Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Changes from February 19, 2021 to January 23, 2023

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House
~~February 19, 2021~~January 23, 2023
and Senate Since 1935
Tamar B. Breslauer
Social Security—formally known as Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance—was enacted Social Security—formally known as Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance—was enacted
Senior Research LibrarianResearch Librarian
in 1935 and has been amended numerous times. Lists and summaries of individual major Social in 1935 and has been amended numerous times. Lists and summaries of individual major Social

Security amendments may illuminate the tone and context of the debate of the program in the Security amendments may illuminate the tone and context of the debate of the program in the
William R. Morton
House and Senate. Major statutory decisions made by Congress on the Social Security program, House and Senate. Major statutory decisions made by Congress on the Social Security program,
Analyst in Income Security Analyst in Income Security
vote information, summaries of major legislative actions, and descriptions of floor amendments vote information, summaries of major legislative actions, and descriptions of floor amendments

and congressional debate may be informative to current discussions of the Social Security and congressional debate may be informative to current discussions of the Social Security
program. program.

During the During the ~~116th Congress, lawmakers enacted several pieces of Social Security legislation that included the following:~~
~~ P.L. 116-250, which eliminates the five-month waiting period for disability insurance benefits for disabled~~
~~workers with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease), and~~
~~ P.L. 116-260, which amends Section 205(r) of the Social Security Act to ensure that States and the Social~~
~~Security Administration (SSA) are reimbursed for State death information, and to require SSA to share~~
~~State death information with the Department of the Treasury for its Do Not Pay system~~117th Congress, no legislation was enacted to amend the Social Security program or directly alter its financing provisions. Consequently, the most recent legislation discussed in this report was enacted during the 116th Congress. .

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

link to page 100 link to page 8 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 100 link to page 8 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Introduction
The Social Security Act of 1935 established a federal old-age pension financed with employee-The Social Security Act of 1935 established a federal old-age pension financed with employee-
employer payroll taxes. Since then, Congress has amended the Social Security program for employer payroll taxes. Since then, Congress has amended the Social Security program for
multiple purposes, including to expand coverage, change the minimum age for retirement multiple purposes, including to expand coverage, change the minimum age for retirement
benefits, provide an automatic cost-of-living adjustment to benefits, and address concerns about benefits, provide an automatic cost-of-living adjustment to benefits, and address concerns about
solvency of the Social Security trust funds. solvency of the Social Security trust funds.
This report traces the major decisions affecting the Social Security program, from the earliest This report traces the major decisions affecting the Social Security program, from the earliest
enacting legislation through the most recent congressional session. It provides a summary of the enacting legislation through the most recent congressional session. It provides a summary of the
provisions and voting records for each bill, focusing on amendments to Old-Age, Survivors, and provisions and voting records for each bill, focusing on amendments to Old-Age, Survivors, and
Disability Insurance (OASDI), which is the formal name of Social Security. A list of Disability Insurance (OASDI), which is the formal name of Social Security. A list of
abbreviations used in the report can be found in tabbreviations used in the report can be found in the Appendix.
For an overview of the Social Security program, see CRS Report R42035, For an overview of the Social Security program, see CRS Report R42035, Social Security Primer, by Barry F. Huston. .
Table 1 lists major Social Security legislation from 1935 through 2020. lists major Social Security legislation from 1935 through 2020.
Table 1. Social Security Laws, 1935-2020
Year
Title
Public Law
Bill Number
1935 1935
Social Security Act Social Security Act
P.L. 74-27 P.L. 74-271a
H.R. 7260 H.R. 7260
1939 1939
Social Security Act Amendments of 1939 Social Security Act Amendments of 1939
P.L. 76-37 P.L. 76-379a
H.R. 6635 H.R. 6635
1942 1942
Revenue Act of 1942 Revenue Act of 1942
P.L. 77-75 P.L. 77-753a
H.R. 7378 H.R. 7378
1943 1943
Joint Resolution Regarding Tariff Act Joint Resolution Regarding Tariff Act
P.L. 78-21 P.L. 78-211a
H.J.Res. 171 H.J.Res. 171
1943 1943
Revenue Act of 1943 Revenue Act of 1943
P.L. 78-23 P.L. 78-235a
H.R. 3687 H.R. 3687
1944 1944
Federal Insurance Contributions Act of 1945 Federal Insurance Contributions Act of 1945
P.L. 78-49 P.L. 78-495a
H.R. 5564 H.R. 5564
1945 1945
Revenue Act of 1945 Revenue Act of 1945
P.L. 79-21 P.L. 79-214a
H.R. 4309 H.R. 4309
1946 1946
Social Security Amendments of 1946 Social Security Amendments of 1946
P.L. 79-71 P.L. 79-719a
H.R. 7037 H.R. 7037
1947 1947
Social Security Amendments of 1947 Social Security Amendments of 1947
P.L. 80-37 P.L. 80-379a
H.R. 3818 H.R. 3818
1948 1948
Exclusion of Certain Newspaper and Magazine Vendors from Social Exclusion of Certain Newspaper and Magazine Vendors from Social
P.L. 80-49 P.L. 80-492a
H.R. 5052 H.R. 5052
Security Coverage Security Coverage
1948 1948
Maintain Status Quo Concept of Employee Maintain Status Quo Concept of Employee
P.L. 80-64 P.L. 80-642a
H.J.Res 296 H.J.Res 296
1950 1950
Social Security Act Amendments of 1950 Social Security Act Amendments of 1950
P.L. 81-73 P.L. 81-734a
H.R. 6000 H.R. 6000
1952 1952
Social Security Act Amendments of 1952 Social Security Act Amendments of 1952
P.L. 82-59 P.L. 82-590a
H.R. 7800 H.R. 7800
1954 1954
Social Security Amendments of 1954 Social Security Amendments of 1954
P.L. 83-76 P.L. 83-761a
H.R. 9366 H.R. 9366
1956 1956
Social Security Amendments of 1956 Social Security Amendments of 1956
P.L. 84-88 P.L. 84-880a
H.R. 7225 H.R. 7225
1958 1958
Social Security Amendments of 1958 Social Security Amendments of 1958
P.L. 85-840 P.L. 85-840
H.R. 13549 H.R. 13549
1960 1960
Social Security Amendments of 1960 Social Security Amendments of 1960
P.L. 86-778 P.L. 86-778
H.R. 12580 H.R. 12580
1961 1961
Social Security Amendments of 1961 Social Security Amendments of 1961
P.L. 87-64 P.L. 87-64
H.R. 6027 H.R. 6027
1964 1964
Proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964 Proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964
— —
H.R. 11865 H.R. 11865
1965 1965
Social Security Amendments of 1965 Social Security Amendments of 1965
P.L. 89-97 P.L. 89-97
H.R. 6675 H.R. 6675
1966 1966
Tax Adjustment Act of 1966 Tax Adjustment Act of 1966
P.L. 89-368 P.L. 89-368
H.R. 12752 H.R. 12752
1967 1967
Social Security Amendments of 1967 Social Security Amendments of 1967
P.L. 90-248 P.L. 90-248
H.R. 12080 H.R. 12080
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1 1

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Year
Title
Public Law
Bill Number
1969 1969
Tax Reform Act of 1969 Tax Reform Act of 1969
P.L. 91-172 P.L. 91-172
H.R. 13270 H.R. 13270
1971 1971
Public Debt Limit, Increase; Social Security Act, Amendments Public Debt Limit, Increase; Social Security Act, Amendments
P.L. 92-5 P.L. 92-5
H.R. 4690 H.R. 4690
1972 1972
Public Debt Limit; Disaster Losses; Social Security Act, Amendments Public Debt Limit; Disaster Losses; Social Security Act, Amendments
P.L. 92-336 P.L. 92-336
H.R. 15390 H.R. 15390
1972 1972
Social Security Amendments of 1972 Social Security Amendments of 1972
P.L. 92-603 P.L. 92-603
H.R. 1 H.R. 1
1973 1973
Social Security Benefits, Increase Social Security Benefits, Increase
P.L. 93-233 P.L. 93-233
H.R. 11333 H.R. 11333
1977 1977
Social Security Amendments of 1977 Social Security Amendments of 1977
P.L. 95-216 P.L. 95-216
H.R. 9346 H.R. 9346
1980 1980
Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980 Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980
P.L. 96-265 P.L. 96-265
H.R. 3236 H.R. 3236
1980 1980
Reallocation of OASl and Dl Taxes Reallocation of OASl and Dl Taxes
P.L. 96-403 P.L. 96-403
H.R. 7670 H.R. 7670
1980 1980
Earnings Test Amendments Earnings Test Amendments
P.L. 96-473 P.L. 96-473
H.R. 5295 H.R. 5295
1981 1981
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
P.L. 97-35 P.L. 97-35
H.R. 3982 H.R. 3982
1981 1981
Social Security Amendments of 1981 Social Security Amendments of 1981
P.L. 97-123 P.L. 97-123
H.R. 4331 H.R. 4331
1983 1983
An Act Relating to Taxes on Virgin Islands Source Income and Social An Act Relating to Taxes on Virgin Islands Source Income and Social
P.L. 97-455 P.L. 97-455
H.R. 7093 H.R. 7093
Security Disability Benefits Security Disability Benefits
1983 1983
Social Security Amendments of 1983 Social Security Amendments of 1983
P.L. 98-21 P.L. 98-21
H.R. 1900 H.R. 1900
1984 1984
Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984 Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984
P.L. 98-460 P.L. 98-460
H.R. 3755 H.R. 3755
1985 1985
Public Debt Limit—Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Public Debt Limit—Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
P.L. 99-177 P.L. 99-177
H.J.Res. 372 H.J.Res. 372
Act of 1985 Act of 1985
1985 1985
COLA Constraints in FY86 Budget Resolution COLA Constraints in FY86 Budget Resolution
— —
S.Con.Res. 32 S.Con.Res. 32
1986 1986
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
P.L. 99-509 P.L. 99-509
H.R. 5300 H.R. 5300
1987 1987
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
P.L. 100-203 P.L. 100-203
H.R. 3545 H.R. 3545
1988 1988
Technical and Miscellaneous Act of 1988 Technical and Miscellaneous Act of 1988
P.L. 100-647 P.L. 100-647
H.R. 4333 H.R. 4333
1989 1989
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
P.L. 101-239 P.L. 101-239
H.R. 3299 H.R. 3299
1990 1990
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
P.L. 101-508 P.L. 101-508
H.R. 5835 H.R. 5835
1993 1993
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
P.L. 103-66 P.L. 103-66
H.R. 2264 H.R. 2264
1994 1994
Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994 Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994
P.L. 103-296 P.L. 103-296
H.R. 4277 H.R. 4277
1994 1994
Social Security Domestic Reform Act of 1994 Social Security Domestic Reform Act of 1994
P.L. 103-387 P.L. 103-387
H.R. 4278 H.R. 4278
1996 1996
Senior Citizens Right to Work Act of 1996 Senior Citizens Right to Work Act of 1996
P.L. 104-121 P.L. 104-121
H.R. 3136 H.R. 3136
1999 1999
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999
P.L. 106-170 P.L. 106-170
H.R. 1180 H.R. 1180
2000 2000
Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act
P.L. 106-182 P.L. 106-182
H.R. 5 H.R. 5
2004 2004
Social Security Protection Act of 2004 Social Security Protection Act of 2004
P.L. 108-203 P.L. 108-203
H.R. 743 H.R. 743
2010 2010
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
P.L. 111-312 P.L. 111-312
H.R. 4853 H.R. 4853
Creation Act of 2010 Creation Act of 2010
2011 2011
Temporary Payrol Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 Temporary Payrol Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011
P.L. 112-78 P.L. 112-78
H.R. 3765 H.R. 3765
2012 2012
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
P.L. 112-96 P.L. 112-96
H.R. 3630 H.R. 3630
2014 2014
No Social Security for Nazis Act No Social Security for Nazis Act
P.L. 113-270 P.L. 113-270
H.R. 5739 H.R. 5739
2015 2015
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
P.L. 114-74 P.L. 114-74
H.R. 1314 H.R. 1314
2016 Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 2016 Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5,
P.L. 115-8 P.L. 115-8
H.J.Res 40 H.J.Res 40
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the NICS Improvement United States Code, of the rule submitted by the NICS Improvement
Act of 2007 Act of 2007
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

2 2

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Year
Title
Public Law
Bill Number
2017 2017
Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017 Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017
P.L. 115-59 P.L. 115-59
H.R. 624 H.R. 624
2018 2018
Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of
P.L. 115-165 P.L. 115-165
H.R. 4547 H.R. 4547
2018 2018
2018 2018
Tribal Social Security Fairness Act of 2018 Tribal Social Security Fairness Act of 2018
P.L. 115-243 P.L. 115-243
H.R. 6124 H.R. 6124
2018 2018
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
P.L. 115-174 P.L. 115-174
S. 2155 S. 2155
2020 2020
ALS Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019 ALS Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019
P.L. 116-250 P.L. 116-250
S. 578 S. 578
2020 2020
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
P.L. 116-260 P.L. 116-260
H.R. 133 H.R. 133
Source: Table compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Table compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. The printed law does not show the number of the Congress that passed it. The number is given here for a. The printed law does not show the number of the Congress that passed it. The number is given here for
reference purposes. reference purposes.
Chamber Votes
P.L. 271—74th Congress, Enactment of the Social Security Act
The Social Security Act became law on August 14, 1935, when President Franklin Roosevelt The Social Security Act became law on August 14, 1935, when President Franklin Roosevelt
signed H.R. 7260. Title II of the act created a compulsory national old-age benefits program, signed H.R. 7260. Title II of the act created a compulsory national old-age benefits program,
covering nearly all workers in commerce and industry and providing monthly pensions for covering nearly all workers in commerce and industry and providing monthly pensions for
insured workers aged 65 or older. A benefit weighted toward lower-paid workers was to be based insured workers aged 65 or older. A benefit weighted toward lower-paid workers was to be based
on cumulative wages and was to be payable beginning in 1942 to persons aged 65 or older who on cumulative wages and was to be payable beginning in 1942 to persons aged 65 or older who
had paid Social Security taxes for at least five years. The benefit was to be withheld from had paid Social Security taxes for at least five years. The benefit was to be withheld from
otherwise qualified persons in any month in which they did any work. Under Title VIII of the act, otherwise qualified persons in any month in which they did any work. Under Title VIII of the act,
a payroll tax of 1%, each, on employees and employers, payable on earnings up to $3,000 each a payroll tax of 1%, each, on employees and employers, payable on earnings up to $3,000 each
year, was to be imposed on covered jobs as of January 1, 1937, and was scheduled to rise in steps year, was to be imposed on covered jobs as of January 1, 1937, and was scheduled to rise in steps
to 3% each by 1949. to 3% each by 1949.
Besides old-age benefits, the act provided for a system of federal-state unemployment Besides old-age benefits, the act provided for a system of federal-state unemployment
compensation funded with employer payroll taxes, and for grants to states to help fund assistance compensation funded with employer payroll taxes, and for grants to states to help fund assistance
payments to certain categories of needy persons (i.e., the aged, the blind, and children under 16 payments to certain categories of needy persons (i.e., the aged, the blind, and children under 16
who had been deprived of parental support), child welfare services, and maternal and child health who had been deprived of parental support), child welfare services, and maternal and child health
services. services.
When the act was debated in Congress, prominent Republicans in the House and Senate made When the act was debated in Congress, prominent Republicans in the House and Senate made
attempts to delete the provisions creating the old-age pension system. They said they preferred to attempts to delete the provisions creating the old-age pension system. They said they preferred to
rely solely on the assistance (i.e., charity/welfare) approach to help the aged. They argued that the rely solely on the assistance (i.e., charity/welfare) approach to help the aged. They argued that the
payroll tax/insurance mechanism of the old-age benefits provisions might be unconstitutional and payroll tax/insurance mechanism of the old-age benefits provisions might be unconstitutional and
that it would impose a heavy tax burden on businesses that would retard economic development. that it would impose a heavy tax burden on businesses that would retard economic development.
Members of the minority stated, in the Ways and Means Committee’s report to the House, that the Members of the minority stated, in the Ways and Means Committee’s report to the House, that the
old-age benefits program (Title II) and the method by which the money was to be raised to pay old-age benefits program (Title II) and the method by which the money was to be raised to pay
for the program (Title VIII) established a “bureaucracy in the field of insurance in competition for the program (Title VIII) established a “bureaucracy in the field of insurance in competition
with private business.” They contended further that the program would “destroy old-age with private business.” They contended further that the program would “destroy old-age
retirement systems set up by private industries, which in most instances provide more liberal retirement systems set up by private industries, which in most instances provide more liberal
benefits than are contemplated under Title II.”1 Although some party members tried to remove the benefits than are contemplated under Title II.”1 Although some party members tried to remove the
old-age benefits provisions, the majority of Republicans in both chambers nevertheless did vote old-age benefits provisions, the majority of Republicans in both chambers nevertheless did vote

1 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, 1 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, The Social Security Bill, report to accompany H.R. 7260, 74th , report to accompany H.R. 7260, 74th
Cong., 1st sess., April 5, 1935, H.Rept. 615 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1935), p. 44. Cong., 1st sess., April 5, 1935, H.Rept. 615 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1935), p. 44.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

3 3

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

for the final Social Security bill. During congressional debate, Democrats generally supported the for the final Social Security bill. During congressional debate, Democrats generally supported the
proposed old-age benefits program, and the vast majority of Democrats voted for the final bill. proposed old-age benefits program, and the vast majority of Democrats voted for the final bill.
House Action
Debate on the Social Security bill started in the House on April 11 and lasted until April 19, 1935. Debate on the Social Security bill started in the House on April 11 and lasted until April 19, 1935.
Approximately 50 amendments were offered, but none passed. According to Edwin Witte, a key Approximately 50 amendments were offered, but none passed. According to Edwin Witte, a key
player in the development of the Social Security Act, House leaders passed the word that they player in the development of the Social Security Act, House leaders passed the word that they
wanted all amendments defeated.2 wanted all amendments defeated.2
Four particularly significant votes were Representative Monaghan’s amendment proposing a Four particularly significant votes were Representative Monaghan’s amendment proposing a
revised “Townsend plan” and Representative Connery’s amendment proposing the Lundeen plan, revised “Townsend plan” and Representative Connery’s amendment proposing the Lundeen plan,
both of which (described below) called for a more generous social insurance system; both of which (described below) called for a more generous social insurance system;
Representative Treadway’s motion to recommit H.R. 7260 to delete the old-age benefits program Representative Treadway’s motion to recommit H.R. 7260 to delete the old-age benefits program
and its related taxes; and the vote on final passage of the bill. and its related taxes; and the vote on final passage of the bill.
On April 18, 1935, Representative Monaghan (D-MT) offered an amendment, introduced in its On April 18, 1935, Representative Monaghan (D-MT) offered an amendment, introduced in its
original form by Representative Groarty (D-CA) and referred to as the Townsend plan, which original form by Representative Groarty (D-CA) and referred to as the Townsend plan, which
required the federal government to pay a $200-a-month pension to everyone 60 years of age or required the federal government to pay a $200-a-month pension to everyone 60 years of age or
older, to be financed by a 2% tax on “all financial” transactions (essentially a sales tax). (For older, to be financed by a 2% tax on “all financial” transactions (essentially a sales tax). (For
more details on the Townsend plan, see discussion of the 1939 amendments below.) more details on the Townsend plan, see discussion of the 1939 amendments below.)
Representative Monaghan’s amendment, although less costly than the original Townsend plan, Representative Monaghan’s amendment, although less costly than the original Townsend plan,
was rejected by a vote of 56 to 206.3 was rejected by a vote of 56 to 206.3
On April 18, 1935, Representative Connery (D-MA) offered an amendment that contained the On April 18, 1935, Representative Connery (D-MA) offered an amendment that contained the
provisions of a bill sponsored by Representative Lundeen (Farmer-Laborite-MN). The Lundeen provisions of a bill sponsored by Representative Lundeen (Farmer-Laborite-MN). The Lundeen
bill, which was approved 7-6 by the House Labor Committee, called for the “establishment of a bill, which was approved 7-6 by the House Labor Committee, called for the “establishment of a
system of social insurance to compensate all workers and farmers, 18 years of age or older, in all system of social insurance to compensate all workers and farmers, 18 years of age or older, in all
industries, occupations, and professions, who are unemployed through no fault of their own.... ”4 industries, occupations, and professions, who are unemployed through no fault of their own.... ”4
Representative Lundeen’s plan offered higher benefits than the bill reported out of the Committee Representative Lundeen’s plan offered higher benefits than the bill reported out of the Committee
on Ways and Means, and it tied benefits to the cost of living. Under the Lundeen proposal, a more on Ways and Means, and it tied benefits to the cost of living. Under the Lundeen proposal, a more
generous social insurance program was to be extended to all workers and farmers unable to work generous social insurance program was to be extended to all workers and farmers unable to work
because of illness, old age, maternity, industrial injury, or any other disability. This system was to because of illness, old age, maternity, industrial injury, or any other disability. This system was to
be financed by taxes falling most heavily on persons with higher incomes (by levying additional be financed by taxes falling most heavily on persons with higher incomes (by levying additional
taxation on inheritances, gifts, and individual and corporation incomes of $5,000 or more per taxation on inheritances, gifts, and individual and corporation incomes of $5,000 or more per
year). There was a division vote of 52 in favor and 204 opposed. Representative Connery asked year). There was a division vote of 52 in favor and 204 opposed. Representative Connery asked
for tellers. The Connery amendment was rejected by a 40-158 teller vote.5 for tellers. The Connery amendment was rejected by a 40-158 teller vote.5

2 Edwin E. Witte, 2 Edwin E. Witte, The Development of the Social Security Act (University of Wisconsin Press, 1963), p. 98. (University of Wisconsin Press, 1963), p. 98.
(Hereinafter cited as Witte, (Hereinafter cited as Witte, The Development of the Social Security Act.) .)
3 3 Congressional Record, April 18, 1935, House, p. 5958. The vote on the Townsend plan amendment was not taken by , April 18, 1935, House, p. 5958. The vote on the Townsend plan amendment was not taken by
roll call, but by division. A division vote is taken as follows: Members in favor of a proposal stand and are counted by a roll call, but by division. A division vote is taken as follows: Members in favor of a proposal stand and are counted by a
presiding officer; then Members opposed stand and are counted. There is no record of how individual Members voted. presiding officer; then Members opposed stand and are counted. There is no record of how individual Members voted.
The Members voting for the Townsend plan, however, were listed in newspapers. The majority of Members who voted The Members voting for the Townsend plan, however, were listed in newspapers. The majority of Members who voted
for the Townsend plan were conservative Republicans who opposed the entire Social Security bill. Witte, for the Townsend plan were conservative Republicans who opposed the entire Social Security bill. Witte, The
Development of the Social Security Act, p. 99. , p. 99.
4 4 Congressional Record, April 18, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Lundeen, p. 5965. , April 18, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Lundeen, p. 5965.
5 5 Congressional Record, April 18, 1935, House, p. 5969. In the House, Members would file past tellers and be counted , April 18, 1935, House, p. 5969. In the House, Members would file past tellers and be counted
as for or against a measure, but they were not recorded by name. The teller vote has not been used in the House in as for or against a measure, but they were not recorded by name. The teller vote has not been used in the House in
many years and was never used in the Senate. many years and was never used in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

4 4

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On April 18, 1935, Representative Treadway (R-MA), the ranking minority Member of the Ways On April 18, 1935, Representative Treadway (R-MA), the ranking minority Member of the Ways
and Means Committee, offered an amendment to strike Title II, the old-age benefit provisions, and Means Committee, offered an amendment to strike Title II, the old-age benefit provisions,
from the bill. Representative Treadway was opposed to the old-age benefits provision and to the from the bill. Representative Treadway was opposed to the old-age benefits provision and to the
taxing provisions of Title VIII. He said that the financing arrangement was unconstitutional. He taxing provisions of Title VIII. He said that the financing arrangement was unconstitutional. He
indicated that the tax would be particularly burdensome on industry, running up to 6% on indicated that the tax would be particularly burdensome on industry, running up to 6% on
payrolls. He said that “business and industry are already operating under very heavy burdens” and payrolls. He said that “business and industry are already operating under very heavy burdens” and
maintained that to add a payroll tax to their burden would probably cause more unemployment maintained that to add a payroll tax to their burden would probably cause more unemployment
and more uncertainty.6 Representative Jenkins (R-OH), supporter of the Treadway amendment, and more uncertainty.6 Representative Jenkins (R-OH), supporter of the Treadway amendment,
stated that making each worker pay 3% of his money for old-age benefits, whether he wanted to stated that making each worker pay 3% of his money for old-age benefits, whether he wanted to
or not, and requiring employers to do the same, was clearly unconstitutional. He said, “Why talk or not, and requiring employers to do the same, was clearly unconstitutional. He said, “Why talk
about wanting to relieve the Depression, why talk about charity, why talk about all these other about wanting to relieve the Depression, why talk about charity, why talk about all these other
things when you are placing a financial lash upon the backs of the people whose backs are things when you are placing a financial lash upon the backs of the people whose backs are
breaking under a load of debts and taxes?” He described the old-age benefits system as breaking under a load of debts and taxes?” He described the old-age benefits system as
“compulsion of the rankest kind.”7 The Treadway amendment was defeated by a 49-125 teller “compulsion of the rankest kind.”7 The Treadway amendment was defeated by a 49-125 teller
vote.8 vote.8
On April 19, 1935, Representative Treadway made a motion to recommit H.R. 7260, including On April 19, 1935, Representative Treadway made a motion to recommit H.R. 7260, including
instructions to the Ways and Means Committee to strike out the old-age and unemployment instructions to the Ways and Means Committee to strike out the old-age and unemployment
insurance provisions and to increase the federal contribution for the welfare program of old-age insurance provisions and to increase the federal contribution for the welfare program of old-age
assistance, Title I of the bill.9 Representative Treadway stated that the old-age benefit and assistance, Title I of the bill.9 Representative Treadway stated that the old-age benefit and
unemployment insurance provisions of the bill were not emergency measures and that they unemployment insurance provisions of the bill were not emergency measures and that they
“would not become effective in time to help present economic conditions, but, on the contrary “would not become effective in time to help present economic conditions, but, on the contrary
would be a definite drag on recovery.” He was opposed to levying a tax against both the employer would be a definite drag on recovery.” He was opposed to levying a tax against both the employer
and the employee. During his remarks on April 12, 1935, he stated that he would “vote most and the employee. During his remarks on April 12, 1935, he stated that he would “vote most
strenuously in opposition to the bill at each and every opportunity.”10 During his April 19, 1935, strenuously in opposition to the bill at each and every opportunity.”10 During his April 19, 1935,
remarks, Representative Treadway said he was disgusted “at the attitude of business in that it has remarks, Representative Treadway said he was disgusted “at the attitude of business in that it has
not shown the proper interest in protecting itself by stating its case before Congress.”11 His not shown the proper interest in protecting itself by stating its case before Congress.”11 His
motion to recommit was rejected by a vote of 149 (95-R, 45-D, 9-I) to 253 (1-R, 252-D).12 motion to recommit was rejected by a vote of 149 (95-R, 45-D, 9-I) to 253 (1-R, 252-D).12
On April 19, 1935, the House passed the Social Security bill by a vote of 372 (77-R, 288-D, 7-I) On April 19, 1935, the House passed the Social Security bill by a vote of 372 (77-R, 288-D, 7-I)
to 33 (18-R, 13-D, 2-I).13 to 33 (18-R, 13-D, 2-I).13
Senate Action
There were also four major votes in the Senate: Senator Long’s (D-LA) proposal to substitute There were also four major votes in the Senate: Senator Long’s (D-LA) proposal to substitute
taxes on wealth and property for the payroll tax; Senator Clark’s amendment to exempt from taxes on wealth and property for the payroll tax; Senator Clark’s amendment to exempt from
coverage employees in firms with private pensions; Senator Hastings’s motion to recommit; and coverage employees in firms with private pensions; Senator Hastings’s motion to recommit; and
the vote on final passage of the bill. the vote on final passage of the bill.

6 6 Congressional Record, April 18, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Treadway, p. 5990. Also see, , April 18, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Treadway, p. 5990. Also see, Congressional
Record, April 12, 1935, House, p. 5531. April 12, 1935, House, p. 5531.
7 7 Congressional Record, April 18, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Jenkins, p. 5993. , April 18, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Jenkins, p. 5993.
8 8 Congressional Record, April 18, 1935, House, p. 5994. , April 18, 1935, House, p. 5994.
9 9 Congressional Record, April 19, 1935, p. 6068. , April 19, 1935, p. 6068.
10 10 Congressional Record, April 12, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Treadway, p. 5531. April 12, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Treadway, p. 5531.
11 11 Congressional Record, April 19, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Treadway, p. 6053. April 19, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Treadway, p. 6053.
12 12 Congressional Record, April 19, 1935, House, Roll call no. 56, not voting 29, pp. 6068-6069. April 19, 1935, House, Roll call no. 56, not voting 29, pp. 6068-6069.
13 13 Congressional Record, April 19, 1935, House, Roll call no. 57, not voting 25, pp. 6069-6070. April 19, 1935, House, Roll call no. 57, not voting 25, pp. 6069-6070.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

5 5

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On June 17, 1935, Senator Long offered an amendment to liberalize the proposed old-age On June 17, 1935, Senator Long offered an amendment to liberalize the proposed old-age
assistance program (Title I of the bill) and delete the payroll tax provisions (Title VIII and IX). In assistance program (Title I of the bill) and delete the payroll tax provisions (Title VIII and IX). In
place of the payroll tax, Senator Long recommended that states levy a tax on wealth or property. place of the payroll tax, Senator Long recommended that states levy a tax on wealth or property.
Senator Long’s amendment was rejected by voice vote.14 Senator Long’s amendment was rejected by voice vote.14
On June 19, 1935, Senator Clark (D-MO) offered an amendment to exempt from coverage under On June 19, 1935, Senator Clark (D-MO) offered an amendment to exempt from coverage under
the old-age benefits system employees in firms with private old-age pension systems. This idea the old-age benefits system employees in firms with private old-age pension systems. This idea
came from an official of a Philadelphia insurance brokerage firm that specialized in group annuity came from an official of a Philadelphia insurance brokerage firm that specialized in group annuity
contracts. Proponents of the amendment stated that employees would benefit from more liberal contracts. Proponents of the amendment stated that employees would benefit from more liberal
private annuities that would be in true proportion to earnings and service; joint annuities to private annuities that would be in true proportion to earnings and service; joint annuities to
protect spouses; earlier retirement for disability; and other factors. Supporters of the amendment protect spouses; earlier retirement for disability; and other factors. Supporters of the amendment
also maintained that the government would benefit because the reserves of private annuity plans also maintained that the government would benefit because the reserves of private annuity plans
would increase investment and create more income to tax. The Administration (being opposed to would increase investment and create more income to tax. The Administration (being opposed to
the amendment) argued that the amendment did not provide true retirement income guarantees the amendment) argued that the amendment did not provide true retirement income guarantees
because private pension programs could be cancelled, or the firm sponsoring them could go out of because private pension programs could be cancelled, or the firm sponsoring them could go out of
business. Critics maintained that the amendment discouraged the employment of older men. The business. Critics maintained that the amendment discouraged the employment of older men. The
Ways and Means Committee rejected the proposal and so did the Finance Committee (by a Ways and Means Committee rejected the proposal and so did the Finance Committee (by a
narrow margin), but when Senator Clark offered it as an amendment on the Senate floor, it was narrow margin), but when Senator Clark offered it as an amendment on the Senate floor, it was
passed by a vote of 51 (16-R, 35-D) to 35 (3-R, 30-D, 2-I).15 passed by a vote of 51 (16-R, 35-D) to 35 (3-R, 30-D, 2-I).15
On June 19, 1935, Senator Hastings (R-DE) made a motion to strike out the old-age benefits On June 19, 1935, Senator Hastings (R-DE) made a motion to strike out the old-age benefits
provisions from the bill. Senator Hastings stated that those provisions were an effort to write into provisions from the bill. Senator Hastings stated that those provisions were an effort to write into
law a forced annuity system for a certain group of people. He maintained that the reserve account law a forced annuity system for a certain group of people. He maintained that the reserve account
to take care of people in the future was not a contract and the American public could not depend to take care of people in the future was not a contract and the American public could not depend
upon it. He stated that the accumulation of huge sums of money for persons who had not yet upon it. He stated that the accumulation of huge sums of money for persons who had not yet
reached retirement age would be subjected to many demands and most likely could not be reached retirement age would be subjected to many demands and most likely could not be
preserved intact. He also said “let us not deceive that youth by making him believe that here is an preserved intact. He also said “let us not deceive that youth by making him believe that here is an
annuity whereby he is contributing 50% and his employer is contributing 50%, and that it goes to annuity whereby he is contributing 50% and his employer is contributing 50%, and that it goes to
his credit, when as a matter of fact, part of it is taken from him in order that we may take care of his credit, when as a matter of fact, part of it is taken from him in order that we may take care of
the older people of today.”16 Senator Hastings’s amendment was rejected by a vote of 15 (12-R, the older people of today.”16 Senator Hastings’s amendment was rejected by a vote of 15 (12-R,
3-D) to 63 (7-R, 54-D, 2-I).17 3-D) to 63 (7-R, 54-D, 2-I).17
On June 19, 1935, Senator George (D-GA) offered an amendment to encourage formation of On June 19, 1935, Senator George (D-GA) offered an amendment to encourage formation of
industrial pensions as a substitute for Titles II and VIII. Under the amendment, employers were to industrial pensions as a substitute for Titles II and VIII. Under the amendment, employers were to
operate and manage their own plans. The amendment called for a uniform schedule of benefits operate and manage their own plans. The amendment called for a uniform schedule of benefits
nationwide and provided for disability and survivor benefits along with old-age and nationwide and provided for disability and survivor benefits along with old-age and
unemployment benefits. The amendment was defeated by voice vote.18 unemployment benefits. The amendment was defeated by voice vote.18
The Senate passed the bill on June 19, 1935, by a vote of 77 (15-R, 60-D, 2-I) to 6 (5-R, 1-D).19 The Senate passed the bill on June 19, 1935, by a vote of 77 (15-R, 60-D, 2-I) to 6 (5-R, 1-D).19
Conference Action
The conferees settled all differences except on the Clark amendments related to employees under The conferees settled all differences except on the Clark amendments related to employees under
private pension plans. The conference committee reported the bill without the Clark amendments, private pension plans. The conference committee reported the bill without the Clark amendments,

14 14 Congressional Record, June 17, 1935, Senate, pp. 9427-9437. June 17, 1935, Senate, pp. 9427-9437.
15 15 Congressional Record, June 19, 1935, Senate, not voting 9, p. 9631. June 19, 1935, Senate, not voting 9, p. 9631.
16 16 Congressional Record, June 17, 1935, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Hastings, p. 9422. June 17, 1935, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Hastings, p. 9422.
17 17 Congressional Record, June 19, 1935, Senate, not voting 17, p. 9648. June 19, 1935, Senate, not voting 17, p. 9648.
18 18 Congressional Record, June 19, 1935, Senate, p. 9650. June 19, 1935, Senate, p. 9650.
19 19 Congressional Record, June 19, 1935, Senate, not voting 12, p. 9646. June 19, 1935, Senate, not voting 12, p. 9646.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

6 6

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

but with an understanding that the chairmen of the Ways and Means and Finance Committees but with an understanding that the chairmen of the Ways and Means and Finance Committees
would appoint a special joint committee to study whether to exempt industrial employers with would appoint a special joint committee to study whether to exempt industrial employers with
private pension plans from coverage under Social Security and to report to the next Congress.20 private pension plans from coverage under Social Security and to report to the next Congress.20
On July 17, 1935, the House rejected Representative Treadway’s motion to accept the Clark On July 17, 1935, the House rejected Representative Treadway’s motion to accept the Clark
amendment by a vote of 78 to 268;21 then agreed by a vote of 269 to 65 to a motion by amendment by a vote of 78 to 268;21 then agreed by a vote of 269 to 65 to a motion by
Representative Doughton (D-NC) that the House insist that the Senate drop the Clark Representative Doughton (D-NC) that the House insist that the Senate drop the Clark
amendment.22 amendment.22
On July 17, 1935, the Senate agreed, by voice vote, to Senator Harrison’s motion to insist on On July 17, 1935, the Senate agreed, by voice vote, to Senator Harrison’s motion to insist on
keeping the Clark amendment and ask for a further conference.23 keeping the Clark amendment and ask for a further conference.23
On August 8, 1935, the conference report cleared the House by a voice vote.24 On August 8, 1935, the conference report cleared the House by a voice vote.24
On August 9, 1935, the Senate conferees agreed to delete the Clark amendment;25 the Senate then On August 9, 1935, the Senate conferees agreed to delete the Clark amendment;25 the Senate then
agreed to the conference report by a voice vote.26 agreed to the conference report by a voice vote.26
P.L. 379—76th Congress, Social Security Act Amendments of 1939
H.R. 6635, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1939, was signed into law on August 10, H.R. 6635, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1939, was signed into law on August 10,
1939, by President Franklin Roosevelt. Congress expressly provided in the 1935 Act that the 1939, by President Franklin Roosevelt. Congress expressly provided in the 1935 Act that the
Social Security Board (a three-member panel appointed by the President with advice and consent Social Security Board (a three-member panel appointed by the President with advice and consent
of the Senate) study and make recommendations on the most effective methods of providing of the Senate) study and make recommendations on the most effective methods of providing
economic security through social insurance. An advisory council appointed by the Senate Special economic security through social insurance. An advisory council appointed by the Senate Special
Committee on Social Security and the Social Security Board was created in May 1937 to work Committee on Social Security and the Social Security Board was created in May 1937 to work
with the Social Security Board to study amending Titles II and VII of the Social Security Act. with the Social Security Board to study amending Titles II and VII of the Social Security Act.
Some members of the advisory council represented employees, some represented employers, and Some members of the advisory council represented employees, some represented employers, and
others represented the general public. Both the Social Security Board and the advisory council others represented the general public. Both the Social Security Board and the advisory council
made recommendations on how the old-age benefits program should be changed, and many of made recommendations on how the old-age benefits program should be changed, and many of
their recommendations were the same. President Roosevelt sent the Social Security Board’s their recommendations were the same. President Roosevelt sent the Social Security Board’s
recommendations to Congress on January 16, 1939. The 1939 amendments incorporated most of recommendations to Congress on January 16, 1939. The 1939 amendments incorporated most of
the board’s recommendations. the board’s recommendations.
The 1939 amendments extended benefits to dependents and survivors of workers covered by The 1939 amendments extended benefits to dependents and survivors of workers covered by
Social Security. Dependents included an aged wife, a child under 16 (under 18 if attending Social Security. Dependents included an aged wife, a child under 16 (under 18 if attending
school), a widowed mother caring for an eligible child, an aged widow, and a dependent aged school), a widowed mother caring for an eligible child, an aged widow, and a dependent aged
parent if there were no eligible widow or child. Widows would receive 75% of the primary parent if there were no eligible widow or child. Widows would receive 75% of the primary
insurance amount (PIA)27 of the worker, and all other dependents would receive 50% of the PIA. insurance amount (PIA)27 of the worker, and all other dependents would receive 50% of the PIA.

20 The issue, however, does not appear to have emerged in subsequent Social Security legislation. It has been said that 20 The issue, however, does not appear to have emerged in subsequent Social Security legislation. It has been said that
deferring the Clark amendment was crucial to the passage of the bill (Derthick, Martha, deferring the Clark amendment was crucial to the passage of the bill (Derthick, Martha, Policymaking for Social
Security. The Brookings Institution, 1979, p. 282). (Hereinafter cited as Derthick, . The Brookings Institution, 1979, p. 282). (Hereinafter cited as Derthick, Policymaking for Social Security.) .)
21 21 Congressional Record, July 17, 1935, House, Roll call no. 132, not voting 83, pp. 11342-11343. July 17, 1935, House, Roll call no. 132, not voting 83, pp. 11342-11343.
22 22 Congressional Record, July 17, 1935, House, Roll call no. 133, not voting 95, p. 11343. July 17, 1935, House, Roll call no. 133, not voting 95, p. 11343.
23 23 Congressional Record, July 17, 1935, Senate, p. 11310. July 17, 1935, Senate, p. 11310.
24 24 Congressional Record, August 8, 1935, House, p. 12760. August 8, 1935, House, p. 12760.
25 25 Congressional Record, August 9, 1935, Senate, pp. 12793-12794. August 9, 1935, Senate, pp. 12793-12794.
26 26 Congressional Record, August 9, 1935, Senate, p. 12794. August 9, 1935, Senate, p. 12794.
27 The primary insurance amount (PIA) was the basic benefit amount for a worker who began receiving benefits at the 27 The primary insurance amount (PIA) was the basic benefit amount for a worker who began receiving benefits at the
age of 65. age of 65.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

7 7

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

The starting date for monthly benefits was accelerated to January 1, 1940, instead of January 1, The starting date for monthly benefits was accelerated to January 1, 1940, instead of January 1,
1942. Benefits were based on average monthly wages rather than on cumulative wages. In 1942. Benefits were based on average monthly wages rather than on cumulative wages. In
addition, Congress repealed the tax rate increase to 1.5%, scheduled to go into effect in 1940, addition, Congress repealed the tax rate increase to 1.5%, scheduled to go into effect in 1940,
replacing it with an increase to 2% in 1943-1945. The amendments also modified qualifying replacing it with an increase to 2% in 1943-1945. The amendments also modified qualifying
provisions, including the definition of insured status, for consistency with other changes in the provisions, including the definition of insured status, for consistency with other changes in the
act.28 Further, people receiving OASI benefits were permitted to earn up to $14.99 monthly: no act.28 Further, people receiving OASI benefits were permitted to earn up to $14.99 monthly: no
benefits were to be paid in any month in which the recipient earned $15 or more in covered benefits were to be paid in any month in which the recipient earned $15 or more in covered
employment. The system now was called Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI). Congress employment. The system now was called Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI). Congress
also changed the old-age reserve account to a trust fund, managed by a board of trustees. also changed the old-age reserve account to a trust fund, managed by a board of trustees.
House Action
On June 2, 1939, following public hearings on the proposed amendments and six weeks of On June 2, 1939, following public hearings on the proposed amendments and six weeks of
executive sessions, the Committee on Ways and Means reported to the House H.R. 6635, executive sessions, the Committee on Ways and Means reported to the House H.R. 6635,
embodying its recommendations for amendments to the Social Security Act. The day before, the embodying its recommendations for amendments to the Social Security Act. The day before, the
House had debated on and voted against the Townsend old-age pension bill. The Townsend plan, House had debated on and voted against the Townsend old-age pension bill. The Townsend plan,
embodied in H.R. 6466 introduced by Representative McGroarty (D-CA) in January 1935, was embodied in H.R. 6466 introduced by Representative McGroarty (D-CA) in January 1935, was
offered as a substitute for H.R. 6635.29 The Townsend plan would have provided a monthly offered as a substitute for H.R. 6635.29 The Townsend plan would have provided a monthly
pension of $200 to every citizen aged 60 or older who had not been convicted of a felony. To pension of $200 to every citizen aged 60 or older who had not been convicted of a felony. To
receive the pension, a person could not earn wages and was required to spend the entire pension receive the pension, a person could not earn wages and was required to spend the entire pension
within 30 days. The plan would have been financed by a 2% tax on every commercial and within 30 days. The plan would have been financed by a 2% tax on every commercial and
financial transaction; the President would have been given discretionary power to raise the tax to financial transaction; the President would have been given discretionary power to raise the tax to
3% or to lower it to 1%. During a 1935 Ways and Means Committee hearing, Representative 3% or to lower it to 1%. During a 1935 Ways and Means Committee hearing, Representative
Townsend stated that his plan was only incidentally a pension plan. He said the principal Townsend stated that his plan was only incidentally a pension plan. He said the principal
objectives of the proposal were to solve the unemployment problem and to restore prosperity by objectives of the proposal were to solve the unemployment problem and to restore prosperity by
giving people purchasing power. He cited Census Bureau data that 4 million people over the age giving people purchasing power. He cited Census Bureau data that 4 million people over the age
of 60 held jobs in 1930. He reiterated that to be eligible for the proposed pension of $200 a of 60 held jobs in 1930. He reiterated that to be eligible for the proposed pension of $200 a
month, those elderly people would have to give up their jobs, which he said meant that 4 million month, those elderly people would have to give up their jobs, which he said meant that 4 million
jobs would become available to middle-aged and younger people. In addition, he said that jobs would become available to middle-aged and younger people. In addition, he said that
requiring 8 million elderly persons to buy $200 worth of goods and services each month would requiring 8 million elderly persons to buy $200 worth of goods and services each month would
increase demand and result in more jobs.30 increase demand and result in more jobs.30
Representative Sabath (D-IL) said he thought it was “decidedly out of place to bring the Representative Sabath (D-IL) said he thought it was “decidedly out of place to bring the
Townsend bill to the floor.” He said that the bill “had no chance of passing in the first place; Townsend bill to the floor.” He said that the bill “had no chance of passing in the first place;
neither was it feasible nor possible of operation.”31 Others branded the bill as “crackpot,” and in neither was it feasible nor possible of operation.”31 Others branded the bill as “crackpot,” and in
general objected because they thought that the Social Security program was a better means of general objected because they thought that the Social Security program was a better means of
caring for the aged, asserting that any liberalization of pensions should be done within the caring for the aged, asserting that any liberalization of pensions should be done within the
framework of the Social Security Act. framework of the Social Security Act.

