means
that it will cost the city of Los Angeles
$1 million every year.
We should be proud of ourselves be-
cause we have raised $5 million over 7
years, less than $1 million per year.
Let me go further. David Shuman,
commissioner of finances of one
county, Westchester County, N.Y.,
said that this would Increase the cost
of borrowing for taxpayers, citizens of
one county, Westchester, by $300,000
annually. But, after all, we have cre-
ated the perception of equity. the per-
ception of fairness. The act that It
only enhances revenues by raising less
than $1 million a year, but will cost
the taxpayers, the villages. the towns,
the States, and the counties anywhere
from $240 million up; we put that
aside.
Finally, I spoke with the president-
elect of the Municipal Finance Associ-
ation, Mr. Karl White, who is also the
director of finances for the city of San
Antonio. Let me tell you what he said.
He said that this is going to cost the
city of San Antonio a minimum next
year of $5 million. But we can be
proud because we can say to the
people that we have created an aster-
isk? Maybe $5 million over 7 years, less
administrative costs.
Nationally, the Finance Committee
says less than $1 million a year, but
local governments will pay at least
$240 million a year.
I will not send that amendment to
the desk. If we go home, if we can
leave this as it is, fine, but I do not
want it to be said that, "D'AaATo pro-
longed this." He prolonged it by 3 min-
utes. Now, you go home and tell the
cities, the counties, the villages, the
towns, and the States that we cost
them hundreds of millions of dollars
more by not striking this provision.
Let me read to you a letter I just re-
ceived from the Municipal Finance Of-
ficers Association. It says:
The Municipal Finance Officers Associ-
ation estimates the effect of including inter-
est on formerly totally tax-exempt munici-
pal bonds will produce annual increased
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1
S 3776 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
of S. 1 and H.R. 1900. The leadership
of President Reagan and Speaker
O'Neill, as well as our distinguished
majority leader, Senator BAKER, was of
course crucial to our success. But I be-
lieve I may be forgiven if I specially
mention Senators MOYNIHAN, HEINZ,
and ARMSTRONG, because they served
both on the National Commission and
the Finance Committee as well as here
on the floor. Each of them had a
major impact on this agreement, and
they were there from the beginning.
Whatever disagreements we may have
had, I congratulate them for their
hard work and dedication.
Mr. President, I also want to extend
special thanks to my staff and the
staff of Members on both sides of the
aisle, the joint committee staff, the
staff of the Social Security Adminis-
tration, and many many individuals in
other agencies who helped us to put
this package together.
Most of all, I thank the majority
leader and the minority leader for
helping us and keeping us moving and.
finally, for the successful passage of
this landmark legislation.
We will go to conference tomorrow
morning at 8:30. It is our hope that we
will complete the conference by midaf-
ternoon. I should think that with the
overwhelming vote of 88 to 9 in favor
of the legislation, we might be able to
move rather quickly on the conference
report.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, first; let
me say to every Senator that I am
grateful for their cooperation and un-
derstanding in the difficult matter of
moving this complex piece of legisla-
tion through the Senate in a relatively
brief time.
We have spent part of 6 days on this
measure, more than 41 hours of
debate. We conducted 23 rollcall votes
all together. We considered 72 amend-
ments; 49 of them were agreed to, 14
were rejected, 1 was tabled, and 4 were
withdrawn. That is a considerable leg-
islative undertaking.
I wish especially to congratulate the
distinguished managers of the bill:
The chairman of the Finance Commit-
tee, Senator Dolt, without whose
expert guidance and legislative skill
this package could not have passed;
Senator LONG, the ranking minority
member, who is so adept and skilled at
the legislative procedure that his con-
tribution is always felt and always val-
uable in the business of facilitating
the expression of the will of the entire
Senate.
Mr. President, I also pay tribute at
this time to the members of the Social
Security Commission, the so-called
Greenspan Commission. While they
were not involved directly in the delib-
erations on the floor, except to the
extent that some Members of the
Senate were members of that Commis-
sion, their presence was felt every
moment during this debate. Their cou-
rageous act in initiating recommenda-
tions for fundamental changes in the
social security system, for the first
time in decades, led the way and per-
haps made it possible for the House
and the Senate to act on these politi-
cally explosive matters.
