CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
July 9, 1965
Page 16070
SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1965
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Senate will resume consideration of the bill (H.R. 6675).
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6675) to provide a hospital insurance program for the aged under the Social Security Act with a supplementary health benefits program and an expanded program of medical assistance, to increase benefits under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance system, to improve the Federal-State public assistance programs, and for other purposes.
THE LOST BATTALION
Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, while we stand here today in this historic Chamber, 2 million of our fellow citizens eke out a precarious existence, borne down by the twin burdens of poverty and age.
Who are these people?
Are they a lost battalion?
Are they enemies of the state, condemned for some transgression against public order?
No, Mr. President, these 2 million Americans are guilty of no misdeed. They are victims of misfortune -- the misfortune of having been born too soon to come under the umbrella of social security.
As of the beginning of last year, Mr. President, there were over 11.3 million Americans aged 70 or more. Of these, 9.3 million received either social security, civil service retirement, railroad retirement, or State and local pensions. The remainder -- 2 million of them -- did not qualify at all for any of these public pensions.
Many of them, had their health and strength and skills permitted, would have been able to come under social security had they been able to work a few more years. But when they retired from the work force, the act was not broad enough to provide them with even a small retirement income. Today these men and women, 70, 80, 90 years old, must live from hand to mouth, in many cases not knowing where their next meal is coming from.
The present law, as it stands, requires six quarters of covered employment for an older person to be eligible for social security benefits. The bill now before us would decrease this number of quarters, thus making some 355,000 citizens over 72 eligible for minimum social security assistance coverage.
This is a step in the right direction, but only a tiny and hesitant step. It fails completely to come to grips with the problems faced by the remaining 1,648,000 senior citizens over 70.
My amendment would meet this problem and solve it once and for all. It would blanket into the social security system all Americans over 70 years of age not otherwise eligible for benefits.
For these most needy of the aged, the requirement of so many quarters of covered employment would be eliminated altogether. In the case of those who receive some retirement income under a Federal public pension system, the social security check would make up only the difference between the social security minimum payment and the total of the recipient's other public pension income.
Mr. President, one of the most embarrassing facts about the scope of our social security coverage is a situation which now exists in our neighbor to the north. Canada provides a $75 benefit for every one of its citizens attaining age 70. None of the recipients contribute directly to a trust fund. None of the recipients receive less because of their earnings. None of the recipients must plead poverty. Merely because they have attained age 70 the Government of Canada undertakes to assure them a modest monthly income in their last years.
Compare their approach to the amendment I now propose. I ask only that upon reaching age 70 some of our older Americans who could not obtain social security benefits be allowed the minimum benefit, which, if H.R. 6675 is adopted, would be $44 a month. Unlike the Canadian plan, those over 70 who are now eligible for social security and who have contributed to the system would draw what their earnings entitle them to. The some 1 million people with no public income because of their lack of social security coverage would be blanketed in at $44 per month. The funds for this proposal would come from general revenue so that the integrity of the trust fund would be in no way impaired.
Under this plan the number of beneficiaries decreases from year to year as the number of employees covered by social security increases. We would not be confronted with the ever-increasing dollar cost of the Canadian approach.
Let us not be put to shame by the benevolent farsightedness of our neighbor to the north. Let us recognize the need for this amendment. Let Congress not settle for the deception inherent in the transitional coverage provided for in H.R. 6675.
Section 309 of H.R. 6675 blankets in no one. Eligibles for benefits under that section must have had some quarters of covered employment.
So many of our old people are living on public assistance because they are entitled to no social security.
It is these very people who in all probability could never obtain any quarters of coverage entitling them to the benefit -- $35 per month under H.R. 6675.
Implicit in the transitional coverage provisions of that bill is a cruel hoax. Those most in need of some benefits -- the oldest members of the community and those who have been away from gainful employment for the longest period -- would get nothing unless they had some history of covered employment or, at age 80 or 90, could find some covered employment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PROUTY. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I entered the Chamber after the Senator began his speech; I should like to ask him two questions based upon what I have heard him say.
First, his amendment presumably would cover persons who are not now covered by social security but who do receive old age assistance under current programs.
Mr. PROUTY. That is true.
Mr. MUSKIE. What would happen, under the Senator's amendment, to the old-age assistance payments which those people now receive?
Mr. PROUTY. If the States determined that they still should receive old-age assistance, I feel certain no State would bar them from it. There is nothing in my amendment to hamper their old-age assistance in any way.
Mr. MUSKIE. But presumably those payments would have to be rejuvenated by the appropriate State agencies, to determine whether they are needed, considering the circumstances of the individual recipient.
Mr. PROUTY. That would be a matter for the State agency to determine.
Mr. MUSKIE. So in some instances, conceivably, some of the payments would be discontinued and others dropped, while others would possibly be continued.
Mr. PROUTY. In very few instances would there be any significant change; most persons receiving old-age assistance are getting so little at the present time that they barely maintain a subsistence standard of living.