28 Benefits can be paid to workers or their dependents or survivors only if the worker is “insured” for these benefits. 28 Benefits can be paid to workers or their dependents or survivors only if the worker is “insured” for these benefits.
Insured status is measured in terms of “quarters of coverage.” A person who had one year of coverage for every two Insured status is measured in terms of “quarters of coverage.” A person who had one year of coverage for every two
years after 1936 and before death or reaching the age of 65 was fully insured. years after 1936 and before death or reaching the age of 65 was fully insured.
29 The Townsend movement, led by Francis E. Townsend, a California doctor, began in 1934, survived for some 20 29 The Townsend movement, led by Francis E. Townsend, a California doctor, began in 1934, survived for some 20
years, and was at its peak in the 1935-1941 period. See Derthick, years, and was at its peak in the 1935-1941 period. See Derthick, Policymaking for Social Security, p. 193. , p. 193.
30 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, 30 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Economic Security Act, hearings on H.R. 4120, 74th Cong., , hearings on H.R. 4120, 74th Cong.,
1st sess., January 21-31 and February 1, 2, 4-8, and 12, 1935 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1935), p. 680. 1st sess., January 21-31 and February 1, 2, 4-8, and 12, 1935 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1935), p. 680.
31 31 Congressional Record, June 6, 1939, House, p. 6681. June 6, 1939, House, p. 6681.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

8 8

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Edwin Witte wrote, Edwin Witte wrote,
The members of the House of Representatives at all times took the Townsend movement The members of the House of Representatives at all times took the Townsend movement
much more seriously than did the senators. The thousands of letters that the members much more seriously than did the senators. The thousands of letters that the members
received in support of this plan worried them greatly. With the exception of probably not received in support of this plan worried them greatly. With the exception of probably not
more than a half dozen members, all felt that the Townsend plan was utterly impossible; at more than a half dozen members, all felt that the Townsend plan was utterly impossible; at
the same time they hesitated to vote against it.32 the same time they hesitated to vote against it.32
The House rejected H.R. 6466, the Townsend plan bill, on June 1, 1939, by a vote of 97 (55-R, The House rejected H.R. 6466, the Townsend plan bill, on June 1, 1939, by a vote of 97 (55-R,
40-D, 2-I) to 302 (107-R, 194-D, 1-I).33 40-D, 2-I) to 302 (107-R, 194-D, 1-I).33
A A New York Times editorial reported that “the psychological effect of the presentation of the editorial reported that “the psychological effect of the presentation of the
Townsend bill was to make these liberalized benefits, referring to the provisions in H.R. 6635, Townsend bill was to make these liberalized benefits, referring to the provisions in H.R. 6635,
seem small. Most of those who voted against the Townsend plan will be eager to vote for these seem small. Most of those who voted against the Townsend plan will be eager to vote for these
liberalized benefits to show that their hearts are in the right place. The result is that the real cost liberalized benefits to show that their hearts are in the right place. The result is that the real cost
of the new Social Security scale of benefits is not likely to receive very serious attention.”34 of the new Social Security scale of benefits is not likely to receive very serious attention.”34
The House took up H.R. 6635 on June 6, 1939. The bill had the general support of the Ways and The House took up H.R. 6635 on June 6, 1939. The bill had the general support of the Ways and
Means Committee. The minority stated in the committee’s report to the House that “while the bill Means Committee. The minority stated in the committee’s report to the House that “while the bill
in no sense represents a complete or satisfactory solution of the problem of Social Security, it at in no sense represents a complete or satisfactory solution of the problem of Social Security, it at
least makes certain improvements in the present law (some of which we have ourselves least makes certain improvements in the present law (some of which we have ourselves
heretofore suggested) which we believe justify us in supporting it despite its defects.”35 heretofore suggested) which we believe justify us in supporting it despite its defects.”35
On June 9, 1939, Representative Havenner (D-CA) offered an amendment, endorsed by the On June 9, 1939, Representative Havenner (D-CA) offered an amendment, endorsed by the
American Federation of Labor, to extend Social Security coverage to workers employed in American Federation of Labor, to extend Social Security coverage to workers employed in
college clubs or fraternities or sororities; employees in nonprofit religious, charitable, or college clubs or fraternities or sororities; employees in nonprofit religious, charitable, or
educational institutions; student nurses; and some agricultural workers. The amendment was educational institutions; student nurses; and some agricultural workers. The amendment was
rejected by voice vote.36 rejected by voice vote.36
On June 9, 1939, Representative Kean (R-NJ) offered an amendment that required that the money On June 9, 1939, Representative Kean (R-NJ) offered an amendment that required that the money
derived from the Social Security payroll tax be invested in one-year marketable U.S. government derived from the Social Security payroll tax be invested in one-year marketable U.S. government
bonds rather than in special nonmarketable Treasury obligations. Representative Kean remarked bonds rather than in special nonmarketable Treasury obligations. Representative Kean remarked
that the adoption of the amendment would “prevent the present practice of using old-age taxes for that the adoption of the amendment would “prevent the present practice of using old-age taxes for
current expenses.” The amendment was rejected by voice vote.37 current expenses.” The amendment was rejected by voice vote.37
On June 9, 1939, Representative Carlson (R-KS) offered an amendment to exclude On June 9, 1939, Representative Carlson (R-KS) offered an amendment to exclude ~~non-citizens~~noncitizens
from coverage under Social Security. He was opposed to putting foreigners under the U.S. old-from coverage under Social Security. He was opposed to putting foreigners under the U.S. old-
age insurance provisions. Opponents of the amendment argued that exemption of such people age insurance provisions. Opponents of the amendment argued that exemption of such people
would give employers of aliens a competitive advantage over vessels owned and manned by would give employers of aliens a competitive advantage over vessels owned and manned by
Americans. Representative Carlson’s amendment was rejected 24 to 59 by a division vote.38 Americans. Representative Carlson’s amendment was rejected 24 to 59 by a division vote.38
On June 10, 1939, Representative Carlson moved to recommit H.R. 6635 to the Committee on On June 10, 1939, Representative Carlson moved to recommit H.R. 6635 to the Committee on
Ways and Means. The motion was rejected by voice vote.39 Ways and Means. The motion was rejected by voice vote.39

32 Witte, 32 Witte, The Development of the Social Security Act, pp. 95-96. , pp. 95-96.
33 33 Congressional Record, June 1, 1939, House, Roll call no. 85, not voting 29, pp. 6524-6525. June 1, 1939, House, Roll call no. 85, not voting 29, pp. 6524-6525.
34 “The Townsend Plan Vote,” 34 “The Townsend Plan Vote,” New York Times, June 2, 1939, Editorial page. , June 2, 1939, Editorial page.
35 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, 35 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Social Security Act Amendments of 1939, report to , report to
accompany H.R. 6635, 76th Cong., 1st sess., June 2, 1939, H.Rept. 728 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1939), p. 113. accompany H.R. 6635, 76th Cong., 1st sess., June 2, 1939, H.Rept. 728 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1939), p. 113.
36 36 Congressional Record, June 9, 1939, House, p. 6935. June 9, 1939, House, p. 6935.
37 37 Congressional Record, June 9, 1939, House, p. 6936. June 9, 1939, House, p. 6936.
38 38 Congressional Record, June 9, 1939, House, pp. 6937-6939. June 9, 1939, House, pp. 6937-6939.
39 39 Congressional Record, June 10, 1939, House, p. 6970. June 10, 1939, House, p. 6970.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

9 9

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On June 10, 1939, the House passed H.R. 6635 by a vote of 364 (142-R, 222-D) to 2 (2-R).40 On June 10, 1939, the House passed H.R. 6635 by a vote of 364 (142-R, 222-D) to 2 (2-R).40
Senate Action
On July 13, 1939, Senator Downey (D-CA), in the course of his statement on how “unworkable, On July 13, 1939, Senator Downey (D-CA), in the course of his statement on how “unworkable,
unjust, and unfair” the Social Security Act was, moved that the bill be recommitted to the Finance unjust, and unfair” the Social Security Act was, moved that the bill be recommitted to the Finance
Committee for more study of the whole pension and savings field. Senator Downey stated that Committee for more study of the whole pension and savings field. Senator Downey stated that
under H.R. 6635 covered workers in 1942 would receive only one-half as much in old-age under H.R. 6635 covered workers in 1942 would receive only one-half as much in old-age
benefits as those receiving government subsidies (old-age assistance benefits/cash relief). Under benefits as those receiving government subsidies (old-age assistance benefits/cash relief). Under
H.R. 6635, the average monthly Social Security benefit was projected at between $19 and $20 for H.R. 6635, the average monthly Social Security benefit was projected at between $19 and $20 for
80% of workers in 1942, whereas the maximum old-age assistance benefit was $40. The motion 80% of workers in 1942, whereas the maximum old-age assistance benefit was $40. The motion
was rejected by a vote of 18 (12-R, 5-D, 1-I) to 47 (4-R, 41-D, 2-I).41 was rejected by a vote of 18 (12-R, 5-D, 1-I) to 47 (4-R, 41-D, 2-I).41
On July 13, 1939, Senator Reynolds (D-NC) offered an amendment to prohibit non-U.S. citizens On July 13, 1939, Senator Reynolds (D-NC) offered an amendment to prohibit non-U.S. citizens
from being eligible for Social Security coverage or benefits. Senator Harrison (D-MS) offered from being eligible for Social Security coverage or benefits. Senator Harrison (D-MS) offered
additional language to Senator Reynolds’s amendment that allowed benefit payments to aliens if additional language to Senator Reynolds’s amendment that allowed benefit payments to aliens if
they lived within 50 miles of the United States. The amendment as modified was agreed to by they lived within 50 miles of the United States. The amendment as modified was agreed to by
voice vote.42 voice vote.42
The Senate passed H.R. 6635 on July 13, 1939, by a vote of 57 (8-R, 45-D, 4-I) to 8 (6-R, 2-D).43 The Senate passed H.R. 6635 on July 13, 1939, by a vote of 57 (8-R, 45-D, 4-I) to 8 (6-R, 2-D).43
Conference Action
The conference report was approved by the House on August 4, 1939, by voice vote,44 and by the The conference report was approved by the House on August 4, 1939, by voice vote,44 and by the
Senate on August 5, 1939, by a vote of 59 (14-R, 42-D, 3-I) to 4 (4-D).45 Senate on August 5, 1939, by a vote of 59 (14-R, 42-D, 3-I) to 4 (4-D).45
Payroll Tax Freeze, 1942-1947
Between 1942 and 1947, the Social Security payroll tax rate increase was postponed seven times. Between 1942 and 1947, the Social Security payroll tax rate increase was postponed seven times.
It was not until 1950 that the 1% Social Security tax rate was allowed to rise to 1.5%. It was not until 1950 that the 1% Social Security tax rate was allowed to rise to 1.5%.
The Revenue Act of 1942, P.L. 753 (H.R. 7378, 77th Congress) was signed by President Franklin The Revenue Act of 1942, P.L. 753 (H.R. 7378, 77th Congress) was signed by President Franklin
Roosevelt on October 21, 1942. It provided that for calendar year 1943, the payroll tax rate for Roosevelt on October 21, 1942. It provided that for calendar year 1943, the payroll tax rate for
old-age and survivors benefits would be frozen at the existing rate of 1% for employees and old-age and survivors benefits would be frozen at the existing rate of 1% for employees and
employers, each, instead of being increased to 2% on each as otherwise would have been employers, each, instead of being increased to 2% on each as otherwise would have been
required. required.
P.L. 211 (H.J.Res. 171, 78th Congress), a joint resolution regarding the Tariff Act, signed by P.L. 211 (H.J.Res. 171, 78th Congress), a joint resolution regarding the Tariff Act, signed by
President Roosevelt on December 22, 1943, froze the payroll tax at the 1% rate until March 1, President Roosevelt on December 22, 1943, froze the payroll tax at the 1% rate until March 1,
1944. The purpose of the resolution was to give Congress time to consider the scheduled payroll 1944. The purpose of the resolution was to give Congress time to consider the scheduled payroll
tax increase before it went into effect. tax increase before it went into effect.
The Revenue Act of 1943, P.L. 235 (H.R. 3687, 78th Congress), was vetoed by President The Revenue Act of 1943, P.L. 235 (H.R. 3687, 78th Congress), was vetoed by President
Roosevelt on February 22, 1944; the veto was overridden by the House on February 24, 1944, Roosevelt on February 22, 1944; the veto was overridden by the House on February 24, 1944,

40 40 Congressional Record, June 10, 1939, House, Roll call no. 91, not voting 63, pp. 6970-6971. June 10, 1939, House, Roll call no. 91, not voting 63, pp. 6970-6971.
41 41 Congressional Record, July 13, 1939, Senate, not voting 31, p. 9023. July 13, 1939, Senate, not voting 31, p. 9023.
42 42 Congressional Record, July 13, 1939, Senate, p. 9030. July 13, 1939, Senate, p. 9030.
43 43 Congressional Record, July 13, 1939, Senate, not voting 31, p. 9031. July 13, 1939, Senate, not voting 31, p. 9031.
44 44 Congressional Record, August 4, 1939, House, p. 11092. August 4, 1939, House, p. 11092.
45 45 Congressional Record, August 5, 1939, Senate, not voting 33, p. 11146. August 5, 1939, Senate, not voting 33, p. 11146.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

10 10

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

and by the Senate on February 25, 1944. The bill deferred the scheduled payroll tax increase and by the Senate on February 25, 1944. The bill deferred the scheduled payroll tax increase
(from 1 to 2%) until 1945. (from 1 to 2%) until 1945.
P.L. 235 also contained an amendment by Senator Murray (D-MT) that authorized the use of P.L. 235 also contained an amendment by Senator Murray (D-MT) that authorized the use of
general revenues if payroll taxes were insufficient to meet Social Security benefit obligations. general revenues if payroll taxes were insufficient to meet Social Security benefit obligations.
Senator Murray stated that the amendment merely stated in law what had been implied in the Senator Murray stated that the amendment merely stated in law what had been implied in the
Senate committee report. Senator Vandenberg (R-MI) replied that the amendment “has no Senate committee report. Senator Vandenberg (R-MI) replied that the amendment “has no
immediate application, it has no immediate menace, it contemplates and anticipates no immediate immediate application, it has no immediate menace, it contemplates and anticipates no immediate
appropriation; but as the statement of a principle, I agree with the amendment completely.”46 The appropriation; but as the statement of a principle, I agree with the amendment completely.”46 The
amendment passed by voice vote.47 The “Murray-Vandenberg” general revenue provision was amendment passed by voice vote.47 The “Murray-Vandenberg” general revenue provision was
repealed in 1950, when the tax rate was increased. repealed in 1950, when the tax rate was increased.
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) of 1945, P.L. 495 (H.R. 5564, 78th Congress), The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) of 1945, P.L. 495 (H.R. 5564, 78th Congress),
signed by President Roosevelt on December 16, 1944, froze the payroll tax rate at 1% until 1946 signed by President Roosevelt on December 16, 1944, froze the payroll tax rate at 1% until 1946
and scheduled the payroll tax rate to rise to 2.5% for the years 1946 through 1948, and to 3% and scheduled the payroll tax rate to rise to 2.5% for the years 1946 through 1948, and to 3%
thereafter. thereafter.
The Revenue Act of 1945, P.L. 214 (H.R. 4309, 79th Congress), signed by President Truman on The Revenue Act of 1945, P.L. 214 (H.R. 4309, 79th Congress), signed by President Truman on
November 8, 1945, deferred the tax rate increase until 1947. November 8, 1945, deferred the tax rate increase until 1947.
The Social Security Amendments of 1946, P.L. 719 (H.R. 7037, 79th Congress), signed by The Social Security Amendments of 1946, P.L. 719 (H.R. 7037, 79th Congress), signed by
President Truman on August 10, 1946, deferred the tax rate increase until 1948. President Truman on August 10, 1946, deferred the tax rate increase until 1948.
The Social Security Amendments of 1947, P.L. 379 (H.R. 3818, 80th Congress), signed by The Social Security Amendments of 1947, P.L. 379 (H.R. 3818, 80th Congress), signed by
President Truman on August 6, 1947, continued the freeze on the tax rate increase until 1950 and President Truman on August 6, 1947, continued the freeze on the tax rate increase until 1950 and
provided that it would rise to 1.5% for 1950-1951 and to 2% thereafter. provided that it would rise to 1.5% for 1950-1951 and to 2% thereafter.
Members who favored these payroll tax freezes argued that the Social Security reserves were Members who favored these payroll tax freezes argued that the Social Security reserves were
adequate and that benefit payments in the immediate future could be met with the current payroll adequate and that benefit payments in the immediate future could be met with the current payroll
tax rate. In a 1942 letter to the Senate Finance Committee, President Roosevelt said that “a failure tax rate. In a 1942 letter to the Senate Finance Committee, President Roosevelt said that “a failure
to allow the scheduled increase in rates to take place under the present favorable circumstances to allow the scheduled increase in rates to take place under the present favorable circumstances
would cause a real and justifiable fear that adequate funds will not be accumulated to meet the would cause a real and justifiable fear that adequate funds will not be accumulated to meet the
heavy obligations of the future and that the claims for benefits accruing under the present law heavy obligations of the future and that the claims for benefits accruing under the present law
may be jeopardized.” He also stated that “expanded Social Security, together with other fiscal may be jeopardized.” He also stated that “expanded Social Security, together with other fiscal
measures, would set up a bulwark of economic security for the people now and after the war and measures, would set up a bulwark of economic security for the people now and after the war and
at the same time would provide anti-inflationary sources for financing the war.”48 Members who at the same time would provide anti-inflationary sources for financing the war.”48 Members who
were opposed to the freeze argued that the scheduled payroll tax increase was important for the were opposed to the freeze argued that the scheduled payroll tax increase was important for the
long-term soundness of the OASI Trust Fund and that postponing the tax increase would mean long-term soundness of the OASI Trust Fund and that postponing the tax increase would mean
higher payroll tax rates in the future and perhaps government subsidies to meet obligations. Some higher payroll tax rates in the future and perhaps government subsidies to meet obligations. Some
proponents of the freeze maintained that the Administration wanted the tax increase to retire the proponents of the freeze maintained that the Administration wanted the tax increase to retire the
public debt accumulated by wartime expenditures. public debt accumulated by wartime expenditures.
Although Senator Vandenberg (R-MI) was the main spokesman for postponing the payroll tax Although Senator Vandenberg (R-MI) was the main spokesman for postponing the payroll tax
increases, the legislative effort to defer tax increases was bipartisan. “Without regard to party or increases, the legislative effort to defer tax increases was bipartisan. “Without regard to party or
ideology, elected representatives of the people were not willing to argue for increases in an ideology, elected representatives of the people were not willing to argue for increases in an
earmarked tax if a current need for them could not be demonstrated,” one scholar observed.49 earmarked tax if a current need for them could not be demonstrated,” one scholar observed.49

46 46 Congressional Record, January 19, 1944, Senate, in floor statement by Sen. Vandenberg, p. 374 January 19, 1944, Senate, in floor statement by Sen. Vandenberg, p. 374
47 47 Congressional Record, January 19, 1944, Senate, p. 374. , January 19, 1944, Senate, p. 374.
48 48 Congressional Record, October 9, 1942, Senate, pp. 7983-7984. October 9, 1942, Senate, pp. 7983-7984.
49 Derthick, 49 Derthick, Policymaking for Social Security, p. 237. , p. 237.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

11 11

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

P.L. 492—80th Congress, 1948 Provision for Exclusion of Certain
Newspaper and Magazine Vendors from Social Security Coverage
(H.R. 5052) and P.L. 642—80th Congress, 1948 Provision to Maintain
Status Quo Concept of Employee
Two pieces of 1948 legislation, H.R. 5052 and H.J.Res. 296, settled the argument of who was Two pieces of 1948 legislation, H.R. 5052 and H.J.Res. 296, settled the argument of who was
considered an employee for purposes of Social Security coverage. The term considered an employee for purposes of Social Security coverage. The term employee was not was not
defined in the Social Security Act or in the Internal Revenue Code. However, in 1936, the Social defined in the Social Security Act or in the Internal Revenue Code. However, in 1936, the Social
Security Board and the Treasury Department issued regulations that to a certain extent explained Security Board and the Treasury Department issued regulations that to a certain extent explained
the meaning of the terms employee and the meaning of the terms employee and employer. In defining employer, both sets of regulations . In defining employer, both sets of regulations
emphasized the concept of “control”—the right to give instructions—but other significant factors, emphasized the concept of “control”—the right to give instructions—but other significant factors,
such as the right to discharge, the furnishing of tools, and a place to work, were also mentioned in such as the right to discharge, the furnishing of tools, and a place to work, were also mentioned in
the regulations. During the next few years, the Social Security Board and the Treasury the regulations. During the next few years, the Social Security Board and the Treasury
Department issued numerous rulings to clarify the boundaries of the employee-employer Department issued numerous rulings to clarify the boundaries of the employee-employer
relationship and a number of court cases established generally applicable precedents. The relationship and a number of court cases established generally applicable precedents. The
common-law meaning of employee, however, was very unclear in cases of outside salesmen.50 common-law meaning of employee, however, was very unclear in cases of outside salesmen.50
On December 31, 1946, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in the case On December 31, 1946, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in the case
of of Hearst Publications, Inc. v. The United States, ruled that newspaper vendors should be , ruled that newspaper vendors should be
considered employees rather than independent contractors. H.R. 5052, introduced in 1948, considered employees rather than independent contractors. H.R. 5052, introduced in 1948,
proposed to treat newspaper and magazine vendors as independent contractors rather than proposed to treat newspaper and magazine vendors as independent contractors rather than
employees and thereby to exclude them from Social Security coverage. In addition, in 1948, employees and thereby to exclude them from Social Security coverage. In addition, in 1948,
Congress addressed the broader issue of who was to be considered an employee by passing Congress addressed the broader issue of who was to be considered an employee by passing
H.J.Res. 296, a resolution to maintain the status quo of treating newspaper vendors as H.J.Res. 296, a resolution to maintain the status quo of treating newspaper vendors as
independent contractors, by stating that Congress, not the courts or the Social Security independent contractors, by stating that Congress, not the courts or the Social Security
Administration (SSA), should determine national policy regarding Social Security coverage. It Administration (SSA), should determine national policy regarding Social Security coverage. It
was reported that H.J.Res. 296 was introduced primarily to prevent the release of new federal was reported that H.J.Res. 296 was introduced primarily to prevent the release of new federal
regulations defining the meaning of employee along the lines interpreted by the Supreme Court in regulations defining the meaning of employee along the lines interpreted by the Supreme Court in
three cases decided in June 1947.51 H.J.Res. 296 excluded from Social Security coverage (and three cases decided in June 1947.51 H.J.Res. 296 excluded from Social Security coverage (and
unemployment insurance) any person who was not considered an employee under the common-unemployment insurance) any person who was not considered an employee under the common-
law rules. In effect, H.J.Res. 296 said that independent contractors (e.g., door-to-door salesmen, law rules. In effect, H.J.Res. 296 said that independent contractors (e.g., door-to-door salesmen,
insurance salesmen, and pieceworkers) were not to be considered employees. H.R. 5052 and insurance salesmen, and pieceworkers) were not to be considered employees. H.R. 5052 and
H.J.Res. 296 were vetoed by President Truman. Congress overrode both vetoes. H.J.Res. 296 were vetoed by President Truman. Congress overrode both vetoes.
In his veto of H.R. 5052, President Truman asserted that the nation’s security and welfare In his veto of H.R. 5052, President Truman asserted that the nation’s security and welfare
demanded that Social Security be expanded to cover the groups excluded from the program: “Any demanded that Social Security be expanded to cover the groups excluded from the program: “Any
step in the opposite direction can only serve to undermine the program and destroy the confidence step in the opposite direction can only serve to undermine the program and destroy the confidence
of our people in the permanence of its protection against the hazards of old age, premature death, of our people in the permanence of its protection against the hazards of old age, premature death,
and unemployment.”52 The action taken on H.R. 5052 illustrated the controversial issues involved and unemployment.”52 The action taken on H.R. 5052 illustrated the controversial issues involved
in determining who should be covered under Social Security. in determining who should be covered under Social Security.

50 Wilbur Cohen and James L. Calhoon, “Social Security Legislation. January-June 1948: Legislative History and 50 Wilbur Cohen and James L. Calhoon, “Social Security Legislation. January-June 1948: Legislative History and
Background,” Background,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 11, no. 7, July 1948, pp. 3-11, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/, vol. 11, no. 7, July 1948, pp. 3-11, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/
v11n7/v11n7p3.pdf. v11n7/v11n7p3.pdf.
51 Ibid. 51 Ibid.
52 52 Congressional Record, April 6, 1948, House, p. 4134. April 6, 1948, House, p. 4134.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

12 12

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

House Action
On March 4, 1948, Representative Gearhart (R-CA) asked unanimous consent for immediate On March 4, 1948, Representative Gearhart (R-CA) asked unanimous consent for immediate
consideration of H.R. 5052. He stated that “until the rendition of the federal court decisions I consideration of H.R. 5052. He stated that “until the rendition of the federal court decisions I
have referred to were rendered the status of the newspaper and magazine vendors was considered have referred to were rendered the status of the newspaper and magazine vendors was considered
by everyone, and as this Congress clearly intended, to be that of independent contractors since by everyone, and as this Congress clearly intended, to be that of independent contractors since
they bought their periodicals at a low price and sold them at a higher price, deriving their they bought their periodicals at a low price and sold them at a higher price, deriving their
livelihood from the profit in the operation.” Under the court decisions53 “these vendors were livelihood from the profit in the operation.” Under the court decisions53 “these vendors were
arbitrarily declared to be employees and therefore subject to the payroll taxes though the money arbitrarily declared to be employees and therefore subject to the payroll taxes though the money
they receive is not wages, as generally understood, but profits derived from an independent they receive is not wages, as generally understood, but profits derived from an independent
business operation of their own.” Under the court decisions, newspaper and magazine vendors business operation of their own.” Under the court decisions, newspaper and magazine vendors
were in essence employees of all of the newspaper and magazine companies with which they had were in essence employees of all of the newspaper and magazine companies with which they had
an arrangement. H.R. 5052 excluded newspaper and magazine vendors from coverage under the an arrangement. H.R. 5052 excluded newspaper and magazine vendors from coverage under the
Social Security Act. Representative Gearhart stated in his remarks that “when newspaper vendors Social Security Act. Representative Gearhart stated in his remarks that “when newspaper vendors
are covered into the Social Security system—and I believe they will be by act of Congress before are covered into the Social Security system—and I believe they will be by act of Congress before
this session ends—they will be brought in as the independent contractors which they are, as the this session ends—they will be brought in as the independent contractors which they are, as the
self-employed.... ” The House passed H.R. 5052 on March 4, 1948, by unanimous consent.54 self-employed.... ” The House passed H.R. 5052 on March 4, 1948, by unanimous consent.54
On February 27, 1948, H.J.Res. 296 was passed by a vote of 275 to 52.55 On February 27, 1948, H.J.Res. 296 was passed by a vote of 275 to 52.55
Senate Action
On March 23, 1948, the Senate passed by unanimous consent H.R. 5052 in form identical to that On March 23, 1948, the Senate passed by unanimous consent H.R. 5052 in form identical to that
passed by the House.56 passed by the House.56
On June 4, 1948, H.J.Res. 296 was passed, after public assistance amendments increasing federal On June 4, 1948, H.J.Res. 296 was passed, after public assistance amendments increasing federal
assistance to states were added, by a vote of 74 to 6.57 assistance to states were added, by a vote of 74 to 6.57
Although there was no conference on H.J.Res. 296, the House concurred with the Senate Although there was no conference on H.J.Res. 296, the House concurred with the Senate
amendments on June 4, 1948, by voice vote.58 amendments on June 4, 1948, by voice vote.58
Veto
On April 6, 1948, in the veto message on H.R. 5052, President Truman stated that some vendors On April 6, 1948, in the veto message on H.R. 5052, President Truman stated that some vendors
work under arrangements, “which make them bona fide employees of the publishers, and, work under arrangements, “which make them bona fide employees of the publishers, and,
consequently, are entitled to the benefits of the Social Security Act.” President Truman further consequently, are entitled to the benefits of the Social Security Act.” President Truman further
stated that “It is said that news vendors affected by this bill could more appropriately be covered stated that “It is said that news vendors affected by this bill could more appropriately be covered
by the Social Security laws as independent contractors when and if coverage is extended to the by the Social Security laws as independent contractors when and if coverage is extended to the
self-employed. Whether that is true or not, surely they should continue to receive the benefits to self-employed. Whether that is true or not, surely they should continue to receive the benefits to
which they are now entitled until the broader coverage is provided. It would be most inequitable which they are now entitled until the broader coverage is provided. It would be most inequitable
to extinguish their present rights pending a determination as to whether it is more appropriate for to extinguish their present rights pending a determination as to whether it is more appropriate for
them to be covered on some other basis.”59 them to be covered on some other basis.”59

53 United States v. Silk (67 S. Ct. 1463), Harrison v. Grayvan Lines, Inc. (67 S. Ct. 1463), and Bartels v. Birmingham 53 United States v. Silk (67 S. Ct. 1463), Harrison v. Grayvan Lines, Inc. (67 S. Ct. 1463), and Bartels v. Birmingham
(67 S. Ct. 1547). (67 S. Ct. 1547).
54 54 Congressional Record, March 4, 1948, House, p. 2143. March 4, 1948, House, p. 2143.
55 55 Congressional Record, February 27, 1948, House, Roll call no. 18, not voting 103, pp. 1908-1909. February 27, 1948, House, Roll call no. 18, not voting 103, pp. 1908-1909.
56 56 Congressional Record, March 23, 1948, Senate, p. 3267 March 23, 1948, Senate, p. 3267
57 57 Congressional Record, June 4, 1948, Senate, not voting 16, p. 7134 June 4, 1948, Senate, not voting 16, p. 7134
58 58 Congressional Record, June 4, 1948, House, p. 7215. June 4, 1948, House, p. 7215.
59 59 Congressional Record, April 6, 1948, House, p. 4134. April 6, 1948, House, p. 4134.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

13 13

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On June 14, 1948, President Truman vetoed H.J.Res. 296, saying that “If our Social Security On June 14, 1948, President Truman vetoed H.J.Res. 296, saying that “If our Social Security
program is to endure, it must be protected against these piecemeal attacks. Coverage must be program is to endure, it must be protected against these piecemeal attacks. Coverage must be
permanently expanded and no employer or special group of employers should be permitted to permanently expanded and no employer or special group of employers should be permitted to
reverse that trend by efforts to avoid the burden which millions of other employers have carried reverse that trend by efforts to avoid the burden which millions of other employers have carried
without serious inconvenience or complaint.”60 without serious inconvenience or complaint.”60
Veto Override
The House overrode President Truman’s veto of H.R. 5052 and passed the bill on April 14, 1948, The House overrode President Truman’s veto of H.R. 5052 and passed the bill on April 14, 1948,
by a vote of 308 (207-R, 101-D) to 28 (2-R, 24-D, 2-I).61 On April 20, 1948, the Senate overrode by a vote of 308 (207-R, 101-D) to 28 (2-R, 24-D, 2-I).61 On April 20, 1948, the Senate overrode
the President’s veto and passed H.R. 5052 by a vote of 77 (48-R, 29-D) to 7 (7-D).62 the President’s veto and passed H.R. 5052 by a vote of 77 (48-R, 29-D) to 7 (7-D).62
On June 14, 1948, President Truman’s veto of H.J.Res. 296 was overridden in the House by a On June 14, 1948, President Truman’s veto of H.J.Res. 296 was overridden in the House by a
vote of 298 to 7563 and in the Senate by a vote of 65 (37-R, 28-D) to 12 (2-R, 10-D).64 vote of 298 to 7563 and in the Senate by a vote of 65 (37-R, 28-D) to 12 (2-R, 10-D).64
P.L. 734—81st Congress, Social Security Act Amendments of 1950
H.R. 6000, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1950, was signed by President Truman on H.R. 6000, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1950, was signed by President Truman on
August 28, 1950. H.R. 6000 broadened the Social Security Act to cover roughly 10 million August 28, 1950. H.R. 6000 broadened the Social Security Act to cover roughly 10 million
additional persons, including regularly employed farm and domestic workers; self-employed additional persons, including regularly employed farm and domestic workers; self-employed
people other than doctors, lawyers, engineers, and certain other professional groups; certain people other than doctors, lawyers, engineers, and certain other professional groups; certain
federal employees not covered by government pension plans; and workers in Puerto Rico and the federal employees not covered by government pension plans; and workers in Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands. On a voluntary group basis, coverage was offered to employees of state and local Virgin Islands. On a voluntary group basis, coverage was offered to employees of state and local
governments not under public employee retirement systems and to employees of nonprofit governments not under public employee retirement systems and to employees of nonprofit
organizations. Dependent husbands, widowers, and, under certain circumstances children of organizations. Dependent husbands, widowers, and, under certain circumstances children of
insured women were also made eligible for benefits (before, such benefits were not generally insured women were also made eligible for benefits (before, such benefits were not generally
available to children of female workers). available to children of female workers).
In addition, Congress raised benefits by about 77%; raised the wage base from $3,000 to $3,600; In addition, Congress raised benefits by about 77%; raised the wage base from $3,000 to $3,600;
raised employer and employee taxes gradually from 1.5% to an ultimate rate of 3.25% each in raised employer and employee taxes gradually from 1.5% to an ultimate rate of 3.25% each in
1970 and years thereafter; set the OASI tax rate for the self-employed at 75% of the combined 1970 and years thereafter; set the OASI tax rate for the self-employed at 75% of the combined
employer-employee rate; eased requirements for eligibility for benefits by making 1950 the employer-employee rate; eased requirements for eligibility for benefits by making 1950 the
starting date for most people in determining the quarters of coverage needed; permitted recipients starting date for most people in determining the quarters of coverage needed; permitted recipients
to have higher earnings ($50 a month) without losing any OASI benefits (i.e., those aged 75 or to have higher earnings ($50 a month) without losing any OASI benefits (i.e., those aged 75 or
older could now earn any amount without losing OASI benefits); and gave free wage credits of older could now earn any amount without losing OASI benefits); and gave free wage credits of
$160 for each month in which military service was performed between September 16, 1940, and $160 for each month in which military service was performed between September 16, 1940, and
July 24, 1947.65 July 24, 1947.65

60 60 Congressional Record, June 14, 1948, House, p. 8188. June 14, 1948, House, p. 8188.
61 61 Congressional Record, April 14, 1948, House, Roll call no. 44, not voting 93, p. 4432. April 14, 1948, House, Roll call no. 44, not voting 93, p. 4432.
62 62 Congressional Record, April 20, 1948, Senate, not voting 12, p. 4594. April 20, 1948, Senate, not voting 12, p. 4594.
63 63 Congressional Record, June 14, 1948, House, Roll call no. 105, not voting 57, p. 8191. June 14, 1948, House, Roll call no. 105, not voting 57, p. 8191.
64 64 Congressional Record, June 14, 1948, Senate, not voting 19, p. 8093. June 14, 1948, Senate, not voting 19, p. 8093.
65 Several subsequent pieces of legislation during the early 1950s extended these wage credits to periods of service up 65 Several subsequent pieces of legislation during the early 1950s extended these wage credits to periods of service up
to December 31, 1956. The 1967 amendments gave military wage credits of $300 per calendar quarter of service after to December 31, 1956. The 1967 amendments gave military wage credits of $300 per calendar quarter of service after
1967 (amended in 1972 to be effective in 1957). The 1977 amendments gave wage credits of $100 per $300 of basic 1967 (amended in 1972 to be effective in 1957). The 1977 amendments gave wage credits of $100 per $300 of basic
pay, up to a maximum of $1,200 credit per year, beginning in 1978. pay, up to a maximum of $1,200 credit per year, beginning in 1978.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

14 14

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

House Action
On August 22, 1949, the Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 6000. H.R. 6000 did not On August 22, 1949, the Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 6000. H.R. 6000 did not
include President Truman’s recommendations for health insurance or his request to lower the include President Truman’s recommendations for health insurance or his request to lower the
OASI eligibility age to 60 for women, but it did include disability protection for both Social OASI eligibility age to 60 for women, but it did include disability protection for both Social
Security and public assistance recipients. It also extended coverage to farm and domestic Security and public assistance recipients. It also extended coverage to farm and domestic
workers. workers.
All 10 Republicans on the committee (including 7 who voted to send H.R. 6000 to the floor) filed All 10 Republicans on the committee (including 7 who voted to send H.R. 6000 to the floor) filed
a minority report stating that OASI coverage and benefits should be limited so as to provide only a minority report stating that OASI coverage and benefits should be limited so as to provide only
a “basic floor” of economic protection. The minority report opposed the disability insurance a “basic floor” of economic protection. The minority report opposed the disability insurance
provision, saying that aid to the disabled should be limited to charity aid provided under the provision, saying that aid to the disabled should be limited to charity aid provided under the
proposed public assistance program for the permanently and totally disabled.66 proposed public assistance program for the permanently and totally disabled.66
The Committee on Rules at first refused to send H.R. 6000 to the floor, but, after much debate, a The Committee on Rules at first refused to send H.R. 6000 to the floor, but, after much debate, a
closed rule barring floor amendments was granted. A number of Members opposed the rule closed rule barring floor amendments was granted. A number of Members opposed the rule
because they said it foreclosed their right to improve the bill through floor amendments. because they said it foreclosed their right to improve the bill through floor amendments.
On October 4, 1949, Representative Sabath (D-IL) offered a resolution for four days of debate, On October 4, 1949, Representative Sabath (D-IL) offered a resolution for four days of debate,
with only the Committee on Ways and Means having the right to offer amendments, and with with only the Committee on Ways and Means having the right to offer amendments, and with
only a motion to recommit being in order. Those favoring the resolution stated that the Ways and only a motion to recommit being in order. Those favoring the resolution stated that the Ways and
Means Committee had devoted six months to considering the bill, had heard testimony from 250 Means Committee had devoted six months to considering the bill, had heard testimony from 250
witnesses and thus knew best how to improve the program. Those opposing the closed rule said witnesses and thus knew best how to improve the program. Those opposing the closed rule said
the bill was very controversial and that the whole House should settle difficult questions of the bill was very controversial and that the whole House should settle difficult questions of
policy. They said the closed rule negated the importance of other House Members and usurped policy. They said the closed rule negated the importance of other House Members and usurped
their rights. their rights.
The House agreed to the resolution for a closed rule by a vote of 189 (12-R, 176-D, 1-I) to 135 The House agreed to the resolution for a closed rule by a vote of 189 (12-R, 176-D, 1-I) to 135
(123-R, 12-D) on October 4, 1949.67 (123-R, 12-D) on October 4, 1949.67
On October 5, 1949, Representative Mason (R-IL) moved to recommit H.R. 6000, and offered On October 5, 1949, Representative Mason (R-IL) moved to recommit H.R. 6000, and offered
H.R. 6297 (a bill that carried out the minority view on H.R. 6000) as its substitute. H.R. 6297, H.R. 6297 (a bill that carried out the minority view on H.R. 6000) as its substitute. H.R. 6297,
introduced by Representative Kean (R-NJ) on October 3, 1949, held the wage base to $3,000; introduced by Representative Kean (R-NJ) on October 3, 1949, held the wage base to $3,000;
recommended greater coverage for domestic workers so that those who were less regularly recommended greater coverage for domestic workers so that those who were less regularly
employed would be included; exempted teachers, firemen, and policemen with their own pension employed would be included; exempted teachers, firemen, and policemen with their own pension
systems from coverage; confined disability payments to the public assistance program; and systems from coverage; confined disability payments to the public assistance program; and
recommended that Congress establish an independent Social Security system in Puerto Rico, the recommended that Congress establish an independent Social Security system in Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and other possessions rather than include them in the existing OASI program. Virgin Islands, and other possessions rather than include them in the existing OASI program.
The motion to recommit was defeated by a vote of 113 (112-R, 1-D) to 232 (29-R, 202-D, 1-I).68 The motion to recommit was defeated by a vote of 113 (112-R, 1-D) to 232 (29-R, 202-D, 1-I).68
Immediately following the rejection of the motion, H.R. 6000 was passed in the House by a vote Immediately following the rejection of the motion, H.R. 6000 was passed in the House by a vote
of 333 (R-130, D-202, 1-I) to 14 (R-12, D-2).69 of 333 (R-130, D-202, 1-I) to 14 (R-12, D-2).69

66 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, 66 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Social Security Act Amendments of 1949, report to , report to
accompany H.R. 6000, 81st Cong., 1st sess., August 22, 1949, H.Rept. 1300 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1949), pp. 157-accompany H.R. 6000, 81st Cong., 1st sess., August 22, 1949, H.Rept. 1300 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1949), pp. 157-
165. 165.
67 67 Congressional Record,, October 4, 1949, House, Roll call no. 215, not voting 106, p. 13819. October 4, 1949, House, Roll call no. 215, not voting 106, p. 13819.
68 68 Congressional Record,, October 5, 1949, House, Roll call no. 217, not voting 84, pp. 13972-13973. October 5, 1949, House, Roll call no. 217, not voting 84, pp. 13972-13973.
69 69 Congressional Record,, October 5, 1949, House, Roll call no. 218, not voting-84, pp. 13973-13974. October 5, 1949, House, Roll call no. 218, not voting-84, pp. 13973-13974.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

15 15

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Senate Action
Since Congress adjourned shortly after the House action, the Senate did not consider H.R. 6000 Since Congress adjourned shortly after the House action, the Senate did not consider H.R. 6000
until 1950. The Senate Finance Committee held extensive hearings and adopted many until 1950. The Senate Finance Committee held extensive hearings and adopted many
amendments to H.R. 6000. The committee stated that the chief purpose of the bill was to amendments to H.R. 6000. The committee stated that the chief purpose of the bill was to
strengthen the OASI system so that OASI would be the primary method of offering “basic strengthen the OASI system so that OASI would be the primary method of offering “basic
security to retired persons and survivors,”70 with public assistance (particularly old-age security to retired persons and survivors,”70 with public assistance (particularly old-age
assistance) playing strictly a supplementary and secondary role. The Finance Committee version assistance) playing strictly a supplementary and secondary role. The Finance Committee version
of the bill did not include the disability insurance provision passed by the House nor the provision of the bill did not include the disability insurance provision passed by the House nor the provision
providing federal grants to states for needy persons who were permanently and totally disabled, providing federal grants to states for needy persons who were permanently and totally disabled,
nor President Truman’s health insurance proposal. The bill was reported to the Senate on May 17, nor President Truman’s health insurance proposal. The bill was reported to the Senate on May 17,
1950, and debate began on June 12, 1950. 1950, and debate began on June 12, 1950.
On June 14, 1950, following a Senate Republican Policy Committee meeting, Senator Millikin On June 14, 1950, following a Senate Republican Policy Committee meeting, Senator Millikin
(R-CO) and Senator Taft (R-OH) indicated that Republicans would support H.R. 6000 but (R-CO) and Senator Taft (R-OH) indicated that Republicans would support H.R. 6000 but
favored a study to determine whether the OASI and old-age assistance programs eventually favored a study to determine whether the OASI and old-age assistance programs eventually
should be united in a universal pay-as-you-go system. Under this proposal, all elderly persons in should be united in a universal pay-as-you-go system. Under this proposal, all elderly persons in
the United States would become eligible for subsistence-level pensions at the age of 65, with the United States would become eligible for subsistence-level pensions at the age of 65, with
pension amounts the same for all (rather than varied to reflect earnings during the work career), pension amounts the same for all (rather than varied to reflect earnings during the work career),
and financed from current revenues rather than a trust fund.71 and financed from current revenues rather than a trust fund.71
An amendment offered by Senator Myers (D-PA) to add a disability insurance program to OASI An amendment offered by Senator Myers (D-PA) to add a disability insurance program to OASI
was rejected by a voice vote.72 was rejected by a voice vote.72
On June 20, 1950, another amendment offered by Senator Myers to boost the OASI wage base On June 20, 1950, another amendment offered by Senator Myers to boost the OASI wage base
from $3,000 to $4,200, closer to what President Truman had requested (instead of $3,600 from $3,000 to $4,200, closer to what President Truman had requested (instead of $3,600
specified in the George amendment—see below), was rejected 36 (9-R, 27-D) to 45 (27-R, 18-specified in the George amendment—see below), was rejected 36 (9-R, 27-D) to 45 (27-R, 18-
D).73 D).73
On June 20, 1950, Senator Long (D-LA) introduced an amendment to provide federal grants to On June 20, 1950, Senator Long (D-LA) introduced an amendment to provide federal grants to
States for needy disabled persons. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 41 (4-R, 37-D) to 42 States for needy disabled persons. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 41 (4-R, 37-D) to 42
(33-R, 9-D).74 (33-R, 9-D).74
On June 20, 1950, Senator George’s (D-GA) amendment to increase the basic wage base from On June 20, 1950, Senator George’s (D-GA) amendment to increase the basic wage base from
$3,000 to $3,600 was agreed to by voice vote.75 $3,000 to $3,600 was agreed to by voice vote.75
On June 20, 1950, by a voice vote, the Senate adopted S.Res. 300, authorizing a study of a On June 20, 1950, by a voice vote, the Senate adopted S.Res. 300, authorizing a study of a
universal pay-as-you-go old-age pension system.76 universal pay-as-you-go old-age pension system.76
The Senate passed H.R. 6000 on June 20 by a vote of 81 (35-R, 47-D) to 2 (2-R).77 The Senate passed H.R. 6000 on June 20 by a vote of 81 (35-R, 47-D) to 2 (2-R).77