So I especially pay tribute to the
members of the Commission for a job
well done, and particularly to those
Members of the Senate-such as Sena-
tor MOYNIHAN, Senator DOLE, Senator
ARMSTRONG, Senator HEINZ, and
others-who participated so effectively
in the deliberations of the Commis-
sion.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr BAKER. I yield.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I join the
distinguished majority leader in ex-
pressing commendation to Mr. DOLE
and to Mr. LONG, who have shown
great dedication and who have worked
hard in the deliberation of this bill.
I do not like the bill. I wish the prob-
lem would just go away. I did not want
to vote for the bill. But when con-
fronted with the alternative, the de-
struction of the social security system,
bankruptcy of the social security
system, I was left no choice. Undoubt-
edly, I speak for all Senators on both
sides of the aisle.
I also want to express my compli-
ments and my thanks to those on the
Commission.
At this point, I want to thank public-
ly the majority leader for allowing me
to select two members of that Com-
mission from my side of the aisle. He
did not have to do that, but he was
characteristically fair in the matter. I
am proud of the two members I select-
ed-Mr. MOYNIHAN, the ranking mi-
nority member of the Social Security
Subcommittee of the Committee on
Finance, and Lane Kirkland.
I also compliment the Republican
Members chosen by Mr. BAKER. They
performed a difficult task and spent
many hours in the effort.
As I say, this is a piece of legislation
that I wish we had not had to vote on,
but we had no choice.
So I. compliment and thank all who
participated. I think this has been a
fine demonstration of bipartisanship
on an extremely complex and difficult
matter.
Mr. BAKER. I thank the minority
leader. May I say that without his as-
sistance in facilitating the business of
the Senate, even though on occasion
he disagreed with the action that was
presented to the Senate on particular
matters, and had it not been for his
cooperation and steadfast determina-
tion to see the Senate function as an
effective legislative body, we could not
have brought this matter to a conclu-
sion. I wish to publicly acknowledge
his enormous contribution and the val-
uable contribution he has made to the
business of the Senate in this matter
and in many other ways.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank
the majority leader.
March 29, 1983
TRIBUTES TO PARTICIPANTS IN
THE JOBS BILL
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, may I
take just a moment to pick up a stitch
that I did not pick up earlier. I should
have made similar remarks at the time
we passed the jobs bill. I did not do so,
and I am sorry for that; but it was late
in the evening, and Senators were anx-
ious to leave.
Let me at this moment pay a special
tribute to the chairman of the Appro-
priations Committee, Senator HAT-
FIELD, and the ranking minority
member, Senator STENNIS, for their
unfailing, unflagging efforts to move
that equally difficult piece of legisla-
tion.
On that bill, I am told by the Jour-
nal clerk, we deliberated almost as
long, more than 35 hours, and had 50
amendments and 19 rollcall votes.
Mr. President, for the Senate to
have done these two important bills in
a fairly brief span of time is an accom-
plishment that deserves high praise;
and I stand here to extend my praise
to every Member of the Senate for the
work they have done. It is indeed a job
well done.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I simply
say for the record that I wish to asso-
ciate my remarks with the remarks
the majority leader has made. I, too,
ngratulate Mr. HATFIELD and Mr.
STENNIS, the committee members, and
the members of the conference.
I will say, however, that I did not
have as much difficulty voting for that
bill as I did with the social security
TINE MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, if no
other Senator seeks to be recognized
on this subject, I am going to ask the
Senate to proceed to a period for the
transaction of routine morning busi-
ness. I make that request with the pro-
viso that the time so provided will not
extend past 10 p.m., in which Senators
may speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
ORDERS FOR THURSDAY
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, the
principal business of the Senate to-
morrow will be to await the conference
reports on which the Senate may act
on the jobs bill and social security. It
is my best estimate that we will re-
ceive those reports tomorrow some-
time in the course of 'the afternoon, at
least one of them. Perhaps there will
be no need to deal further with the
jobs bill. I hope not.
But in any event, I see no need for
the Senate to convene early. We have
had a tough week with long hours.
Approved For Release 2008/10/06: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200120002-1