May 4, 1977
Page 13596
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. MUSKIE, for his courtesy and consideration of an important matter.
There is a great deal of support in the Senate to increase the ceiling on the earnings limitation of the Social Security Act. In this session, about 14 bills have been introduced in the Senate with regard to social security earnings requirements. Twenty-four Senators have cosigned a letter to both the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. MUSKIE, and the chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. LONG, to express our support and request consideration of this legislation in this session of Congress.
The response we received from the Budget Committee to include funding in the First Concurrent Resolution for fiscal year 1978 for implementing such a social security proposal was encouraging. However, we find that there is no mention in the budget resolution that this matter was considered in recommending the budget ceilings of the social security program.
We are in complete agreement with the budget chairman that it is the function and jurisdiction of the Finance Committee to authorize this legislation. We would not, in any way, want to encourage the Budget Committee to legislate this in the budget resolution. What we are looking for, however, is an indication that the budget resolution does not preclude the Finance Committee from taking up the earnings limitation matter during this session of Congress.
It has become increasingly clear that certain changes may be needed in the current structure of the social security program. The need to increase the earnings test ceiling for individuals most seriously affected by limited income, those between the ages of 65 to 72, is generally supported by Members of the Senate. I would like to encourage consideration of this important issue and hope that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget will agree with our concern.
I ask unanimous consent that the letters that were sent to the committee chairmen and the response we have received are printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
March 21, 1977.
Hon. TED STEVENS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR TED: Thank you for your well documented letter regarding legislation to liberalize the Social Security earnings limitation. I can assure you that your proposal will be specifically presented to the Budget Committee when we begin markup later this month on the First Budget Resolution for fiscal year 1978.
I want to thank you and your colleagues for alerting the Budget Committee well in advance to the need to consider changes in Social Security benefit provisions.
As you know, of course, the Budget Resolution itself is prepared on an aggregate, not a "line item" basis. That is, we will recommend a set of spending and revenue targets which includes the Social Security program but will not delineate all its detail. That is the appropriate function of the Finance Committee in this case. Under the provisions of the Budget Act, the Conference Report on the Budget Resolution will allocate to the Finance Committee (and similarly in the case of other committees) the total amount of spending allocable to that Committee's jurisdiction under the Resolution, but again will not specify any assumptions as to how the total spending must be subdivided by the Finance Committee in its consideration of the various bills and programs under its jurisdiction. Thus, any allowance for new Social Security legislation will be in competition with other legislation the Finance Committee may consider.
As you are aware, an important consideration for the Finance Committee and for the Senate itself in the case of proposals such as you have made to increase the rate of expenditure from the Social Security Trust Fund is the condition of that Trust Fund itself and whether additional taxes must be assessed to finance it. The financial condition of the Social Security Trust Fund is a matter of continuing concern which I am sure you share, and it presently appears that some increase in the Social Security tax may be required within the next few years, even with no such changes in the present law as your letter proposed. (I am sure you agree that tax increases, especially in the Social Security area, must be carefully considered, particularly because of the adverse impact such increases have during a period of economic sluggishness.)
I have taken the liberty of sharing your important letter and its enclosures and my response with all the members of the Budget Committee.
With best wishes, I am,
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
February 23, 1977.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman,
Senate Budget Committee,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR ED: We each are sponsors or cosponsors of various proposals to remove or lift the ceiling of the earnings limitation of the Social Security Act.
Since we intend to press for action on our legislation to become effective in fiscal year 1978, we urge that you include adequate funds in the first Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 1978, to implement whichever of our proposals may be enacted. It would require from $1.5 to $3 billion in the first year to finance the change we propose, depending upon which is adopted.
Our basic arguments against the means test are as follows:
(1) It is viewed as a broken promise to employees who have been led to believe benefits will be paid as "a matter of right" due to the premiums which they and their employers have made over lifetimes of work.
(2) It turns a contributory program into a welfare program since a worker must prove he has a need, due to a loss in wages, in order to qualify for benefits.
(3) The test is discriminatory against the poor who are without nonwage income, such as interest, rentals or dividends.
(4) It may shorten the life of some aged persons by compelling them into early retirement against their wishes.
(5) It injures the national economy in terms of real output by driving out of the work force an important productive resource, the skills and labor of the elderly.
Supporting materials are enclosed. We would be happy to testify on behalf of our proposals if you should wish to hold hearings on this subject.
Sincerely,
Barry Goldwater, Ted Stevens, Dewey Bartlett, Clifford Case, Robert Stafford, Robert Morgan, Dale Bumpers, Richard Stone, Dennis DeConcini, Claiborne Pell, Mark O. Hatfield, Daniel Inouye, Patrick Leahy, and John McClellan.
Jesse Helms, Jake Garn, Strom Thurmond, James Abourezk, Charles Mathias, Sam Nunn, Lowell Weicker, John Melcher, Howard Cannon, and Jacob Javits.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
February 28, 1977.
Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,
Senate Finance Committee,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR RUSSELL: We each are sponsors or cosponsors of various proposals to remove or lift the ceiling of the earnings limitation of the Social Security Act.
Since we intend to press for action on our legislation to become effective in fiscal year 1978, we urge that you include adequate revenue and spending authority in the authorization bill which is to be reported by your Committee by March 15, to implement whichever of our proposals may be enacted. It would require from $1.5 to $3 billion in the first year to finance the change we propose, depending upon which is adopted.
Our basic arguments against the means test are as follows:
(1) It is viewed as a broken promise to employees who have been led to believe benefits will be paid as "a matter of right" dueto the premiums which they and their employers have made over lifetimes of work.
(2) It turns a contributory program into a welfare program since a worker must prove he has a need, clue to a loss in wages, in order to qualify for benefits.
(3) The test is discriminatory against the poor who are without nonwage income, such as interest, rentals or dividends.
(4) It may shorten the life of some aged persons by compelling them into early retirement against their wishes.
(5) It injures the national economy in terms of real output by driving out of the work force an important productive resource, the skills and labor of the elderly.
We urge that your Committee hold hearings on this subject at the earliest opportunity.
Sincerely,
Barry Goldwater, Ted Stevens, Dewey Bartlett, Clifford Case, Robert Stafford, Robert Morgan, Dale Bumpers, Richard Stone, Dennis DeConcini, Claiborne Pell, Mark O. Hatfield, Daniel Inouye, Patrick Leahy, and John McClellan.
Jesse Helms, Jake Garn, Strom Thurmond, James Abourezk, Charles Mathias, Sam Nunn, Lowell Weicker, John Melcher, Jacob Javits, and Howard Cannon.