70 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, 70 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Social Security Act Amendments of 1950, report to accompany H.R. , report to accompany H.R.
6000, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., May 17, 1950, H.Rept. 1669 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1950), p. 2. 6000, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., May 17, 1950, H.Rept. 1669 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1950), p. 2.
71 71 Congress and the Nation: 1945-1964, Washington, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1965, p. 1243. Washington, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1965, p. 1243.
72 72 Congressional Record, June 20, 1950, Senate, p. 8904. June 20, 1950, Senate, p. 8904.
73 73 Congressional Record, June 20, 1950, Senate, not voting 15, p. 8883. June 20, 1950, Senate, not voting 15, p. 8883.
74 74 Congressional Record, June 20, 1950, Senate, not voting 13, p. 8889. June 20, 1950, Senate, not voting 13, p. 8889.
75 75 Congressional Record, June 20, 1950, Senate, p. 8883. June 20, 1950, Senate, p. 8883.
76 76 Congressional Record, June 20, 1950, Senate, p. 8878. June 20, 1950, Senate, p. 8878.
77 77 Congressional Record, June 20, 1950, Senate, not voting 13, p. 8910. June 20, 1950, Senate, not voting 13, p. 8910.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

16 16

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Conference Action
Conferees dropped the disability insurance proposal, but retained the public assistance program Conferees dropped the disability insurance proposal, but retained the public assistance program
for the permanently and totally disabled (i.e., the so-called charity approach). The conference for the permanently and totally disabled (i.e., the so-called charity approach). The conference
report was submitted to the House on August 1, 1950. report was submitted to the House on August 1, 1950.
On August 16, 1950, Representative Byrnes (R-WI) moved to recommit the conference report on On August 16, 1950, Representative Byrnes (R-WI) moved to recommit the conference report on
H.R. 6000. He stated that his main reason for doing so was to prevent any attempt to remove from H.R. 6000. He stated that his main reason for doing so was to prevent any attempt to remove from
the bill a Senate floor amendment by Representative Knowland (R-CA) to reduce federal control the bill a Senate floor amendment by Representative Knowland (R-CA) to reduce federal control
over state-administered unemployment insurance. Representative Doughton (D-NC) moved the over state-administered unemployment insurance. Representative Doughton (D-NC) moved the
previous question on the motion to recommit.78 The motion on the previous question was passed previous question on the motion to recommit.78 The motion on the previous question was passed
by a vote of 188 (120-R, 68-D) to 186 (20-R, 165-D, 1-I). The motion to recommit the conference by a vote of 188 (120-R, 68-D) to 186 (20-R, 165-D, 1-I). The motion to recommit the conference
report was rejected. report was rejected.
The conference report passed the House on August 16, 1950, 374 (140-R, 234-D) to 1 (1-R);79 The conference report passed the House on August 16, 1950, 374 (140-R, 234-D) to 1 (1-R);79
and the Senate on August 17, 1950, by voice vote.80 and the Senate on August 17, 1950, by voice vote.80
P.L. 590—82nd Congress, Social Security Act Amendments of 1952
H.R. 7800, the Social Security Amendments of 1952, was signed into law on July 18, 1952, by H.R. 7800, the Social Security Amendments of 1952, was signed into law on July 18, 1952, by
President Truman. The amendments increased OASI benefits for both present and future President Truman. The amendments increased OASI benefits for both present and future
recipients (by an average of 15% for those on the rolls), permitted recipients to earn $75 a month recipients (by an average of 15% for those on the rolls), permitted recipients to earn $75 a month
(instead of $50) without losing OASI benefits, extended wage credits of $160 for each month in (instead of $50) without losing OASI benefits, extended wage credits of $160 for each month in
which active military or naval service was performed during the period from July 24, 1947, which active military or naval service was performed during the period from July 24, 1947,
through December 1953, and provided for a disability “freeze,” which in principle preserved the through December 1953, and provided for a disability “freeze,” which in principle preserved the
Social Security benefits of qualified workers who became permanently and totally disabled before Social Security benefits of qualified workers who became permanently and totally disabled before
retirement by averaging the person’s wages only over his or her working years. (See following retirement by averaging the person’s wages only over his or her working years. (See following
conference action section for more details.) conference action section for more details.)
House Action
In the House, debate centered largely on a so-called disability freeze proposed by the Committee In the House, debate centered largely on a so-called disability freeze proposed by the Committee
on Ways and Means. Under the provision, if a person became permanently and totally disabled, on Ways and Means. Under the provision, if a person became permanently and totally disabled,
the period of disability was to be excluded in computing the number of quarters of coverage he or the period of disability was to be excluded in computing the number of quarters of coverage he or
she needed to be eligible for benefits, and in computing the average earnings on which the she needed to be eligible for benefits, and in computing the average earnings on which the
benefits would be based. The provision, in effect, preserved benefit rights while a person was benefits would be based. The provision, in effect, preserved benefit rights while a person was
disabled. Medical examinations by doctors and public institutions would be designated and paid disabled. Medical examinations by doctors and public institutions would be designated and paid
for by the Federal Security Agency (FSA). The American Medical Association (AMA) claimed for by the Federal Security Agency (FSA). The American Medical Association (AMA) claimed
that this arrangement would lead to socialized medicine. Representative Reed (R-NY), the that this arrangement would lead to socialized medicine. Representative Reed (R-NY), the
minority leader of the Ways and Means Committee, was the primary spokesman for Members minority leader of the Ways and Means Committee, was the primary spokesman for Members
who endorsed the AMA position. who endorsed the AMA position.
On May 19, 1952, when H.R. 7800 was brought to the floor under suspension of the rules On May 19, 1952, when H.R. 7800 was brought to the floor under suspension of the rules
procedure—requiring a two-thirds vote for passage and barring amendments—the majority of procedure—requiring a two-thirds vote for passage and barring amendments—the majority of
Republicans voted against it because of the disability provision, and it was rejected by a vote of Republicans voted against it because of the disability provision, and it was rejected by a vote of
151 (52-R, 98-D, 1-I) to 141 (99-R, 42-D), failing to win a two-thirds vote.81 151 (52-R, 98-D, 1-I) to 141 (99-R, 42-D), failing to win a two-thirds vote.81

78 A motion for the previous question, when carried, has the effect of stopping all debate and amendments, forcing a 78 A motion for the previous question, when carried, has the effect of stopping all debate and amendments, forcing a
vote on the pending matter. This parliamentary maneuver is used only in the House. vote on the pending matter. This parliamentary maneuver is used only in the House.
79 79 Congressional Record, August 16, 1950, House, Roll call no. 242, not voting 55, p. 12673. August 16, 1950, House, Roll call no. 242, not voting 55, p. 12673.
80 80 Congressional Record, August 17, 1950, House, p. 12718. August 17, 1950, House, p. 12718.
81 81 Congressional Record, May 19, 1952, House, Roll call no. 79, not voting 139, pp. 5483-5484. May 19, 1952, House, Roll call no. 79, not voting 139, pp. 5483-5484.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

17 17

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On June 16, 1952, Democratic leaders brought H.R. 7800 to the floor under suspension of the On June 16, 1952, Democratic leaders brought H.R. 7800 to the floor under suspension of the
rules. An amended version of the revised bill empowered the FSA to make disability rules. An amended version of the revised bill empowered the FSA to make disability
determinations but omitted the language specifying how the FSA administrator should do so. determinations but omitted the language specifying how the FSA administrator should do so.
Representative Reed said “... let no person on this floor be deceived. You have the same old H.R. Representative Reed said “... let no person on this floor be deceived. You have the same old H.R.
7800 here before you. While the socialized medicine advocates pretend to remove the specific 7800 here before you. While the socialized medicine advocates pretend to remove the specific
instructions to the Administrator, they now give him more powers under general provisions of the instructions to the Administrator, they now give him more powers under general provisions of the
law than he had before. You have socialized medicine here stronger in this bill than was H.R. law than he had before. You have socialized medicine here stronger in this bill than was H.R.
7800, heretofore defeated.”82 Representative Reed later contended that because of the 7800, heretofore defeated.”82 Representative Reed later contended that because of the
approaching election, many Members chose to go on record in favor of the other OASI provisions approaching election, many Members chose to go on record in favor of the other OASI provisions
and so voted for the amended version of H.R. 7800. The bill was approved 361 (165-R, 195-D, 1-and so voted for the amended version of H.R. 7800. The bill was approved 361 (165-R, 195-D, 1-
I) to 22 (20-R, 2-D) on June 17, 1952.83 I) to 22 (20-R, 2-D) on June 17, 1952.83
Senate Action
When the bill came to the Senate Finance Committee, it dropped the disability freeze provision. When the bill came to the Senate Finance Committee, it dropped the disability freeze provision.
The Finance Committee said there was inadequate time to study the issue properly. The Finance Committee said there was inadequate time to study the issue properly.
The committee amendment, offered by Senator George (D-GA), to drop the disability freeze The committee amendment, offered by Senator George (D-GA), to drop the disability freeze
provision, was passed by voice vote on June 26, 1952.84 provision, was passed by voice vote on June 26, 1952.84
H.R. 7800 (without the disability freeze provision) was passed in the Senate by a voice vote on H.R. 7800 (without the disability freeze provision) was passed in the Senate by a voice vote on
June 26, 1952.85 June 26, 1952.85
Conference Action
The conferees retained the disability freeze provision, in principle. The compromise terminated The conferees retained the disability freeze provision, in principle. The compromise terminated
the freeze provision on June 30, 1953; at the same time, it did not allow an application to be the freeze provision on June 30, 1953; at the same time, it did not allow an application to be
accepted before July 1, 1953. Thus, the disability freeze provision was made inoperative unless accepted before July 1, 1953. Thus, the disability freeze provision was made inoperative unless
Congress, in subsequent legislation, were to take action to remove the bar. The stated intent in Congress, in subsequent legislation, were to take action to remove the bar. The stated intent in
making the provision inoperative was to permit “the working out of tentative agreements with the making the provision inoperative was to permit “the working out of tentative agreements with the
States for possible administration of these provisions.”86 In addition, the conferees gave States for possible administration of these provisions.”86 In addition, the conferees gave
responsibility for determining whether an applicant was disabled to appropriate state agencies responsibility for determining whether an applicant was disabled to appropriate state agencies
(such as public assistance, vocational rehabilitation, or workmen’s compensation), instead of the (such as public assistance, vocational rehabilitation, or workmen’s compensation), instead of the
FSA. The Federal Security administrator would be able to overturn a ruling by the state agencies FSA. The Federal Security administrator would be able to overturn a ruling by the state agencies
that a person was disabled, but would not be able to reverse a ruling by the state agencies that a that a person was disabled, but would not be able to reverse a ruling by the state agencies that a
person was not disabled. person was not disabled.
The conference report was agreed to July 5, 1952, by voice votes in both chambers.87 The conference report was agreed to July 5, 1952, by voice votes in both chambers.87
P.L. 761—83rd Congress, Social Security Amendments of 1954
H.R. 9366, the Social Security Amendments of 1954, was signed by President Eisenhower on H.R. 9366, the Social Security Amendments of 1954, was signed by President Eisenhower on
September 1, 1954. In his 1953 State of the Union Message, the President recommended that September 1, 1954. In his 1953 State of the Union Message, the President recommended that
“OASI should promptly be expanded to cover millions of citizens who have been left out of the “OASI should promptly be expanded to cover millions of citizens who have been left out of the

82 82 Congressional Record, June 16, 1952, House, p. 7293. June 16, 1952, House, p. 7293.
83 83 Congressional Record, June 17, 1952, House, Roll call no. 106, not voting 46, p. 7387. June 17, 1952, House, Roll call no. 106, not voting 46, p. 7387.
84 84 Congressional Record, June 26, 1952, Senate, p. 8141. June 26, 1952, Senate, p. 8141.
85 85 Congressional Record, June 26, 1952, Senate, p. 8155. June 26, 1952, Senate, p. 8155.
86 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, 1952. 86 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, 1952. Social Security Act Amendments of 1952,, conference report to conference report to
accompany H.R. 7800, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., July 5, 1952, H.Rept. 2491 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1952), p. 9. accompany H.R. 7800, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., July 5, 1952, H.Rept. 2491 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1952), p. 9.
87 87 Congressional Record, July 5, 1952, House, p. 9670. Also see, July 5, 1952, House, p. 9670. Also see, Congressional Record, July 5, 1952, Senate, p. 9523. July 5, 1952, Senate, p. 9523.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

18 18

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Social Security system.” The Social Security Amendments of 1954 extended Social Security system.” The Social Security Amendments of 1954 extended mandatory coverage coverage
to, among others, some self-employed farmers, engineers, architects, accountants, and funeral to, among others, some self-employed farmers, engineers, architects, accountants, and funeral
directors, all federal employees not covered by government pension plans, and farm and domestic directors, all federal employees not covered by government pension plans, and farm and domestic
service workers not covered by the 1950 amendments, and it extended service workers not covered by the 1950 amendments, and it extended voluntary coverage to coverage to
ministers and certain state and local government employees already covered by staff retirement ministers and certain state and local government employees already covered by staff retirement
systems. The bill also raised the wage base for the OASI tax to $4,200; raised the tax rate to systems. The bill also raised the wage base for the OASI tax to $4,200; raised the tax rate to
3.5%, each, for employers and employees beginning in 1970, and to 4.0%, each, beginning in 3.5%, each, for employers and employees beginning in 1970, and to 4.0%, each, beginning in
1975, with the tax rate for the self-employed continuing at 1.5 times the employee rate (or 75% of 1975, with the tax rate for the self-employed continuing at 1.5 times the employee rate (or 75% of
the combined employee-employer rate). OASI benefits for recipients were raised by roughly the combined employee-employer rate). OASI benefits for recipients were raised by roughly
15%, with the maximum individual benefit rising from $85 to $98.50 a month, and a revised 15%, with the maximum individual benefit rising from $85 to $98.50 a month, and a revised
benefit formula was provided for future retirees that increased benefits by roughly 27%, with the benefit formula was provided for future retirees that increased benefits by roughly 27%, with the
maximum benefit rising from $85 a month to $108.50. The bill also put the disability freeze into maximum benefit rising from $85 a month to $108.50. The bill also put the disability freeze into
effect (see discussion of House action on the 1952 amendments below), with disability effect (see discussion of House action on the 1952 amendments below), with disability
determinations to be made by the appropriate State agencies, permitted a recipient to earn up to determinations to be made by the appropriate State agencies, permitted a recipient to earn up to
$1,200 a year without deductions, eliminated the earnings test for people aged 72 or older, and $1,200 a year without deductions, eliminated the earnings test for people aged 72 or older, and
dropped the five years of lowest earnings from average monthly wage determinations for benefit dropped the five years of lowest earnings from average monthly wage determinations for benefit
computation purposes. computation purposes.
House Action
On June 1, 1954, Representative Smith (D-VA) and other farm area Democrats objected to On June 1, 1954, Representative Smith (D-VA) and other farm area Democrats objected to
bringing H.R. 9366 to the floor under a closed rule because coverage of farmers was included in bringing H.R. 9366 to the floor under a closed rule because coverage of farmers was included in
the bill. Representative Smith stated, “I object to the feature of this bill that prohibits you from the bill. Representative Smith stated, “I object to the feature of this bill that prohibits you from
offering any amendment. I think that requires a little discussion and a little understanding. We all offering any amendment. I think that requires a little discussion and a little understanding. We all
agree that on an ordinary tax bill it is not feasible or practical to write it on the floor of the House, agree that on an ordinary tax bill it is not feasible or practical to write it on the floor of the House,
and therefore we have adopted the theory that we have closed rules on tax bills ... all we asked for and therefore we have adopted the theory that we have closed rules on tax bills ... all we asked for
in the Rules Committee was that the individual members of this House be given an opportunity to in the Rules Committee was that the individual members of this House be given an opportunity to
offer amendments to designate what classifications of persons should be included.”88 On June 1, offer amendments to designate what classifications of persons should be included.”88 On June 1,
1954, by a vote of 270 (171-R, 98-D, 1-I) to 76 (5-R, 71-D),89 debate of the closed rule was cut 1954, by a vote of 270 (171-R, 98-D, 1-I) to 76 (5-R, 71-D),89 debate of the closed rule was cut
off, and the closed rule was then adopted by voice vote. off, and the closed rule was then adopted by voice vote.
The House bill also included provisions extending mandatory coverage to all self-employed The House bill also included provisions extending mandatory coverage to all self-employed
professionals but doctors (dentists and other medical professionals would have been covered).90 professionals but doctors (dentists and other medical professionals would have been covered).90
The House passed H.R. 9366 on June 1, 1954, by a vote of 356 (181-R, 174-D, 1-I) to 8 (2-R, 6- The House passed H.R. 9366 on June 1, 1954, by a vote of 356 (181-R, 174-D, 1-I) to 8 (2-R, 6-
D).91 D).91
Senate Action
H.R. 9366 as reported by the Finance Committee included the coverage of farm and domestic H.R. 9366 as reported by the Finance Committee included the coverage of farm and domestic
service workers, ministers, state and local government employees covered by a retirement system, service workers, ministers, state and local government employees covered by a retirement system,
and a small number of professionals. It also increased the earnings test threshold to $1,200 a year; and a small number of professionals. It also increased the earnings test threshold to $1,200 a year;
reduced the age at which the earnings test no longer applied to 72; and increased the lump-sum reduced the age at which the earnings test no longer applied to 72; and increased the lump-sum

88 88 Congressional Record, June 1, 1954, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Smith, p. 7423. June 1, 1954, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Smith, p. 7423.
89 89 Congressional Record, June 1, 1954, House, Roll call no. 77, not voting 87, p. 7425. June 1, 1954, House, Roll call no. 77, not voting 87, p. 7425.
90 The American Dental Association and the American Medical Association (AMA) strongly opposed Social Security 90 The American Dental Association and the American Medical Association (AMA) strongly opposed Social Security
coverage for their groups. The AMA said it was incompatible with the free enterprise system. coverage for their groups. The AMA said it was incompatible with the free enterprise system. Congressional Record,
August 13, 1954, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Millikin (R-CO), p. 14422. August 13, 1954, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Millikin (R-CO), p. 14422.
91 91 Congressional Record, June 1, 1954, House, Roll call no. 78, not voting 68, p. 7468. June 1, 1954, House, Roll call no. 78, not voting 68, p. 7468.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

19 19

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

death benefit from $255 to $325.50. During the Senate debate on H.R. 9366, nine amendments death benefit from $255 to $325.50. During the Senate debate on H.R. 9366, nine amendments
were adopted, six were rejected, and six were presented and then withdrawn.92 were adopted, six were rejected, and six were presented and then withdrawn.92
Among the amendments adopted on the floor by the Senate was a provision by Senator Long (D- Among the amendments adopted on the floor by the Senate was a provision by Senator Long (D-
LA) to require the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to study the feasibility and costs LA) to require the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to study the feasibility and costs
of providing increased minimum benefits of $55, $60, and $75 a month under the Social Security of providing increased minimum benefits of $55, $60, and $75 a month under the Social Security
program. On August 13, 1954, Senator Long’s amendment was agreed to by voice vote.93 program. On August 13, 1954, Senator Long’s amendment was agreed to by voice vote.93
Among the amendments defeated were the Johnston (D-SC) amendment to reduce the Social Among the amendments defeated were the Johnston (D-SC) amendment to reduce the Social
Security eligibility age to 60; the Stennis (D-MS) amendments that would have left the coverage Security eligibility age to 60; the Stennis (D-MS) amendments that would have left the coverage
of farm workers unchanged; and the Humphrey (D-MN) amendment to increase the widow’s of farm workers unchanged; and the Humphrey (D-MN) amendment to increase the widow’s
benefit to 100% of the primary insurance amount. On August 13, 1954, Senator Johnston’s benefit to 100% of the primary insurance amount. On August 13, 1954, Senator Johnston’s
amendment was rejected by voice vote.94 On August 13, 1954, the Stennis amendments were amendment was rejected by voice vote.94 On August 13, 1954, the Stennis amendments were
rejected en bloc by voice vote.95 On August 13, 1954, Senator Humphrey’s amendment was rejected en bloc by voice vote.95 On August 13, 1954, Senator Humphrey’s amendment was
rejected on a division vote.96 rejected on a division vote.96
Among the amendments that were presented and then withdrawn was an amendment by Senator Among the amendments that were presented and then withdrawn was an amendment by Senator
Lehman (D-NY) to extend Social Security coverage, increase benefits, add permanent and total Lehman (D-NY) to extend Social Security coverage, increase benefits, add permanent and total
disability and temporary disability Social Security benefits, and to make other changes.97 disability and temporary disability Social Security benefits, and to make other changes.97
On August 13, 1954, the Senate passed H.R. 9366, by voice vote.98 On August 13, 1954, the Senate passed H.R. 9366, by voice vote.98
Conference Action
The conferees, among other things, accepted a provision mandatorily covering self-employed The conferees, among other things, accepted a provision mandatorily covering self-employed
farmers, accountants, architects, engineers, and funeral directors, but excluding lawyers, doctors, farmers, accountants, architects, engineers, and funeral directors, but excluding lawyers, doctors,
dentists, or other medical professionals, and extended coverage to federal employees not covered dentists, or other medical professionals, and extended coverage to federal employees not covered
by staff retirement systems. by staff retirement systems.
Both chambers agreed to the conference report without amendments by voice vote on August 20, Both chambers agreed to the conference report without amendments by voice vote on August 20,
1954, the last day of the session.99 1954, the last day of the session.99
P.L. 880—84th Congress, Social Security Amendments of 1956
H.R. 7225, the Social Security Amendments of 1956, was signed by President Eisenhower on H.R. 7225, the Social Security Amendments of 1956, was signed by President Eisenhower on
August 1, 1956. The amendments provided benefits, after a six-month waiting period, for August 1, 1956. The amendments provided benefits, after a six-month waiting period, for
permanently and totally disabled workers aged 50 to 64 who were fully insured and had at least 5 permanently and totally disabled workers aged 50 to 64 who were fully insured and had at least 5
years of coverage in the 10-year period before becoming disabled; to a dependent child 18 years years of coverage in the 10-year period before becoming disabled; to a dependent child 18 years
or older of a deceased or retired insured worker if the child became disabled before age 18; to or older of a deceased or retired insured worker if the child became disabled before age 18; to
female workers and wives at the age of 62, instead of 65, with actuarially reduced benefits; female workers and wives at the age of 62, instead of 65, with actuarially reduced benefits;

92 Wilbur J. Cohen, Robert M. Ball, and Robert J. Myers, “Social Security Act Amendments of 1954: A Summary and 92 Wilbur J. Cohen, Robert M. Ball, and Robert J. Myers, “Social Security Act Amendments of 1954: A Summary and
Legislative History,” Legislative History,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 17, no. 9, September 1954, pp. 3-18, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/, vol. 17, no. 9, September 1954, pp. 3-18, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/
docs/ssb/v17n9/v17n9p3.pdf. docs/ssb/v17n9/v17n9p3.pdf.
93 93 Congressional Record, August 13, 1954, Senate, p. 14442. August 13, 1954, Senate, p. 14442.
94 94 Congressional Record, August 13, 1954, Senate, p. 14433. August 13, 1954, Senate, p. 14433.
95 95 Congressional Record, August 13, 1954, Senate, p. 14435. August 13, 1954, Senate, p. 14435.
96 96 Congressional Record, August 13, 1954, Senate, p. 14444. August 13, 1954, Senate, p. 14444.
97 97 Congressional Record, August 13, 1954, Senate, p. 14419. August 13, 1954, Senate, p. 14419.
98 98 Congressional Record, August 13, 1954, Senate, p. 14446. August 13, 1954, Senate, p. 14446.
99 99 Congressional Record, August 20, 1954, House, p. 15544. Also, August 20, 1954, House, p. 15544. Also, Congressional Record, August 20, 1954, Senate, p. August 20, 1954, Senate, p.
15414. 15414.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

20 20

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

reduced from 65 to 62 the age at which benefits were payable to widows or parents, with no reduced from 65 to 62 the age at which benefits were payable to widows or parents, with no
reduction; extended coverage to lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, optometrists, and all other self-reduction; extended coverage to lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, optometrists, and all other self-
employed professionals except doctors;100 increased the tax rate by 0.25% on employer and employed professionals except doctors;100 increased the tax rate by 0.25% on employer and
employee each (0.375% for self-employed people) to finance disability benefits (thereby raising employee each (0.375% for self-employed people) to finance disability benefits (thereby raising
the aggregate tax rate ultimately to 4.25% each for employees and employers); and created a the aggregate tax rate ultimately to 4.25% each for employees and employers); and created a
separate Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund. The Social Security program now consisted of separate Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund. The Social Security program now consisted of
OASDI. OASDI.
House Action
Major House Ways and Means Committee provisions provided benefits to disabled persons aged Major House Ways and Means Committee provisions provided benefits to disabled persons aged
50 or older and reduced the age at which women could first receive OASI benefits to 62. 50 or older and reduced the age at which women could first receive OASI benefits to 62.
Although some Members maintained that not enough time was spent in working out the details of Although some Members maintained that not enough time was spent in working out the details of
these two controversial provisions, H.R. 7225 was brought to the floor under suspension of the these two controversial provisions, H.R. 7225 was brought to the floor under suspension of the
rules, which barred floor amendments and required a two-thirds vote for passage. H.R. 7225 was rules, which barred floor amendments and required a two-thirds vote for passage. H.R. 7225 was
passed by the House on July 18, 1955, by a vote of 372 (169-R, 203-D) to 31 (23-R, 8-D).101 passed by the House on July 18, 1955, by a vote of 372 (169-R, 203-D) to 31 (23-R, 8-D).101
Senate Action
At Senate Finance Committee hearings on the House-passed bill, the Secretary of Health, At Senate Finance Committee hearings on the House-passed bill, the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Marion Folsom stated that the Administration was opposed to reducing Education, and Welfare, Marion Folsom stated that the Administration was opposed to reducing
the retirement age to 62 for women and providing disability benefits. According to the retirement age to 62 for women and providing disability benefits. According to Congress and
the Nation, Senator Folsom said that OASI had stayed actuarially sound without excessive taxes , Senator Folsom said that OASI had stayed actuarially sound without excessive taxes
because it had been restricted to one purpose with “predictable costs”: providing income for the because it had been restricted to one purpose with “predictable costs”: providing income for the
aged.102 Spokesmen for the AFL-CIO and several other groups maintained that union experience aged.102 Spokesmen for the AFL-CIO and several other groups maintained that union experience
with welfare plans and federal studies dating back to 1937 showed that disability insurance was with welfare plans and federal studies dating back to 1937 showed that disability insurance was
both administratively and financially sound. both administratively and financially sound.
On June 5, 1956, the Senate Finance Committee reported H.R. 7225 after eliminating the On June 5, 1956, the Senate Finance Committee reported H.R. 7225 after eliminating the
Disability Insurance program and the tax increase to pay for it and limiting retirement benefits at Disability Insurance program and the tax increase to pay for it and limiting retirement benefits at
age 62 to widows only. age 62 to widows only.
On July 17, 1956, Senator George (D-GA) offered an amendment reinstating the DI program and On July 17, 1956, Senator George (D-GA) offered an amendment reinstating the DI program and
the tax increase to finance it. The amendment provided for a separate DI Trust Fund (instead of the tax increase to finance it. The amendment provided for a separate DI Trust Fund (instead of
operating the new program out of the OASI Trust Fund). The amendment was passed by a vote of operating the new program out of the OASI Trust Fund). The amendment was passed by a vote of
47 (6-R, 41-D) to 45 (38-R, 7-D).103 47 (6-R, 41-D) to 45 (38-R, 7-D).103
Also, on July 17, 1956, the Senate agreed to Senator Kerr’s (D-OK) amendment to permit women Also, on July 17, 1956, the Senate agreed to Senator Kerr’s (D-OK) amendment to permit women
to receive benefits at age 62 at actuarially reduced rates. The amendment passed by a vote of 86 to receive benefits at age 62 at actuarially reduced rates. The amendment passed by a vote of 86
(40-R, 46-D) to 7 (5-R, 2-D).104 (40-R, 46-D) to 7 (5-R, 2-D).104

100 P.L. 881-84th Congress, the Servicemen’s and Veterans’ Survivor Benefit Act (H.R. 7089), extended coverage of the 100 P.L. 881-84th Congress, the Servicemen’s and Veterans’ Survivor Benefit Act (H.R. 7089), extended coverage of the
Social Security system to members of the uniformed services on active duty on a permanent contributory basis Social Security system to members of the uniformed services on active duty on a permanent contributory basis
beginning in 1957. It was signed into law on August 1, 1956. beginning in 1957. It was signed into law on August 1, 1956.
101 101 Congressional Record, July 18, 1955, House, Roll call no. 119, not voting 29, pp. 10798-10799. July 18, 1955, House, Roll call no. 119, not voting 29, pp. 10798-10799.
102 Sen. Folsom stated that until the ultimate costs were known, whether it was possible to make disability 102 Sen. Folsom stated that until the ultimate costs were known, whether it was possible to make disability
determinations good enough to avoid “fraudulent’ claims for benefits, and whether disability pensions might determinations good enough to avoid “fraudulent’ claims for benefits, and whether disability pensions might
discourage individual rehabilitative efforts, adding disability insurance to OASI would risk “overburdening and thus discourage individual rehabilitative efforts, adding disability insurance to OASI would risk “overburdening and thus
wrecking” the Social Security system. wrecking” the Social Security system. Congress and the Nation: 1945-1964, p. 1251. , p. 1251.
103 103 Congressional Record, July 17, 1956, Senate, not voting 4, p. 13056. July 17, 1956, Senate, not voting 4, p. 13056.
104 104 Congressional Record, July 17, 1956, Senate, not voting 3, p. 13073. July 17, 1956, Senate, not voting 3, p. 13073.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

21 21

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On July 17, 1956, the Senate passed H.R. 7225 by a vote of 90 (45-R, 45-D) to 0.105 On July 17, 1956, the Senate passed H.R. 7225 by a vote of 90 (45-R, 45-D) to 0.105
Conference Action
The House on July 26, 1956,106 and the Senate on July 27, 1956,107 cleared the conference report The House on July 26, 1956,106 and the Senate on July 27, 1956,107 cleared the conference report
on H.R. 7225 without amendments by voice votes. on H.R. 7225 without amendments by voice votes.
P.L. 85-840, Social Security Amendments of 1958
H.R. 13549, the Social Security Amendments of 1958, was signed by President Eisenhower on H.R. 13549, the Social Security Amendments of 1958, was signed by President Eisenhower on
August 28, 1958. The amendments raised recipients’ benefits an average of 7%, with benefits August 28, 1958. The amendments raised recipients’ benefits an average of 7%, with benefits
ranging from $33 to $127 per month for future recipients; increased maximum family benefits ranging from $33 to $127 per month for future recipients; increased maximum family benefits
from $200 to $254; raised the wage base from $4,200 to $4,800 a year; increased the tax rate by from $200 to $254; raised the wage base from $4,200 to $4,800 a year; increased the tax rate by
0.25% on employers and employees each and 0.375% for the self-employed; provided benefits to 0.25% on employers and employees each and 0.375% for the self-employed; provided benefits to
dependents of workers receiving disability benefits; and permitted the aged dependent parents of dependents of workers receiving disability benefits; and permitted the aged dependent parents of
an insured deceased worker to receive survivors’ benefits even if the worker’s widow or an insured deceased worker to receive survivors’ benefits even if the worker’s widow or
dependent widower or child were alive and also eligible for benefits. dependent widower or child were alive and also eligible for benefits.
House Action
Most of the controversy over H.R. 13549 pertained to public assistance programs. There was Most of the controversy over H.R. 13549 pertained to public assistance programs. There was
relatively little controversy over the proposed OASDI provisions. During debate on H.R. 13549, relatively little controversy over the proposed OASDI provisions. During debate on H.R. 13549,
Representative Reed (R-NY) stated that the bill would strengthen the actuarial soundness of the Representative Reed (R-NY) stated that the bill would strengthen the actuarial soundness of the
Social Security program.108 Social Security program.108
On July 31, 1958, the House passed H.R. 13549 by a vote of 374 to 2.109 On July 31, 1958, the House passed H.R. 13549 by a vote of 374 to 2.109
Senate Action
On August 15, 1958, Senator Yarborough (D-TX) offered an amendment to increase benefits by On August 15, 1958, Senator Yarborough (D-TX) offered an amendment to increase benefits by
10%, rather than 7% as proposed in H.R. 13549. Senator Yarborough stated that in many states 10%, rather than 7% as proposed in H.R. 13549. Senator Yarborough stated that in many states
old-age public assistance payments were higher than the “Social Security payments the people old-age public assistance payments were higher than the “Social Security payments the people
have earned by putting their money into the Social Security fund.”110 have earned by putting their money into the Social Security fund.”110
Proponents of the amendment mentioned that a 10% increase would alleviate erosion of benefits Proponents of the amendment mentioned that a 10% increase would alleviate erosion of benefits
due to inflation. Opponents of the amendment argued that many persons getting Social Security due to inflation. Opponents of the amendment argued that many persons getting Social Security
also received income from other sources. Some opponents of the amendment maintained that it also received income from other sources. Some opponents of the amendment maintained that it
would jeopardize the enactment of the bill. Senator Yarborough’s amendment was rejected by a would jeopardize the enactment of the bill. Senator Yarborough’s amendment was rejected by a
vote of 32 (6-R, 26-D) to 53 (33-R, 20-D).111 vote of 32 (6-R, 26-D) to 53 (33-R, 20-D).111

105 105 Congressional Record, July 17, 1956, Senate, not voting 6, p. 13103. July 17, 1956, Senate, not voting 6, p. 13103.
106 106 Congressional Record, July 26, 1956, House, p. 14828. July 26, 1956, House, p. 14828.
107 107 Congressional Record, July 27, 1956, Senate, p. 15107. July 27, 1956, Senate, p. 15107.
108 108 Congressional Record, July 31, 1958, House, p. 15740. July 31, 1958, House, p. 15740.
109 109 Congressional Record, July 31, 1958, House, Roll call no. 149, not voting 54, pp. 15775-15776. July 31, 1958, House, Roll call no. 149, not voting 54, pp. 15775-15776.
110 110 Congressional Record, August 15, 1958, Senate, p. 17798. August 15, 1958, Senate, p. 17798.
111 111 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, not voting 11, pp. 17971-17972. August 16, 1958, Senate, not voting 11, pp. 17971-17972.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

22 22

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On August 16, 1958, Senator Kennedy (D-MA) offered an amendment to increase Social Security On August 16, 1958, Senator Kennedy (D-MA) offered an amendment to increase Social Security
benefits by 8% (rather than 7%). The Kennedy-Case amendment was rejected by voice vote.112 benefits by 8% (rather than 7%). The Kennedy-Case amendment was rejected by voice vote.112
On August 16, 1958, Senator Morse (D-OR) offered an amendment to increase Social Security On August 16, 1958, Senator Morse (D-OR) offered an amendment to increase Social Security
benefits by 25%, provide health insurance, and make other changes. Senator Morse’s amendment benefits by 25%, provide health insurance, and make other changes. Senator Morse’s amendment
was rejected by voice vote.113 was rejected by voice vote.113
On August 16, 1958, Senator Humphrey (D-MN) offered an amendment to provide health On August 16, 1958, Senator Humphrey (D-MN) offered an amendment to provide health
insurance. (Senator Morse’s amendment was based in part on this Humphrey amendment.) insurance. (Senator Morse’s amendment was based in part on this Humphrey amendment.)
Senator Humphrey withdrew his amendment.114 Senator Humphrey withdrew his amendment.114
On August 16, 1958, Senator Kennedy offered an amendment for himself and Senator Smathers On August 16, 1958, Senator Kennedy offered an amendment for himself and Senator Smathers
(D-NJ) to eliminate the dollar ceiling of $255 on the lump-sum death benefit and restore the 3-to-(D-NJ) to eliminate the dollar ceiling of $255 on the lump-sum death benefit and restore the 3-to-
1 ratio between the death benefit and the regular monthly benefit. The amendment was rejected 1 ratio between the death benefit and the regular monthly benefit. The amendment was rejected
by voice vote.115 by voice vote.115
On August 16, 1958, Senator Revercomb (R-WV) offered an amendment to provide full Social On August 16, 1958, Senator Revercomb (R-WV) offered an amendment to provide full Social
Security retirement benefits at age 62, for both men and women. Senator Revercomb’s Security retirement benefits at age 62, for both men and women. Senator Revercomb’s
amendment was rejected by voice vote.116 amendment was rejected by voice vote.116
The Senate passed H.R. 13549 on August 16, 1958, by a vote of 79 (37-R, 42-D) to 0.117 The Senate passed H.R. 13549 on August 16, 1958, by a vote of 79 (37-R, 42-D) to 0.117
House Concurrence
On August 19, 1958, the House by a voice vote agreed to the Senate amendments.118 On August 19, 1958, the House by a voice vote agreed to the Senate amendments.118
P.L. 86-778, Social Security Amendments of 1960
H.R. 12580, the Social Security Amendments of 1960, was signed by President Eisenhower on H.R. 12580, the Social Security Amendments of 1960, was signed by President Eisenhower on
September 13, 1960. Health care for the aged was the primary issue in 1960. At the crux of the September 13, 1960. Health care for the aged was the primary issue in 1960. At the crux of the
debate was the question of whether the federal government should assume major responsibility debate was the question of whether the federal government should assume major responsibility
for the health care of the nation’s elderly people, and, if so, whether medical assistance should be for the health care of the nation’s elderly people, and, if so, whether medical assistance should be
provided through the Social Security system or through the public assistance programs (i.e., provided through the Social Security system or through the public assistance programs (i.e.,
charity approach). charity approach).
The 1960 amendments provided more federal funds for old-age assistance (OAA) programs so The 1960 amendments provided more federal funds for old-age assistance (OAA) programs so
that states could choose to improve or establish medical care services to OAA recipients. In that states could choose to improve or establish medical care services to OAA recipients. In
addition, the legislation known as “Kerr-Mills” established a new voluntary program (under addition, the legislation known as “Kerr-Mills” established a new voluntary program (under
jurisdiction of the OAA program) of medical assistance for the aged, under which states received jurisdiction of the OAA program) of medical assistance for the aged, under which states received
federal funds to help pay for medical care for persons aged 65 or older who were not recipients of federal funds to help pay for medical care for persons aged 65 or older who were not recipients of
OAA but whose income and resources were insufficient to meet their medical expenses. OAA but whose income and resources were insufficient to meet their medical expenses.
The 1960 amendments also contained a number of OASDI provisions. The amendments made The 1960 amendments also contained a number of OASDI provisions. The amendments made
disability benefits available to workers under the age of 50; established a new earnings test disability benefits available to workers under the age of 50; established a new earnings test
whereby each dollar of yearly earnings between $1,200 and $1,500 would cause only a 50-cent whereby each dollar of yearly earnings between $1,200 and $1,500 would cause only a 50-cent
reduction in benefits with a dollar-for-dollar reduction in benefits for earnings above $1,500; reduction in benefits with a dollar-for-dollar reduction in benefits for earnings above $1,500;

112 112 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 17985. August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 17985.
113 113 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 18005. August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 18005.
114 114 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 18008. August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 18008.
115 115 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 17986. August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 17986.
116 116 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 17982. August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 17982.
117117 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, not voting 17, p. 18014. August 16, 1958, Senate, not voting 17, p. 18014.
118 118 Congressional Record, August 19, 1958, House, p. 18540. August 19, 1958, House, p. 18540.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

23 23

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

liberalized requirements for fully insured status so that to be eligible for benefits a person needed liberalized requirements for fully insured status so that to be eligible for benefits a person needed
only one quarter of covered work for every three calendar quarters (rather than one for every two only one quarter of covered work for every three calendar quarters (rather than one for every two
quarters, as under the old law), elapsing after 1950 and before retirement, disability, or death; and quarters, as under the old law), elapsing after 1950 and before retirement, disability, or death; and
raised the survivor benefit of each child to 75% of the parent’s PIA. raised the survivor benefit of each child to 75% of the parent’s PIA.
House Action
H.R. 12580 as reported by the Ways and Means Committee contained two medical care H.R. 12580 as reported by the Ways and Means Committee contained two medical care
provisions for elderly people. The first provision provided the states with additional funding to provisions for elderly people. The first provision provided the states with additional funding to
improve or to establish medical care programs for old-age assistance recipients. The second improve or to establish medical care programs for old-age assistance recipients. The second
provision established a new federal-state program (under a new title of the Social Security Act) provision established a new federal-state program (under a new title of the Social Security Act)
designed to assist aged persons who were not eligible for public assistance but who were unable designed to assist aged persons who were not eligible for public assistance but who were unable
to pay their medical bills. to pay their medical bills.
The Ways and Means Committee rejected H.R. 4700, introduced by Representative Forand (D- The Ways and Means Committee rejected H.R. 4700, introduced by Representative Forand (D-
RI), which would have provided insurance against the cost of hospital, nursing home, and RI), which would have provided insurance against the cost of hospital, nursing home, and
surgical services for OASDI recipients, by a vote of 17 to 8.119 surgical services for OASDI recipients, by a vote of 17 to 8.119
Proponents of H.R. 12580 said that it provided medical assistance for every aged person in any Proponents of H.R. 12580 said that it provided medical assistance for every aged person in any
state that implemented a medical assistance program. Representative Thompson (D-NJ), a state that implemented a medical assistance program. Representative Thompson (D-NJ), a
supporter of the Forand bill stated that under H.R. 12580 people would be “denied the supporter of the Forand bill stated that under H.R. 12580 people would be “denied the
opportunity of contributing to their old-age health insurance coverage while employed and would opportunity of contributing to their old-age health insurance coverage while employed and would
be forced to rely upon charity after their working days were over.”120 He contended further that be forced to rely upon charity after their working days were over.”120 He contended further that
“even this charity ... is contingent upon the action of the separate states.”121 “even this charity ... is contingent upon the action of the separate states.”121
The House passed H.R. 12580 on June 23, 1960, by a vote of 381 (137-R, 244-D) to 23 (7-R, 16- The House passed H.R. 12580 on June 23, 1960, by a vote of 381 (137-R, 244-D) to 23 (7-R, 16-
D).122 D).122
Senate Action
The Senate deleted the bill’s new title, and instead adopted an amendment by Senator Kerr (D- The Senate deleted the bill’s new title, and instead adopted an amendment by Senator Kerr (D-
OK) and Senator Frear (D-DE) that amended Title I of the Social Security Act to provide medical OK) and Senator Frear (D-DE) that amended Title I of the Social Security Act to provide medical
services for medically needy aged persons. services for medically needy aged persons.
On August 20, 1960, Senator Javits (R-NY) offered an amendment to provide federal matching On August 20, 1960, Senator Javits (R-NY) offered an amendment to provide federal matching
grants to states to enable them to give health care to needy persons aged 65 or older. (This grants to states to enable them to give health care to needy persons aged 65 or older. (This
proposal was more generous than the provisions—also based on the public assistance, i.e., charity proposal was more generous than the provisions—also based on the public assistance, i.e., charity
approach—already in the report by the Finance Committee.) On August 23, 1960, Senator Javits’s approach—already in the report by the Finance Committee.) On August 23, 1960, Senator Javits’s
amendment was rejected by a vote of 28 (28-R) to 67 (5-R, 62-D).123 amendment was rejected by a vote of 28 (28-R) to 67 (5-R, 62-D).123
Also on August 20, 1960, Senator Anderson (D-NM) offered an amendment to use Social Also on August 20, 1960, Senator Anderson (D-NM) offered an amendment to use Social
Security as well as the public assistance program for the aged to provide health care to the elderly. Security as well as the public assistance program for the aged to provide health care to the elderly.