Mr. MUSKIE. Nevertheless, recalling my own service in State government as Governor and as a member of the legislature, old-age assistance grants are based upon formulas of need that are geared to specific budget items that are provided by the program. Unless the formulas of need are changed by State agencies, the addition of the social security income would change the requirements of the individual recipient. Is not that so?
Mr. PROUTY. Conceivably, that could be true; but I believe that in relatively few instances would that be the case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to himself by the Senator from Vermont has expired.
Mr. PROUTY. I yield myself an additional 10 minutes. I should explain to the Senator from Maine that I have only one-half hour.
Mr. MUSKIE. I shall ask one other question. I appreciate the pressure of time. The Senator has covered my first point sufficiently to give me some food for thought.
My second question is this: Would the group of which the Senator is speaking become eligible for the social security payments which the Senator's amendment provides regardless of need?
Mr. PROUTY. That is true.
Mr. MUSKIE. So regardless of income and regardless of resources, the persons in this group would receive benefits.
Mr. PROUTY. I am sure the Senator knows that more than 99 percent will be persons who actually need assistance. Under the present social security program, as the Senator knows, need is not a criterion.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is quite accurate. I merely wanted to be certain what his amendment provided.
Mr. PROUTY. That is true.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator for his answers to my questions.
Mr. PROUTY. Make no mistake, Mr. President, the transitional coverage provisions of H.R. 6675 do nothing for the older American who was legislated out of social security coverage altogether. It only applied to those who at some time during their life had some employment covered by social security withholding.
It would do nothing for the thousands of retired teachers whose States participated in the system after their retirement. It would do nothing for those retired people whose jobs were brought under social security after they left work.
The Social Security Act has been amended 11 times since its inception. Many of these amendments have impacted upon eligibility for future benefits. Unless we blanket in all those age 70 and above, we stand a very good chance of doing irreparable harm to those excluded from the operation and benefits of the program through legislative oversight. I can think of no valid reason why we cannot settle this difficult and complex problem with the one easy step I propose rather than going from year to year excluding some portions of our older citizens now and the remainder in subsequent years. In all fairness and equity we ought to once and for all bring within the bounds of this program those for whom the program was intended -- older America. The language in H.R. 6675 would not do the job.
I have heard the argument that these people ought not to be eligible for any benefits because they did not contribute to the fund. I remind my colleagues of the gross inequity of legislatively prohibiting a sector of the society from joining and contributing to the system in the 1950's and then continuing this legislative exclusion when it becomes benefit payment time on the grounds that no contributions were made. Mr. President, how could these people have contributed to the program when the law did not provide for such contributions during their years of employment? In any event, this objection is met because payments are ultimately financed out of general revenues.
I have heard it said that paying these people the minimum benefits would mean that some non-contributory ineligibles would be receiving more than contributory eligibles. May I again remind my colleagues that any one who receives less than the minimum benefit either does so because he or she elects to take earlier a reduced annuity, or he or she has no earnings record and takes as a relative of the primary beneficiary. Under my plan a person must wait until age 70 to take the minimum benefit. They have no option to take earlier at a reduced annuity. Clearly, the additional 10 years they must wait accounts for more than the actuarial difference.
I have heard it suggested that this plan is too costly, but the hearings before the Finance Committee indicated that it would cost as little as $700 million to blanket all in at age 65. 1 propose to blanket all in at age 70 which would result in a substantial reduction from this quoted figure.
In a bill of this magnitude the cost of my proposal is wholly insignificant in terms of the equity and justice meted out to those unfortunates shut off from the system. To continue to exclude these people from the minimum coverage could well result in keeping them on the public assistance rolls -- a cost we bear in the long run.
If we are sincere in our desires to eradicate poverty, we ought not to be content with a plan which ignores those hardest hit by the ravages of poverty -- older America. If we are sincere in our desire to eliminate poverty we ought to wage the war on a forgotten front and fight a good fight for dignity and a decent life for our older citizens.
It is a national disgrace, in my judgment, that we are prepared to fight poverty by spending hundreds of millions to build roads yet are unwilling to build good lives for our old people. It is a national disgrace that we can spend billions to go to the moon but nothing to go across the street with a little bit for food and clothing. It is a national sorrow that we have tarried so long.
Finally, Mr. President, is there something sacrosanct about the medical care portions of this bill? Will we walk an extra mile to initiate a new program which blankets in all over 65 for thousands of dollars of medical expenses and then be unwilling to walk a few feet to put $44 into the hands of all aged 70 and over? For this reason alone I would ask for the adoption of this amendment.
The National Association of Retired Teachers and the American Association of Retired Persons wholeheartedly support and endorse this amendment. I can think of no more significant expression of the public voice on this important matter than this unqualified endorsement by 800,000 retired persons.
For those who have retired and died without the benefit of regular monthly checks, it is too late. But for those walking in the twilight between, there is still hope. It lies in the acceptance of this amendment by the Congress of the United States. Let us act now, and not next year or the year after, when it will be too late to provide a little comfort for the thousands who will pass on while we tarry.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.