Social Security

Senior Citizens' Freedom To Work Act Of 2000

Senatoe Bunning Supports The Repeal Of The Social Security Earnings Limit

Senate Floor
Tuesday, March 21, 2000

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, and the repeal of the Social Security earnings limit. This is a day that many of us have worked toward for a long time, and the sooner we can pass this bill and send it in to the President, the better. Our seniors deserve it. I think by now we all know how the earnings limit works. It penalizes seniors between 65 and 70 who receive Social Security benefits but also continue working. For every $3 they earn over the earnings limit, they lose $1 in benefits. Under current law, in 2000 the limit is $17,000. It rises to $25,000 next year, $30,000 in 2002, and with inflation after that. The earnings limit is a Depression era relic whose time has come and long gone. It first became law back in the 1930's when Social Security was started, and was passed by Congress as a way to encourage seniors to retire so that their jobs could be taken by younger, unemployed workers. At a time when our economy was fighting for its life, and unemployment was close to 25 percent, an earnings limit might have seemed like a good idea. Now when unemployment is threatening to dip below 4 percent and many of our nation's employers are clamoring for more workers, it's clear that the earnings limit has outlived whatever usefulness it once might have had. From time to time over the years, Congress has looked at changing the earnings limit. In fact, several times we did tweak it here and there by raising the income level. But, like a vampire, the earning limit has been hard to kill altogether--it continued to threaten seniors and their livelihoods. Now we have the opportunity to get rid of the earnings limit altogether. I say that it's time to drive a stake through the heart of the earnings limit once and for all. Mr. President, I was privileged to serve in the other body as the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee for 4 years, and before that as the Ranking Member for 4 years. It was my bill that we passed in the 104th Congress that lifted the earnings limit to its current level of $30,000 from what was then $11,250. If we could have repealed it altogether, we would have. But the budget landscape was different back then. We were still looking at huge deficits, and we were using Social Security surpluses to finance general government programs. Now things are different. We have budget surpluses across the board, and we can focus on doing the right thing for seniors irrespective of other spending and tax needs. Our economic prosperity has handed us a golden opportunity to repeal the earnings limit. Times have changed for the better. I know there are others in Senate who have worked on this issue for years. But, for my colleagues who have not lived with legislation to repeal the earnings limit as long as some of us, let me just briefly describe for them what it has been like over the past 14 years for those of us who have been trying to pass legislation. In 1987, those of us who had just been elected to the House for the 100th Congress adopted as a project the repeal of the earnings limit. And at least 11 bills were introduced in Congress to lift or repeal the limit altogether, and we worked the issue hard. But, nothing happened. It was like banging your head against a wall. Then during the 101st Congress, then-Congressman Denny Hastert, and another 100th congressional class member, introduced a bill to repeal the limit and got 267 cosponsors in the House. Again, nothing happened. In the 102d Congress, we managed to get 278 supporters in the House to support our bill to lift the earnings limit. We talked up the issue constantly. Still, nothing. So we kept plugging along, and once again in the 103d Congress, we introduced a bill and signed up over a majority of the House--225 Members--on our legislation. But, guess what? Nothing happened. Then something did happen. In 1994, Republicans took control of Congress. And in 1995, as part of the Contract with America, we passed legislation to lift the earnings limit to its current annual level of $30,000. This was one of the most popular bills we passed that year, and I was proud to be the lead sponsor. But, we still weren't finished because this proposal was part of larger legislation that was vetoed by President Clinton as part of his government shutdown strategy. He said he liked the earnings limit repeal, but he vetoed the bill anyway. So we were back at Square One. But, we took the President at his word that he liked the earnings limit repeal, so after the veto we quickly passed a stand-alone bill in the House to increase the earnings limit in late 1995. The next March, we included it in must-pass legislation to lift the Federal Government's debt ceiling, and it was signed into law. In all, it took almost 10 years to raise the earnings limit, so I hope my colleagues keep this in mind now that we have a chance to act quickly to get rid of the limit altogether. Mr. President, people are living longer and longer. And many of them want to work after they turn 65. They want to work longer, and they can do more. Why on earth should we penalize them--by taking benefits they have already paid for--for doing that?! It just doesn't make sense to pay them with one hand, and to rob them with the other. The average life expectancy for women in America is almost 80 now. For men, it's getting close to 75. That's a big increase from must a few decades ago when we passed Social Security and the earnings limit. Now, many seniors want, and need, to work for income after they officially retire. Social Security and pensions sometimes aren't enough, and if seniors want to feather their nests with a salary, more power to them. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Not only will seniors thank us, we can take heart in knowing that the Congressional Budget Office tells us that we will even save $700 million in Social Security administrative costs by repealing the earnings limit. There are 800 employees at SSA who help administer the earnings limit. After this bill becomes law, they will be freed to perform other tasks for the Social Security Administration. We have the opportunity to do away with the earnings limit altogether, and I say ``the sooner the better.'' I can't think of one good reason not to pass this bill immediately, and get it down to the White House as soon as possible. It's good policy, it's good politics and it's the right thing to do for our seniors and our country.

March 2000 Speeches

Current record