119 See Social Security Administration (SSA), “Chronology: 1960s,” March 31, 1960, at http://www.ssa.gov/history/119 See Social Security Administration (SSA), “Chronology: 1960s,” March 31, 1960, at http://www.ssa.gov/history/
1960.html. 1960.html.
120 120 Congressional Record, June 22, 1960, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Thompson, p. 13846. June 22, 1960, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Thompson, p. 13846.
121 121 Congressional Record, June 22, 1960, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Thompson, p. 13845. June 22, 1960, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Thompson, p. 13845.
122 122 Congressional Record, June 23, 1960, House, Roll call no. 143, not voting 24, pp. 14054-14055. June 23, 1960, House, Roll call no. 143, not voting 24, pp. 14054-14055.
123 123 Congressional Record, August 23, 1960, Senate, Roll call no. 305, not voting 5, p. 17176. August 23, 1960, Senate, Roll call no. 305, not voting 5, p. 17176.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

24 24

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On August 23, 1960, Senator Anderson’s amendment was rejected by a vote of 44 (1-R, 43-D) to On August 23, 1960, Senator Anderson’s amendment was rejected by a vote of 44 (1-R, 43-D) to
51 (32-R, 19-D).124 51 (32-R, 19-D).124
On August 23, 1960, the Senate passed by voice vote Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) amendment to On August 23, 1960, the Senate passed by voice vote Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) amendment to
permit men to retire at the age of 62 with actuarially reduced benefits. (The amendment was later permit men to retire at the age of 62 with actuarially reduced benefits. (The amendment was later
dropped in conference.)125 dropped in conference.)125
The Senate passed H.R. 12580 on August 23, 1960, by a vote of 91 (31-R, 60-D) to 2 (1-R, The Senate passed H.R. 12580 on August 23, 1960, by a vote of 91 (31-R, 60-D) to 2 (1-R,
1-D).126 1-D).126
Conference Action
The conferees agreed to the medical care provisions in the Senate-passed bill (i.e., no new title for The conferees agreed to the medical care provisions in the Senate-passed bill (i.e., no new title for
a program for aged persons not eligible for OAA benefits). The medical provisions became a program for aged persons not eligible for OAA benefits). The medical provisions became
known as the Kerr-Mills program, named for Senator Robert Kerr (D-OK) and House Ways and known as the Kerr-Mills program, named for Senator Robert Kerr (D-OK) and House Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills (D-AR). Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills (D-AR).
The House agreed to the conference report on August 26, 1960, by a vote of 369 (132-R, 237-D) The House agreed to the conference report on August 26, 1960, by a vote of 369 (132-R, 237-D)
to 17 (8-R, 9-D).127 to 17 (8-R, 9-D).127
The Senate agreed to the conference report on August 29, 1960, by a vote of 74 (31-R, 43-D) to The Senate agreed to the conference report on August 29, 1960, by a vote of 74 (31-R, 43-D) to
11 (1-R, 10-D).128 11 (1-R, 10-D).128
P.L. 87-64, Social Security Amendments of 1961
H.R. 6027, the Social Security Amendments of 1961, was signed into law on June 30, 1961, by H.R. 6027, the Social Security Amendments of 1961, was signed into law on June 30, 1961, by
President Kennedy. In general, the amendments made many of the changes in the Social Security President Kennedy. In general, the amendments made many of the changes in the Social Security
program recommended by President Kennedy in his February 2, 1961, message to Congress, in program recommended by President Kennedy in his February 2, 1961, message to Congress, in
which he outlined a program to restore momentum to the national economy.129 The amendments which he outlined a program to restore momentum to the national economy.129 The amendments
raised the minimum benefit to $40 per month; permitted men to claim retired worker’s benefits at raised the minimum benefit to $40 per month; permitted men to claim retired worker’s benefits at
the age of 62, instead of 65, with actuarially reduced benefits; liberalized the insured status the age of 62, instead of 65, with actuarially reduced benefits; liberalized the insured status
requirement so that, subject to the 6-quarter minimum and the 40-quarter maximum, an individual requirement so that, subject to the 6-quarter minimum and the 40-quarter maximum, an individual
was fully insured if he had one quarter of coverage for every calendar year that elapsed between was fully insured if he had one quarter of coverage for every calendar year that elapsed between
January 1, 1951, or age 21, whichever was later, and the year before he died, became disabled, or January 1, 1951, or age 21, whichever was later, and the year before he died, became disabled, or
reached retirement age; increased benefits to a surviving aged widow, widower, or dependent reached retirement age; increased benefits to a surviving aged widow, widower, or dependent
parent of an insured deceased worker from 75 to 82.5% of the benefit the worker would have parent of an insured deceased worker from 75 to 82.5% of the benefit the worker would have
been entitled to if alive; changed the earnings test so that an aged recipient had no benefits been entitled to if alive; changed the earnings test so that an aged recipient had no benefits
withheld if earnings were $1,200 a year or less, $1 withheld for each $2 earned between $1,200 withheld if earnings were $1,200 a year or less, $1 withheld for each $2 earned between $1,200
and $1,700, and a $1 reduction in benefits for each additional dollar of earnings above $1,700; and $1,700, and a $1 reduction in benefits for each additional dollar of earnings above $1,700;
and raised the employer and employee tax rates by 0.125% and the self-employed tax rate by and raised the employer and employee tax rates by 0.125% and the self-employed tax rate by
0.1875%.130 0.1875%.130

124 124 Congressional Record, August 23, 1960, Senate, Roll call no. 307, not voting 5, p. 17220. August 23, 1960, Senate, Roll call no. 307, not voting 5, p. 17220.
125 125 Congressional Record, August 23, 1960, Senate, p. 17234. August 23, 1960, Senate, p. 17234.
126 126 Congressional Record, August 23, 1960, Senate, Roll call no. 309, not voting 7, p. 17235. August 23, 1960, Senate, Roll call no. 309, not voting 7, p. 17235.
127 127 Congressional Record, August 26, 1960, House, Roll call no. 197, not voting 44, p. 17893. August 26, 1960, House, Roll call no. 197, not voting 44, p. 17893.
128 128 Congressional Record, August 29, 1960, Senate, Roll call no. 314, not voting 15, p. 18096. August 29, 1960, Senate, Roll call no. 314, not voting 15, p. 18096.
129 Wilbur J. Cohen and William L. Mitchell, “Social Security Amendments of 1961: Summary and Legislative 129 Wilbur J. Cohen and William L. Mitchell, “Social Security Amendments of 1961: Summary and Legislative
History,” History,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 24, no. 9, September 1961, p. 8, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v24n9/, vol. 24, no. 9, September 1961, p. 8, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v24n9/
v24n9p3.pdf. v24n9p3.pdf.
130 130 Congress and the Nation: 1945-1964, p. 1255. , p. 1255.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

25 25

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

House Action
In the House, the principal point of dissension was the provision in H.R. 6027 that lowered the In the House, the principal point of dissension was the provision in H.R. 6027 that lowered the
eligibility age for men from 65 to 62. Several Republicans opposed the provision on the basis that eligibility age for men from 65 to 62. Several Republicans opposed the provision on the basis that
it would likely start a trend toward “compulsory retirement” at age 62. Speaking for himself and it would likely start a trend toward “compulsory retirement” at age 62. Speaking for himself and
most of the minority committee members, Representative Curtis (R-MO) stated, “The reason [we most of the minority committee members, Representative Curtis (R-MO) stated, “The reason [we
are] against the age 62 [provision] is this: our older people are having a hard enough time now to are] against the age 62 [provision] is this: our older people are having a hard enough time now to
stay in the labor market. This provides further incentive to drive them out.”131 stay in the labor market. This provides further incentive to drive them out.”131
On April 20, 1961, Representative Curtis made a motion to recommit H.R. 6027132 and substitute On April 20, 1961, Representative Curtis made a motion to recommit H.R. 6027132 and substitute
a measure that cut out the provisions for lowering the first eligibility age for men, increased a measure that cut out the provisions for lowering the first eligibility age for men, increased
benefits for widows, and raised the minimum benefit from $33 to $40. The motion was rejected benefits for widows, and raised the minimum benefit from $33 to $40. The motion was rejected
by voice vote.133 Note that the provisions raising the minimum benefit and increasing benefits for by voice vote.133 Note that the provisions raising the minimum benefit and increasing benefits for
widows were already in H.R. 6027 as reported out of committee. widows were already in H.R. 6027 as reported out of committee.
The House passed H.R. 6027 on April 20, 1961, by a vote of 400 (149-R, 251-D) to 14 (14-R).134 The House passed H.R. 6027 on April 20, 1961, by a vote of 400 (149-R, 251-D) to 14 (14-R).134
Senate Action
In the Senate, debate focused on Senator Cotton’s (R-NH) amendment made on June 26, 1961, to In the Senate, debate focused on Senator Cotton’s (R-NH) amendment made on June 26, 1961, to
increase the earnings test limit to $1,800 a year.135 Senator Kerr (D-OK) said that Senator increase the earnings test limit to $1,800 a year.135 Senator Kerr (D-OK) said that Senator
Cotton’s amendment failed to provide increased OASDI taxes to pay for the additional $427 Cotton’s amendment failed to provide increased OASDI taxes to pay for the additional $427
million to $615 million that would be paid out each year under the proposed amendment.136 million to $615 million that would be paid out each year under the proposed amendment.136
Senator Kerr stated that “an amendment which would result in the impairment of the fiscal Senator Kerr stated that “an amendment which would result in the impairment of the fiscal
integrity of the fund should not be pressed.”137 integrity of the fund should not be pressed.”137
Senator Hartke (D-IN) offered a substitute amendment that provided a slightly less generous new Senator Hartke (D-IN) offered a substitute amendment that provided a slightly less generous new
earnings test limit ($1,700). The substitute amendment was passed June 26, 1961, by a vote of 59 earnings test limit ($1,700). The substitute amendment was passed June 26, 1961, by a vote of 59
(3-R, 56-D) to 30 (30-R).138 Provisions to finance this change were agreed to by unanimous (3-R, 56-D) to 30 (30-R).138 Provisions to finance this change were agreed to by unanimous
consent.139 consent.139
On June 26, 1961, Senator Hartke’s amendment to broaden the definition of disability was On June 26, 1961, Senator Hartke’s amendment to broaden the definition of disability was
rejected by voice vote.140 rejected by voice vote.140
The Senate passed H.R. 6027 90 (33-R, 57-D) to 0 on June 26, 1961.141 The Senate passed H.R. 6027 90 (33-R, 57-D) to 0 on June 26, 1961.141

131 131 Congressional Record, April 20, 1961, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Curtis, p. 6471. April 20, 1961, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Curtis, p. 6471.
132 132 Congressional Record, April 20, 1961, House, p. 6492. April 20, 1961, House, p. 6492.
133 133 Congressional Record, April 20, 1961, House, p. 6495. April 20, 1961, House, p. 6495.
134 134 Congressional Record, April 20, 1961, House, Roll call no. 40, not voting 17, p. 6495. April 20, 1961, House, Roll call no. 40, not voting 17, p. 6495.
135 135 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, p. 11309. June 26, 1961, Senate, p. 11309.
136 136 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, p. 11314. June 26, 1961, Senate, p. 11314.
137 137 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Kerr, p. 11310. June 26, 1961, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Kerr, p. 11310.
138 138 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, Roll call no. 83, not voting 11, p. 11318. June 26, 1961, Senate, Roll call no. 83, not voting 11, p. 11318.
139 139 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, p. 11325. June 26, 1961, Senate, p. 11325.
140 140 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, p. 11327. June 26, 1961, Senate, p. 11327.
141 141 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, Roll call no. 85, not voting 10, p. 11328. June 26, 1961, Senate, Roll call no. 85, not voting 10, p. 11328.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

26 26

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Conference Action
Both chambers cleared the conference report by voice votes June 29, 1961.142 Both chambers cleared the conference report by voice votes June 29, 1961.142
Proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964
H.R. 11865, the H.R. 11865, the proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964, was passed by both the House Social Security Amendments of 1964, was passed by both the House
and the Senate but the conference committee could not reach agreement, adjourning on October and the Senate but the conference committee could not reach agreement, adjourning on October
3, 1964, without making any recommendations. 3, 1964, without making any recommendations.
The proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964 as passed by the House contained a 5% The proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964 as passed by the House contained a 5%
across-the-board Social Security benefit increase; extended the child’s benefit to age 22 if he or across-the-board Social Security benefit increase; extended the child’s benefit to age 22 if he or
she were in school; allowed widows to retire at age 60, with actuarially reduced benefits; she were in school; allowed widows to retire at age 60, with actuarially reduced benefits;
provided limited benefits to persons aged 72 or older who had some Social Security coverage but provided limited benefits to persons aged 72 or older who had some Social Security coverage but
not enough to meet the minimum requirements of existing law; and extended Social Security not enough to meet the minimum requirements of existing law; and extended Social Security
coverage to groups of persons who previously had been excluded. The House-passed bill coverage to groups of persons who previously had been excluded. The House-passed bill
contained no provision relating to hospital insurance for the aged. contained no provision relating to hospital insurance for the aged.
The proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964 as passed by the Senate contained a hospital The proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964 as passed by the Senate contained a hospital
insurance program, the so-called King-Anderson bill; increased benefits: raised the earnings base; insurance program, the so-called King-Anderson bill; increased benefits: raised the earnings base;
liberalized the earnings test; changed the eligibility requirements for the blind; and permitted liberalized the earnings test; changed the eligibility requirements for the blind; and permitted
religious groups to reject Social Security coverage if they had religious objections to social religious groups to reject Social Security coverage if they had religious objections to social
insurance. insurance.
House Action
H.R. 11865, the proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964, was reported out of the Ways H.R. 11865, the proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964, was reported out of the Ways
and Means Committee on July 7, 1964. The bill was debated under a rule that permitted only and Means Committee on July 7, 1964. The bill was debated under a rule that permitted only
committee amendments. No amendments were offered. committee amendments. No amendments were offered.
On July 29, 1964, the House passed H.R. 11865 by a vote of 388 to 8.143 On July 29, 1964, the House passed H.R. 11865 by a vote of 388 to 8.143
Senate Action
The Finance Committee approved H.R. 11865 on August 21, 1964. The committee rejected The Finance Committee approved H.R. 11865 on August 21, 1964. The committee rejected
several amendments that would have created a hospital insurance program for the aged through several amendments that would have created a hospital insurance program for the aged through
the Social Security program. the Social Security program.
On August 31, 1964, Senator Gore (D-TN) offered an amendment to Senator Long’s (D-LA) On August 31, 1964, Senator Gore (D-TN) offered an amendment to Senator Long’s (D-LA)
amendment144 to increase the proposed across-the-board benefit increase to 7% (instead of the amendment144 to increase the proposed across-the-board benefit increase to 7% (instead of the
proposed 5% increase) and to liberalize the earnings test.145 Senator Gore’s amendment included proposed 5% increase) and to liberalize the earnings test.145 Senator Gore’s amendment included
the 1963 King (D-CA)-Anderson (D-NM) bill (H.R. 3920/S. 880), which would have provided the 1963 King (D-CA)-Anderson (D-NM) bill (H.R. 3920/S. 880), which would have provided
hospital insurance benefits for the aged under the Social Security program. hospital insurance benefits for the aged under the Social Security program.
On September 2, 1964, the Gore amendment passed by a vote of 49 to 44.146 On September 2, 1964, the Gore amendment passed by a vote of 49 to 44.146

142 142 Congressional Record, June 29, 1961, House, p. 11791, and, June 29, 1961, House, p. 11791, and, Congressional Record, June 29, 1961, Senate, p. June 29, 1961, Senate, p.
11693. 11693.
143 143 Congressional Record, July 29, 1964, House, Roll call no. 193, not voting 35, pp. 17298-17299. July 29, 1964, House, Roll call no. 193, not voting 35, pp. 17298-17299.
144 144 Congressional Record, August 31, 1964, Senate, p. 21103. August 31, 1964, Senate, p. 21103.
145 145 Congressional Record, August 31, 1964, Senate, p. 21086. August 31, 1964, Senate, p. 21086.
146 146 Congressional Record, September 2, 1964, Senate, Roll call no. 558, not voting 7, p. 21318. September 2, 1964, Senate, Roll call no. 558, not voting 7, p. 21318.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

27 27

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On September 3, 1964, the Senate passed H.R. 11865 by a vote of 60 to 28.147 On September 3, 1964, the Senate passed H.R. 11865 by a vote of 60 to 28.147
Conference Action
The conference committee on H.R. 11865 could not reach agreement. The conferees from the The conference committee on H.R. 11865 could not reach agreement. The conferees from the
Senate voted 4 to 3 to insist on including the hospital insurance provisions; the conferees from the Senate voted 4 to 3 to insist on including the hospital insurance provisions; the conferees from the
House, by a 3 to 2 vote, refused to accept such provisions.148 The conference committee House, by a 3 to 2 vote, refused to accept such provisions.148 The conference committee
adjourned on October 2, 1964. adjourned on October 2, 1964.
P.L. 89-97, Social Security Amendments of 1965
H.R. 6675, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, was signed into law on July 30, 1965, by H.R. 6675, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, was signed into law on July 30, 1965, by
President Lyndon Johnson. Although a federally operated health insurance program covering the President Lyndon Johnson. Although a federally operated health insurance program covering the
entire nation was considered by the Franklin Roosevelt Administration in 1935, it was not entire nation was considered by the Franklin Roosevelt Administration in 1935, it was not
explicitly endorsed until January 1945, when President Roosevelt’s budget message called for an explicitly endorsed until January 1945, when President Roosevelt’s budget message called for an
“extended Social Security including medical care.” Such a plan was submitted to Congress by “extended Social Security including medical care.” Such a plan was submitted to Congress by
President Truman in November 1945, but neither chamber acted on the proposal, in large part due President Truman in November 1945, but neither chamber acted on the proposal, in large part due
to strong opposition by the AMA. The controversy surrounding the establishment of a federal to strong opposition by the AMA. The controversy surrounding the establishment of a federal
health insurance program for the aged was finally ended by the 1965 amendments (H.R. 6675),149 health insurance program for the aged was finally ended by the 1965 amendments (H.R. 6675),149
which established a basic two-part health insurance program called Medicare (Title XVIII of the which established a basic two-part health insurance program called Medicare (Title XVIII of the
Social Security Act). The costs of hospitalization and related care would be met in part by a Social Security Act). The costs of hospitalization and related care would be met in part by a
compulsory program of Hospital Insurance (HI, Part A), financed by a separate payroll tax. The compulsory program of Hospital Insurance (HI, Part A), financed by a separate payroll tax. The
program would serve recipients of the Social Security and railroad retirement programs, aged 65 program would serve recipients of the Social Security and railroad retirement programs, aged 65
or older. A voluntary Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) plan (Part B) would help pay or older. A voluntary Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) plan (Part B) would help pay
doctor bills and related services, for all persons aged 65 or older, financed through monthly doctor bills and related services, for all persons aged 65 or older, financed through monthly
premiums paid by the recipient and a matching federal payment from general revenues. premiums paid by the recipient and a matching federal payment from general revenues.
The amendments also provided a 7% across-the-board increase in OASDI benefits, extended The amendments also provided a 7% across-the-board increase in OASDI benefits, extended
compulsory self-employment coverage to doctors, made child’s benefits available through age 21 compulsory self-employment coverage to doctors, made child’s benefits available through age 21
if the child were a full-time student (under prior law, they were available only through age 17), if the child were a full-time student (under prior law, they were available only through age 17),
permitted widows to receive actuarially reduced benefits at age 60 rather than age 62, provided permitted widows to receive actuarially reduced benefits at age 60 rather than age 62, provided
benefits to divorced wives and widows under certain conditions, increased the earnings test benefits to divorced wives and widows under certain conditions, increased the earnings test
amount to $1,500 with $1 withheld for every $2 earned up to $2,700, and provided that an insured amount to $1,500 with $1 withheld for every $2 earned up to $2,700, and provided that an insured
worker would be eligible for disability benefits if his or her disability was expected to end in worker would be eligible for disability benefits if his or her disability was expected to end in
death or to last for 12 consecutive months, instead of indefinitely. The 1965 amendments also death or to last for 12 consecutive months, instead of indefinitely. The 1965 amendments also
increased the payroll tax rate and the taxable wage base. In addition, P.L. 89-97 reduced the increased the payroll tax rate and the taxable wage base. In addition, P.L. 89-97 reduced the
number of quarters of work necessary for persons aged 72 or older to have insured status (from 6 number of quarters of work necessary for persons aged 72 or older to have insured status (from 6
quarters to 3 quarters for a worker and from 6 quarters to 3 quarters for a wife who reached age quarters to 3 quarters for a worker and from 6 quarters to 3 quarters for a wife who reached age
72 in or before 1966, to 4 quarters for a wife who turned 72 in 1967, and to 5 quarters for a wife 72 in or before 1966, to 4 quarters for a wife who turned 72 in 1967, and to 5 quarters for a wife
who attained age 72 in 1968). who attained age 72 in 1968).
Further, a new federal-state medical assistance program established under Title XIX of the Social Further, a new federal-state medical assistance program established under Title XIX of the Social
Security Act replaced the Kerr-Mills law (medical assistance for the aged that was enacted in Security Act replaced the Kerr-Mills law (medical assistance for the aged that was enacted in
1960). The program was to be administered by the states, with federal matching funds. The new 1960). The program was to be administered by the states, with federal matching funds. The new
Medicaid program was available to all people receiving assistance under the public assistance Medicaid program was available to all people receiving assistance under the public assistance

147 147 Congressional Record, September 3, 1964, Senate, Roll call no. 561, not voting 12, p. 21553. September 3, 1964, Senate, Roll call no. 561, not voting 12, p. 21553.
148 SSA, “Social Security Legislation,” 148 SSA, “Social Security Legislation,” Commissioner’s Bulletin, no. 17, October 3, 1964. , no. 17, October 3, 1964.
149 President Johnson flew to Independence, Missouri, to sign H.R. 6675 in the presence of Harry S. Truman, the first 149 President Johnson flew to Independence, Missouri, to sign H.R. 6675 in the presence of Harry S. Truman, the first
President to propose a national health insurance program. President to propose a national health insurance program.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

28 28

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

titles (Title I, Title IV, Title X, and Title XIV) and to people who were able to provide for their titles (Title I, Title IV, Title X, and Title XIV) and to people who were able to provide for their
own maintenance but whose income and resources were insufficient to meet their medical costs. own maintenance but whose income and resources were insufficient to meet their medical costs.
House Action
A federal hospital insurance program, or “Medicare,” had been passed only once by the Senate, in A federal hospital insurance program, or “Medicare,” had been passed only once by the Senate, in
1964, and then by a narrow margin. It had never been approved by the Ways and Means 1964, and then by a narrow margin. It had never been approved by the Ways and Means
Committee and thus had not been put to a House vote. The 1964 congressional elections, Committee and thus had not been put to a House vote. The 1964 congressional elections,
however, brought 42 new Northern Democrats into the House, almost all of them Medicare however, brought 42 new Northern Democrats into the House, almost all of them Medicare
supporters.150 supporters.150
The Ways and Means Committee began holding executive sessions on H.R. 1, a bill to establish a The Ways and Means Committee began holding executive sessions on H.R. 1, a bill to establish a
social insurance program for hospital and related care for the aged, on January 27, 1965. The social insurance program for hospital and related care for the aged, on January 27, 1965. The
committee reported H.R. 6675 March 29, 1965, with all 17 Democrats favoring the bill and all 8 committee reported H.R. 6675 March 29, 1965, with all 17 Democrats favoring the bill and all 8
Republicans opposing it. Republicans opposing it.
House floor debate centered on the Medicare proposal. Supporters said it was long overdue. House floor debate centered on the Medicare proposal. Supporters said it was long overdue.
Critics opposed its compulsory nature, argued that it would be financed by a “regressive” payroll Critics opposed its compulsory nature, argued that it would be financed by a “regressive” payroll
tax, and said it would endanger the Social Security cash benefit program. Republican spokesmen tax, and said it would endanger the Social Security cash benefit program. Republican spokesmen
instead wanted a voluntary health plan (as opposed to a mandatory social insurance approach) instead wanted a voluntary health plan (as opposed to a mandatory social insurance approach)
with a Medicaid-like program underpinning it to provide medical assistance for the needy aged. with a Medicaid-like program underpinning it to provide medical assistance for the needy aged.
On April 8, 1965, the House rejected Representative Byrnes’s (R-WI) motion to recommit H.R. On April 8, 1965, the House rejected Representative Byrnes’s (R-WI) motion to recommit H.R.
6675 to the Ways and Means Committee with instructions to substitute the text of H.R. 7057, a 6675 to the Ways and Means Committee with instructions to substitute the text of H.R. 7057, a
bill that Representative Byrnes had introduced a week earlier. H.R. 7057 was not offered as an bill that Representative Byrnes had introduced a week earlier. H.R. 7057 was not offered as an
amendment because the rule did not permit such action. H.R. 7057 provided for all amendment because the rule did not permit such action. H.R. 7057 provided for all
hospitalization, nursing home, medical and surgical care to be financed through a voluntary hospitalization, nursing home, medical and surgical care to be financed through a voluntary
system with payment split between the patient and general revenues, rather than from a tax on the system with payment split between the patient and general revenues, rather than from a tax on the
payrolls of employers. The motion to recommit was rejected by a vote of 191 (128-R, 63-D) to payrolls of employers. The motion to recommit was rejected by a vote of 191 (128-R, 63-D) to
236 (10-R, 226-D).151 236 (10-R, 226-D).151
On April 8, 1965, the House passed H.R. 6675 by a vote of 313 (65-R, 248-D) to 115 (73-R, 42- On April 8, 1965, the House passed H.R. 6675 by a vote of 313 (65-R, 248-D) to 115 (73-R, 42-
D).152 D).152
Senate Action
On June 30, 1965, the Finance Committee reported its version of H.R. 6675. The committee On June 30, 1965, the Finance Committee reported its version of H.R. 6675. The committee
approved the bill by a vote of 12 (2-R, 10-D) to 5 (4-R, 1-D). approved the bill by a vote of 12 (2-R, 10-D) to 5 (4-R, 1-D).
On July 7 and 8, 1965, three moves to expand H.R. 6675 were rejected. Senator Ribicoff’s (D- On July 7 and 8, 1965, three moves to expand H.R. 6675 were rejected. Senator Ribicoff’s (D-
CT) amendment to remove all time limits on length of hospital stays under Medicare was rejected CT) amendment to remove all time limits on length of hospital stays under Medicare was rejected
by a vote of 39 (13-R, 26-D) to 43 (12-R, 31-D).153 Senator Miller’s (R-IA) amendment to by a vote of 39 (13-R, 26-D) to 43 (12-R, 31-D).153 Senator Miller’s (R-IA) amendment to
provide for an automatic 3% increase in Social Security pensions whenever a 3% increase provide for an automatic 3% increase in Social Security pensions whenever a 3% increase
occurred in the “retail” price index was rejected by a vote of 21 (15-R, 6-D) to 64 (9-R, 55-D).154 occurred in the “retail” price index was rejected by a vote of 21 (15-R, 6-D) to 64 (9-R, 55-D).154
Senator Prouty’s (R-VT) amendment to provide benefit increases ranging from 75% in the low-Senator Prouty’s (R-VT) amendment to provide benefit increases ranging from 75% in the low-
income brackets to 7% in the upper-income brackets was rejected by a vote of 12 (10-R, 2-D) to income brackets to 7% in the upper-income brackets was rejected by a vote of 12 (10-R, 2-D) to

150 150 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1965, Washington, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., p. 236. , Washington, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., p. 236.
151 151 Congressional Record, April 8, 1965, House, Roll call no. 70, not voting 5, pp. 7443-7444. April 8, 1965, House, Roll call no. 70, not voting 5, pp. 7443-7444.
152 152 Congressional Record, April 8, 1965, House, Roll call no. 71, not voting 5, p. 7444. April 8, 1965, House, Roll call no. 71, not voting 5, p. 7444.
153 153 Congressional Record, July 7, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 165, not voting 18, p. 15835. July 7, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 165, not voting 18, p. 15835.
154 154 Congressional Record, July 8, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 166, not voting 15, p. 15869. July 8, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 166, not voting 15, p. 15869.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

29 29

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

79 (18-R, 61-D).155 In addition, Senator Curtis’s (R-NE) amendment to provide that the Medicare 79 (18-R, 61-D).155 In addition, Senator Curtis’s (R-NE) amendment to provide that the Medicare
patient pay a deductible based on ability to pay was rejected by a vote of 41 (25-R, 16-D) to 51 patient pay a deductible based on ability to pay was rejected by a vote of 41 (25-R, 16-D) to 51
(4-R, 47-D).156 (4-R, 47-D).156
On July 7, 1965, Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) amendment to lower the age at which workers could On July 7, 1965, Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) amendment to lower the age at which workers could
receive Social Security benefits to 60 (rather than age 62, the existing minimum) was agreed to receive Social Security benefits to 60 (rather than age 62, the existing minimum) was agreed to
by voice vote.157 by voice vote.157
On July 8, 1965, Senator Kennedy’s (D-NY) amendment to prohibit federal payments to any On July 8, 1965, Senator Kennedy’s (D-NY) amendment to prohibit federal payments to any
hospital not meeting the standards required by the state or local government was passed by voice hospital not meeting the standards required by the state or local government was passed by voice
vote.158 vote.158
On July 9, 1965, Senator Hartke’s (D-IN) amendment to liberalize the definition of blindness On July 9, 1965, Senator Hartke’s (D-IN) amendment to liberalize the definition of blindness
under the Social Security program, provide benefits to blind workers with at least 6 quarters of under the Social Security program, provide benefits to blind workers with at least 6 quarters of
Social Security coverage, and permit blind workers to receive benefits regardless of other Social Security coverage, and permit blind workers to receive benefits regardless of other
earnings was passed by a vote of 78 (28-R, 50-D) to 11 (11-D).159 earnings was passed by a vote of 78 (28-R, 50-D) to 11 (11-D).159
On July 9, 1965, Senator Hartke’s amendment to eliminate the time limit on hospital care under On July 9, 1965, Senator Hartke’s amendment to eliminate the time limit on hospital care under
the proposed program was agreed to by voice vote.160 the proposed program was agreed to by voice vote.160
On July 9, 1965, Senator Smathers’s (D-FL) amendment to raise payroll taxes to finance the On July 9, 1965, Senator Smathers’s (D-FL) amendment to raise payroll taxes to finance the
benefits provided in floor amendments passed by a voice vote.161 benefits provided in floor amendments passed by a voice vote.161
On July 9, 1965, Senator Curtis (R-NE) offered an amendment to strike Medicare, Parts A and B, On July 9, 1965, Senator Curtis (R-NE) offered an amendment to strike Medicare, Parts A and B,
from the bill. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 26 (18-R, 8-D) to 64 (11-R, 53-D).162 from the bill. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 26 (18-R, 8-D) to 64 (11-R, 53-D).162
Senator Curtis also reintroduced, in a slightly different form, his amendment to provide a Senator Curtis also reintroduced, in a slightly different form, his amendment to provide a
deductible based on the Medicare patient’s ability to pay. This amendment, too, was rejected by a deductible based on the Medicare patient’s ability to pay. This amendment, too, was rejected by a
vote of 40 to 52.163 In addition, Senator Curtis moved to recommit H.R. 6675 with instructions to vote of 40 to 52.163 In addition, Senator Curtis moved to recommit H.R. 6675 with instructions to
strike out the portions related to Medicare and substitute a plan patterned after the health strike out the portions related to Medicare and substitute a plan patterned after the health
insurance program used by retired federal employees, but financed from current premiums. The insurance program used by retired federal employees, but financed from current premiums. The
motion to recommit H.R. 6675 was rejected by a vote of 26 (18-R, 8-D) to 63 (10-R, 53-D).164 motion to recommit H.R. 6675 was rejected by a vote of 26 (18-R, 8-D) to 63 (10-R, 53-D).164
H.R. 6675 was passed by the Senate on July 9, 1965, by a vote of 68 (13-R, 55-D) to 21 (14-R, 7- H.R. 6675 was passed by the Senate on July 9, 1965, by a vote of 68 (13-R, 55-D) to 21 (14-R, 7-
D).165 D).165
Conference Action
On July 27, 1965, the House adopted the conference report by a vote of 307 (70-R, 237-D) to 116 On July 27, 1965, the House adopted the conference report by a vote of 307 (70-R, 237-D) to 116
(68-R, 48-D).166 (68-R, 48-D).166

155 155 Congressional Record, July 8, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 167, not voting 9, p. 15909. July 8, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 167, not voting 9, p. 15909.
156 156 Congressional Record, July 8, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 168, not voting 8, p. 15927. July 8, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 168, not voting 8, p. 15927.
157 157 Congressional Record, July 7, 1965, Senate, p. 15794. July 7, 1965, Senate, p. 15794.
158 158 Congressional Record, July 8, 1965, Senate, p. 15904. July 8, 1965, Senate, p. 15904.
159 159 Congressional Record, July 9, 1965, Senate, p. 16115. July 9, 1965, Senate, p. 16115.
160 160 Congressional Record, July 9, 1965, Senate, p. 16130. July 9, 1965, Senate, p. 16130.
161 161 Congressional Record, July 9, 1965, Senate, p. 16138. July 9, 1965, Senate, p. 16138.
162 162 Congressional Record, July 9, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 170, not voting 10, p. 16100. July 9, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 170, not voting 10, p. 16100.
163 163 Congressional Record, July 9, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 174, not voting 8, p. 16119. July 9, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 174, not voting 8, p. 16119.
164 164 Congressional Record, July 9, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 175, not voting 11, p. 16126. July 9, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 175, not voting 11, p. 16126.
165 165 Congressional Record, July 9, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 176, not voting 11, p. 16157. July 9, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 176, not voting 11, p. 16157.
166 166 Congressional Record, July 27, 1965, House, Roll call no. 203, not voting 11, pp. 18393-18394. July 27, 1965, House, Roll call no. 203, not voting 11, pp. 18393-18394.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

30 30

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On July 28, 1965, the Senate adopted the conference report by a vote of 70 (13-R, 57-D) to 24 On July 28, 1965, the Senate adopted the conference report by a vote of 70 (13-R, 57-D) to 24
(17-R, 7-D).167 (17-R, 7-D).167
P.L. 89-368, Tax Adjustment Act of 1966
H.R. 12752, signed by President Johnson on March 15, 1966, raised income taxes to help pay for H.R. 12752, signed by President Johnson on March 15, 1966, raised income taxes to help pay for
the Vietnam War. It extended OASI benefits of $35 per month to persons over the age of 71 who the Vietnam War. It extended OASI benefits of $35 per month to persons over the age of 71 who
were not covered, but with the benefit reduced by the amount of payments received under were not covered, but with the benefit reduced by the amount of payments received under
government pension plans, veteran’s or civil service pensions, teacher’s retirement pension plans, government pension plans, veteran’s or civil service pensions, teacher’s retirement pension plans,
or welfare programs. or welfare programs.
House Action
The House passed H.R. 12752, the Tax Adjustment Act of 1966, by a vote of 246 (46-R, 200-D) The House passed H.R. 12752, the Tax Adjustment Act of 1966, by a vote of 246 (46-R, 200-D)
to 146 (88-R, 58-D).168 The bill did not contain any Social Security provisions. to 146 (88-R, 58-D).168 The bill did not contain any Social Security provisions.
Senate Action
During the floor debate on H.R. 12752, Senator Prouty (R-VT) offered an amendment to extend a During the floor debate on H.R. 12752, Senator Prouty (R-VT) offered an amendment to extend a
minimum Social Security payment of $44 a month to all persons aged 70 or older who were not minimum Social Security payment of $44 a month to all persons aged 70 or older who were not
then eligible for benefits (an estimated 1.8 million persons at a cost of $760 million in then eligible for benefits (an estimated 1.8 million persons at a cost of $760 million in
FY1967).169 FY1967).169
On March 8, 1966, Senator Long (D-LA) moved to table the Prouty amendment but his motion On March 8, 1966, Senator Long (D-LA) moved to table the Prouty amendment but his motion
was rejected by a vote of 37 (1-R, 36-D) to 51 (30-R, 21-D).170 was rejected by a vote of 37 (1-R, 36-D) to 51 (30-R, 21-D).170
On March 8, 1966, the Senate passed the Prouty amendment by a vote of 45 (21-R, 24-D) to 40 On March 8, 1966, the Senate passed the Prouty amendment by a vote of 45 (21-R, 24-D) to 40
(9-R, 31-D)171 and adopted by a vote of 44 (25-R, 19-D) to 43 (6-R, 37-D) a motion by Senator (9-R, 31-D)171 and adopted by a vote of 44 (25-R, 19-D) to 43 (6-R, 37-D) a motion by Senator
Prouty to table Senator Mansfield’s (D-MT) motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the Prouty to table Senator Mansfield’s (D-MT) motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the
amendment.172 amendment.172
On March 9, 1966, the Senate passed the Tax Adjustment Act of 1966 by a vote of 79 (24-R, 55- On March 9, 1966, the Senate passed the Tax Adjustment Act of 1966 by a vote of 79 (24-R, 55-
D) to 9 (4-R, 5-D).173 D) to 9 (4-R, 5-D).173
Conference Action
On March 10, 1966, the conferees included the Prouty amendment in the final version of H.R. On March 10, 1966, the conferees included the Prouty amendment in the final version of H.R.
12752, but changed the monthly benefit to $35. 12752, but changed the monthly benefit to $35.
On March 15, 1966, the House adopted the conference report on H.R. 12752 by a vote of 288 On March 15, 1966, the House adopted the conference report on H.R. 12752 by a vote of 288
(68-R, 220-D) to 102 (59-R, 43-D).174 (68-R, 220-D) to 102 (59-R, 43-D).174

167 167 Congressional Record, July 28, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 201, not voting 6, p. 18514. July 28, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 201, not voting 6, p. 18514.
168 168 Congressional Record, February 23, 1966, House, Roll call no. 20, not voting 41, pp. 3719-3720. February 23, 1966, House, Roll call no. 20, not voting 41, pp. 3719-3720.
169 169 Congressional Record, March 8, 1966, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Prouty, pp. 5289-5292. March 8, 1966, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Prouty, pp. 5289-5292.
170 170 Congressional Record, March 8, 1966, Senate, Roll call no. 46, not voting 12, p. 5298. March 8, 1966, Senate, Roll call no. 46, not voting 12, p. 5298.
171 171 Congressional Record, March 8, 1966, Senate, Roll call no. 47, not voting 15, p. 5298. March 8, 1966, Senate, Roll call no. 47, not voting 15, p. 5298.
172 172 Congressional Record, March 8, 1966, Senate, Roll call no. 48, not voting 13, p. 5301. March 8, 1966, Senate, Roll call no. 48, not voting 13, p. 5301.
173 173 Congressional Record, March 9, 1966, Senate, Roll call no. 52, not voting 12, p. 5485. March 9, 1966, Senate, Roll call no. 52, not voting 12, p. 5485.
174 174 Congressional Record, March 15, 1966, House, Roll call no. 36, not voting 41, p. 5801. March 15, 1966, House, Roll call no. 36, not voting 41, p. 5801.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

31 31

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On March 15, 1966, the Senate adopted the conference report on H.R. 12752 by a vote of 72 (23- On March 15, 1966, the Senate adopted the conference report on H.R. 12752 by a vote of 72 (23-
R, 49-D) to 5 (4-R, I-D).175 R, 49-D) to 5 (4-R, I-D).175
P.L. 90-248, Social Security Amendments of 1967
H.R. 12080, the Social Security Amendments of 1967, was signed by President Johnson on H.R. 12080, the Social Security Amendments of 1967, was signed by President Johnson on
January 2, 1968. The amendments provided a 13% across-the-board increase in benefits; raised January 2, 1968. The amendments provided a 13% across-the-board increase in benefits; raised
the taxable wage base from $6,600 to $7,800; increased the payroll tax rate from 4.4% on the taxable wage base from $6,600 to $7,800; increased the payroll tax rate from 4.4% on
employers and employees each to 4.8% in 1969; raised the minimum benefit from $44 to $55 per employers and employees each to 4.8% in 1969; raised the minimum benefit from $44 to $55 per
month; raised the earnings test limit to $1,680 a year instead of $1,500 (recipient lost $1 in month; raised the earnings test limit to $1,680 a year instead of $1,500 (recipient lost $1 in
benefits for every $2 earned between $1,680 and $2,880, and lost $1 for each additional dollar benefits for every $2 earned between $1,680 and $2,880, and lost $1 for each additional dollar
earned above $2,880); added benefits for disabled widows and widowers at age 50, with a stricter earned above $2,880); added benefits for disabled widows and widowers at age 50, with a stricter
definition of disability; liberalized the definition of blindness for disability payments; and definition of disability; liberalized the definition of blindness for disability payments; and
clarified the definition of disability. clarified the definition of disability.
President Johnson had called for a 15% across-the-board increase in OASDI benefits and President Johnson had called for a 15% across-the-board increase in OASDI benefits and
numerous other changes in the Social Security Act. The proposals were embodied in H.R. 5710, numerous other changes in the Social Security Act. The proposals were embodied in H.R. 5710,
introduced in the House on February 20, 1967, by the Committee on Ways and Means chairman, introduced in the House on February 20, 1967, by the Committee on Ways and Means chairman,
Wilbur Mills (D-AR). Wilbur Mills (D-AR).
House Action
The Ways and Means Committee held hearings on the Administration’s bill (H.R. 5710) in March The Ways and Means Committee held hearings on the Administration’s bill (H.R. 5710) in March
and April 1967. On August 7, 1967, it reported a new bill, H.R. 12080, that included most of the and April 1967. On August 7, 1967, it reported a new bill, H.R. 12080, that included most of the
Administration’s Social Security proposals, notably a provision that raised the earnings test limit Administration’s Social Security proposals, notably a provision that raised the earnings test limit
from $1,500 to $1,680.176 from $1,500 to $1,680.176
On August 17, 1967, Representative Utt (R-CA) moved to recommit H.R. 12080. The motion was On August 17, 1967, Representative Utt (R-CA) moved to recommit H.R. 12080. The motion was
rejected by voice vote.177 rejected by voice vote.177
On August 17, 1967, the House passed H.R. 12080 by a roll call vote of 416 (182-R, 234-D) to 3 On August 17, 1967, the House passed H.R. 12080 by a roll call vote of 416 (182-R, 234-D) to 3
(1-R, 2-D).178 The bill was debated under a closed rule prohibiting floor amendments. (1-R, 2-D).178 The bill was debated under a closed rule prohibiting floor amendments.
Senate Action
On November 14, 1967, the Senate Finance Committee reported a heavily amended bill that On November 14, 1967, the Senate Finance Committee reported a heavily amended bill that
contained several OASDI provisions as recommended by the Administration rather than as contained several OASDI provisions as recommended by the Administration rather than as
modified by the House. The Senate bill provided a 15% across-the-board Social Security modified by the House. The Senate bill provided a 15% across-the-board Social Security
increase, in contrast to the 12.5% increase in the House bill. increase, in contrast to the 12.5% increase in the House bill.
On November 17, 1967, Senator Prouty (R-VT) offered an amendment to finance the higher On November 17, 1967, Senator Prouty (R-VT) offered an amendment to finance the higher
benefits out of general revenues rather than Social Security taxes. The amendment was rejected benefits out of general revenues rather than Social Security taxes. The amendment was rejected
by a vote of 6 (3-R, 3-D) to 62 (23-R, 39-D).179 by a vote of 6 (3-R, 3-D) to 62 (23-R, 39-D).179

175 175 Congressional Record, March 15, 1966, Senate, Roll call no. 57, not voting 23, p. 5960. March 15, 1966, Senate, Roll call no. 57, not voting 23, p. 5960.
176 Wilbur J. Cohen and Robert M. Ball, “Social Security Amendments of 1967: Summary-and Legislative History,” 176 Wilbur J. Cohen and Robert M. Ball, “Social Security Amendments of 1967: Summary-and Legislative History,”
Social Security Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 2, February 1968, p. 3, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v31n2/, vol. 31, no. 2, February 1968, p. 3, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v31n2/
v31n2p3.pdf. v31n2p3.pdf.
177 177 Congressional Record, August 17, 1967, House, p. 23132. August 17, 1967, House, p. 23132.
178 178 Congressional Record, August 17, 1967, House, Roll call no. 222, not voting 3, p. 23132. August 17, 1967, House, Roll call no. 222, not voting 3, p. 23132.
179 179 Congressional Record, November 17, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 327, not voting 32, p. 33078. November 17, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 327, not voting 32, p. 33078.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

32 32

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On November 17, 1967, Senator Metcalf (D-MT) offered an amendment to delete from H.R. On November 17, 1967, Senator Metcalf (D-MT) offered an amendment to delete from H.R.
12080 a more stringent definition of disability. The Metcalf amendment was passed by a vote of 12080 a more stringent definition of disability. The Metcalf amendment was passed by a vote of
34 (6-R, 28-D) to 20 (16-R, 4-D).180 34 (6-R, 28-D) to 20 (16-R, 4-D).180
On November 21, 1967, Senator Williams (R-DE) offered an amendment to implement the On November 21, 1967, Senator Williams (R-DE) offered an amendment to implement the
Finance Committee’s recommended payroll tax increase in January 1968 (before the general Finance Committee’s recommended payroll tax increase in January 1968 (before the general
election) rather than in January 1969. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 27 (22-R, 5-D) election) rather than in January 1969. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 27 (22-R, 5-D)
to 49 (4-R, 45-D).181 to 49 (4-R, 45-D).181
On November 21, 1967, the Senate, by a vote of 22 (17-R, 5-D) to 58 (9-R, 49-D), rejected a On November 21, 1967, the Senate, by a vote of 22 (17-R, 5-D) to 58 (9-R, 49-D), rejected a
Republican proposal offered by Senator Curtis (R-NE) and Senator Williams (R-DE) substituting Republican proposal offered by Senator Curtis (R-NE) and Senator Williams (R-DE) substituting
the 12.5% OASDI benefit increase and financing plan contained in the House bill for the 15% the 12.5% OASDI benefit increase and financing plan contained in the House bill for the 15%
benefit increase and financing plan recommended by the Finance Committee.182 benefit increase and financing plan recommended by the Finance Committee.182
On November 21, 1967, Senator Bayh (D-IN) offered an amendment to raise the earnings test On November 21, 1967, Senator Bayh (D-IN) offered an amendment to raise the earnings test
limit from $1,680 to $2,400. The amendment passed by a vote of 50 (14-R, 36-D) to 23 (10-R, limit from $1,680 to $2,400. The amendment passed by a vote of 50 (14-R, 36-D) to 23 (10-R,
13-D).183 13-D).183
The Senate passed H.R. 12080 on November 22, 1967, by a 78 (23 R, 55-D) to 6 (4-R, 2-D) roll The Senate passed H.R. 12080 on November 22, 1967, by a 78 (23 R, 55-D) to 6 (4-R, 2-D) roll
call vote.184 call vote.184
Conference Action
The conference report on H.R. 12080 was filed on December 11, 1967. All of the major Senate The conference report on H.R. 12080 was filed on December 11, 1967. All of the major Senate
floor amendments were dropped from the bill. The conferees split the difference between many of floor amendments were dropped from the bill. The conferees split the difference between many of
the other provisions. the other provisions.
The House adopted the conference report on December 13, 1967, by a vote of 390 (167-R, 223- The House adopted the conference report on December 13, 1967, by a vote of 390 (167-R, 223-
D) to 3 (1-R, 2-D).185 D) to 3 (1-R, 2-D).185
The Senate adopted the conference report on December 15, 1967, by a vote of 62 (26-R, 36-D) to The Senate adopted the conference report on December 15, 1967, by a vote of 62 (26-R, 36-D) to
14 (3-R, 11-D).186 14 (3-R, 11-D).186
P.L. 91-172, Tax Reform Act of 1969
H.R. 13270, the Tax Reform Act of 1969, was signed by President Nixon on December 30, 1969. H.R. 13270, the Tax Reform Act of 1969, was signed by President Nixon on December 30, 1969.
The new law included a 15% increase in Social Security benefits beginning in January 1, 1970. The new law included a 15% increase in Social Security benefits beginning in January 1, 1970.
House Action
On August 7, 1969, the House passed H.R. 13270 by a vote of 395 (176-R, 219-D) to 30 (10-R, On August 7, 1969, the House passed H.R. 13270 by a vote of 395 (176-R, 219-D) to 30 (10-R,
20-D).187 The bill did not contain any Social Security provisions. 20-D).187 The bill did not contain any Social Security provisions.

180 180 Congressional Record, November 17, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 329, not voting 46, p. 33119. November 17, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 329, not voting 46, p. 33119.
181 181 Congressional Record, November 21, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 335, not voting 24, p. 33496. November 21, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 335, not voting 24, p. 33496.
182 182 Congressional Record, November 21, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 337, not voting 20, p. 33510. November 21, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 337, not voting 20, p. 33510.
183 183 Congressional Record, November 21, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 349, not voting 27, p. 33587. November 21, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 349, not voting 27, p. 33587.
184 184 Congressional Record, November 22, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 350, not voting 16, p. 33637. November 22, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 350, not voting 16, p. 33637.
185 185 Congressional Record, December 13, 1967, House, Roll call no. 439, not voting 38, p. 36393. December 13, 1967, House, Roll call no. 439, not voting 38, p. 36393.
186 186 Congressional Record, December 15, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 392, not voting 24, p. 36924. December 15, 1967, Senate, Roll call no. 392, not voting 24, p. 36924.
187 187 Congressional Record, August 7, 1969, House, Roll call no. 149, not voting 7, pp. 22808-22809. August 7, 1969, House, Roll call no. 149, not voting 7, pp. 22808-22809.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

33 33

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Senate Action
On December 5, 1969, Senator Long (D-LA) offered an amendment to raise basic Social Security On December 5, 1969, Senator Long (D-LA) offered an amendment to raise basic Social Security
benefits by 15% beginning in January 1970. benefits by 15% beginning in January 1970.
Senator Long’s amendment was passed by a vote of 73 (23-R, 50-D) to 14 (14-R).188 Senator Long’s amendment was passed by a vote of 73 (23-R, 50-D) to 14 (14-R).188
A Byrd (D-WV)-Mansfield (D-MT) amendment to increase the minimum benefit to $100 for A Byrd (D-WV)-Mansfield (D-MT) amendment to increase the minimum benefit to $100 for
single persons and to $150 for couples and to increase the taxable wage base from $7,800 to single persons and to $150 for couples and to increase the taxable wage base from $7,800 to
$12,000 beginning in 1973 was passed December 5, 1969, by a vote of 48 (8-R, 40-D) to 41 (28-$12,000 beginning in 1973 was passed December 5, 1969, by a vote of 48 (8-R, 40-D) to 41 (28-
R, 13-D).189 R, 13-D).189
On December 5, 1969, Senator Williams (R-DE) offered a substitute amendment to provide a On December 5, 1969, Senator Williams (R-DE) offered a substitute amendment to provide a
10%, rather than a 15% benefit increase. The substitute amendment was rejected by a vote of 34 10%, rather than a 15% benefit increase. The substitute amendment was rejected by a vote of 34
(33-R, 1-D) to 56 (5-R, 51-D).190 (33-R, 1-D) to 56 (5-R, 51-D).190
On December 11, 1969, the Senate passed H.R. 13270 by a vote of 69 (18-R, 51-D) to 22 (20-R, On December 11, 1969, the Senate passed H.R. 13270 by a vote of 69 (18-R, 51-D) to 22 (20-R,
2-D).191 2-D).191
Conference Action
The conferees agreed to increase Social Security benefits by 15%, effective January 1, 1970. The The conferees agreed to increase Social Security benefits by 15%, effective January 1, 1970. The
House had not included the increase in H.R. 13270 but had approved an identical provision in House had not included the increase in H.R. 13270 but had approved an identical provision in
another bill, H.R. 15095. The conferees dropped the other provisions that were added on the another bill, H.R. 15095. The conferees dropped the other provisions that were added on the
Senate floor. Senate floor.
On December 22, 1969, the House adopted the conference report on the Tax Reform Act, H.R. On December 22, 1969, the House adopted the conference report on the Tax Reform Act, H.R.
13270, by a vote of 381 (169-R, 212-D) to 2 (2-R).192 13270, by a vote of 381 (169-R, 212-D) to 2 (2-R).192
On December 22, 1969, the Senate adopted H.R. 13270 by a vote of 71 (25-R, 46-D) to 6 On December 22, 1969, the Senate adopted H.R. 13270 by a vote of 71 (25-R, 46-D) to 6
(6-R).193 (6-R).193
P.L. 92-5, Public Debt Limit Increase; Social Security Amendments
President Nixon signed H.R. 4690 on March 17, 1971. It provided a 10% across-the-board President Nixon signed H.R. 4690 on March 17, 1971. It provided a 10% across-the-board
increase in OASDI benefits, retroactive to January 1, 1971; raised the minimum benefit from $64 increase in OASDI benefits, retroactive to January 1, 1971; raised the minimum benefit from $64
to $70.40 per month; increased the taxable wage base from $7,800 to $9,000 effective January 1, to $70.40 per month; increased the taxable wage base from $7,800 to $9,000 effective January 1,
1972; increased the OASDI tax rates on employers and employees to 5.15% each beginning in 1972; increased the OASDI tax rates on employers and employees to 5.15% each beginning in
1976 (from 5% scheduled to take effect in 1973 under prior law); and provided a 5% increase in 1976 (from 5% scheduled to take effect in 1973 under prior law); and provided a 5% increase in
special benefits payable to individuals aged 72 or older who were not insured for regular benefits, special benefits payable to individuals aged 72 or older who were not insured for regular benefits,
retroactive to January 1, 1971. retroactive to January 1, 1971.
House Action
In 1970, a comprehensive Social Security bill (H.R. 17550) was passed by the House by a vote of In 1970, a comprehensive Social Security bill (H.R. 17550) was passed by the House by a vote of
344 (166-R, 178-D) to 32 (32-D).194 H.R. 17550 increased benefits by 5%, provided for automatic 344 (166-R, 178-D) to 32 (32-D).194 H.R. 17550 increased benefits by 5%, provided for automatic

188 188 Congressional Record, December 5, 1969, Senate, Roll call no. 179, not voting 13, p. 37247. December 5, 1969, Senate, Roll call no. 179, not voting 13, p. 37247.
189 189 Congressional Record, December 5, 1969, Senate, Roll call no. 177, not voting 10, p. 37240. December 5, 1969, Senate, Roll call no. 177, not voting 10, p. 37240.
190 190 Congressional Record, December 5, 1969, Senate, Roll call no. 175, not voting 9, p. 37230. December 5, 1969, Senate, Roll call no. 175, not voting 9, p. 37230.
191 191 Congressional Record, December 11, 1969, Senate, Roll call no. 223, not voting 6, p. 38396. December 11, 1969, Senate, Roll call no. 223, not voting 6, p. 38396.
192 192 Congressional Record, December 22, 1969, House, Roll call no. 351, not voting 50, pp. 40899-40900. December 22, 1969, House, Roll call no. 351, not voting 50, pp. 40899-40900.
193 193 Congressional Record, December 22, 1969, Senate, Roll call no. 273, not voting 23, p. 40718. December 22, 1969, Senate, Roll call no. 273, not voting 23, p. 40718.
194 194 Congressional Record, May 21, 1970, House, Roll call no. 136, not voting 53, pp. 16587-16588. May 21, 1970, House, Roll call no. 136, not voting 53, pp. 16587-16588.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

34 34

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

benefit increases with rises in the cost of living, and made other changes in the OASDI and benefit increases with rises in the cost of living, and made other changes in the OASDI and
Medicare programs. Medicare programs.
Senate Action
In the Senate, H.R. 17550 became a conglomerate bill containing import quotas and welfare In the Senate, H.R. 17550 became a conglomerate bill containing import quotas and welfare
provisions as well. On December 29, 1970, the Senate separated Social Security changes from the provisions as well. On December 29, 1970, the Senate separated Social Security changes from the
rest of the bill. H.R. 17550, with provisions raising benefits by 10%, providing a $100 minimum rest of the bill. H.R. 17550, with provisions raising benefits by 10%, providing a $100 minimum
monthly benefit, raising the taxable wage base from $7,800 to $9,000, and making changes in the monthly benefit, raising the taxable wage base from $7,800 to $9,000, and making changes in the
Medicare and Medicaid programs, was passed by the Senate on December 29, 1970, by a vote of Medicare and Medicaid programs, was passed by the Senate on December 29, 1970, by a vote of
81 (35-R, 46-D) to 0.195 However, the House never agreed to a conference.196 81 (35-R, 46-D) to 0.195 However, the House never agreed to a conference.196
Senator Long (D-LA), chairman of the Finance Committee and floor manager of H.R. 4690, said Senator Long (D-LA), chairman of the Finance Committee and floor manager of H.R. 4690, said
that he had asked the House to take immediate action to raise Social Security benefits and as the that he had asked the House to take immediate action to raise Social Security benefits and as the
House had not responded, he was offering a benefit increase as an amendment to H.R. 4690, a bill House had not responded, he was offering a benefit increase as an amendment to H.R. 4690, a bill
to increase the debt ceiling.197 to increase the debt ceiling.197
On March 12, 1971, Senator Long’s amendment to provide a 10% increase in Social Security On March 12, 1971, Senator Long’s amendment to provide a 10% increase in Social Security
payments, a $100 minimum monthly benefit, increases in earnings limitations, and other changes payments, a $100 minimum monthly benefit, increases in earnings limitations, and other changes
passed by a vote of 82 (38-R, 44-D) to 0.198 passed by a vote of 82 (38-R, 44-D) to 0.198
The Senate, on March 12, 1971, passed H.R. 4690, after approving several Social Security The Senate, on March 12, 1971, passed H.R. 4690, after approving several Social Security
changes, including the benefit increase proposed by Senator Long, by a vote of 80 (37-R, 43-D) changes, including the benefit increase proposed by Senator Long, by a vote of 80 (37-R, 43-D)
to 0.199 to 0.199
Conference Action
Conferees accepted the Senate’s 10% benefit increase but reduced the $100 minimum benefit to Conferees accepted the Senate’s 10% benefit increase but reduced the $100 minimum benefit to
$70.40 and made several other modifications. $70.40 and made several other modifications.
On March 16, 1971, the House adopted the conference report by a vote of 360 (150-R, 210-D) to On March 16, 1971, the House adopted the conference report by a vote of 360 (150-R, 210-D) to
3 (3-R).200 3 (3-R).200
On March 16, 1971, the Senate adopted the report by a vote of 76 (37-R, 39-D) to 0.201 On March 16, 1971, the Senate adopted the report by a vote of 76 (37-R, 39-D) to 0.201
P.L. 92-336, Public Debt Limit; Disaster losses; Social Security Act
Amendments
President Nixon signed H.R. 15390, a bill to extend the limit on the public debt, on July 1, 1972. President Nixon signed H.R. 15390, a bill to extend the limit on the public debt, on July 1, 1972.
At the beginning of the year, the President included a number of Social Security proposals, along At the beginning of the year, the President included a number of Social Security proposals, along
with a controversial welfare reform plan, in H.R. 1. Congress at midyear used a more promising with a controversial welfare reform plan, in H.R. 1. Congress at midyear used a more promising
vehicle to pass a separate 20% increase in Social Security benefits. The increase was added in the vehicle to pass a separate 20% increase in Social Security benefits. The increase was added in the
Senate to a House-passed bill that raised the debt limit (H.R. 15390). The bill also provided for Senate to a House-passed bill that raised the debt limit (H.R. 15390). The bill also provided for

195 195 Congressional Record, December 29, 1970, Senate, Roll call no. 455, not voting 19, p. 43868. December 29, 1970, Senate, Roll call no. 455, not voting 19, p. 43868.
196 196 Congressional Quarterly Almanac; 1971, pp. 421-425. ; 1971, pp. 421-425.
197 197 Congressional Record, March 12, 1971, Senate, p. 6374. March 12, 1971, Senate, p. 6374.
198 198 Congressional Record, March 12, 1971, Senate, Roll call no. 20, not voting 18, p. 6381. March 12, 1971, Senate, Roll call no. 20, not voting 18, p. 6381.
199 199 Congressional Record, March 12, 1971, Senate, Roll call no. 23, not voting 20, p. 6390. March 12, 1971, Senate, Roll call no. 23, not voting 20, p. 6390.
200 200 Congressional Record, March 16, 1971, House, Roll call no. 20, not voting 68, pp. 6741-6742. March 16, 1971, House, Roll call no. 20, not voting 68, pp. 6741-6742.
201 201 Congressional Record, March 16, 1971, Senate, Roll call no. 24, not voting 24, p. 6688. March 16, 1971, Senate, Roll call no. 24, not voting 24, p. 6688.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

35 35

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

future automatic increases in Social Security benefits when the consumer price index (CPI) rose future automatic increases in Social Security benefits when the consumer price index (CPI) rose
by 3% or more. To finance the increase, the taxable wage base was raised from $9,000 to $10,800 by 3% or more. To finance the increase, the taxable wage base was raised from $9,000 to $10,800
in 1973 and to $12,000 in 1974, with automatic adjustment thereafter. The in 1973 and to $12,000 in 1974, with automatic adjustment thereafter. The Congressional
Quarterly Almanac reported that, reported that,
Backers of the Social Security benefits package decided to attach it to the debt increase bill Backers of the Social Security benefits package decided to attach it to the debt increase bill
for two reasons: (1) President Nixon, who opposed a 20% increase as inflationary, would for two reasons: (1) President Nixon, who opposed a 20% increase as inflationary, would
be unlikely to veto a bill that contained a debt limit increase, and (2) H.R. 1, the bill under be unlikely to veto a bill that contained a debt limit increase, and (2) H.R. 1, the bill under
which a benefit increase was then being considered, faced an uncertain future because of which a benefit increase was then being considered, faced an uncertain future because of
controversy over its welfare provisions.202 controversy over its welfare provisions.202
House Action
On June 22, 1971, the House had passed H.R. 1 (see P.L. 92-603, below) which included On June 22, 1971, the House had passed H.R. 1 (see P.L. 92-603, below) which included
provision for a general benefit increase of 5%. provision for a general benefit increase of 5%.
On February 23, 1972, Representative Mills (D-AR), chairman of the Ways and Means On February 23, 1972, Representative Mills (D-AR), chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, introduced H.R. 13320, which provided for an immediate benefit increase of 20%.203 Committee, introduced H.R. 13320, which provided for an immediate benefit increase of 20%.203
On June 27, 1972, the House passed H.R. 15390, providing only for an increase in the debt On June 27, 1972, the House passed H.R. 15390, providing only for an increase in the debt
ceiling, by a vote of 211 to 168.204 ceiling, by a vote of 211 to 168.204
Senate Action
On June 29, 1972, Senator Aiken (R-VT) offered an amendment to the Church amendment to On June 29, 1972, Senator Aiken (R-VT) offered an amendment to the Church amendment to
increase Social Security benefits by 30%. Following Senator Long’s (D-LA) motion, Senator increase Social Security benefits by 30%. Following Senator Long’s (D-LA) motion, Senator
Aiken’s amendment was tabled by a vote of 71 (31-R, 40-D) to 18 (8-R, 10-D).205 Aiken’s amendment was tabled by a vote of 71 (31-R, 40-D) to 18 (8-R, 10-D).205
On June 30, 1972, an amendment by Senator Bennett (R-UT) to increase Social Security benefits On June 30, 1972, an amendment by Senator Bennett (R-UT) to increase Social Security benefits
by 10% instead of 20% was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 20 (17-R, 3-D) to 66 (21-R, by 10% instead of 20% was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 20 (17-R, 3-D) to 66 (21-R,
45-D).206 45-D).206
On June 30, 1972, Senator Church’s (D-ID) amendment calling for a 20% benefit increase and On June 30, 1972, Senator Church’s (D-ID) amendment calling for a 20% benefit increase and
the automatic adjustment of benefits and the taxable wage base in the future was adopted by the the automatic adjustment of benefits and the taxable wage base in the future was adopted by the
Senate by a vote of 82 (34-R, 48-D) to 4 (4-R).207 The amendment made benefit increases Senate by a vote of 82 (34-R, 48-D) to 4 (4-R).207 The amendment made benefit increases
automatic whenever the CPI rose by 3% or more in any calendar year. automatic whenever the CPI rose by 3% or more in any calendar year.
On June 30, 1972, the Senate passed H.R. 15390 by a vote of 78 (36-R, 42-D) to 3 (1-R, 2-D). On June 30, 1972, the Senate passed H.R. 15390 by a vote of 78 (36-R, 42-D) to 3 (1-R, 2-D).
H.R. 15390 was then sent back to the House.208 H.R. 15390 was then sent back to the House.208
House Response to Senate Amendment
The House sent the debt ceiling bill to the conference committee on June 30, 1972, without The House sent the debt ceiling bill to the conference committee on June 30, 1972, without
accepting the Senate-passed benefit increase. Immediate congressional action was necessary accepting the Senate-passed benefit increase. Immediate congressional action was necessary

202 202 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1972, p. 399. : 1972, p. 399.
203 203 Congressional Record, February 23, 1972, House, p. 5269-5270. February 23, 1972, House, p. 5269-5270.
204 204 Congressional Record, June 27, 1972, House, Roll call no. 237, not voting 53, pp. 22558-22559. June 27, 1972, House, Roll call no. 237, not voting 53, pp. 22558-22559.
205 205 Congressional Record, June 29, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 266, not voting 11, p. 23294. June 29, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 266, not voting 11, p. 23294.
206 206 Congressional Record, June 30, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 267, not voting 13, pp. 23511-23512. June 30, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 267, not voting 13, pp. 23511-23512.
207 207 Congressional Record, June 30, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 268, not voting 13, p. 23512. June 30, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 268, not voting 13, p. 23512.
208 208 Congressional Record, June 30, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 272, not voting 19, p. 23545. June 30, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 272, not voting 19, p. 23545.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

36 36

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

because the debt limit was to revert automatically to $400 billion (from the existing $450 billion) because the debt limit was to revert automatically to $400 billion (from the existing $450 billion)
at midnight on June 30, 1972. at midnight on June 30, 1972.
Conference Action
On June 30, 1972, the conferees informally accepted the Senate-passed version of H.R. 15390. On June 30, 1972, the conferees informally accepted the Senate-passed version of H.R. 15390.
Under House rules, however, House conferees could not agree to nongermane amendments added Under House rules, however, House conferees could not agree to nongermane amendments added
by the Senate. Thus, the conference report was reported back to the House in disagreement.209 by the Senate. Thus, the conference report was reported back to the House in disagreement.209
On June 30, 1972, Representative Byrnes (R-WI) called the proposed 20% increase On June 30, 1972, Representative Byrnes (R-WI) called the proposed 20% increase
“irresponsible” and moved that the House concur with the Senate amendment but with the benefit “irresponsible” and moved that the House concur with the Senate amendment but with the benefit
increase limited to 10%. The motion was rejected by a vote of 83 (63-R, 20-D) to 253 (73-R, 180-increase limited to 10%. The motion was rejected by a vote of 83 (63-R, 20-D) to 253 (73-R, 180-
D).210 D).210
On June 30, 1972, Representative Mills’s (D-AR) motion that the House concur with the Senate- On June 30, 1972, Representative Mills’s (D-AR) motion that the House concur with the Senate-
passed amendment granting a 20% Social Security benefit increase and annual automatic cost-of-passed amendment granting a 20% Social Security benefit increase and annual automatic cost-of-
living adjustments (COLAs) was accepted by a vote of 302 (108-R, 194-D) to 35 (28-R, 7-D).211 living adjustments (COLAs) was accepted by a vote of 302 (108-R, 194-D) to 35 (28-R, 7-D).211
P.L. 92-603, Social Security Amendments of 1972
H.R. 1, the Social Security Amendments of 1972, was signed into law on October 30, 1972, by H.R. 1, the Social Security Amendments of 1972, was signed into law on October 30, 1972, by
President Nixon. From 1969 to 1972, Congress raised OASDI benefits three times. Benefits were President Nixon. From 1969 to 1972, Congress raised OASDI benefits three times. Benefits were
raised by 15% in 1969, 10% in 1971, and 20% in 1972 (discussed above, the latter with the raised by 15% in 1969, 10% in 1971, and 20% in 1972 (discussed above, the latter with the
adoption of P.L. 92-336). P.L. 92-336 also provided for future automatic benefit increases, or adoption of P.L. 92-336). P.L. 92-336 also provided for future automatic benefit increases, or
COLAs, starting in January 1975, whenever the consumer price index rose more than 3% in a COLAs, starting in January 1975, whenever the consumer price index rose more than 3% in a
year. These benefit increases were amendments to bills dealing with other subjects. President year. These benefit increases were amendments to bills dealing with other subjects. President
Nixon had requested a number of other Social Security liberalizations in 1969, but those Nixon had requested a number of other Social Security liberalizations in 1969, but those
proposals were entangled with his controversial welfare reform plan. It was not until 1972, when proposals were entangled with his controversial welfare reform plan. It was not until 1972, when
H.R. 1 became P.L. 92-603, that the requested Social Security recommendations became law.212 H.R. 1 became P.L. 92-603, that the requested Social Security recommendations became law.212
The 1972 amendments (H.R. 1) increased benefits for widows and widowers; raised the earnings The 1972 amendments (H.R. 1) increased benefits for widows and widowers; raised the earnings
limit from $1,680 to $2,100 with automatic adjustment to average wages thereafter (benefits were limit from $1,680 to $2,100 with automatic adjustment to average wages thereafter (benefits were
reduced by $1 for every $2 in earnings in excess of $2,100); reduced the waiting period for reduced by $1 for every $2 in earnings in excess of $2,100); reduced the waiting period for
disability benefits from six to five months; extended Medicare protection to disabled recipients disability benefits from six to five months; extended Medicare protection to disabled recipients
who had received benefits for at least two years; and provided a special minimum benefit of up to who had received benefits for at least two years; and provided a special minimum benefit of up to
$170 a month for those who had worked many years, but at low earnings. In addition, OASDI and $170 a month for those who had worked many years, but at low earnings. In addition, OASDI and
HI tax rate-increases scheduled for the periods 1973-1977, 1978-1980, 1981-1985, 1986-1992, HI tax rate-increases scheduled for the periods 1973-1977, 1978-1980, 1981-1985, 1986-1992,
1993-1997, 1998-2010, and 2011 and years thereafter, were further raised.213 1993-1997, 1998-2010, and 2011 and years thereafter, were further raised.213
H.R. 1 also contained the President’s controversial Family Assistance Plan. The bill remained in H.R. 1 also contained the President’s controversial Family Assistance Plan. The bill remained in
the Senate for more than a year because of controversy over welfare reform. The Senate finally the Senate for more than a year because of controversy over welfare reform. The Senate finally
approved H.R. 1 with a provision for tests of rival welfare plans, but in conference all family approved H.R. 1 with a provision for tests of rival welfare plans, but in conference all family
welfare provisions were dropped. In addition, the final version of H.R. 1 contained provisions welfare provisions were dropped. In addition, the final version of H.R. 1 contained provisions

209 209 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1972, pp. 402-403. : 1972, pp. 402-403.
210 210 Congressional Record, June 30, 1972, House, Roll call no. 259, not voting 95, p. 23738. June 30, 1972, House, Roll call no. 259, not voting 95, p. 23738.
211 211 Congressional Record, June 30, 1972, House, Roll call no. 260, not voting 95, pp. 23738-23739. June 30, 1972, House, Roll call no. 260, not voting 95, pp. 23738-23739.
212 212 Congress and the Nation: 1969-1972, vol. III, p. 619. , vol. III, p. 619.
213 Under P.L. 92-336, the tax rates had been reduced over then existing scheduled increases through 2010; rates under 213 Under P.L. 92-336, the tax rates had been reduced over then existing scheduled increases through 2010; rates under
P.L. 92-603 advanced the tax rate schedule and raised the out-year rates. P.L. 92-603 advanced the tax rate schedule and raised the out-year rates.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

37 37

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

federalizing and consolidating adult public assistance programs for needy aged, blind, or disabled federalizing and consolidating adult public assistance programs for needy aged, blind, or disabled
persons in a new Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. persons in a new Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.
House Action
Most of the debate on H.R. 1 dealt with the family welfare provisions, with little debate on the Most of the debate on H.R. 1 dealt with the family welfare provisions, with little debate on the
OASDI and Medicare provisions. OASDI and Medicare provisions.
H.R. 1 was passed by the House on June 22, 1971, by a vote of 288 (112-R, 176-D) to 132 (64-R, H.R. 1 was passed by the House on June 22, 1971, by a vote of 288 (112-R, 176-D) to 132 (64-R,
68-D).214 68-D).214
Senate Action
On September 27, 1972, Senator Mansfield (D-MT) offered an amendment to increase the On September 27, 1972, Senator Mansfield (D-MT) offered an amendment to increase the
earnings test limit from $1,680 to $3,000. The amendment was agreed to by a vote of 76 (32-R, earnings test limit from $1,680 to $3,000. The amendment was agreed to by a vote of 76 (32-R,
44-D) to 5 (4-R, 1-D).215 44-D) to 5 (4-R, 1-D).215
On September 28, 1972, Senator Percy’s (R-IL) amendment to require the Secretary of the On September 28, 1972, Senator Percy’s (R-IL) amendment to require the Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to review the Social Security earnings test, and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to review the Social Security earnings test, and
report to Congress on the feasibility of eliminating it, was accepted by voice vote.216 report to Congress on the feasibility of eliminating it, was accepted by voice vote.216
On September 29, 1972, Senator Long (D-LA) offered an amendment to provide a federal SSI On September 29, 1972, Senator Long (D-LA) offered an amendment to provide a federal SSI
program for needy aged, blind, or disabled persons (in place of the existing state adult assistance program for needy aged, blind, or disabled persons (in place of the existing state adult assistance
programs). The amendment was passed by a vote of 75 (32-R, 43-D) to 0.217 programs). The amendment was passed by a vote of 75 (32-R, 43-D) to 0.217
n September 29, 1972, the Finance Committee’s amendment to guarantee every person who n September 29, 1972, the Finance Committee’s amendment to guarantee every person who
worked in employment covered under the Social Security program for at least 30 years a worked in employment covered under the Social Security program for at least 30 years a
minimum monthly benefit of $200 ($300 for a couple) passed by a vote of 73 (30-R, 43-D) minimum monthly benefit of $200 ($300 for a couple) passed by a vote of 73 (30-R, 43-D)
to 0.218 to 0.218
On September 30, 1972, Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) amendment to lower to 60 the age at which On September 30, 1972, Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) amendment to lower to 60 the age at which
reduced Social Security benefits could be received and to 55 the age at which a woman could reduced Social Security benefits could be received and to 55 the age at which a woman could
receive reduced widow’s benefits was agreed to by a vote of 29 (10-R, 19-D) to 25 (12-R, receive reduced widow’s benefits was agreed to by a vote of 29 (10-R, 19-D) to 25 (12-R,
13-D).219 13-D).219
On September 27, 1972, Senator Goldwater (R-AZ) offered an amendment to repeal the earnings On September 27, 1972, Senator Goldwater (R-AZ) offered an amendment to repeal the earnings
limitation for all Social Security recipients aged 65 or older. The amendment was rejected by limitation for all Social Security recipients aged 65 or older. The amendment was rejected by
voice vote.220 voice vote.220
H.R. 1 passed the Senate on October 5, 1972, by a vote of 68 (33-R, 35-D) to 5 (1-R, 4-D).221 H.R. 1 passed the Senate on October 5, 1972, by a vote of 68 (33-R, 35-D) to 5 (1-R, 4-D).221

214 214 Congressional Record, June 22, 1971, House, Roll call no. 157, not voting 13, p. 21463. June 22, 1971, House, Roll call no. 157, not voting 13, p. 21463.
215 215 Congressional Record, September 27, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 478, not voting 19, p. 32488. September 27, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 478, not voting 19, p. 32488.
216 216 Congressional Record, September 28, 1972, Senate, p. 32720. September 28, 1972, Senate, p. 32720.
217 217 Congressional Record, September 29, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 484, not voting 25, p. 32905. September 29, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 484, not voting 25, p. 32905.
218 218 Congressional Record, September 29, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 485, not voting 27, p. 32907. September 29, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 485, not voting 27, p. 32907.
219 219 Congressional Record, September 30, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 488, not voting 46, p. 33000. September 30, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 488, not voting 46, p. 33000.
220 220 Congressional Record, September 27, 1972, Senate, p. 32485. September 27, 1972, Senate, p. 32485.
221 221 Congressional Record, October 5, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 536, not voting 27, p. 33995. October 5, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 536, not voting 27, p. 33995.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

38 38

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Conference Action
On October 17, 1972, the House adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 by a vote of 305 (129- On October 17, 1972, the House adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 by a vote of 305 (129-
R, 176-D) to 1 (1-D).222 R, 176-D) to 1 (1-D).222
On October 17, 1972, the Senate adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 by a vote of 61 (24-R, On October 17, 1972, the Senate adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 by a vote of 61 (24-R,
37-D) to 0.223 37-D) to 0.223
P.L. 93-233, Social Security Benefits Increase
A two-step 11% benefit increase became law when President Nixon signed H.R. 11333 on A two-step 11% benefit increase became law when President Nixon signed H.R. 11333 on
December, 31, 1973. This increase was in lieu of a 5.9% increase scheduled by P.L. 93-66, which December, 31, 1973. This increase was in lieu of a 5.9% increase scheduled by P.L. 93-66, which
had been enacted in July 1973.224 In passing H.R. 11333, congressional sentiment was that the had been enacted in July 1973.224 In passing H.R. 11333, congressional sentiment was that the
earlier increase was inadequate to offset recent rapid increases in inflation. earlier increase was inadequate to offset recent rapid increases in inflation.
P.L. 93-233 increased benefits by 7% in March 1974 and by another 4% in June 1974. To finance P.L. 93-233 increased benefits by 7% in March 1974 and by another 4% in June 1974. To finance
the increases, the Social Security taxable wage base was raised from $12,600 to $13,200 in the increases, the Social Security taxable wage base was raised from $12,600 to $13,200 in
January 1974. In addition, the automatic COLA mechanism was revised. Under P.L. 93-233, the January 1974. In addition, the automatic COLA mechanism was revised. Under P.L. 93-233, the
COLA was to be based on the rise in the CPI from the first quarter of one year to the first quarter COLA was to be based on the rise in the CPI from the first quarter of one year to the first quarter
of the next year, rather than second quarter to second quarter, with benefit increases starting in of the next year, rather than second quarter to second quarter, with benefit increases starting in
June 1975 rather than in January. As a result, the increases would appear in checks received in June 1975 rather than in January. As a result, the increases would appear in checks received in
July, creating only a three-month lag from the close of the measuring period (i.e., the first quarter) July, creating only a three-month lag from the close of the measuring period (i.e., the first quarter)
rather than the seven-month lag under the prior mechanism. rather than the seven-month lag under the prior mechanism.
House Action
With a rule allowing only one floor amendment (pertaining to SSI), the House passed H.R. 11333 With a rule allowing only one floor amendment (pertaining to SSI), the House passed H.R. 11333
on November 15, 1973.225 on November 15, 1973.225
The November 14-15 debate on H.R. 11333 was devoted to the need for a quick cost-of-living The November 14-15 debate on H.R. 11333 was devoted to the need for a quick cost-of-living
Social Security benefit increase and to questions about the fiscal soundness of the Social Security Social Security benefit increase and to questions about the fiscal soundness of the Social Security
trust funds.226 H.R. 11333 as reported by the Ways and Means Committee recommended a two-trust funds.226 H.R. 11333 as reported by the Ways and Means Committee recommended a two-
step 11% Social Security benefit increase in 1974, accelerated SSI benefit increases, and payroll step 11% Social Security benefit increase in 1974, accelerated SSI benefit increases, and payroll
tax increases. tax increases.
On November 15, 1973, the House passed H.R. 11333 by a vote of 391 (168-R, 223-D) to 20 (15- On November 15, 1973, the House passed H.R. 11333 by a vote of 391 (168-R, 223-D) to 20 (15-
R, 5-D).227 R, 5-D).227
Senate Action
The Senate Finance Committee approved a number of provisions affecting Social Security, The Senate Finance Committee approved a number of provisions affecting Social Security,
including an initial 7% benefit increase effective upon enactment and a further 4% increase in including an initial 7% benefit increase effective upon enactment and a further 4% increase in
June 1974. Rather than acting on H.R. 11333, the Senate attached its Social Security amendments June 1974. Rather than acting on H.R. 11333, the Senate attached its Social Security amendments
to H.R. 3153, a Social Security bill passed by the House on April 2, 1973. (H.R. 3153 made a to H.R. 3153, a Social Security bill passed by the House on April 2, 1973. (H.R. 3153 made a
number of technical and conforming amendments to the Social Security Act that had been omitted number of technical and conforming amendments to the Social Security Act that had been omitted

222 222 Congressional Record, October 17, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 455, not voting 122, p. 36936. October 17, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 455, not voting 122, p. 36936.
223 223 Congressional Record, October 17, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 567, not voting 39, p. 36825. October 17, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 567, not voting 39, p. 36825.
224 P.L. 93-66 also increased the earnings test threshold amount from $2,100 to $2,400 for 1974. 224 P.L. 93-66 also increased the earnings test threshold amount from $2,100 to $2,400 for 1974.
225 225 Congressional Record, November 15, 1973, House, Roll call no. 592, not voting 22, p. 37159. November 15, 1973, House, Roll call no. 592, not voting 22, p. 37159.
226 226 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1973, p. 573. : 1973, p. 573.
227 227 Congressional Record, November 15, 1973, House, Roll call no. 592, not voting 22, p. 37159. November 15, 1973, House, Roll call no. 592, not voting 22, p. 37159.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

39 39

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

in drafting the conference agreement on H.R. 1, which became P.L. 92-603.) The Senate debated in drafting the conference agreement on H.R. 1, which became P.L. 92-603.) The Senate debated
H.R. 3153 for three days and adopted 38 amendments. H.R. 3153 for three days and adopted 38 amendments.
On November 29, 1973, Senator Byrd (D-WV) introduced an amendment that reduced to 55 the On November 29, 1973, Senator Byrd (D-WV) introduced an amendment that reduced to 55 the
age at which a woman could claim a Social Security widow’s benefit. Under existing law, a age at which a woman could claim a Social Security widow’s benefit. Under existing law, a
widow could elect to retire at 60 with reduced benefits. Senator Byrd said that his amendment widow could elect to retire at 60 with reduced benefits. Senator Byrd said that his amendment
would help widows between the ages of 55 and 60, who would be unlikely and perhaps unable to would help widows between the ages of 55 and 60, who would be unlikely and perhaps unable to
establish a new career or to reactivate an old one. Terming the Byrd amendment “inequitable,” establish a new career or to reactivate an old one. Terming the Byrd amendment “inequitable,”
Senator Curtis (R-NE) objected that it would be unjust to reduce the eligibility age for widows Senator Curtis (R-NE) objected that it would be unjust to reduce the eligibility age for widows
“who have not worked under covered employment” while keeping the existing requirement at age “who have not worked under covered employment” while keeping the existing requirement at age
62 for “women who have had to work all their lives and will have to work until they are of 62 for “women who have had to work all their lives and will have to work until they are of
retirement age.” Senator Byrd’s amendment was adopted by a vote of 74 (28-R, 46-D) to 13 (9-R, retirement age.” Senator Byrd’s amendment was adopted by a vote of 74 (28-R, 46-D) to 13 (9-R,
4-D).228 4-D).228
Senator Byrd introduced a second amendment that increased the earnings test limit from $2,400 Senator Byrd introduced a second amendment that increased the earnings test limit from $2,400
to $3,000 and lowered from 72 to 70, the age at which the earnings limit would no longer apply. to $3,000 and lowered from 72 to 70, the age at which the earnings limit would no longer apply.
The amendment was accepted November 29, 1973, by a vote of 83 (33-R, 50-D) to 1 (1-R).229 The amendment was accepted November 29, 1973, by a vote of 83 (33-R, 50-D) to 1 (1-R).229
On November 29, 1973, Senator Hartke’s (D-IN) amendment making blind persons eligible for On November 29, 1973, Senator Hartke’s (D-IN) amendment making blind persons eligible for
disability benefits after working 18 months in covered employment was adopted by voice vote. disability benefits after working 18 months in covered employment was adopted by voice vote.
(Ordinarily a disabled person had to have covered employment in 20 quarters out of the last 40 (Ordinarily a disabled person had to have covered employment in 20 quarters out of the last 40
quarters to be eligible.) quarters to be eligible.)
On November 30, 1973, the Senate passed H.R. 3153 by a vote of 66 (24-R, 42-D) to 8 (6-R, 2- On November 30, 1973, the Senate passed H.R. 3153 by a vote of 66 (24-R, 42-D) to 8 (6-R, 2-
D).230 D).230
Conference Action
After the Senate passed H.R. 3153, it asked the House for a conference, but the House appointed After the Senate passed H.R. 3153, it asked the House for a conference, but the House appointed
conferees only two days before the end of the session. The conferees did not act on H.R. 3153. conferees only two days before the end of the session. The conferees did not act on H.R. 3153.
Instead, they agreed to work on revisions to H.R. 11333, the House-passed Social Security bill, Instead, they agreed to work on revisions to H.R. 11333, the House-passed Social Security bill,
on which the Senate had never acted.231 on which the Senate had never acted.231
As part of a compromise reached on December 20, the House conferees agreed to hold a further As part of a compromise reached on December 20, the House conferees agreed to hold a further
conference on H.R. 3153 in 1974 to consider additional Senate amendments, but the conference conference on H.R. 3153 in 1974 to consider additional Senate amendments, but the conference
never took place. never took place.
The conference report on H.R. 11333 included a two-step 11% increase in benefits, effective The conference report on H.R. 11333 included a two-step 11% increase in benefits, effective
March 1974 and June 1974, raised the wage base to $13,200 in 1974, and increased the initial March 1974 and June 1974, raised the wage base to $13,200 in 1974, and increased the initial
federal SSI benefit level. federal SSI benefit level.
The Senate passed H.R. 11333 with the amendments agreed to in conference on December 21, The Senate passed H.R. 11333 with the amendments agreed to in conference on December 21,
1973, by a vote of 64 to 0.232 1973, by a vote of 64 to 0.232

228 228 Congressional Record, November 29, 1973, Senate, Roll call no. 527, not voting 13, p. 38645. November 29, 1973, Senate, Roll call no. 527, not voting 13, p. 38645.
229 229 Congressional Record, November 29, 1973, Senate, Roll call no. 528, not voting 15, pp. 38645-38646. November 29, 1973, Senate, Roll call no. 528, not voting 15, pp. 38645-38646.
230 230 Congressional Record, November 30, 1973, Senate, Roll call no. 540, not voting 24, p. 38975. November 30, 1973, Senate, Roll call no. 540, not voting 24, p. 38975.
231 231 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1973, p. 577-580. : 1973, p. 577-580.
232 232 Congressional Record, December 21, 1973, Senate, Roll call no. 613, not voting 34, p. 43115. Note: The December 21, 1973, Senate, Roll call no. 613, not voting 34, p. 43115. Note: The
Congressional Quarterly vote breakdown indicates 66 in favor (21-R, 45-D) and 0 opposed. Congressional Quarterly vote breakdown indicates 66 in favor (21-R, 45-D) and 0 opposed.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

40 40

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

The House, on December 21, 1973, concurred in passing the bill by a vote of 301 (123-R, 178-D) The House, on December 21, 1973, concurred in passing the bill by a vote of 301 (123-R, 178-D)
to 13 (10-R, 3-D).233 to 13 (10-R, 3-D).233
P.L. 95-216, Social Security Amendments of 1977
H.R. 9346, the Social Security Amendments of 1977, was signed by President Carter on H.R. 9346, the Social Security Amendments of 1977, was signed by President Carter on
December 20, 1977. H.R. 9346 was passed to meet major Social Security financing problems that December 20, 1977. H.R. 9346 was passed to meet major Social Security financing problems that
emerged in the mid-1970s. The emerged in the mid-1970s. The Congressional Quarterly Almanac says that the main cause of the says that the main cause of the
immediate financial problems was the “combination of rapid inflation and a recession, which immediate financial problems was the “combination of rapid inflation and a recession, which
together raised Social Security benefit costs and reduced tax receipts.”234 In addition to fixing together raised Social Security benefit costs and reduced tax receipts.”234 In addition to fixing
short-run problems, the amendments sought to eliminate the medium-range deficit (over the next short-run problems, the amendments sought to eliminate the medium-range deficit (over the next
25 years) and to reduce the projected long-range deficit (next 75 years) from more than 8% of 25 years) and to reduce the projected long-range deficit (next 75 years) from more than 8% of
taxable payroll to less than 1.5%. The basic approach was to (1) handle the short-term financing taxable payroll to less than 1.5%. The basic approach was to (1) handle the short-term financing
problem either through increased payroll taxes or infusions from the general fund; and (2) reduce problem either through increased payroll taxes or infusions from the general fund; and (2) reduce
and possibly eliminate the projected long-run deficit by modifying the benefit formula to stabilize and possibly eliminate the projected long-run deficit by modifying the benefit formula to stabilize
replacement rates. replacement rates.
Neither house of Congress gave much attention to an Administration proposal to authorize use of Neither house of Congress gave much attention to an Administration proposal to authorize use of
general revenues for Social Security during periods of high unemployment (i.e., the so-called general revenues for Social Security during periods of high unemployment (i.e., the so-called
counter cyclical use of general revenues). Instead, the new law met the short-run problem mostly counter cyclical use of general revenues). Instead, the new law met the short-run problem mostly
by increasing Social Security tax rates and the taxable earnings base and also by somewhat by increasing Social Security tax rates and the taxable earnings base and also by somewhat
reducing expenditures. The final bill contained “decoupling” procedures, which also had been reducing expenditures. The final bill contained “decoupling” procedures, which also had been
supported by the Ford Administration, for correcting a basic flaw in the benefit computation supported by the Ford Administration, for correcting a basic flaw in the benefit computation
formula, and thereby largely reduced the long-run problem. P.L. 95-216 also liberalized the formula, and thereby largely reduced the long-run problem. P.L. 95-216 also liberalized the
earnings test by providing a five-step ad hoc increase in the earnings limits for recipients aged 65 earnings test by providing a five-step ad hoc increase in the earnings limits for recipients aged 65
or older (the limit for persons under age 65 continued to be adjusted only for increases in average or older (the limit for persons under age 65 continued to be adjusted only for increases in average
wages after 1978); eliminated the earnings test for recipients aged 70 or older (reduced from age wages after 1978); eliminated the earnings test for recipients aged 70 or older (reduced from age
72), beginning in 1982; reduced spousal benefits for government annuitants whose government 72), beginning in 1982; reduced spousal benefits for government annuitants whose government
jobs were not covered by Social Security; and liberalized the treatment of divorced and widowed jobs were not covered by Social Security; and liberalized the treatment of divorced and widowed
recipients. recipients.

House Action
Legislation that incorporated the Administration’s recommendations (H.R. 8218) was introduced Legislation that incorporated the Administration’s recommendations (H.R. 8218) was introduced
on July 12, 1977, by Representative Burke (D-MA), chairman of the House Ways and Means on July 12, 1977, by Representative Burke (D-MA), chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee’s Social Security Subcommittee. After reworking the Administration’s package, the Committee’s Social Security Subcommittee. After reworking the Administration’s package, the
subcommittee made recommendations to the full committee that were introduced by Chairman subcommittee made recommendations to the full committee that were introduced by Chairman
Ullman (D-OR) on September 27, 1977, as H.R. 9346. On October 6, 1977, the full committee Ullman (D-OR) on September 27, 1977, as H.R. 9346. On October 6, 1977, the full committee
approved a financing plan combining payroll tax increases with basic changes in benefits and approved a financing plan combining payroll tax increases with basic changes in benefits and
coverage. H.R. 9346, was reported to the House on October 12, 1977. The House floor debate on coverage. H.R. 9346, was reported to the House on October 12, 1977. The House floor debate on
H.R. 9346 began on October 26, 1977.235 H.R. 9346 began on October 26, 1977.235

233 233 Congressional Record, December 21, 1973, House, Roll call no. 719, not voting 118, p. 43230. December 21, 1973, House, Roll call no. 719, not voting 118, p. 43230.
234 234 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1977, p. 161. , p. 161.
235 John Snee and Mary Ross, “Social Security Amendments of 1977: Legislative History and Summary of Provisions,” 235 John Snee and Mary Ross, “Social Security Amendments of 1977: Legislative History and Summary of Provisions,”
Social Security Bulletin, vol. 41, no. 3, March 1978, pp. 6-9, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v41n3/, vol. 41, no. 3, March 1978, pp. 6-9, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v41n3/
v41n3p3.pdf. (Hereinafter cited as “Social Security Amendments of 1977: Legislative History.”) v41n3p3.pdf. (Hereinafter cited as “Social Security Amendments of 1977: Legislative History.”)
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

41 41

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On October 26, 1977, the House considered an amendment from the Committee on Post Office On October 26, 1977, the House considered an amendment from the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service.236 The amendment would have deleted the provision in the Ways and Means and Civil Service.236 The amendment would have deleted the provision in the Ways and Means
Committee bill covering federal, state, local, and nonprofit employees under Social Security. Committee bill covering federal, state, local, and nonprofit employees under Social Security.
Representative Fisher (D-VA) offered a substitute for the Post Office and Civil Service Representative Fisher (D-VA) offered a substitute for the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee amendment. The Fisher substitute provided that federal employees would continue to Committee amendment. The Fisher substitute provided that federal employees would continue to
be exempt from the Social Security system and that state and local governments and nonprofit be exempt from the Social Security system and that state and local governments and nonprofit
organizations would continue to have the option of electing to cover their employees. While the organizations would continue to have the option of electing to cover their employees. While the
amendment deleted mandatory coverage of these employees, the bill retained a provision amendment deleted mandatory coverage of these employees, the bill retained a provision
requiring a study of mandatory coverage to be conducted jointly by the Civil Service requiring a study of mandatory coverage to be conducted jointly by the Civil Service
Commission, the Departments of the Treasury and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Office Commission, the Departments of the Treasury and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Office
of Management and Budget. Many Members endorsed the concept of universal mandatory Social of Management and Budget. Many Members endorsed the concept of universal mandatory Social
Security coverage, but supporters of the Fisher amendment asserted that a study of the universal Security coverage, but supporters of the Fisher amendment asserted that a study of the universal
coverage issue should be conducted first. Opponents, in contrast, argued that the committee bill, coverage issue should be conducted first. Opponents, in contrast, argued that the committee bill,
by postponing the extension of coverage until 1982, allowed sufficient time to work out details.237 by postponing the extension of coverage until 1982, allowed sufficient time to work out details.237
To make up for the revenue loss due to deletion of the mandatory coverage provisions, the To make up for the revenue loss due to deletion of the mandatory coverage provisions, the
amendment also provided for greater increases in the Social Security tax rate and wage base than amendment also provided for greater increases in the Social Security tax rate and wage base than
those included in the committee bill. The Administration, as well as representatives of many those included in the committee bill. The Administration, as well as representatives of many
groups that would have been affected by the coverage extension, lobbied for the Fisher groups that would have been affected by the coverage extension, lobbied for the Fisher
amendment.238 Representative Fisher’s substitute amendment was agreed to by a vote of 386 amendment.238 Representative Fisher’s substitute amendment was agreed to by a vote of 386
(129-R, 257-D) to 38 (14-R, 24-D).239 The House then adopted the Post Office and Civil Service (129-R, 257-D) to 38 (14-R, 24-D).239 The House then adopted the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee amendment, as amended by the Fisher amendment, by a vote of 380 (124-R, 256-D) Committee amendment, as amended by the Fisher amendment, by a vote of 380 (124-R, 256-D)
to 39 (14-R, 25-D).240 to 39 (14-R, 25-D).240
On October 26, 1977, Representative Pickle (D-TX) offered an amendment to strike another On October 26, 1977, Representative Pickle (D-TX) offered an amendment to strike another
committee provision authorizing standby loans to the OASDI system from general revenues committee provision authorizing standby loans to the OASDI system from general revenues
whenever trust fund reserves dipped below 25% of a year’s outgo. Representative Pickle argued whenever trust fund reserves dipped below 25% of a year’s outgo. Representative Pickle argued
that any use of general treasury funds for Social Security undermined the contributory nature of that any use of general treasury funds for Social Security undermined the contributory nature of
the program. He remarked that he did not want to see the Social Security program turned into a the program. He remarked that he did not want to see the Social Security program turned into a
“welfare or need program.” The Pickle amendment was rejected by a vote of 196 (122-R, 74-D) “welfare or need program.” The Pickle amendment was rejected by a vote of 196 (122-R, 74-D)
to 221 (15-R, 206-D).241 to 221 (15-R, 206-D).241
On October 26, 1977, Representative Corman (D-CA) offered an amendment to eliminate the On October 26, 1977, Representative Corman (D-CA) offered an amendment to eliminate the
minimum Social Security benefit for new recipients. He said that the minimum benefit gave those minimum Social Security benefit for new recipients. He said that the minimum benefit gave those
who had paid very little in Social Security taxes a benefit “far in excess of his or her average who had paid very little in Social Security taxes a benefit “far in excess of his or her average
monthly wage.” He stated that his amendment restored “a measure of the social insurance monthly wage.” He stated that his amendment restored “a measure of the social insurance

236 When H.R. 9346 was introduced, it was referred solely to the Ways and Means Committee. The chairman of the 236 When H.R. 9346 was introduced, it was referred solely to the Ways and Means Committee. The chairman of the
Post Office and Civil Service Committee, Rep. Nix (D-PA), concerned over the Social Security coverage of federal Post Office and Civil Service Committee, Rep. Nix (D-PA), concerned over the Social Security coverage of federal
employees under the bill, persuaded the Speaker to give his committee sequential referral of the bill. The Committee on employees under the bill, persuaded the Speaker to give his committee sequential referral of the bill. The Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service unanimously voted to amend the bill to strike Social Security coverage of federal Post Office and Civil Service unanimously voted to amend the bill to strike Social Security coverage of federal
employees. However, under the rule for floor debates the bill as reported by the Ways and Means Committee was to be employees. However, under the rule for floor debates the bill as reported by the Ways and Means Committee was to be
the vehicle for floor consideration. The Post Office and Civil Service Committee amendment was considered as a floor the vehicle for floor consideration. The Post Office and Civil Service Committee amendment was considered as a floor
amendment to the Ways and Means Committee bill. amendment to the Ways and Means Committee bill.
237 237 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1977, p. 165. : 1977, p. 165.
238 Ibid. 238 Ibid.
239 239 Congressional Record, October 26, 1977, House, Roll call no. 697, not voting 10, p. 35315. October 26, 1977, House, Roll call no. 697, not voting 10, p. 35315.
240 240 Congressional Record, October 26, 1977, House, Roll call no. 698, not voting 15, pp. 35315-35316. October 26, 1977, House, Roll call no. 698, not voting 15, pp. 35315-35316.
241 241 Congressional Record, October 26, 1977, House, Roll call no. 700, not voting 17, p. 35323. October 26, 1977, House, Roll call no. 700, not voting 17, p. 35323.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

42 42

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

principle of relating benefits to contributions.” The amendment was rejected by a vote of 131 (68- principle of relating benefits to contributions.” The amendment was rejected by a vote of 131 (68-
R, 63-D) to 271 (64-R, 207-D).242 R, 63-D) to 271 (64-R, 207-D).242
On October 27, 1977, Representative Ketchum (R-CA) offered an amendment to gradually raise On October 27, 1977, Representative Ketchum (R-CA) offered an amendment to gradually raise
the earnings limitation on recipients over age 65 and to phase it out completely in 1982. The the earnings limitation on recipients over age 65 and to phase it out completely in 1982. The
amendment included a tax rate increase to meet the cost of the additional benefit payments. The amendment included a tax rate increase to meet the cost of the additional benefit payments. The
amendment was adopted by a vote of 268 (139-R, 129-D) to 149 (1-R, 148-D).243 amendment was adopted by a vote of 268 (139-R, 129-D) to 149 (1-R, 148-D).243
On October 27, 1977, Representative Conable (R-NY) moved to recommit H.R. 9346 to the Ways On October 27, 1977, Representative Conable (R-NY) moved to recommit H.R. 9346 to the Ways
and Means Committee with instructions to report out the bill with an amendment that mandated and Means Committee with instructions to report out the bill with an amendment that mandated
coverage of federal workers, diverted half of the HI portion of the payroll tax to OASDI in 1980, coverage of federal workers, diverted half of the HI portion of the payroll tax to OASDI in 1980,
and replaced the lost HI revenues with general revenues. Representative Conable argued that an and replaced the lost HI revenues with general revenues. Representative Conable argued that an
amendment containing the above would enable both the wage base and the tax rate to remain as amendment containing the above would enable both the wage base and the tax rate to remain as
scheduled under existing law. The recommittal motion was rejected by a vote of 57 (44-R, 13-D) scheduled under existing law. The recommittal motion was rejected by a vote of 57 (44-R, 13-D)
to 363 (97-R, 266-D).244 to 363 (97-R, 266-D).244
H.R. 9346 passed the House on October 27, 1977, by a vote of 275 (40-R, 235-D) to 146 (100-R, H.R. 9346 passed the House on October 27, 1977, by a vote of 275 (40-R, 235-D) to 146 (100-R,
46-D).245 46-D).245
Senate Action
Preliminary hearings and markup sessions on financing and decoupling were held by the Senate Preliminary hearings and markup sessions on financing and decoupling were held by the Senate
Committee on Finance in the summer and fall of 1977, even though the House had not yet passed Committee on Finance in the summer and fall of 1977, even though the House had not yet passed
its Social Security bill.246 Before H.R. 9346 was passed by the House, the Finance Committee had its Social Security bill.246 Before H.R. 9346 was passed by the House, the Finance Committee had
tentatively agreed that its amendments would be attached to H.R. 5322, an unrelated tariff bill tentatively agreed that its amendments would be attached to H.R. 5322, an unrelated tariff bill
that had originated in the House. H.R. 5322 was to be a convenient vehicle for putting the Senate that had originated in the House. H.R. 5322 was to be a convenient vehicle for putting the Senate
Finance Committee proposals before the Senate promptly.247 Finance Committee proposals before the Senate promptly.247
When H.R. 9346 as passed by the House came up for debate on the Senate floor on November 2, When H.R. 9346 as passed by the House came up for debate on the Senate floor on November 2,
1977, Senator Long (D-LA) introduced an amendment to substitute the Finance Committee 1977, Senator Long (D-LA) introduced an amendment to substitute the Finance Committee
Social Security proposals in H.R. 5322 for the House bill. The Finance Committee proposals Social Security proposals in H.R. 5322 for the House bill. The Finance Committee proposals
included decoupling measures similar to those in the House bill. They also included provisions included decoupling measures similar to those in the House bill. They also included provisions
that would require employers to pay Social Security taxes on a higher wage base than employees that would require employers to pay Social Security taxes on a higher wage base than employees
and would reduce spousal benefits by the amount of a government pension that was based on and would reduce spousal benefits by the amount of a government pension that was based on
work not covered by Social Security. Senator Long’s amendment was agreed to with no recorded work not covered by Social Security. Senator Long’s amendment was agreed to with no recorded
vote.248 Thus, the text of H.R. 5322 became H.R. 9346 as amended by the Senate. vote.248 Thus, the text of H.R. 5322 became H.R. 9346 as amended by the Senate.
On November 3, 1977, Senator Curtis (R-NE) offered an amendment that would have kept the On November 3, 1977, Senator Curtis (R-NE) offered an amendment that would have kept the
taxable wage base the same for employers and employees (at the level specified for employees in taxable wage base the same for employers and employees (at the level specified for employees in
the committee proposal) but would have raised the tax rate above the committee-recommended the committee proposal) but would have raised the tax rate above the committee-recommended
levels. Senator Curtis said his amendment would take care of the deficit in the Social Security levels. Senator Curtis said his amendment would take care of the deficit in the Social Security
fund. He stated that raising the wage base would put half of the financing burden exclusively on fund. He stated that raising the wage base would put half of the financing burden exclusively on
the people with higher incomes. the people with higher incomes.

242 242 Congressional Record, October 26, 1977, House, Roll call no. 701, not voting 32, p. 35326. October 26, 1977, House, Roll call no. 701, not voting 32, p. 35326.
243 243 Congressional Record, October 27, 1977, House, Roll call no. 704, not voting 17, p. 35394. October 27, 1977, House, Roll call no. 704, not voting 17, p. 35394.
244 244 Congressional Record, October 27, 1977, House, Roll call no. 705, not voting 14, p. 35406. October 27, 1977, House, Roll call no. 705, not voting 14, p. 35406.
245 245 Congressional Record, October 27, 1977, House, Roll call no. 706, not voting 13, pp. 35406-35407. October 27, 1977, House, Roll call no. 706, not voting 13, pp. 35406-35407.
246 Social Security Amendments of 1977: Legislative History, p. 9. 246 Social Security Amendments of 1977: Legislative History, p. 9.
247 Ibid., pp. 10-11. 247 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
248 248 Congressional Record, November 2, 1977, Senate, p. 36449. November 2, 1977, Senate, p. 36449.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

43 43

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Senator Nelson (D-WI) acknowledged that the Curtis amendment would supply the necessary Senator Nelson (D-WI) acknowledged that the Curtis amendment would supply the necessary
funding to keep the retirement system solvent, but stressed that the average worker would pay a funding to keep the retirement system solvent, but stressed that the average worker would pay a
higher tax under the Curtis plan than under the committee proposal. Senator Nelson’s motion to higher tax under the Curtis plan than under the committee proposal. Senator Nelson’s motion to
table the Curtis amendment lost by a vote of 44 (3-R, 41-D) to 45 (31-R, 14-D),249 but the Senate table the Curtis amendment lost by a vote of 44 (3-R, 41-D) to 45 (31-R, 14-D),249 but the Senate
then rejected the Curtis amendment, 40 (27-R, 13-D) to 50 (7-R, 43-D).250 then rejected the Curtis amendment, 40 (27-R, 13-D) to 50 (7-R, 43-D).250
On November 4, 1977, Senator Goldwater (R-AZ) offered an amendment to lower the age at On November 4, 1977, Senator Goldwater (R-AZ) offered an amendment to lower the age at
which the earnings test would no longer apply from 72 to 65. Senator Goldwater said that his which the earnings test would no longer apply from 72 to 65. Senator Goldwater said that his
amendment would end the discrimination that allowed full benefits to relatively wealthy retirees amendment would end the discrimination that allowed full benefits to relatively wealthy retirees
who had unearned income in excess of $3,000, but reduced benefits for retirees who relied who had unearned income in excess of $3,000, but reduced benefits for retirees who relied
entirely on additional earned income to supplement their Social Security benefits. Opponents of entirely on additional earned income to supplement their Social Security benefits. Opponents of
the amendment said that it would provide a windfall to professionals who continued to work at the amendment said that it would provide a windfall to professionals who continued to work at
lucrative jobs past retirement age. lucrative jobs past retirement age.
Senator Church (D-ID offered a substitute amendment to lower from 72 to 70 the age at which Senator Church (D-ID offered a substitute amendment to lower from 72 to 70 the age at which
the earnings test would no longer apply. Senator Goldwater’s motion to table the Church the earnings test would no longer apply. Senator Goldwater’s motion to table the Church
amendment was rejected 33 (25-R, 8-D) to 53 (7-R, 46-D).251 The Senate adopted the Church amendment was rejected 33 (25-R, 8-D) to 53 (7-R, 46-D).251 The Senate adopted the Church
substitute amendment 59 (12-R, 47-D) to 28 (20-R, 8-D)252 and then adopted the Goldwater substitute amendment 59 (12-R, 47-D) to 28 (20-R, 8-D)252 and then adopted the Goldwater
amendment as amended by the Church substitute by a vote of 79 (30-R, 49-D) to 4 (4-D).253 amendment as amended by the Church substitute by a vote of 79 (30-R, 49-D) to 4 (4-D).253
An amendment offered by Senator Church on November 4, 1977, to provide for semiannual An amendment offered by Senator Church on November 4, 1977, to provide for semiannual
COLAs when the rate of inflation for a six-month period was 4% or greater was adopted by a COLAs when the rate of inflation for a six-month period was 4% or greater was adopted by a
vote of 50 (11-R, 39-D) to 21 (15-R, 6-D).254 vote of 50 (11-R, 39-D) to 21 (15-R, 6-D).254
On November 4, 1977, Senator Bayh (D-IN) offered an amendment to remove the earnings limit On November 4, 1977, Senator Bayh (D-IN) offered an amendment to remove the earnings limit
for blind persons collecting disability benefits and to set the number of quarters blind persons for blind persons collecting disability benefits and to set the number of quarters blind persons
must work to qualify for disability benefit at six. The Bayh amendment was adopted by voice must work to qualify for disability benefit at six. The Bayh amendment was adopted by voice
vote.255 vote.255
The Senate passed H.R. 9346, as amended, by a vote of 42 (9-R, 33-D) to 25 (15-R, 10-D) on The Senate passed H.R. 9346, as amended, by a vote of 42 (9-R, 33-D) to 25 (15-R, 10-D) on
November 4, 1977.256 November 4, 1977.256
Conference Action
The conference agreement provided for higher payroll tax rates than those proposed by either the The conference agreement provided for higher payroll tax rates than those proposed by either the
House or Senate. The House-approved authority for loans to the trust funds from general House or Senate. The House-approved authority for loans to the trust funds from general
revenues was dropped, as was the Senate-passed proposal to raise the wage base for employers revenues was dropped, as was the Senate-passed proposal to raise the wage base for employers
higher than that for employees. Rather than phase out the earnings test, as in the House-passed higher than that for employees. Rather than phase out the earnings test, as in the House-passed
bill, the conferees agreed to raise, over five years, the earnings tests limit for the elderly (aged 65 bill, the conferees agreed to raise, over five years, the earnings tests limit for the elderly (aged 65
or older). or older).
Despite numerous differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, the Despite numerous differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, the
Congressional Quarterly Almanac stated that the conferees resolved their differences “without stated that the conferees resolved their differences “without

249 249 Congressional Record, November 3, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 611, not voting 11, p. 36763. November 3, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 611, not voting 11, p. 36763.
250 250 Congressional Record, November 3, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 612, not voting 10, p. 36764. November 3, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 612, not voting 10, p. 36764.
251 251 Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 620, not voting 14, pp. 37130-37131. November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 620, not voting 14, pp. 37130-37131.
252 252 Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 621, not voting 13, p. 37132. November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 621, not voting 13, p. 37132.
253 253 Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 622, not voting 17, p. 37132. November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 622, not voting 17, p. 37132.
254 254 Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 627, not voting 29, p. 37162. November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 627, not voting 29, p. 37162.
255 255 Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Senate, p. 37141. November 4, 1977, Senate, p. 37141.
256 256 Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 631, not voting 31, p. 37199-37200. November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 631, not voting 31, p. 37199-37200.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

44 44

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

trouble.”257 The main controversy involved provisions dealing with welfare programs and college trouble.”257 The main controversy involved provisions dealing with welfare programs and college
tuition tax credits. tuition tax credits.
On December 15, 1977, the House agreed to the conference report by a vote of 189 (15-R, 174-D) On December 15, 1977, the House agreed to the conference report by a vote of 189 (15-R, 174-D)
to 163 (109-R, 54-D).258 There was unease in the House because of the large tax increases. to 163 (109-R, 54-D).258 There was unease in the House because of the large tax increases.
Representative Conable (R-NY) claimed that more reasonable non-tax alternatives were Representative Conable (R-NY) claimed that more reasonable non-tax alternatives were
available. available.
On December 15, 1977, Representative Ullman (D-OR) stated that the conference report On December 15, 1977, Representative Ullman (D-OR) stated that the conference report
“responsibly faces up to the issues of Social Security, both short range and long range.” He “responsibly faces up to the issues of Social Security, both short range and long range.” He
assured Members that he would “move as expeditiously as possible ... toward adopting a new assured Members that he would “move as expeditiously as possible ... toward adopting a new
revenue mechanism whereby we can back off from these major increases.... ”259 revenue mechanism whereby we can back off from these major increases.... ”259
On December 15, 1977, the Senate passed the conference report with little controversy by a vote On December 15, 1977, the Senate passed the conference report with little controversy by a vote
of 56 (17-R, 39-D) to 21 (14-R, 7-D).260 of 56 (17-R, 39-D) to 21 (14-R, 7-D).260
P.L. 96-265, Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980
H.R. 3236, the Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980, was signed by President Carter H.R. 3236, the Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980, was signed by President Carter
on June 9, 1980. H.R. 3236 changed the Social Security Disability Insurance program in four on June 9, 1980. H.R. 3236 changed the Social Security Disability Insurance program in four
major ways: (1) it placed a new limit on family benefits to prevent Social Security benefits from major ways: (1) it placed a new limit on family benefits to prevent Social Security benefits from
exceeding the worker’s previous average earnings; (2) it provided incentives for recipients to exceeding the worker’s previous average earnings; (2) it provided incentives for recipients to
return to work; (3) it required a higher percentage of federal reviews of new disability awards and return to work; (3) it required a higher percentage of federal reviews of new disability awards and
more frequent periodic state-level reexamination of existing recipients; and (4) it modified the more frequent periodic state-level reexamination of existing recipients; and (4) it modified the
administrative relationship between the federal government and states. The amendments also administrative relationship between the federal government and states. The amendments also
made similar changes in disability payments under the SSI program and established federal made similar changes in disability payments under the SSI program and established federal
standards for “medigap” insurance policies sold by private insurance companies to supplement standards for “medigap” insurance policies sold by private insurance companies to supplement
federal Medicare health insurance. federal Medicare health insurance.
House Action
The House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security held public hearings The House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security held public hearings
in February and March 1979. Following these hearings, the subcommittee held markup sessions in February and March 1979. Following these hearings, the subcommittee held markup sessions
on H.R. 2854, the Administration’s proposals, and incorporated its recommendations into H.R. on H.R. 2854, the Administration’s proposals, and incorporated its recommendations into H.R.
3236, which was introduced on March 27, 1979. After considering the subcommittee’s 3236, which was introduced on March 27, 1979. After considering the subcommittee’s
recommendations, the full Committee on Ways and Means reported the bill to the House on April recommendations, the full Committee on Ways and Means reported the bill to the House on April
23, 1979. Action on the bill was delayed as several major groups raised questions about the 23, 1979. Action on the bill was delayed as several major groups raised questions about the
legislation, and controversy arose as to the rules under which the bill would be considered on the legislation, and controversy arose as to the rules under which the bill would be considered on the
House floor. Many of the interested parties wanted an opportunity to consider several of the House floor. Many of the interested parties wanted an opportunity to consider several of the
provisions separately when H.R. 3236 was considered on the floor, rather than to vote for or provisions separately when H.R. 3236 was considered on the floor, rather than to vote for or
against the bill as a whole. The Rules Committee held hearings on June 6 and 7, 1979, and against the bill as a whole. The Rules Committee held hearings on June 6 and 7, 1979, and
reported out on June 7, 1979, H.Res. 310, which provided for a modified rule and one hour of reported out on June 7, 1979, H.Res. 310, which provided for a modified rule and one hour of
debate on H.R. 3236. The rule provided that the only amendments that would be in order would debate on H.R. 3236. The rule provided that the only amendments that would be in order would
be those recommended by the Ways and Means Committee (which were not amendable) and an be those recommended by the Ways and Means Committee (which were not amendable) and an
amendment offered by Representative Simon (D-IL) that would delay the implementation of a amendment offered by Representative Simon (D-IL) that would delay the implementation of a
provision affecting vocational rehabilitation funding by one year. Despite the passage of the rule, provision affecting vocational rehabilitation funding by one year. Despite the passage of the rule,

257 257 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1977, p. 171. : 1977, p. 171.
258 258 Congressional Record, December 15, 1977, House, Roll call no. 782, not voting 81, p. 39035. December 15, 1977, House, Roll call no. 782, not voting 81, p. 39035.
259 259 Congressional Record, December 15, 1977, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Ullman, pp. 39007-39008. December 15, 1977, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Ullman, pp. 39007-39008.
260 260 Congressional Record, December 15, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 636, not voting 22, pp. 39152-39153. December 15, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 636, not voting 22, pp. 39152-39153.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

45 45

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

“the opposition coalition was able to block floor consideration of the measure for 3 months.”261 “the opposition coalition was able to block floor consideration of the measure for 3 months.”261
Floor debate on H.R. 3236 did not begin until September 6, 1979.262 Floor debate on H.R. 3236 did not begin until September 6, 1979.262
On September 6, 1979, the House agreed to the Ways and Means Committee and Representative On September 6, 1979, the House agreed to the Ways and Means Committee and Representative
Simon’s amendments263 and passed H.R. 3236 by a vote of 235 (108-R, 127-D) to 162 (36-R, Simon’s amendments263 and passed H.R. 3236 by a vote of 235 (108-R, 127-D) to 162 (36-R,
126-D).264 126-D).264
Senate Action
In October 1979, the Senate Finance Committee held hearings on proposed disability legislation. In October 1979, the Senate Finance Committee held hearings on proposed disability legislation.
The committee completed its markup on November 7, 1979, and reported H.R. 3236 to the Senate The committee completed its markup on November 7, 1979, and reported H.R. 3236 to the Senate
on November 8, 1979. On December 5, 1979, the Senate began floor debate. Final debate, which on November 8, 1979. On December 5, 1979, the Senate began floor debate. Final debate, which
occurred in late January 1980, centered primarily on the provision to establish a lower limit on occurred in late January 1980, centered primarily on the provision to establish a lower limit on
family benefits.265 family benefits.265
On January 30, 1980, Senator Metzenbaum’s (D-OH) amendment to increase the limit on On January 30, 1980, Senator Metzenbaum’s (D-OH) amendment to increase the limit on
disability benefits from 85% to 100% of the worker’s previous average earnings was defeated by disability benefits from 85% to 100% of the worker’s previous average earnings was defeated by
a vote of 47 (7-R, 40-D) to 47 (31-R, 16-D).266 a vote of 47 (7-R, 40-D) to 47 (31-R, 16-D).266
On January 30, 1980, Senator Bayh (D-IN) offered an amendment to exempt terminally ill On January 30, 1980, Senator Bayh (D-IN) offered an amendment to exempt terminally ill
applicants from the waiting period. The amendment was limited to people who, in the opinion of applicants from the waiting period. The amendment was limited to people who, in the opinion of
two doctors, would probably die within a year. Senator Bayh said it was cruel to deny assistance two doctors, would probably die within a year. Senator Bayh said it was cruel to deny assistance
to desperately ill people on the basis of an arbitrary waiting period that lasted longer than most of to desperately ill people on the basis of an arbitrary waiting period that lasted longer than most of
them were likely to live. them were likely to live.
Senator Long (D-LA) said elimination of the waiting period for one group would eventually lead Senator Long (D-LA) said elimination of the waiting period for one group would eventually lead
to its elimination for all disabled persons, at a cost of $3 billion a year. Senator Long also argued to its elimination for all disabled persons, at a cost of $3 billion a year. Senator Long also argued
that the amendment was not germane because there was nothing in the bill relating to the waiting that the amendment was not germane because there was nothing in the bill relating to the waiting
period for benefits. The amendment was ruled out of order but the Senate voted 37 (19-R, 18D) to period for benefits. The amendment was ruled out of order but the Senate voted 37 (19-R, 18D) to
55 (17-R, 38-D) against the ruling of the chair267 and then adopted the Bayh amendment by a vote 55 (17-R, 38-D) against the ruling of the chair267 and then adopted the Bayh amendment by a vote
of 70 (25-R, 45-D) to 23 (12-R, 11-D).268 of 70 (25-R, 45-D) to 23 (12-R, 11-D).268
On January 31, 1980, the Senate passed H.R. 3236, with amendments, by a vote of 87 (35-R, 52- On January 31, 1980, the Senate passed H.R. 3236, with amendments, by a vote of 87 (35-R, 52-
D) to 1 (1-D).269 D) to 1 (1-D).269
Conference Action
On May 13, 1980, the conference committee reported the bill.270 On the key issue of limiting On May 13, 1980, the conference committee reported the bill.270 On the key issue of limiting
future family benefits, the conferees combined the Senate limit of 85% of the worker’s previous future family benefits, the conferees combined the Senate limit of 85% of the worker’s previous

261 261 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1979, p. 505. , 1979, p. 505.
262 “Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History and Summary of Provisions,” 262 “Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History and Summary of Provisions,” Social Security
Bulletin, vol. 44, no. 4, April 1981, pp. 14-23, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v44n4/v44n4p14.pdf. , vol. 44, no. 4, April 1981, pp. 14-23, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v44n4/v44n4p14.pdf.
(Hereinafter cited as “Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History.”) (Hereinafter cited as “Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History.”)
263 263 Congressional Record, September 6, 1979, House, p. 23398 and p. 23401. September 6, 1979, House, p. 23398 and p. 23401.
264 264 Congressional Record, September 6, 1977, House, Roll call no. 447, not voting 37, pp. 23401-23402. September 6, 1977, House, Roll call no. 447, not voting 37, pp. 23401-23402.
265 Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History, pp. 23-24. 265 Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History, pp. 23-24.
266 266 Congressional Record, January 30, 1980, Senate, Roll call no. 23, not voting 6, p. 1231. January 30, 1980, Senate, Roll call no. 23, not voting 6, p. 1231.
267 267 Congressional Record, January 30, 1980, Senate, Roll call no. 18, not voting 8, p. 1203. January 30, 1980, Senate, Roll call no. 18, not voting 8, p. 1203.
268 268 Congressional Record, January 30, 1980, Senate, Roll call no. 19, not voting 7, p. 1207. January 30, 1980, Senate, Roll call no. 19, not voting 7, p. 1207.
269 269 Congressional Record, January 31, 1980, Senate, Roll call no. 27, not voting 12, p. 1411. January 31, 1980, Senate, Roll call no. 27, not voting 12, p. 1411.
270 Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History, p. 24. 270 Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History, p. 24.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

46 46

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

average work earnings and the House provision limiting benefits to no more than 150% of the average work earnings and the House provision limiting benefits to no more than 150% of the
worker’s basic individual benefit.271 The conferees also made a modification to the medigap worker’s basic individual benefit.271 The conferees also made a modification to the medigap
provision (added by the Senate) and dropped the Senate amendment regarding the waiting period provision (added by the Senate) and dropped the Senate amendment regarding the waiting period
for the terminally ill, calling for a study of the issue instead. for the terminally ill, calling for a study of the issue instead.
On May 22, 1980, the House passed H.R. 3236, as agreed to by the conferees, by a vote of 389 On May 22, 1980, the House passed H.R. 3236, as agreed to by the conferees, by a vote of 389
(147-R, 242-D) to 2 (2-D).272 (147-R, 242-D) to 2 (2-D).272
On May 29, 1980, the Senate passed the conference report on H.R. 3236 by a voice vote.273 On May 29, 1980, the Senate passed the conference report on H.R. 3236 by a voice vote.273
P.L. 96-403, Reallocation of OASI and DI Taxes
On October 9, 1980, H.R. 7670, the Reallocation of Social Security Taxes Between OASI and DI On October 9, 1980, H.R. 7670, the Reallocation of Social Security Taxes Between OASI and DI
Trust Funds, was signed into law by President Carter. Although the Social Security Amendments Trust Funds, was signed into law by President Carter. Although the Social Security Amendments
of 1977 did, in part, remedy the program’s financing problems, high inflation increased Social of 1977 did, in part, remedy the program’s financing problems, high inflation increased Social
Security benefits and higher than expected unemployment reduced income to the trust funds. The Security benefits and higher than expected unemployment reduced income to the trust funds. The
outlook for the OASI program, in particular, was deteriorating fairly rapidly. H.R. 7670 shifted outlook for the OASI program, in particular, was deteriorating fairly rapidly. H.R. 7670 shifted
revenues from the DI Trust Fund to the OASI Trust Fund during 1980 and 1981 so that adequate revenues from the DI Trust Fund to the OASI Trust Fund during 1980 and 1981 so that adequate
reserves could be maintained in both trust funds at least through the end of calendar year 1981. reserves could be maintained in both trust funds at least through the end of calendar year 1981.
House Action
On July 21, 1980, Representative Pickle (D-TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 7670. On July 21, 1980, Representative Pickle (D-TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 7670.
In his remarks, Representative Pickle said that “the bill we bring today is a deliberate step both to In his remarks, Representative Pickle said that “the bill we bring today is a deliberate step both to
insure the stability of the trust funds and to provide the Congress the time it will need to make insure the stability of the trust funds and to provide the Congress the time it will need to make
any further changes necessary.” He also stated that “Reallocation, the mechanism used in H.R. any further changes necessary.” He also stated that “Reallocation, the mechanism used in H.R.
7670, has been the traditional way of redistributing the OASDI tax rates when there have been 7670, has been the traditional way of redistributing the OASDI tax rates when there have been
changes in the law and in the experience of programs and in order to keep all the programs on a changes in the law and in the experience of programs and in order to keep all the programs on a
more or less even reserve ratio.... Reallocation means that the formula for allocating the incoming more or less even reserve ratio.... Reallocation means that the formula for allocating the incoming
payroll tax receipts is changed in the law so that funds will flow into the various funds in a payroll tax receipts is changed in the law so that funds will flow into the various funds in a
different mix than currently projected.”274 different mix than currently projected.”274
On July 21, 1980, the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 7670. There was no roll call On July 21, 1980, the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 7670. There was no roll call
vote.275 vote.275
Senate Action
On September 25, 1980, H.R. 7670 was passed by unanimous consent.276 On September 25, 1980, H.R. 7670 was passed by unanimous consent.276
P.L. 96-473, Retirement Test Amendments277
On October 19, 1980, H.R. 5295 was signed by President Carter. It made various changes in the On October 19, 1980, H.R. 5295 was signed by President Carter. It made various changes in the
earnings test provisions enacted in 1977 and limited the circumstances under which Social earnings test provisions enacted in 1977 and limited the circumstances under which Social

271 271 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1980, p. 437. : 1980, p. 437.
272 272 Congressional Record, May 22, 1980, House, Roll call no. 253, not voting 42, pp. 12175-12176. May 22, 1980, House, Roll call no. 253, not voting 42, pp. 12175-12176.
273 273 Congressional Record, May 29, 1980, Senate, p. 12628. May 29, 1980, Senate, p. 12628.
274 274 Congressional Record, July 21, 1980, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Pickle, p. 18827. July 21, 1980, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Pickle, p. 18827.
275 275 Congressional Record, July 21, 1980, House, p. 18830. July 21, 1980, House, p. 18830.
276 276 Congressional Record, September 25, 1980, Senate, p. 27297. September 25, 1980, Senate, p. 27297.
277 Other Social Security measures were taken up by the Congress in 1980. On December 5, 1980, President Carter 277 Other Social Security measures were taken up by the Congress in 1980. On December 5, 1980, President Carter
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

47 47

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Security benefits could be paid to prisoners. Before enactment of P.L. 96-473, two earnings tests Security benefits could be paid to prisoners. Before enactment of P.L. 96-473, two earnings tests
applied to Social Security benefits. One was an annual test, the other a monthly test. If a recipient applied to Social Security benefits. One was an annual test, the other a monthly test. If a recipient
earned more than the annual limit, benefits were reduced $1 for every $2 of excess earnings until earned more than the annual limit, benefits were reduced $1 for every $2 of excess earnings until
all Social Security benefits were withheld. Under the monthly earnings test, however, if a all Social Security benefits were withheld. Under the monthly earnings test, however, if a
person’s earnings were less than one-twelfth of the annual amount, he or she could get full person’s earnings were less than one-twelfth of the annual amount, he or she could get full
benefits for that month, regardless of annual earnings.278 The 1977 provision eliminating the benefits for that month, regardless of annual earnings.278 The 1977 provision eliminating the
monthly earnings test was designed with retirees in mind. However, the language as enacted monthly earnings test was designed with retirees in mind. However, the language as enacted
applied to all classes of recipients affected by the earnings limitation. Generally, these recipients applied to all classes of recipients affected by the earnings limitation. Generally, these recipients
are likely to get a job and have substantial earnings in the year their benefits end. If these earnings are likely to get a job and have substantial earnings in the year their benefits end. If these earnings
were over the annual earnings limitation, some of the benefits they already received in the year were over the annual earnings limitation, some of the benefits they already received in the year
become overpayments and had to be repaid.279 P.L. 96-473 modified this by allowing individuals become overpayments and had to be repaid.279 P.L. 96-473 modified this by allowing individuals
who received certain dependents’ benefits (a child or student’s benefit, mother’s benefit, or who received certain dependents’ benefits (a child or student’s benefit, mother’s benefit, or
father’s benefit) to use the monthly earnings test in the year in which their entitlement to such father’s benefit) to use the monthly earnings test in the year in which their entitlement to such
benefits ended. P.L. 96-473 also allowed all recipients to qualify for at least one “grace year” in benefits ended. P.L. 96-473 also allowed all recipients to qualify for at least one “grace year” in
which the monthly earnings test applies and made other changes relating to the earnings test for which the monthly earnings test applies and made other changes relating to the earnings test for
the self-employed, particularly those whose incomes were often in “deferred” forms. the self-employed, particularly those whose incomes were often in “deferred” forms.
In addition, P.L. 96-473 prohibited payment of Social Security Disability Insurance benefits or of In addition, P.L. 96-473 prohibited payment of Social Security Disability Insurance benefits or of
student benefits (based on any kind of Social Security status) to prisoners convicted of a felony, student benefits (based on any kind of Social Security status) to prisoners convicted of a felony,
except where the individual is participating in a court-approved rehabilitation program (but except where the individual is participating in a court-approved rehabilitation program (but
allowed benefits to be paid to their dependents); disallowed impairments that arise from or are allowed benefits to be paid to their dependents); disallowed impairments that arise from or are
aggravated by the commission of a crime to be considered in determining whether a person is aggravated by the commission of a crime to be considered in determining whether a person is
disabled; and disallowed impairments developed while an individual is in prison to be considered disabled; and disallowed impairments developed while an individual is in prison to be considered
in determining disability while the person remains in prison. in determining disability while the person remains in prison.
House Action
On July 23, 1979, the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security On July 23, 1979, the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security
held a hearing on the Social Security earnings test. In the spring of 1980, Congress also was held a hearing on the Social Security earnings test. In the spring of 1980, Congress also was
concerned with the issue of paying Social Security benefits to prisoners. The Subcommittee on concerned with the issue of paying Social Security benefits to prisoners. The Subcommittee on
Social Security held hearings on the subject, and numerous bills prohibiting payments to Social Security held hearings on the subject, and numerous bills prohibiting payments to
prisoners were introduced. prisoners were introduced.
On December 19, 1979, Senator Long (D-LA) in discussing the earnings test as amended by the On December 19, 1979, Senator Long (D-LA) in discussing the earnings test as amended by the
1977 amendments said, “The purpose of the change was to simplify the test and make more 1977 amendments said, “The purpose of the change was to simplify the test and make more
evenhanded the treatment of those who had similar amounts of annual earnings but differences in evenhanded the treatment of those who had similar amounts of annual earnings but differences in
monthly work patterns. Several categories of recipients have been experiencing unforeseen monthly work patterns. Several categories of recipients have been experiencing unforeseen

signed H.R. 7765, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-499), which limited the maximum number of signed H.R. 7765, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-499), which limited the maximum number of
months of retroactive entitlement to OASI benefits from 12 months to 6 months. Also, both the House and Senate months of retroactive entitlement to OASI benefits from 12 months to 6 months. Also, both the House and Senate
passed resolutions expressing disapproval of the Social Security Advisory Council’s recommendation that half of passed resolutions expressing disapproval of the Social Security Advisory Council’s recommendation that half of
Social Security benefits be made subject to federal income tax. House Concurrent Resolution 351 was approved by the Social Security benefits be made subject to federal income tax. House Concurrent Resolution 351 was approved by the
House on July 21, 1980, by a vote of 384 to 1, and Senate Resolution 432 was approved by the Senate on August 4, House on July 21, 1980, by a vote of 384 to 1, and Senate Resolution 432 was approved by the Senate on August 4,
1980, by voice vote. 1980, by voice vote.
278 278 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1980, p. 295. , 1980, p. 295.
279 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, 279 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Earnings Test for Social Security Recipients, report to , report to
accompany H.R. 5295, 96th Cong., 1st sess., October 19, 1979, H.Rept. 96-537 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1979). accompany H.R. 5295, 96th Cong., 1st sess., October 19, 1979, H.Rept. 96-537 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1979).
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Amendments to the Social Security Program, report to accompany H.R. report to accompany H.R.
5295, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., September 24, 1980, H.Rept. 96-987 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1980). 5295, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., September 24, 1980, H.Rept. 96-987 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1980).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

48 48

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

problems with the new annual earnings test, however, and have been disadvantaged by it. H.R. problems with the new annual earnings test, however, and have been disadvantaged by it. H.R.
5295 is designed to correct those inequities.”280 5295 is designed to correct those inequities.”280
On December 19, 1979, H.R. 5295, as amended, was passed unanimously by the House, 383 On December 19, 1979, H.R. 5295, as amended, was passed unanimously by the House, 383
to 0.281 to 0.281
Senate Action
On April 21, 1980, the Senate Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security held a On April 21, 1980, the Senate Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security held a
hearing on the Social Security earnings test. During the spring of 1980, the subcommittee also hearing on the Social Security earnings test. During the spring of 1980, the subcommittee also
held hearings on the subject of denying Social Security benefits to prisoners. When S. 2885, the held hearings on the subject of denying Social Security benefits to prisoners. When S. 2885, the
1981 Budget Reconciliation bill, was reported out of the Senate Finance, it included a provision 1981 Budget Reconciliation bill, was reported out of the Senate Finance, it included a provision
that prohibited payment of Social Security disability benefits to prisoners convicted of crimes. that prohibited payment of Social Security disability benefits to prisoners convicted of crimes.
The Finance Committee also included this measure in H.R. 5295. The Finance Committee also included this measure in H.R. 5295.
On September 30, 1980, the Senate passed H.R. 5295, with amendments, by unanimous On September 30, 1980, the Senate passed H.R. 5295, with amendments, by unanimous
consent.282 consent.282
House Concurrence
On October 1, 1980, Representative Conable (R-NY) remarked “The only amendment that we are On October 1, 1980, Representative Conable (R-NY) remarked “The only amendment that we are
asking to be attached here that goes to the Senate is an amendment that changes the word ‘crime’ asking to be attached here that goes to the Senate is an amendment that changes the word ‘crime’
to the words ‘crime in the nature of a felony,’ so that it would apply only to more serious crimes to the words ‘crime in the nature of a felony,’ so that it would apply only to more serious crimes
and not possibly to traffic infractions and things of that sort.”283 and not possibly to traffic infractions and things of that sort.”283
On October 1, 1980, the House concurred in the Senate amendments with an amendment by On October 1, 1980, the House concurred in the Senate amendments with an amendment by
unanimous consent.284 unanimous consent.284
Senate Concurrence
On October 1, 1980, Senator Byrd’s motion that the Senate concur with the House amendment to On October 1, 1980, Senator Byrd’s motion that the Senate concur with the House amendment to
the Senate amendment was agreed to by voice vote.285 the Senate amendment was agreed to by voice vote.285
P.L. 97-35, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
H.R. 3982, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, was signed into law (P.L. 97-35) by H.R. 3982, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, was signed into law (P.L. 97-35) by
President Reagan on August 13, 1981. It included most of the Social Security changes proposed President Reagan on August 13, 1981. It included most of the Social Security changes proposed
as part of the President’s 1982 budget, as well as some added by the House. The Social Security as part of the President’s 1982 budget, as well as some added by the House. The Social Security
provisions were among many outlay reduction measures intended to constrain federal provisions were among many outlay reduction measures intended to constrain federal
expenditures. The Administration argued that the benefits it targeted for elimination or reduction expenditures. The Administration argued that the benefits it targeted for elimination or reduction
were not directed at the basic goals of the program, and it did not consider them to have been were not directed at the basic goals of the program, and it did not consider them to have been
“earned.” The budget proposals eliminated the minimum Social Security benefit for both current “earned.” The budget proposals eliminated the minimum Social Security benefit for both current
and future recipients,286 phased out benefits for students in postsecondary schools (aged 18 or and future recipients,286 phased out benefits for students in postsecondary schools (aged 18 or

280 280 Congressional Record, December 19, 1979, House, p. 36961. December 19, 1979, House, p. 36961.
281 281 Congressional Record, December 19, 1979, House, Roll call no. 751, not voting 50, p. 36969. December 19, 1979, House, Roll call no. 751, not voting 50, p. 36969.
282 282 Congressional Record, September 30, 1980, Senate, p. 28195. September 30, 1980, Senate, p. 28195.
283 283 Congressional Record, October 1, 1980, House, pp. 8676-28677. October 1, 1980, House, pp. 8676-28677.
284 284 Congressional Record, October 1, 1980, House, p. 28677. October 1, 1980, House, p. 28677.
285 285 Congressional Record, October 1, 1980, Senate, p. 28881. October 1, 1980, Senate, p. 28881.
286 The minimum benefit is the smallest benefit (before actuarial or earnings test reduction) payable to a worker or from 286 The minimum benefit is the smallest benefit (before actuarial or earnings test reduction) payable to a worker or from
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

49 49

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

older, except for those under aged 19 still in high school), made lump-sum death benefits older, except for those under aged 19 still in high school), made lump-sum death benefits
available only to a spouse who was living with the worker or a spouse or child eligible for available only to a spouse who was living with the worker or a spouse or child eligible for
immediate monthly survivor benefits, and reduced benefits for those whose Social Security immediate monthly survivor benefits, and reduced benefits for those whose Social Security
disability payments and certain other public pensions exceed 80% of pre-disability earnings. The disability payments and certain other public pensions exceed 80% of pre-disability earnings. The
amendments also eliminated reimbursement of the cost of state vocational rehabilitation services amendments also eliminated reimbursement of the cost of state vocational rehabilitation services
from the trust funds except where it could be shown that the services had resulted in the disabled from the trust funds except where it could be shown that the services had resulted in the disabled
person leaving the rolls; postponed the lowering of the earnings test exempt age (from 72 to 70) person leaving the rolls; postponed the lowering of the earnings test exempt age (from 72 to 70)
until 1983; ended parents’ benefit when the youngest child reaches age 16; and provided that until 1983; ended parents’ benefit when the youngest child reaches age 16; and provided that
workers and their spouses would not receive benefits unless they meet the requirements for workers and their spouses would not receive benefits unless they meet the requirements for
entitlement throughout the month. These last three provisions were initiatives added by the Ways entitlement throughout the month. These last three provisions were initiatives added by the Ways
and Means Committee. and Means Committee.
Senate Action287
Because the Social Security legislation was considered in the context of the budget and Because the Social Security legislation was considered in the context of the budget and
reconciliation processes, there was virtually simultaneous consideration of the proposals by the reconciliation processes, there was virtually simultaneous consideration of the proposals by the
House and the Senate. After final adoption on May 21, 1981, of the First Concurrent Budget House and the Senate. After final adoption on May 21, 1981, of the First Concurrent Budget
Resolution, both the House and the Senate were acting within similar reconciliation guidelines.288 Resolution, both the House and the Senate were acting within similar reconciliation guidelines.288
On June 10, 1981, the Finance Committee reported its recommendations for spending reductions. On June 10, 1981, the Finance Committee reported its recommendations for spending reductions.
These were included by the Senate Budget Committee in S. 1377, the Omnibus Budget These were included by the Senate Budget Committee in S. 1377, the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, which was reported by the Budget Committee to the Senate on June Reconciliation Act of 1981, which was reported by the Budget Committee to the Senate on June
17, 1981. The Social Security proposals included in S. 1377 were basically those proposed by the 17, 1981. The Social Security proposals included in S. 1377 were basically those proposed by the
Administration with some minor modifications. Administration with some minor modifications.
On June 22-25, 1981, the Senate debated S. 1377. The most controversial aspect of the bill On June 22-25, 1981, the Senate debated S. 1377. The most controversial aspect of the bill
relating to the Social Security program was the elimination of the minimum benefit for people relating to the Social Security program was the elimination of the minimum benefit for people
already on the benefit rolls. On June 23, 1981, Senator Riegle (D-MI) offered an amendment that already on the benefit rolls. On June 23, 1981, Senator Riegle (D-MI) offered an amendment that
would have eliminated the minimum benefit only for future recipients. The amendment was would have eliminated the minimum benefit only for future recipients. The amendment was
defeated by a vote of 45 (4-R, 41-D) to 53 (48-R, 5-D).289 defeated by a vote of 45 (4-R, 41-D) to 53 (48-R, 5-D).289
On June 25, 1981, the Senate passed S. 1377, with the Finance Committee’s Social Security On June 25, 1981, the Senate passed S. 1377, with the Finance Committee’s Social Security
proposals, by a vote of 80 (52-R, 28-D) to 15 (0-R, 15-D).290 proposals, by a vote of 80 (52-R, 28-D) to 15 (0-R, 15-D).290
House Action
The Ways and Means Committee recommendations, while touching on some of the same benefit The Ways and Means Committee recommendations, while touching on some of the same benefit
categories as the Administration’s proposals, were notably different. These proposals were categories as the Administration’s proposals, were notably different. These proposals were

which benefits to his survivors/dependents will be determined. In 1977, the minimum benefit was frozen at $122 per which benefits to his survivors/dependents will be determined. In 1977, the minimum benefit was frozen at $122 per
month for workers who became disabled or died after 1978, or reached age 62 after 1983. However, the 1981 month for workers who became disabled or died after 1978, or reached age 62 after 1983. However, the 1981
legislation eliminated the minimum benefit for all people becoming eligible for benefits in January 1982 or later legislation eliminated the minimum benefit for all people becoming eligible for benefits in January 1982 or later
(except it exempted for 10 years certain members of religious orders who have taken a vow of poverty—these people (except it exempted for 10 years certain members of religious orders who have taken a vow of poverty—these people
have their benefits computed under the regular benefit computation rules). People already eligible for benefits before have their benefits computed under the regular benefit computation rules). People already eligible for benefits before
1982 are able to continue receiving the minimum benefit. 1982 are able to continue receiving the minimum benefit.
287 The Senate action is given first because the Senate passed the bill before the House did. 287 The Senate action is given first because the Senate passed the bill before the House did.
288 John A. Svahn, “Social Security Administration, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History 288 John A. Svahn, “Social Security Administration, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History
and Summary of OASDI and Medicare Provisions,” and Summary of OASDI and Medicare Provisions,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 44, no. 10, October 1981, p. 7, at , vol. 44, no. 10, October 1981, p. 7, at
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v44n10/v44n10p3.pdf. (Hereinafter cited as “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v44n10/v44n10p3.pdf. (Hereinafter cited as “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1981: Legislative History.”) of 1981: Legislative History.”)
289 289 Congressional Record, June 23, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 160, not voting 2, p. 13304. June 23, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 160, not voting 2, p. 13304.
290 290 Congressional Record, June 25, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 182, not voting 5, p. 13933. June 25, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 182, not voting 5, p. 13933.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

50 50

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

incorporated by the Budget Committee into its version of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act incorporated by the Budget Committee into its version of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1981, H.R. 3982, which was reported to the House on June 19, 1981. of 1981, H.R. 3982, which was reported to the House on June 19, 1981.
The adoption of the rule for floor consideration of H.R. 3982 became, in itself, a highly The adoption of the rule for floor consideration of H.R. 3982 became, in itself, a highly
controversial issue. The Democratic leadership argued for allowing six separate votes on the controversial issue. The Democratic leadership argued for allowing six separate votes on the
grounds that this would allow for greater accountability for individual Members and avoid grounds that this would allow for greater accountability for individual Members and avoid
criticisms of “rubber-stamping” the Administration’s proposals.291 A bipartisan group of Members criticisms of “rubber-stamping” the Administration’s proposals.291 A bipartisan group of Members
(generally supported by the Administration) argued instead for a rule that allowed only an up-or-(generally supported by the Administration) argued instead for a rule that allowed only an up-or-
down vote on a substitute for the Budget Committee bill sponsored by Representative Gramm (D-down vote on a substitute for the Budget Committee bill sponsored by Representative Gramm (D-
TX) and Representative Latta (R-OH).292 Those arguing for the substitute said it would facilitate TX) and Representative Latta (R-OH).292 Those arguing for the substitute said it would facilitate
future conference agreement by bringing H.R. 3982 more closely in line with the President’s future conference agreement by bringing H.R. 3982 more closely in line with the President’s
original proposals and with S. 1377 then pending in the Senate.293 original proposals and with S. 1377 then pending in the Senate.293
On June 25, 1981, the original rule for floor consideration of the bill was defeated by a vote of On June 25, 1981, the original rule for floor consideration of the bill was defeated by a vote of
210 (1-R, 209-D) to 217 (188-R, 29-D).294 210 (1-R, 209-D) to 217 (188-R, 29-D).294
A package of amendments by Representative Latta, the so-called Gramm-Latta II alternative, A package of amendments by Representative Latta, the so-called Gramm-Latta II alternative,
called for (1) deleting the Ways and Means’ proposal to move the COLA from July to October called for (1) deleting the Ways and Means’ proposal to move the COLA from July to October
and (2) changing the effective date of the Senate-passed minimum benefit proposal, affecting and (2) changing the effective date of the Senate-passed minimum benefit proposal, affecting
both current and future recipients, and (3) modifying the Senate-passed student benefit phase-out both current and future recipients, and (3) modifying the Senate-passed student benefit phase-out
proposal (which contained a faster phase-out than the Ways and Means Committee version). The proposal (which contained a faster phase-out than the Ways and Means Committee version). The
Gramm-Latta II alternative package passed the House on June 26, 1981, by a vote of 217 (188-R, Gramm-Latta II alternative package passed the House on June 26, 1981, by a vote of 217 (188-R,
29-D) to 211 (2-R, 209-D).295 29-D) to 211 (2-R, 209-D).295
On June 26, 1981, the House passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 by a vote of On June 26, 1981, the House passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 by a vote of
232 (185-R, 47-D) to 193 (5-R, 188-D).296 232 (185-R, 47-D) to 193 (5-R, 188-D).296
Conference Action
The passage of the alternative budget package resulted in House-passed Social Security measures The passage of the alternative budget package resulted in House-passed Social Security measures
that were very similar to the Administration’s original proposals and to those in the Senate-passed that were very similar to the Administration’s original proposals and to those in the Senate-passed
reconciliation bill. On July 13, 1981, the Senate voted to substitute the reconciliation proposals reconciliation bill. On July 13, 1981, the Senate voted to substitute the reconciliation proposals
from S. 1377 for those passed by the House in H.R. 3982 and to go to conference to resolve the from S. 1377 for those passed by the House in H.R. 3982 and to go to conference to resolve the
differences.297 differences.297
On July 30, 1981, Representative Bolling (D-MO), chairman of the House Rules Committee, On July 30, 1981, Representative Bolling (D-MO), chairman of the House Rules Committee,
threatened to prevent the conference agreement from being brought to the House floor for final threatened to prevent the conference agreement from being brought to the House floor for final
approval until something could be negotiated to modify the minimum benefit provision. An approval until something could be negotiated to modify the minimum benefit provision. An
agreement was worked out permitting a bill that would modify the minimum benefit provision to agreement was worked out permitting a bill that would modify the minimum benefit provision to
be brought to the House floor before the vote on the reconciliation conference report. This bill be brought to the House floor before the vote on the reconciliation conference report. This bill
was H.R. 4331, the Social Security Amendments of 1981. (See following section for further was H.R. 4331, the Social Security Amendments of 1981. (See following section for further
details.) details.)

291 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History, p. 11. 291 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History, p. 11.
292 Ibid. 292 Ibid.
293 Ibid. 293 Ibid.
294 294 Congressional Record, June 25, 1981, House, Roll call no. 104, not voting 4, pp. 14078-14079. June 25, 1981, House, Roll call no. 104, not voting 4, pp. 14078-14079.
295 295 Congressional Record, June 26, 1981, House, Roll call no. 111, not voting 4, pp. 14681-14682. June 26, 1981, House, Roll call no. 111, not voting 4, pp. 14681-14682.
296 296 Congressional Record, June 26, 1981, House, Roll call no. 113, not voting 6, pp. 14794-14795. June 26, 1981, House, Roll call no. 113, not voting 6, pp. 14794-14795.
297 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History, p. 13. 297 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History, p. 13.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

51 51

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On July 31, 1981, both the House and the Senate approved the conference report on the 1981 On July 31, 1981, both the House and the Senate approved the conference report on the 1981
Budget Reconciliation bill, the House by a voice vote and the Senate by a vote of 80 (49-R, 31-D) Budget Reconciliation bill, the House by a voice vote and the Senate by a vote of 80 (49-R, 31-D)
to 14 (1-R, 13-D).298 to 14 (1-R, 13-D).298
P.L. 97-123, Social Security Amendments of 1981
H.R. 4331, the Social Security Amendments of 1981, was signed by President Reagan on H.R. 4331, the Social Security Amendments of 1981, was signed by President Reagan on
December 29, 1981. The amendments restored the minimum benefit for current recipients but December 29, 1981. The amendments restored the minimum benefit for current recipients but
eliminated it for people becoming eligible for benefits after December 31, 1981 (see discussion of eliminated it for people becoming eligible for benefits after December 31, 1981 (see discussion of
P.L. 97-35 above). In July 1981, as part of P.L. 97-35, Congress had enacted the elimination of the P.L. 97-35 above). In July 1981, as part of P.L. 97-35, Congress had enacted the elimination of the
minimum benefit effective in April 1982. However, the public outcry was so great that both minimum benefit effective in April 1982. However, the public outcry was so great that both
houses and the Administration thought it prudent to reconsider the measure.299 H.R. 4331 also houses and the Administration thought it prudent to reconsider the measure.299 H.R. 4331 also
allowed the financially troubled OASI Trust Fund to borrow from the healthier DI and HI Trust allowed the financially troubled OASI Trust Fund to borrow from the healthier DI and HI Trust
Funds until December 31, 1982. The law specified that the borrowing could not exceed amounts Funds until December 31, 1982. The law specified that the borrowing could not exceed amounts
needed to pay full benefits for six months and provided for repayment of any amounts borrowed. needed to pay full benefits for six months and provided for repayment of any amounts borrowed.
OASI borrowed $17.5 billion from the two trust funds late in December 1982, an amount limited OASI borrowed $17.5 billion from the two trust funds late in December 1982, an amount limited
to that necessary to keep benefits flowing until June 1983. to that necessary to keep benefits flowing until June 1983.
In addition, the bill (1) allowed members of religious orders who had taken a vow of poverty and In addition, the bill (1) allowed members of religious orders who had taken a vow of poverty and
were covered by Social Security before enactment of the bill to continue to become eligible for were covered by Social Security before enactment of the bill to continue to become eligible for
the minimum benefit during the next 10 years; (2) extended the payroll tax to the first six months the minimum benefit during the next 10 years; (2) extended the payroll tax to the first six months
of sick pay; (3) made it a felony to alter or counterfeit a Social Security card; and (4) allowed the of sick pay; (3) made it a felony to alter or counterfeit a Social Security card; and (4) allowed the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) access to recorded Social Security numbers Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) access to recorded Social Security numbers
(SSNs) to prevent ineligible prisoners from receiving disability benefits. (SSNs) to prevent ineligible prisoners from receiving disability benefits.
House Action
On July 21, 1981, the House, by a vote of 405 (176-R, 229-D) to 13 (10-R, 3-D),300 adopted a On July 21, 1981, the House, by a vote of 405 (176-R, 229-D) to 13 (10-R, 3-D),300 adopted a
nonbinding resolution (H.Res. 181) urging that steps be taken “to ensure that Social Security nonbinding resolution (H.Res. 181) urging that steps be taken “to ensure that Social Security
benefits are not reduced for those currently receiving them.” After the conference report on the benefits are not reduced for those currently receiving them.” After the conference report on the
reconciliation bill was filed, the House Rules Committee Chairman Richard Bolling (D-MO) held reconciliation bill was filed, the House Rules Committee Chairman Richard Bolling (D-MO) held
up the reconciliation bill in his committee in an effort to restore the minimum benefit. An up the reconciliation bill in his committee in an effort to restore the minimum benefit. An
agreement was subsequently reached whereby the budget bill would be reported out of the Rules agreement was subsequently reached whereby the budget bill would be reported out of the Rules
Committee intact, and a separate bill to restore the minimum benefit for all current and future Committee intact, and a separate bill to restore the minimum benefit for all current and future
recipients (H.R. 4331) would be taken up by the House before the vote on the budget bill.301 The recipients (H.R. 4331) would be taken up by the House before the vote on the budget bill.301 The
House passed H.R. 4331 on July 31, 1981. It repealed the section of P.L. 97-35 that eliminated the House passed H.R. 4331 on July 31, 1981. It repealed the section of P.L. 97-35 that eliminated the
minimum benefit, thereby reinstating the minimum benefit for current and future recipients. minimum benefit, thereby reinstating the minimum benefit for current and future recipients.
On July 31, 1981, the House passed H.R. 4331 by a vote of 404 (172-R, 232-D) to 20 (17-R, On July 31, 1981, the House passed H.R. 4331 by a vote of 404 (172-R, 232-D) to 20 (17-R,
3-D).302 3-D).302

298 298 Congressional Record, July 31, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 247, not voting 6, p. 19144. July 31, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 247, not voting 6, p. 19144.
299 299 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1981, p. 117. , 1981, p. 117.
300 300 Congressional Record, July 21, 1981, House, Roll call no. 145, not voting 15, pp. 16659-16660. July 21, 1981, House, Roll call no. 145, not voting 15, pp. 16659-16660.
301 301 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1981, p. 119-120. , 1981, p. 119-120.
302 302 Congressional Record, July 31, 1981, House, Roll call no. 189, not voting 10, pp. 18899-18900. July 31, 1981, House, Roll call no. 189, not voting 10, pp. 18899-18900.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

52 52

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Senate Action
When H.R. 4331 was sent to the Senate, Senators Riegle (D-MI), Moynihan (D-NY), and When H.R. 4331 was sent to the Senate, Senators Riegle (D-MI), Moynihan (D-NY), and
Kennedy (D-MA) moved to have the Senate immediately consider it. The Senate’s presiding Kennedy (D-MA) moved to have the Senate immediately consider it. The Senate’s presiding
officer ruled the motion out of order, and the ruling was upheld by a vote of 57 to 30,303 thereby officer ruled the motion out of order, and the ruling was upheld by a vote of 57 to 30,303 thereby
permitting consideration of the bill by the Finance Committee and delaying a Senate vote until permitting consideration of the bill by the Finance Committee and delaying a Senate vote until
October. October.
The bill reported by the Finance Committee in September 1981 included provisions that restored The bill reported by the Finance Committee in September 1981 included provisions that restored
the minimum benefit for current recipients, except for those with government pensions, whose so-the minimum benefit for current recipients, except for those with government pensions, whose so-
called windfall Social Security benefits would be reduced dollar for dollar by the extent their called windfall Social Security benefits would be reduced dollar for dollar by the extent their
government pension exceeded $300 a month. The bill provided that members of religious orders government pension exceeded $300 a month. The bill provided that members of religious orders
who became eligible for Social Security in 1972 could remain eligible for the minimum benefit who became eligible for Social Security in 1972 could remain eligible for the minimum benefit
for the next 10 years. To offset the cost of restoring the minimum benefit, the Senate agreed to for the next 10 years. To offset the cost of restoring the minimum benefit, the Senate agreed to
apply the payroll tax to the first six months of all sick pay received and to lower the maximum apply the payroll tax to the first six months of all sick pay received and to lower the maximum
family retirement and survivor benefit to 150% of the worker’s primary insurance amount (PIA). family retirement and survivor benefit to 150% of the worker’s primary insurance amount (PIA).
The bill also allowed interfund borrowing. The bill also allowed interfund borrowing.
On October 14, 1981, the Senate by a voice vote agreed to (1) Senator Danforth’s (R-MO) On October 14, 1981, the Senate by a voice vote agreed to (1) Senator Danforth’s (R-MO)
amendment to override provisions of the federal Privacy Act to allow access to prison records so amendment to override provisions of the federal Privacy Act to allow access to prison records so
that disability payments to ineligible inmates could be stopped;304 and (2) Senator Baucus’s (D-that disability payments to ineligible inmates could be stopped;304 and (2) Senator Baucus’s (D-
MT) amendment to make it a felony to alter or counterfeit a Social Security card.305 MT) amendment to make it a felony to alter or counterfeit a Social Security card.305
On October 15, 1981, Senator Dole’s (R-KS) amendment to apply the Social Security payroll tax On October 15, 1981, Senator Dole’s (R-KS) amendment to apply the Social Security payroll tax
to the first six months of all employer-financed sick pay, except that paid as insurance, was to the first six months of all employer-financed sick pay, except that paid as insurance, was
accepted by voice vote.306 accepted by voice vote.306
On October 15, 1981, Senator Moynihan’s (D-NY) amendment requiring counterfeit-proof Social On October 15, 1981, Senator Moynihan’s (D-NY) amendment requiring counterfeit-proof Social
Security cards was agreed to by voice vote.307 Security cards was agreed to by voice vote.307
On October 15, 1981, Senator Eagleton (D-MO) offered an amendment to repeal a provision of On October 15, 1981, Senator Eagleton (D-MO) offered an amendment to repeal a provision of
the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-34) that had reduced windfall profit taxes on the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-34) that had reduced windfall profit taxes on
newly discovered oil, and then use these tax savings to build an emergency reserve for the Social newly discovered oil, and then use these tax savings to build an emergency reserve for the Social
Security trust funds. The amendment was tabled 65 (42-R, 23-D) to 30 (7-R, 23-D).308 Security trust funds. The amendment was tabled 65 (42-R, 23-D) to 30 (7-R, 23-D).308
On October 15, 1981, by a unanimous vote of 95 (48-R, 47-D) to 0, the Senate passed H.R. 4331, On October 15, 1981, by a unanimous vote of 95 (48-R, 47-D) to 0, the Senate passed H.R. 4331,
as amended.309 as amended.309
Conference Action
The The Congressional Quarterly Almanac states that the major dispute of the conference was states that the major dispute of the conference was
whether to pay for the cost of restoring the minimum benefit by tax increases or by benefit cuts. whether to pay for the cost of restoring the minimum benefit by tax increases or by benefit cuts.
The conferees finally agreed to accept only the sick pay tax “on the condition that inter-fund The conferees finally agreed to accept only the sick pay tax “on the condition that inter-fund

303 303 Congressional Record, July 31, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 248, not voting 12, p. 19148. July 31, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 248, not voting 12, p. 19148.
304 304 Congressional Record, October 14, 1981, Senate, p. 23967. October 14, 1981, Senate, p. 23967.
305 305 Congressional Record, October 14, 1981, Senate, p. 23971. October 14, 1981, Senate, p. 23971.
306 306 Congressional Record, October 15, 1981, Senate, p. 24107. October 15, 1981, Senate, p. 24107.
307 307 Congressional Record, October 15, 1981, Senate, p. 24108. October 15, 1981, Senate, p. 24108.
308 308 Congressional Record, October 15, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 312, not voting 5, pp. 24096-24097. October 15, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 312, not voting 5, pp. 24096-24097.
309 309 Congressional Record, October 15, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 315, not voting 5, p. 24120. October 15, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 315, not voting 5, p. 24120.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

53 53

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

borrowing be allowed for just one year.”310 The conference agreement restored the minimum borrowing be allowed for just one year.”310 The conference agreement restored the minimum
benefit to recipients eligible for benefits before 1982, and it rejected the Senate provisions (1) to benefit to recipients eligible for benefits before 1982, and it rejected the Senate provisions (1) to
reduce the minimum for those also receiving government pensions above $300 per month and (2) reduce the minimum for those also receiving government pensions above $300 per month and (2)
to limit further family benefits in OASI cases. to limit further family benefits in OASI cases.
The Senate agreed to the conference report on December 15, 1981, by a vote of 96 (50-R, 46-D) The Senate agreed to the conference report on December 15, 1981, by a vote of 96 (50-R, 46-D)
to 0.311 to 0.311
The House agreed to the conference report on December 16, 1981, by a vote of 412 (181-R, 231- The House agreed to the conference report on December 16, 1981, by a vote of 412 (181-R, 231-
D) to 10 (7-R, 3-D).312 D) to 10 (7-R, 3-D).312
P.L. 97-455, An Act Relating to Taxes on Virgin Island Source
Income and Social Security Disability Benefits
President Reagan signed H.R. 7093 on January 12, 1983. In March 1981, the Administration President Reagan signed H.R. 7093 on January 12, 1983. In March 1981, the Administration
began implementing the continuing disability investigation process mandated (beginning in 1982) began implementing the continuing disability investigation process mandated (beginning in 1982)
under the 1980 amendments (P.L. 96-265), with the result that thousands of recipients lost their under the 1980 amendments (P.L. 96-265), with the result that thousands of recipients lost their
benefits, although many were restored upon appeal to an administrative law judge. P.L. 97-455 benefits, although many were restored upon appeal to an administrative law judge. P.L. 97-455
was a “stopgap” measure to remedy some of the perceived procedural inequities in the disability was a “stopgap” measure to remedy some of the perceived procedural inequities in the disability
review process. It provided, temporarily, an opportunity for individuals dropped from the rolls review process. It provided, temporarily, an opportunity for individuals dropped from the rolls
before October 1, 1983, to elect to receive DI and Medicare benefits while they appealed the before October 1, 1983, to elect to receive DI and Medicare benefits while they appealed the
decision; June 1984 was to be the last month for which such payments could be made.313 The DI decision; June 1984 was to be the last month for which such payments could be made.313 The DI
benefits would have to be repaid if the appeal were lost. The measure also required the DHHS to benefits would have to be repaid if the appeal were lost. The measure also required the DHHS to
provide, as of January 1, 1984, face-to-face hearings during reconsideration of any decision to provide, as of January 1, 1984, face-to-face hearings during reconsideration of any decision to
terminate disability benefits. Previously, recipients did not have such a meeting until they terminate disability benefits. Previously, recipients did not have such a meeting until they
appeared before an administrative law judge. The bill also required the Secretary to report to appeared before an administrative law judge. The bill also required the Secretary to report to
Congress semiannually on the rate of continuing disability reviews and terminations and gave the Congress semiannually on the rate of continuing disability reviews and terminations and gave the
Secretary authority to decrease the number of disability cases sent to state agencies for review. Secretary authority to decrease the number of disability cases sent to state agencies for review.
Senate Action314
On September 28, 1982, the Finance Committee marked up S. 2942, which contained a number On September 28, 1982, the Finance Committee marked up S. 2942, which contained a number
of continuing disability review provisions. The chairman, Senator Dole (R-KS), asked that S. of continuing disability review provisions. The chairman, Senator Dole (R-KS), asked that S.
2942 be attached to a House-passed bill (H.R. 7093) dealing with Virgin Islands taxation. Thus, 2942 be attached to a House-passed bill (H.R. 7093) dealing with Virgin Islands taxation. Thus,
H.R. 7093, with provisions of S. 2942, was reported to the Senate on October 1, 1982. H.R. 7093, with provisions of S. 2942, was reported to the Senate on October 1, 1982.
On December 3, 1982, Senator Heinz (R-PA) said, “... this emergency legislation does not On December 3, 1982, Senator Heinz (R-PA) said, “... this emergency legislation does not
completely solve the problem of the unfair terminations of hundreds of thousands of disabled completely solve the problem of the unfair terminations of hundreds of thousands of disabled
individuals ... nonetheless. It means that in the immediate future, at least, individuals who have individuals ... nonetheless. It means that in the immediate future, at least, individuals who have
been wrongly terminated will not be financially ruined because they have been deprived of their been wrongly terminated will not be financially ruined because they have been deprived of their
benefits during a lengthy appeals process.”315 benefits during a lengthy appeals process.”315

310 310 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1981, p. 121. , 1981, p. 121.
311 311 Congressional Record, December 15, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 486, not voting 4, p. 31309. December 15, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 486, not voting 4, p. 31309.
312 312 Congressional Record, December 16, 1981, House, Roll call no. 365, not voting 11, p. 31699. December 16, 1981, House, Roll call no. 365, not voting 11, p. 31699.
313 P.L. 98-118 extended until December 7, 1983, the period for which the provisions continuing payment of Social 313 P.L. 98-118 extended until December 7, 1983, the period for which the provisions continuing payment of Social
Security disability benefits during appeal were applicable. Security disability benefits during appeal were applicable.
314 In a departure from format, the Senate action is given first because the Senate passed the bill (with regard to Social 314 In a departure from format, the Senate action is given first because the Senate passed the bill (with regard to Social
Security provisions) before the House did. Security provisions) before the House did.
315 315 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 3, 1982, Senate, p. S13857. daily edition, December 3, 1982, Senate, p. S13857.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

54 54

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On December 3, 1982, the Senate passed H.R. 7093 by a vote of 70 (43-R, 27-D) to 4 (1-R, On December 3, 1982, the Senate passed H.R. 7093 by a vote of 70 (43-R, 27-D) to 4 (1-R,
3-D).316 3-D).316
House Action
On September 20, 1982, the House passed H.R. 7093 by voice vote. This version of the bill On September 20, 1982, the House passed H.R. 7093 by voice vote. This version of the bill
contained no Social Security provisions.317 contained no Social Security provisions.317
On December 14, 1982, the House amended the Senate-passed version of H.R. 7093 and passed it On December 14, 1982, the House amended the Senate-passed version of H.R. 7093 and passed it
by unanimous consent.318 H.R. 7093 was then sent back to the Senate for consideration of the by unanimous consent.318 H.R. 7093 was then sent back to the Senate for consideration of the
added amendments. These amendments required the Secretary to (1) provide face-to-face added amendments. These amendments required the Secretary to (1) provide face-to-face
hearings during reconsideration of any decision to terminate disability benefits; (2) advise hearings during reconsideration of any decision to terminate disability benefits; (2) advise
recipients of what evidence they should bring to and what procedures they should follow at the recipients of what evidence they should bring to and what procedures they should follow at the
reconsideration hearing; and (3) provide that, for a five-year period beginning December 1, 1982, reconsideration hearing; and (3) provide that, for a five-year period beginning December 1, 1982,
only one-third of a spouse’s government pension would be taken into account when applying the only one-third of a spouse’s government pension would be taken into account when applying the
government pension offset provision enacted in 1977. government pension offset provision enacted in 1977.
Conference Action
The bill as agreed to by the conferees was identical to the House-passed bill, except for the The bill as agreed to by the conferees was identical to the House-passed bill, except for the
modification in the government pension offset provision. modification in the government pension offset provision.
The House passed the conference report on H.R. 7093 on December 21, 1982, by a vote of 259 The House passed the conference report on H.R. 7093 on December 21, 1982, by a vote of 259
(115-R, 144-D) to 0.319 (115-R, 144-D) to 0.319
The Senate passed the report by a voice vote on December 21, 1982.320 The Senate passed the report by a voice vote on December 21, 1982.320
P.L. 98-21, Social Security Amendments of 1983
H.R. 1900, the Social Security Amendments of 1983, was signed by President Reagan on April H.R. 1900, the Social Security Amendments of 1983, was signed by President Reagan on April
20, 1983. The latest projections showed that the OASDI program was projected to run out of 20, 1983. The latest projections showed that the OASDI program was projected to run out of
funds by mid-1983 and to need about $150 billion to $200 billion to provide reasonable assurance funds by mid-1983 and to need about $150 billion to $200 billion to provide reasonable assurance
that it would remain solvent for the rest of the decade.321 Once this short-run problem was that it would remain solvent for the rest of the decade.321 Once this short-run problem was
addressed, the program was projected to be adequately financed for about 35 years. However, addressed, the program was projected to be adequately financed for about 35 years. However,
beginning about 2025, the effects of the retirement of the baby-boom were projected to plunge the beginning about 2025, the effects of the retirement of the baby-boom were projected to plunge the
system into deficit again. The National Commission on Social Security Reform, a bipartisan system into deficit again. The National Commission on Social Security Reform, a bipartisan
panel appointed by President Reagan and congressional leaders, was formed to seek a solution to panel appointed by President Reagan and congressional leaders, was formed to seek a solution to
the system’s financing problems. On January 15, 1983, a majority of the commission members the system’s financing problems. On January 15, 1983, a majority of the commission members
reached agreement on a package of changes. reached agreement on a package of changes.
Conforming to most of the recommendations in the commission’s package, the 1983 amendments Conforming to most of the recommendations in the commission’s package, the 1983 amendments
put new federal employees and all nonprofit organization employees under the OASDI program put new federal employees and all nonprofit organization employees under the OASDI program
as of January 1, 1984; prohibited state and local and nonprofit agencies from terminating Social as of January 1, 1984; prohibited state and local and nonprofit agencies from terminating Social
Security coverage; moved the annual cost-of-living adjustments in benefits from July to January Security coverage; moved the annual cost-of-living adjustments in benefits from July to January
of each year (which caused a delay of six months in 1983); made up to one-half of the benefits of each year (which caused a delay of six months in 1983); made up to one-half of the benefits

316 316 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 3, 1982, Senate, Roll call no. 394, not voting 26, p. S13869. daily edition, December 3, 1982, Senate, Roll call no. 394, not voting 26, p. S13869.
317 317 Congressional Record, daily edition, September 20, 1982, House, p. H7219. daily edition, September 20, 1982, House, p. H7219.
318 318 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 14, 1982, House, p. H9665. daily edition, December 14, 1982, House, p. H9665.
319 319 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 21, 1982, House, Roll call no. 487, not voting 174, pp. H10679-daily edition, December 21, 1982, House, Roll call no. 487, not voting 174, pp. H10679-
H10680. H10680.
320 320 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 21, 1982, Senate, p. S15966. daily edition, December 21, 1982, Senate, p. S15966.
321 Based on estimates by the National Commission on Social Security Reform. 321 Based on estimates by the National Commission on Social Security Reform.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

55 55

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

received by higher income recipients subject to federal income taxation; gradually raised the full received by higher income recipients subject to federal income taxation; gradually raised the full
benefit retirement age from 65 to 67 early in the 21st century; increased benefits for certain groups benefit retirement age from 65 to 67 early in the 21st century; increased benefits for certain groups
of widow(er)s; liberalized the earnings test; increased the delayed retirement credit; reduced of widow(er)s; liberalized the earnings test; increased the delayed retirement credit; reduced
benefits for workers also getting pensions based on noncovered employment; called for the earlier benefits for workers also getting pensions based on noncovered employment; called for the earlier
implementation of scheduled payroll tax increases; and substantially raised payroll tax rates on implementation of scheduled payroll tax increases; and substantially raised payroll tax rates on
the self-employed. P.L. 98-21 also stipulated that beginning with the FY1993 budget, income and the self-employed. P.L. 98-21 also stipulated that beginning with the FY1993 budget, income and
expenditures for OASDI and HI would no longer be included in federal budget totals. The 1983 expenditures for OASDI and HI would no longer be included in federal budget totals. The 1983
amendments also stipulated that only two-thirds of a spouse’s government pension would be amendments also stipulated that only two-thirds of a spouse’s government pension would be
taken into account when applying the government pension offset provision, eliminated remaining taken into account when applying the government pension offset provision, eliminated remaining
gender-based distinctions, and made numerous additional technical changes in the law. gender-based distinctions, and made numerous additional technical changes in the law.
House Action
On March 4, 1983, the Ways and Means Committee reported out H.R. 1900. The bill included On March 4, 1983, the Ways and Means Committee reported out H.R. 1900. The bill included
most of the recommendations of the National Commission, numerous additional relatively minor most of the recommendations of the National Commission, numerous additional relatively minor
Social Security provisions, and other measures mostly related to long-run financing issues, along Social Security provisions, and other measures mostly related to long-run financing issues, along
with provisions affecting the Medicare and Unemployment Insurance programs. with provisions affecting the Medicare and Unemployment Insurance programs.
On March 9, 1983, the House debated H.R. 1900. Proponents of the bill maintained that, although On March 9, 1983, the House debated H.R. 1900. Proponents of the bill maintained that, although
there were many provisions that individuals or certain groups might find troublesome, there was there were many provisions that individuals or certain groups might find troublesome, there was
an overriding need to deal quickly and effectively with the Social Security financing issues. an overriding need to deal quickly and effectively with the Social Security financing issues.
Opponents questioned whether this was the best way to solve the system’s projected financial Opponents questioned whether this was the best way to solve the system’s projected financial
difficulties. Many favored raising the retirement age instead of increasing payroll taxes. difficulties. Many favored raising the retirement age instead of increasing payroll taxes.
On March 9, 1983, Representative Pickle’s (D-TX) amendment calling for increases in the age at On March 9, 1983, Representative Pickle’s (D-TX) amendment calling for increases in the age at
which “full” retirement benefits (i.e., unreduced for early retirement) are payable to 66 by 2009 which “full” retirement benefits (i.e., unreduced for early retirement) are payable to 66 by 2009
and to 67 by 2027 was approved by a vote of 228 (152-R, 76-D) to 202 (14-R, 188-D).322 Early and to 67 by 2027 was approved by a vote of 228 (152-R, 76-D) to 202 (14-R, 188-D).322 Early
retirement at age 62 would be maintained but at 70% of full benefits (instead of 80%) after the retirement at age 62 would be maintained but at 70% of full benefits (instead of 80%) after the
“full retirement age” reached 67. “full retirement age” reached 67.
Representative Pepper (D-FL) then offered a substitute amendment to raise the OASDI tax rate Representative Pepper (D-FL) then offered a substitute amendment to raise the OASDI tax rate
from 6.20% to 6.73% beginning in 2010. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 132 (1-R, from 6.20% to 6.73% beginning in 2010. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 132 (1-R,
131-D) to 296 (165-R, 131-D).323 Had the amendment passed, it would have superseded 131-D) to 296 (165-R, 131-D).323 Had the amendment passed, it would have superseded
Representative Pickle’s amendment. Representative Pickle’s amendment.
The House passed H.R. 1900, as it had been amended, by a vote of 282 (97-R, 185-D) to 148 (69- The House passed H.R. 1900, as it had been amended, by a vote of 282 (97-R, 185-D) to 148 (69-
R, 79-D)324 on March 9, 1983. R, 79-D)324 on March 9, 1983.
Senate Action
The Senate Finance Committee reported out S. 1 on March 11, 1983. As with the House bill, the The Senate Finance Committee reported out S. 1 on March 11, 1983. As with the House bill, the
committee adopted long-term financing measures along the lines of the recommendations of the committee adopted long-term financing measures along the lines of the recommendations of the
National Commission and provisions affecting the Medicare and Unemployment Insurance National Commission and provisions affecting the Medicare and Unemployment Insurance
programs. programs.

322 322 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 9, 1983, House, Roll call no. 22, not voting 3, pp. H1064-H1065. daily edition, March 9, 1983, House, Roll call no. 22, not voting 3, pp. H1064-H1065.
323 323 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 9, 1983, House, Roll call no. 24, not voting 5, p. H1079. daily edition, March 9, 1983, House, Roll call no. 24, not voting 5, p. H1079.
324 324 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 9, 1983, House, Roll call no. 26, not voting 3, pp. H1080-H1081. daily edition, March 9, 1983, House, Roll call no. 26, not voting 3, pp. H1080-H1081.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

56 56

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

The full Senate began consideration of H.R. 1900 on March 16, 1983. Seventy-two amendments The full Senate began consideration of H.R. 1900 on March 16, 1983. Seventy-two amendments
were offered to the bill on the floor; the Senate adopted 49 of them. The following were among were offered to the bill on the floor; the Senate adopted 49 of them. The following were among
the major amendments debated. the major amendments debated.
On March 23, 1983, Senator Long (D-LA) offered an amendment to make coverage of newly On March 23, 1983, Senator Long (D-LA) offered an amendment to make coverage of newly
hired federal employees contingent upon enactment of a supplemental civil service plan for them. hired federal employees contingent upon enactment of a supplemental civil service plan for them.
It was passed by a voice vote.325 It was passed by a voice vote.325
An amendment to the Long amendment by Senator Stevens (R-AL) and Senator Mathias (R-MD) An amendment to the Long amendment by Senator Stevens (R-AL) and Senator Mathias (R-MD)
to exclude federal workers from coverage altogether was rejected by a vote of 12 (8-R, 4-D) to 86 to exclude federal workers from coverage altogether was rejected by a vote of 12 (8-R, 4-D) to 86
(46-R, 40-D) on March 23, 1983.326 (46-R, 40-D) on March 23, 1983.326
Senator Stevens’s amendment to the Long amendment to require the creation of a supplemental Senator Stevens’s amendment to the Long amendment to require the creation of a supplemental
civil service retirement program by October 1985, while granting new employees wage credits civil service retirement program by October 1985, while granting new employees wage credits
toward such a plan in the meantime, was rejected 45 (41R, 4-D) to 50 (12-R, 38-D) on March 23, toward such a plan in the meantime, was rejected 45 (41R, 4-D) to 50 (12-R, 38-D) on March 23,
1983.327 1983.327
The Senate passed H.R. 1900 on March 23, 1983, by a vote of 88 (47-R, 41-D) to 9 (6-R, 3-D).328 The Senate passed H.R. 1900 on March 23, 1983, by a vote of 88 (47-R, 41-D) to 9 (6-R, 3-D).328
Conference Action329
On March 24, 1983, conferees agreed to the final provisions of H.R. 1900. The primary issue was On March 24, 1983, conferees agreed to the final provisions of H.R. 1900. The primary issue was
how to solve the system’s long-run financial problems. The House measure called for a two-year how to solve the system’s long-run financial problems. The House measure called for a two-year
increase in the retirement age, whereas the Senate bill proposed to increase the retirement age to increase in the retirement age, whereas the Senate bill proposed to increase the retirement age to
66, eliminate the earnings test, and cut initial benefit payments 5%. Another major difference was 66, eliminate the earnings test, and cut initial benefit payments 5%. Another major difference was
a provision in the Senate bill delaying coverage of new federal employees until a supplemental a provision in the Senate bill delaying coverage of new federal employees until a supplemental
civil service retirement plan could be developed. House conferees charged that if the change were civil service retirement plan could be developed. House conferees charged that if the change were
made, no revenues from the proposed coverage could be counted on for the Social Security made, no revenues from the proposed coverage could be counted on for the Social Security
bailout plan because, if such a plan were not subsequently developed, federal workers might bailout plan because, if such a plan were not subsequently developed, federal workers might
escape coverage altogether. escape coverage altogether.
The conferees agreed to the House retirement age change. Senate conferees then agreed to recede The conferees agreed to the House retirement age change. Senate conferees then agreed to recede
on the federal employee coverage issue. on the federal employee coverage issue.
On March 24, 1983, the House passed the conference report by a vote of 243 (80-R, 163-D) to On March 24, 1983, the House passed the conference report by a vote of 243 (80-R, 163-D) to
102 (48-R, 54-D).330 102 (48-R, 54-D).330
On March 25, 1983, the Senate passed H.R. 1900, as agreed to in the conference report, by a vote On March 25, 1983, the Senate passed H.R. 1900, as agreed to in the conference report, by a vote
of 58 (32-R, 26-D) to 14 (8-R, 6-D).331 of 58 (32-R, 26-D) to 14 (8-R, 6-D).331
P.L. 98-460, Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984
On October 9, 1984, President Reagan signed H.R. 3755, the Social Security Disability Benefits On October 9, 1984, President Reagan signed H.R. 3755, the Social Security Disability Benefits
Reform Act of 1984. P.L. 98-460 ended three years of controversy over the Administration’s Reform Act of 1984. P.L. 98-460 ended three years of controversy over the Administration’s

325 325 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 23, 1983, Senate, p. S3711. daily edition, March 23, 1983, Senate, p. S3711.
326 326 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 23, 1983, Senate, Roll call no. 47, not voting 2, p. S3714. daily edition, March 23, 1983, Senate, Roll call no. 47, not voting 2, p. S3714.
327 327 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 23, 1983, Senate, Roll call no. 48, not voting 4, p. S3720. daily edition, March 23, 1983, Senate, Roll call no. 48, not voting 4, p. S3720.
328 328 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 23, 1983, Senate, Roll call no. 53, not voting 3, p. S3775. daily edition, March 23, 1983, Senate, Roll call no. 53, not voting 3, p. S3775.
329 329 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1983, p. 226. , p. 226.
330 330 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 24, 1983, House, Roll call no. 47, not voting 88, p. H1787. daily edition, March 24, 1983, House, Roll call no. 47, not voting 88, p. H1787.
331 331 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 24, 1983, Senate, Roll call no. 54, not voting 28, p. S4104. daily edition, March 24, 1983, Senate, Roll call no. 54, not voting 28, p. S4104.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

57 57

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

efforts to rid the DI program of ineligible recipients through an expanded periodic review efforts to rid the DI program of ineligible recipients through an expanded periodic review
process. The expanded reviews had been authorized by the 1980 disability amendments.332 process. The expanded reviews had been authorized by the 1980 disability amendments.332
Shortly after implementation of periodic review, the public and Congress began to criticize the Shortly after implementation of periodic review, the public and Congress began to criticize the
process. The major complaints were the large number of persons dropped from the Dl rolls, of process. The major complaints were the large number of persons dropped from the Dl rolls, of
whom many had been receiving benefits for years and had not expected their cases to be whom many had been receiving benefits for years and had not expected their cases to be
reviewed; the great increase in the number of cases subjected to continuing disability reviews; reviewed; the great increase in the number of cases subjected to continuing disability reviews;
and the number of cases in which recipients were erroneously dropped from the rolls. More than and the number of cases in which recipients were erroneously dropped from the rolls. More than
half of those removed from the rolls were reinstated upon appeal, fueling complaints that many half of those removed from the rolls were reinstated upon appeal, fueling complaints that many
terminations were unjustified. Advocacy groups for the disabled raised questions about SSA’s terminations were unjustified. Advocacy groups for the disabled raised questions about SSA’s
termination policies and procedures and petitioned Congress for legislative relief.333 In addition, termination policies and procedures and petitioned Congress for legislative relief.333 In addition,
concerns about the disability process were raised by the federal courts and the states. concerns about the disability process were raised by the federal courts and the states.
P.L. 98-460 provided that (1) with certain exceptions, benefit payments can be terminated only if P.L. 98-460 provided that (1) with certain exceptions, benefit payments can be terminated only if
the individual has medically improved and can engage in substantial gainful activity; (2) benefit the individual has medically improved and can engage in substantial gainful activity; (2) benefit
payments can be continued until a decision by the administrative law judge in cases where a payments can be continued until a decision by the administrative law judge in cases where a
termination of benefits for medical reasons is being appealed; (3) reviews of all mental termination of benefits for medical reasons is being appealed; (3) reviews of all mental
impairment disabilities be delayed until regulations stipulating new medical listings for mental impairment disabilities be delayed until regulations stipulating new medical listings for mental
impairments are published; (4) in cases of multiple impairments, the combined effect of all the impairments are published; (4) in cases of multiple impairments, the combined effect of all the
impairments must be considered in making a disability determination; (5) the DHHS Secretary impairments must be considered in making a disability determination; (5) the DHHS Secretary
initiate demonstration projects providing personal appearance interviews between the recipient initiate demonstration projects providing personal appearance interviews between the recipient
and state agency disability examiner in potential termination cases and potential initial denials; and state agency disability examiner in potential termination cases and potential initial denials;
(6) the Secretary issue uniform standards, binding at all levels of adjudication, for disability (6) the Secretary issue uniform standards, binding at all levels of adjudication, for disability
determinations under Social Security and SSI disability; (7) the Secretary federalize disability determinations under Social Security and SSI disability; (7) the Secretary federalize disability
determinations in a state within six months of finding that a state is not in substantial compliance determinations in a state within six months of finding that a state is not in substantial compliance
with federal laws and standards; and (8) the qualifications of representative payees be more with federal laws and standards; and (8) the qualifications of representative payees be more
closely examined, and that the Secretary establish a system of annual accountability monitoring closely examined, and that the Secretary establish a system of annual accountability monitoring
where benefit payments are made to someone other than a parent or spouse living in the same where benefit payments are made to someone other than a parent or spouse living in the same
household with the recipient. It also established a temporary statutory standard for the evaluation household with the recipient. It also established a temporary statutory standard for the evaluation
of pain and directed that a study of the problem of evaluating pain be made by a commission to of pain and directed that a study of the problem of evaluating pain be made by a commission to
be appointed by the Secretary. be appointed by the Secretary.
House Action
On March 14, 1984, the House Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 3755 with On March 14, 1984, the House Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 3755 with
amendments. amendments.
During debate on H.R. 3755, Representative Conable (R-NY) remarked that the intent of the During debate on H.R. 3755, Representative Conable (R-NY) remarked that the intent of the
1980 legislation, requiring continuing disability reviews, was meritorious, but the results were not 1980 legislation, requiring continuing disability reviews, was meritorious, but the results were not
what the drafters intended. He further stated, “Not only were ineligible recipients terminated, but what the drafters intended. He further stated, “Not only were ineligible recipients terminated, but
some eligible recipients were taken from the rolls, as well. Many, especially those with mental some eligible recipients were taken from the rolls, as well. Many, especially those with mental
impairments, suffered duress and the economic hardship of interrupted benefits.” Representative impairments, suffered duress and the economic hardship of interrupted benefits.” Representative
Conable also said, “Both Congress and the administration have taken remedial steps ... we Conable also said, “Both Congress and the administration have taken remedial steps ... we
approved P.L. 97-455, which, on an interim basis, provided for the continuation of benefits during approved P.L. 97-455, which, on an interim basis, provided for the continuation of benefits during
an appeal of an adverse decision ... H.R. 3755 represents the next step.”334 an appeal of an adverse decision ... H.R. 3755 represents the next step.”334

332 332 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1984, p. 160. , 1984, p. 160.
333 Katharine P. Collins and Anne Erfle, “Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984: Legislative History 333 Katharine P. Collins and Anne Erfle, “Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984: Legislative History
and Summary of Provisions,” and Summary of Provisions,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 48, no. 4, April 1985, p. 12, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/, vol. 48, no. 4, April 1985, p. 12, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/
docs/ssb/v48n4/v48n4p5.pdf. (Hereinafter cited as “Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984: docs/ssb/v48n4/v48n4p5.pdf. (Hereinafter cited as “Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984:
Legislative History.”) Legislative History.”)
334 334 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 27, 1984, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Conable, p. H1958. daily edition, March 27, 1984, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Conable, p. H1958.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

58 58

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

The sponsor of H.R. 3755, Representative Pickle (D-TX), said, “In the past 3 years nearly half a The sponsor of H.R. 3755, Representative Pickle (D-TX), said, “In the past 3 years nearly half a
million disabled recipients have been notified that their benefits will end. Far too often this notice million disabled recipients have been notified that their benefits will end. Far too often this notice
has been sent in error, and corrected only at the recipient’s expense ... we who serve on the Social has been sent in error, and corrected only at the recipient’s expense ... we who serve on the Social
Security Subcommittee have heard those pleas from the disabled, from Governors, and from Security Subcommittee have heard those pleas from the disabled, from Governors, and from
those who must administer this program in the states ... for over a year now we have carefully those who must administer this program in the states ... for over a year now we have carefully
drafted legislation to bring order to the growing chaos ... This bill does not attempt to liberalize drafted legislation to bring order to the growing chaos ... This bill does not attempt to liberalize
the disability program. It does restore order and humanity to the disability review process.”335 the disability program. It does restore order and humanity to the disability review process.”335
On March 27, 1984, the House passed H.R. 3755 by a vote of 410 (160-R, 250-D) to 1 (1-R).336 On March 27, 1984, the House passed H.R. 3755 by a vote of 410 (160-R, 250-D) to 1 (1-R).336
Administrative Action
Six months before legislation was enacted, Secretary Heckler imposed a moratorium on periodic Six months before legislation was enacted, Secretary Heckler imposed a moratorium on periodic
continuing disability reviews. The Secretary said, continuing disability reviews. The Secretary said,
Although we have made important progress in reforming the review process with Social Although we have made important progress in reforming the review process with Social
Security, the confusion of differing court orders and state actions persists. The disability Security, the confusion of differing court orders and state actions persists. The disability
program cannot serve those who need its help when its policies are splintered and divided. program cannot serve those who need its help when its policies are splintered and divided.
For that reason, we must suspend the process and work together with Congress to regain For that reason, we must suspend the process and work together with Congress to regain
order and consensus in the disability program.337 order and consensus in the disability program.337
Senate Action
On May 16, 1984, the Finance Committee approved S. 476. Major provisions of the bill allowed On May 16, 1984, the Finance Committee approved S. 476. Major provisions of the bill allowed
disabled persons to continue collecting Social Security benefits if their medical condition had not disabled persons to continue collecting Social Security benefits if their medical condition had not
improved since they were determined disabled. The major difference between the medical improved since they were determined disabled. The major difference between the medical
improvement provision in S. 476 and H.R. 3755 was that the Senate bill stated that the recipient improvement provision in S. 476 and H.R. 3755 was that the Senate bill stated that the recipient
bore the burden of proof that his or her condition had not improved. bore the burden of proof that his or her condition had not improved.
On May 22, 1984, Senator Cohen (R-ME), one of the sponsors of S. 476, said, “The need for On May 22, 1984, Senator Cohen (R-ME), one of the sponsors of S. 476, said, “The need for
fundamental change in the disability reviews has been evident for some time. Since the reviews fundamental change in the disability reviews has been evident for some time. Since the reviews
began, more than 12,000 individuals have filed court actions challenging SSA’s termination of began, more than 12,000 individuals have filed court actions challenging SSA’s termination of
their benefits. An additional 40 class action suits had been filed as of last month. The legislation their benefits. An additional 40 class action suits had been filed as of last month. The legislation
before the Senate today would end this chaos and insure an equitable review process.”338 before the Senate today would end this chaos and insure an equitable review process.”338
Senator Levin (D-MI), another sponsor, said, “It has taken us 3 years to come to grips with the Senator Levin (D-MI), another sponsor, said, “It has taken us 3 years to come to grips with the
problems in the disability review process as a legislative body. And while it was long in coming, I problems in the disability review process as a legislative body. And while it was long in coming, I
am pleased with the final outcome. The bill I, along with Senator Cohen and others introduced on am pleased with the final outcome. The bill I, along with Senator Cohen and others introduced on
February 15, 1983, S. 476, as reported by the Finance Committee contains the essential February 15, 1983, S. 476, as reported by the Finance Committee contains the essential
ingredients to the development of a fair and responsible review process.”339 ingredients to the development of a fair and responsible review process.”339
On May 22, 1984, the Senate passed H.R. 3755, after substituting the language of S. 476 for the On May 22, 1984, the Senate passed H.R. 3755, after substituting the language of S. 476 for the
House-passed version, 96 (52-R, 44-D) to 0.340 House-passed version, 96 (52-R, 44-D) to 0.340

335 335 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 27, 1984, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Pickle, p. H1959. daily edition, March 27, 1984, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Pickle, p. H1959.
336 336 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 27, 1984, House, Roll call no. 55, not voting 22, pp. H1992-H1993. daily edition, March 27, 1984, House, Roll call no. 55, not voting 22, pp. H1992-H1993.
337 Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984: Legislative History, p. 27. 337 Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984: Legislative History, p. 27.
338 338 Congressional Record, daily edition, May 22, 1984, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Cohen, pp. S6213-S6214. daily edition, May 22, 1984, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Cohen, pp. S6213-S6214.
339 339 Congressional Record, daily edition, May 22, 1984, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Levin, p. 86230. daily edition, May 22, 1984, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Levin, p. 86230.
340 340 Congressional Record, daily edition, May 22, 1984, Senate, Roll call no. 109, not voting 4, p. S6241. daily edition, May 22, 1984, Senate, Roll call no. 109, not voting 4, p. S6241.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

59 59

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Conference Action
On September 19, 1984, the conferees filed the conference report. The conference committee On September 19, 1984, the conferees filed the conference report. The conference committee
generally followed the House version of the medical improvement standard (with some generally followed the House version of the medical improvement standard (with some
modifications) and added the requirement that any continuing disability review be made on the modifications) and added the requirement that any continuing disability review be made on the
basis of the weight of the evidence with regard to the person’s condition. basis of the weight of the evidence with regard to the person’s condition.
On September 19, 1984, the House and Senate passed H.R. 3755 unanimously; 402 to 0 in the On September 19, 1984, the House and Senate passed H.R. 3755 unanimously; 402 to 0 in the
House,341 and 99 to 0 in the Senate.342 House,341 and 99 to 0 in the Senate.342
P.L. 99-177, Public Debt Limit—Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, which was included as Title II of The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, which was included as Title II of
H.J.Res. 372, increasing the national debt, was signed by President Reagan on December 12, H.J.Res. 372, increasing the national debt, was signed by President Reagan on December 12,
1985. The act stipulated that budget deficits must be decreased annually, and under certain 1985. The act stipulated that budget deficits must be decreased annually, and under certain
circumstances required across-the-board cuts of nonexempt programs by a uniform percentage to circumstances required across-the-board cuts of nonexempt programs by a uniform percentage to
achieve this result. Under the act, if annual deficit amounts were larger than the law established, a achieve this result. Under the act, if annual deficit amounts were larger than the law established, a
formula would be used to reduce the deficit annually until it reached zero in FY1991. This part of formula would be used to reduce the deficit annually until it reached zero in FY1991. This part of
P.L. 99-177 is generally referred to by the names of its sponsors—Senators Gramm (R-TX), P.L. 99-177 is generally referred to by the names of its sponsors—Senators Gramm (R-TX),
Rudman (R-NH), and Hollings (D-SC).343 The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act accelerated the Rudman (R-NH), and Hollings (D-SC).343 The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act accelerated the
“off-budget” treatment of OASDI, as prescribed by P.L. 98-21, from FY1993 to FY1986. “off-budget” treatment of OASDI, as prescribed by P.L. 98-21, from FY1993 to FY1986.
(However, Social Security income and outgo still would be counted toward meeting Gramm-(However, Social Security income and outgo still would be counted toward meeting Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction targets.) The HI Trust Fund was not affected (i.e., not to be Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction targets.) The HI Trust Fund was not affected (i.e., not to be
separated from the budget until FY1993). In addition, the act exempted Social Security benefits separated from the budget until FY1993). In addition, the act exempted Social Security benefits
(including COLAs) from automatic cuts and required the Secretary of the Treasury to restore to (including COLAs) from automatic cuts and required the Secretary of the Treasury to restore to
the trust funds any interest lost as a result of 1984 and 1985 debt ceiling constraints, and to issue the trust funds any interest lost as a result of 1984 and 1985 debt ceiling constraints, and to issue
to the trust funds obligations bearing interest rates and maturities identical to those of securities to the trust funds obligations bearing interest rates and maturities identical to those of securities
redeemed between August 31, 1985, and September 30, 1985. redeemed between August 31, 1985, and September 30, 1985.
House Action
On August, 1, 1985, the House approved the debt-limit increase, unamended, as part of the On August, 1, 1985, the House approved the debt-limit increase, unamended, as part of the
FY1986 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 32) by a vote of 309 (127-R, 182-D) to 119 (52-R, FY1986 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 32) by a vote of 309 (127-R, 182-D) to 119 (52-R,
67-D).344 67-D).344
Senate Action
On October 9, 1985, the Senate adopted the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amendment to H.J.Res. On October 9, 1985, the Senate adopted the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amendment to H.J.Res.
372 (Balanced Budget and Emergency Control Act of 1985) by a vote of 75 (48-R, 27-D) to 24 372 (Balanced Budget and Emergency Control Act of 1985) by a vote of 75 (48-R, 27-D) to 24
(4-R, 20-D).345 (4-R, 20-D).345

341 341 Congressional Record, daily edition, September 19, 1984, House, Roll call no. 404, not voting 30, pp. H9838-daily edition, September 19, 1984, House, Roll call no. 404, not voting 30, pp. H9838-
H9839. H9839.
342 342 Congressional Record, daily edition, September 19, 1984, Senate, Roll call no. 243, not voting 1, p. S11477. daily edition, September 19, 1984, Senate, Roll call no. 243, not voting 1, p. S11477.
343 In July 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that the automatic budget-cutting procedures in the legislation referred to as 343 In July 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that the automatic budget-cutting procedures in the legislation referred to as
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings were unconstitutional. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings were unconstitutional.
344 344 Congressional Record, daily edition, August 1, 1985, House, Roll call no. 290, call no. 290, not voting 5, pp. daily edition, August 1, 1985, House, Roll call no. 290, call no. 290, not voting 5, pp.
H7166-H7167. H7166-H7167.
345 345 Congressional Record, daily edition, October 9, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 213, not voting 1, p. S12988. daily edition, October 9, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 213, not voting 1, p. S12988.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

60 60

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On October 10, 1985, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 372, with amendments, by a vote of 51 (38-R, On October 10, 1985, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 372, with amendments, by a vote of 51 (38-R,
13-D) to 37 (8-R, 29-D).346 13-D) to 37 (8-R, 29-D).346
Conference Action
On November 1, 1985, the conference report was filed in disagreement. The House asked for On November 1, 1985, the conference report was filed in disagreement. The House asked for
another conference on November 6, 1985, the Senate agreeing on November 7, 1985. The second another conference on November 6, 1985, the Senate agreeing on November 7, 1985. The second
conference report was filed on December 10, 1985. conference report was filed on December 10, 1985.
On December 11, 1985, both the House and the Senate agreed to the conference report, the House On December 11, 1985, both the House and the Senate agreed to the conference report, the House
by a vote of 271 (153-R, 118-D) to 154 (24-R, 130-D)347 and the Senate by a vote of 61 (39-R, by a vote of 271 (153-R, 118-D) to 154 (24-R, 130-D)347 and the Senate by a vote of 61 (39-R,
22-D) to 31 (9-R, 22-D).348 22-D) to 31 (9-R, 22-D).348
S.Con.Res. 32, Proposed COLA Constraints in FY1986 Budget
Resolution
In 1985, the Senate voted to skip the 1986 COLA for various federal programs, including Social In 1985, the Senate voted to skip the 1986 COLA for various federal programs, including Social
Security, when it passed S.Con.Res. 32, the first concurrent budget resolution for FY1986. Security, when it passed S.Con.Res. 32, the first concurrent budget resolution for FY1986.
However, the House-passed version had no COLA freeze, and the proposal was dropped in However, the House-passed version had no COLA freeze, and the proposal was dropped in
conference. conference.
In his FY1986 Budget submitted in January 1985, President Reagan proposed that there be no In his FY1986 Budget submitted in January 1985, President Reagan proposed that there be no
COLA for several federal benefit programs, among them civil service and military retirement, in COLA for several federal benefit programs, among them civil service and military retirement, in
1986. However, Social Security was exempted from the proposal. In considering S.Con.Res. 32, 1986. However, Social Security was exempted from the proposal. In considering S.Con.Res. 32,
the first concurrent budget resolution for FY1986 (which involves the goal-setting stage of the the first concurrent budget resolution for FY1986 (which involves the goal-setting stage of the
congressional budget process) on March 14, the Senate Budget Committee, by a vote of 11 (11-R, congressional budget process) on March 14, the Senate Budget Committee, by a vote of 11 (11-R,
0-D) to 10 (0-R, 10-D)349 added Social Security to the list of programs whose COLAs were to be 0-D) to 10 (0-R, 10-D)349 added Social Security to the list of programs whose COLAs were to be
skipped in 1986. The Social Security portion of the COLA “freezes,” as they were called, was skipped in 1986. The Social Security portion of the COLA “freezes,” as they were called, was
estimated to yield $22 billion in savings over the FY1986-FY1988 period and larger savings estimated to yield $22 billion in savings over the FY1986-FY1988 period and larger savings
thereafter. An alternative COLA cutback proposal emerged shortly thereafter, as part of a thereafter. An alternative COLA cutback proposal emerged shortly thereafter, as part of a
substitute deficit-reduction package developed by the Administration and the Senate Republican substitute deficit-reduction package developed by the Administration and the Senate Republican
leadership. Instead of freezing COLAs in the affected federal retirement programs for one year, it leadership. Instead of freezing COLAs in the affected federal retirement programs for one year, it
would have limited the COLAs for the next three years to 2% per year plus any amount by which would have limited the COLAs for the next three years to 2% per year plus any amount by which
inflation exceeded the Administration’s assumptions (its assumptions at that time suggested that inflation exceeded the Administration’s assumptions (its assumptions at that time suggested that
inflation would hover in the high 3% or low 4% range). It further included a guarantee provision inflation would hover in the high 3% or low 4% range). It further included a guarantee provision
under which the affected COLAs could not be less than 2%. It, too, would have resulted in about under which the affected COLAs could not be less than 2%. It, too, would have resulted in about
$22 billion in Social Security savings over the following three years (as well as higher savings in $22 billion in Social Security savings over the following three years (as well as higher savings in
later years). later years).
Senate Action
When the Senate took up the Budget Committee’s first budget resolution, it rejected both the When the Senate took up the Budget Committee’s first budget resolution, it rejected both the
COLA freeze and the alternative COLA limitation by agreeing on May 1, 1985, by a vote of 65 COLA freeze and the alternative COLA limitation by agreeing on May 1, 1985, by a vote of 65

346 346 Congressional Record, daily edition, October 10, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 222, not voting 12, p. S13114. daily edition, October 10, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 222, not voting 12, p. S13114.
347 347 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 11, 1985, House, Roll call no. 454, not voting 9, pp. H11903-daily edition, December 11, 1985, House, Roll call no. 454, not voting 9, pp. H11903-
H11904. H11904.
348 348 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 11, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 371, not voting 6, pp. S17443-daily edition, December 11, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 371, not voting 6, pp. S17443-
S17444. S17444.
349 349 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 99th Cong. 1st sess., 1985, vol. XLT, p. 447. , 99th Cong. 1st sess., 1985, vol. XLT, p. 447.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

61 61

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

(19-R, 46-D) to 34 (33-R, 1-D)350 to an amendment by Senator Dole (R-KS), for Senators (19-R, 46-D) to 34 (33-R, 1-D)350 to an amendment by Senator Dole (R-KS), for Senators
Hawkins (R-FL) and D’Amato (R-NY), to provide for full funding of Social Security COLAs. Hawkins (R-FL) and D’Amato (R-NY), to provide for full funding of Social Security COLAs.
However, on May 10, 1985, after considering many amendments, the Senate adopted by a vote of However, on May 10, 1985, after considering many amendments, the Senate adopted by a vote of
50 (49-R, 1-D) to 49 (4-R, 45-D)351 an entirely revised budget package, introduced by Senator 50 (49-R, 1-D) to 49 (4-R, 45-D)351 an entirely revised budget package, introduced by Senator
Dole, which incorporated the original COLA freeze recommended by the committee. Dole, which incorporated the original COLA freeze recommended by the committee.
Subsequently, the Senate considered an amendment by Senator Moynihan (D-NY) to provide a Subsequently, the Senate considered an amendment by Senator Moynihan (D-NY) to provide a
full Social Security COLA in January 1986, but it was tabled by a vote of 51 (49-R, 2-D) to 47 full Social Security COLA in January 1986, but it was tabled by a vote of 51 (49-R, 2-D) to 47
(3-R, 44-D).352 (3-R, 44-D).352
The final budget resolution, passed by a voice vote, assumed later enactment of the 1986 COLA The final budget resolution, passed by a voice vote, assumed later enactment of the 1986 COLA
freezes, including one affecting Social Security. freezes, including one affecting Social Security.
House Action
The House-passed version of the FY1986 first budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 152, assumed that The House-passed version of the FY1986 first budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 152, assumed that
full COLAs would be paid in all federal benefit programs. full COLAs would be paid in all federal benefit programs.
On May 22, 1985, the House rejected an amendment by Representative Dannemeyer (R-CA) to On May 22, 1985, the House rejected an amendment by Representative Dannemeyer (R-CA) to
limit Social Security COLAs to 2% per year for the three-year period FY1986-FY1988 by a vote limit Social Security COLAs to 2% per year for the three-year period FY1986-FY1988 by a vote
of 382 (135-R, 247-D) to 39 (39-R, 0-D).353 of 382 (135-R, 247-D) to 39 (39-R, 0-D).353
On May 23, 1985, the House also rejected by a vote of 372 (165-R, 207-D) to 56 (15-R, 41-D) an On May 23, 1985, the House also rejected by a vote of 372 (165-R, 207-D) to 56 (15-R, 41-D) an
amendment offered by Representative Leath (D-TX) to freeze 1986 COLAs for Social Security, amendment offered by Representative Leath (D-TX) to freeze 1986 COLAs for Social Security,
federal retirement, and veterans’ compensation while adding back 20% of the anticipated savings federal retirement, and veterans’ compensation while adding back 20% of the anticipated savings
to programs that aid needy elderly and disabled people.354 to programs that aid needy elderly and disabled people.354
Provisions of the House-passed resolution were inserted in S.Con.Res. 32, in lieu of the Senate- Provisions of the House-passed resolution were inserted in S.Con.Res. 32, in lieu of the Senate-
passed measures, which was approved by a vote of 258 (24-R, 234-D) to 170 (155-R, 15-D) on passed measures, which was approved by a vote of 258 (24-R, 234-D) to 170 (155-R, 15-D) on
May 23, 1985.355 May 23, 1985.355
Conference Action
Conferees for the House and Senate met throughout June and July 1985 to work out an agreement Conferees for the House and Senate met throughout June and July 1985 to work out an agreement
on a deficit reduction package. Among the number of ideas that surfaced were proposals to delay on a deficit reduction package. Among the number of ideas that surfaced were proposals to delay
the Senate-passed COLA freezes until 1987, means test the COLAs, make both the COLAs and the Senate-passed COLA freezes until 1987, means test the COLAs, make both the COLAs and
adjustments to income tax brackets effective every other year (instead of annually), and increase adjustments to income tax brackets effective every other year (instead of annually), and increase
the amount of Social Security benefits that would be subject to income taxes. Ultimately, the amount of Social Security benefits that would be subject to income taxes. Ultimately,
however, agreement could not be reached on any form of Social Security constraint, and the however, agreement could not be reached on any form of Social Security constraint, and the
conference agreement on the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY1986, passed on conference agreement on the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY1986, passed on
August 1, 1985, did not assume any such savings. August 1, 1985, did not assume any such savings.

350 350 Congressional Record, May 1, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 35, not voting 1, p. 10075. May 1, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 35, not voting 1, p. 10075.
351 351 Congressional Record, May 9, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 72, not voting 2, p. 11475. The initial vote was 49 to 49, May 9, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 72, not voting 2, p. 11475. The initial vote was 49 to 49,
which necessitated that Vice President Bush cast the tie-breaking vote. which necessitated that Vice President Bush cast the tie-breaking vote.
352 352 Congressional Record, May 9, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 73, not voting 2, p. 11477. May 9, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 73, not voting 2, p. 11477.
353 353 Congressional Record, May 22, 1985, House, Roll call no. 124, not voting 13, p. 13066. May 22, 1985, House, Roll call no. 124, not voting 13, p. 13066.
354 354 Congressional Record, May 23, 1985, House, Roll call no. 129, not voting 5, p. 13387. May 23, 1985, House, Roll call no. 129, not voting 5, p. 13387.
355 355 Congressional Record, May 23, 1985, House, Roll call no. 131, not voting 6, p. 13407. May 23, 1985, House, Roll call no. 131, not voting 6, p. 13407.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

62 62

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

P.L. 99-509, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
President Reagan signed H.R. 5300, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, on October President Reagan signed H.R. 5300, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, on October
21, 1986. During 1986, inflation slowed to a rate that made it unlikely that it would reach the 3% 21, 1986. During 1986, inflation slowed to a rate that made it unlikely that it would reach the 3%
threshold necessary to provide a COLA in that year. P.L. 99-509 permanently eliminated the 3% threshold necessary to provide a COLA in that year. P.L. 99-509 permanently eliminated the 3%
requirement, which enabled a 1.3% COLA to be authorized for December 1986. requirement, which enabled a 1.3% COLA to be authorized for December 1986.
Senate Action
The Senate Finance Committee, as part of its budget provisions incorporated in S. 2706, the The Senate Finance Committee, as part of its budget provisions incorporated in S. 2706, the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, included a measure that would have provided a Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, included a measure that would have provided a
Social Security COLA in January 1987 no matter how low inflation turned out to be, that is, it Social Security COLA in January 1987 no matter how low inflation turned out to be, that is, it
permanently eliminated the 3% requirement. permanently eliminated the 3% requirement.
The Senate approved S. 2706 on September 20, 1986, by a vote of 88 (50-R, 38-D) to 7 (0-R, The Senate approved S. 2706 on September 20, 1986, by a vote of 88 (50-R, 38-D) to 7 (0-R,
7-D).356 7-D).356
House Action
The House Ways and Means Committee, as part of its budget reconciliation provisions The House Ways and Means Committee, as part of its budget reconciliation provisions
incorporated in H.R. 5300, its version of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, incorporated in H.R. 5300, its version of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986,
included a similar measure. included a similar measure.
The House passed H.R. 5300 with this measure on September 24, 1986, by a vote of 309 (99-R, The House passed H.R. 5300 with this measure on September 24, 1986, by a vote of 309 (99-R,
210-D) to 106 (71-R, 35-D).357 210-D) to 106 (71-R, 35-D).357
Conference Action
The conference report on H.R. 5300, including the COLA provision, was approved by both The conference report on H.R. 5300, including the COLA provision, was approved by both
houses on October 17, 1986, by a vote of 305 (112-R, 193-D) to 70 (R-51, D-19) in the House houses on October 17, 1986, by a vote of 305 (112-R, 193-D) to 70 (R-51, D-19) in the House
and 61 (33-R, 28-D) to 25 (10-R, 15-D) in the Senate.358 and 61 (33-R, 28-D) to 25 (10-R, 15-D) in the Senate.358
P.L. 100-203, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
H.R. 3545, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, was signed into law on December H.R. 3545, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, was signed into law on December
22, 1987, by President Reagan. Several of its provisions affected Social Security. P.L. 100-203 22, 1987, by President Reagan. Several of its provisions affected Social Security. P.L. 100-203
extended FICA coverage to military training of inactive reservists, the employer’s share of all extended FICA coverage to military training of inactive reservists, the employer’s share of all
cash tips, and several other categories of earnings; lengthened from 15 months to 36 months the cash tips, and several other categories of earnings; lengthened from 15 months to 36 months the
period during which a disability recipient who returns to work may become automatically re-period during which a disability recipient who returns to work may become automatically re-
entitled to benefits; and extended the period for appeal of adverse disability decisions through entitled to benefits; and extended the period for appeal of adverse disability decisions through
1988. 1988.
House Action
H.R. 3545 was a bill to meet the deficit reduction targets set by the FY1988 budget resolution H.R. 3545 was a bill to meet the deficit reduction targets set by the FY1988 budget resolution
(H.Con.Res. 93). Earlier, in July, the Ways and Means Committee also had approved changes in (H.Con.Res. 93). Earlier, in July, the Ways and Means Committee also had approved changes in
Social Security. Two of these provisions—extending coverage to military training of inactive Social Security. Two of these provisions—extending coverage to military training of inactive

356 356 Congressional Record, September 20, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 277, not voting 5, p. 24918. September 20, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 277, not voting 5, p. 24918.
357 357 Congressional Record, September 24, 1986, House, Roll call no. 408, not voting 17, p. 26024. September 24, 1986, House, Roll call no. 408, not voting 17, p. 26024.
358 358 Congressional Record, October 17, 1986, House, Roll call no. 487, not voting 57, p. 32978, and October 17, 1986, House, Roll call no. 487, not voting 57, p. 32978, and Congressional
Record, October 17, 1986, Senate, Roll call no. 358, not voting 14, p. 33313. October 17, 1986, Senate, Roll call no. 358, not voting 14, p. 33313.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

63 63

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

reservists and group term life insurance—had been requested by President Reagan. In addition, reservists and group term life insurance—had been requested by President Reagan. In addition,
the committee agreed to lengthen from 15 months to 36 months the period during which a the committee agreed to lengthen from 15 months to 36 months the period during which a
disability recipient who returns to work may become automatically re-entitled to benefits, to disability recipient who returns to work may become automatically re-entitled to benefits, to
extend the period for appeal of adverse disability decisions through 1988, and to cover certain extend the period for appeal of adverse disability decisions through 1988, and to cover certain
agricultural workers, children and spouses in family businesses. agricultural workers, children and spouses in family businesses.
The house passed H.R. 3545 on October 29, 1987, by a vote of 206 (1-R, 205-D) to 205 (164-R, The house passed H.R. 3545 on October 29, 1987, by a vote of 206 (1-R, 205-D) to 205 (164-R,
41-D).359 41-D).359
Senate Action
When the Finance Committee approved H.R. 3545 on December 3, 1987, it included the House When the Finance Committee approved H.R. 3545 on December 3, 1987, it included the House
Social Security coverage provisions. Social Security coverage provisions.
On December 10, 1987, the Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Kassebaum (R-KS) that On December 10, 1987, the Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Kassebaum (R-KS) that
would have limited the 1988 Social Security COLA to 2%, by a vote of 71 (34-R, 37-D) to 25 would have limited the 1988 Social Security COLA to 2%, by a vote of 71 (34-R, 37-D) to 25
(11-R, 14-D).360 (11-R, 14-D).360
On December 11, 1987, the Senate approved H.R. 3545 by a voice vote. On December 11, 1987, the Senate approved H.R. 3545 by a voice vote.
Conference Action
The conference committee generally accepted the House-passed version of H.R. 3545. The conference committee generally accepted the House-passed version of H.R. 3545.
On December 21, 1987, the House passed the conference report by a vote of 237 (44-R, 193-D) to On December 21, 1987, the House passed the conference report by a vote of 237 (44-R, 193-D) to
181 (130-R, 51-D).361 181 (130-R, 51-D).361
On December 21, 1987, the Senate passed the conference report by a vote of 61 (18-R, 43-D) to On December 21, 1987, the Senate passed the conference report by a vote of 61 (18-R, 43-D) to
28 (23-R, 5-D).362 28 (23-R, 5-D).362

P.L. 100-647, Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988
On November 10, 1988, President Reagan signed H.R. 4333, the Technical and Miscellaneous On November 10, 1988, President Reagan signed H.R. 4333, the Technical and Miscellaneous
Revenue Act of 1988. In addition to various tax measures the bill contained several provisions Revenue Act of 1988. In addition to various tax measures the bill contained several provisions
affecting Social Security. Among these, H.R. 4333 provided interim benefits to individuals who affecting Social Security. Among these, H.R. 4333 provided interim benefits to individuals who
have received a favorable decision upon appeal to an Administrative Law Judge but whose case have received a favorable decision upon appeal to an Administrative Law Judge but whose case
has been under review by the Appeals Council for more than 110 days; extended the existing has been under review by the Appeals Council for more than 110 days; extended the existing
provision for continued payment of benefits during appeal; denied benefits to Nazis who are provision for continued payment of benefits during appeal; denied benefits to Nazis who are
deported; and lowered the number of years of substantial Social Security-covered earnings that deported; and lowered the number of years of substantial Social Security-covered earnings that
are needed to begin phasing out the windfall benefit formula (which applies to someone receiving are needed to begin phasing out the windfall benefit formula (which applies to someone receiving
a pension from noncovered employment) from 25 years to 20 years. a pension from noncovered employment) from 25 years to 20 years.

359 359 Congressional Record, October 29, 1987, House, Roll call no. 392, not voting 22, p. 30237. October 29, 1987, House, Roll call no. 392, not voting 22, p. 30237.
360 360 Congressional Record, December 10, 1987, Senate, Roll call no. 405, not voting 4, p. 34882. December 10, 1987, Senate, Roll call no. 405, not voting 4, p. 34882.
361 361 Congressional Record, December 21, 1987, House, Roll call no. 508, not voting 15, p. 37088. December 21, 1987, House, Roll call no. 508, not voting 15, p. 37088.
362 362 Congressional Record, December 21, 1987, Senate, Roll call no. 419, not voting 11, p. 37712. December 21, 1987, Senate, Roll call no. 419, not voting 11, p. 37712.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

64 64

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

House Action
On July 14, 1988, the Ways and Means Committee approved a “tax corrections” bill, H.R. 4333, On July 14, 1988, the Ways and Means Committee approved a “tax corrections” bill, H.R. 4333,
that also included some measures affecting Social Security. that also included some measures affecting Social Security.
The House passed H.R. 4333 on August 4, 1988, by a vote of 380 (150-R, 230-D) to 25 (19-R, 6- The House passed H.R. 4333 on August 4, 1988, by a vote of 380 (150-R, 230-D) to 25 (19-R, 6-
D).363 D).363
Senate Action
The Finance Committee adopted about half of the House Social Security provisions. The Finance Committee adopted about half of the House Social Security provisions.
The Senate approved H.R. 4333 on October 11, 1988, by a vote of 87 (38-R, 49-D) to 1 (0-R, 1- The Senate approved H.R. 4333 on October 11, 1988, by a vote of 87 (38-R, 49-D) to 1 (0-R, 1-
D).364 D).364
Conference Action
The conference committee generally accepted the House-passed version of H.R. 4333. The conference committee generally accepted the House-passed version of H.R. 4333.
On October 21, 1988, the House passed the conference report by a vote of 358 (150-R, 208-D) to On October 21, 1988, the House passed the conference report by a vote of 358 (150-R, 208-D) to
1 (0-R, 1-D).365 1 (0-R, 1-D).365
On October 21, 1988, the Senate passed the conference report by a voice vote. On October 21, 1988, the Senate passed the conference report by a voice vote.
P.L. 101-239, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
On December 19, 1989, President George H. W. Bush signed H.R. 3299, the Omnibus Budget On December 19, 1989, President George H. W. Bush signed H.R. 3299, the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1989. Among other things, its Social Security provisions extended benefits Reconciliation Act of 1989. Among other things, its Social Security provisions extended benefits
to children adopted after the worker became entitled to benefits, regardless of whether the child to children adopted after the worker became entitled to benefits, regardless of whether the child
was dependent on the worker before the worker’s entitlement; further extended the existing was dependent on the worker before the worker’s entitlement; further extended the existing
provision for continued payment of benefits during appeal; increased the calculation of average provision for continued payment of benefits during appeal; increased the calculation of average
wages, used for purposes of computing of benefits and the maximum amount of earnings subject wages, used for purposes of computing of benefits and the maximum amount of earnings subject
to FICA tax, by including deferred compensation; and, beginning in 1990, required that SSA to FICA tax, by including deferred compensation; and, beginning in 1990, required that SSA
provide estimates of earnings and future benefits to all workers over the age of 24. provide estimates of earnings and future benefits to all workers over the age of 24.
House Action
When the Ways and Means Committee considered H.R. 3299 on October 5, 1989, it proposed When the Ways and Means Committee considered H.R. 3299 on October 5, 1989, it proposed
several Social Security-related measures. Among these was a provision making SSA an several Social Security-related measures. Among these was a provision making SSA an
independent agency; raising the Special Minimum benefit by $35 a month; increasing the independent agency; raising the Special Minimum benefit by $35 a month; increasing the
earnings test limits for recipients over the age of 64; extending benefits to children adopted after earnings test limits for recipients over the age of 64; extending benefits to children adopted after
the worker became entitled to benefits, regardless of whether the child was dependent on the the worker became entitled to benefits, regardless of whether the child was dependent on the
worker before the worker’s entitlement; further extending the existing provision for continued worker before the worker’s entitlement; further extending the existing provision for continued
payment of benefits during appeal; and including deferred compensation in the determination of payment of benefits during appeal; and including deferred compensation in the determination of
average wages for purposes of determining benefits and the maximum amount of earnings subject average wages for purposes of determining benefits and the maximum amount of earnings subject
to the FICA tax. to the FICA tax.

363 363 Congressional Record, August 4, 1988, House, Roll call no. 266, not voting 26, p. 20502. August 4, 1988, House, Roll call no. 266, not voting 26, p. 20502.
364 364 Congressional Record, October 11, 1988, Senate, Roll call no. 366, not voting 12, p. 29792. October 11, 1988, Senate, Roll call no. 366, not voting 12, p. 29792.
365 365 Congressional Record, October 21, 1988, House, Roll call no. 463, not voting 72, p. 33116. October 21, 1988, House, Roll call no. 463, not voting 72, p. 33116.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

65 65

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On October 5, 1989, the House passed H.R. 3299 by a vote of 333 (R-146, D-187) to 91 (R-28, On October 5, 1989, the House passed H.R. 3299 by a vote of 333 (R-146, D-187) to 91 (R-28,
D-63).366 D-63).366
Senate Action
The Finance Committee approved its version of H.R. 3299 on October 3, 1989. Like the House The Finance Committee approved its version of H.R. 3299 on October 3, 1989. Like the House
version, it included an increase in the maximum amount of earnings subject to the FICA tax, but version, it included an increase in the maximum amount of earnings subject to the FICA tax, but
it specifically earmarked the revenue therefrom to pay for proposed increases in the earnings test it specifically earmarked the revenue therefrom to pay for proposed increases in the earnings test
limits. It also approved making SSA an independent agency, but with a single administrator as limits. It also approved making SSA an independent agency, but with a single administrator as
opposed to the three-person board specified in the House version. However, because it was opposed to the three-person board specified in the House version. However, because it was
thought that a “clean bill” would improve chances of passage, the bill was stripped of its Social thought that a “clean bill” would improve chances of passage, the bill was stripped of its Social
Security provisions before it reached the floor. Security provisions before it reached the floor.
The senate approved its version of H.R. 3299 on October 13, 1989, by a vote of 87 (R-40, D-47) The senate approved its version of H.R. 3299 on October 13, 1989, by a vote of 87 (R-40, D-47)
to 7 (R-2, D-5).367 to 7 (R-2, D-5).367
Conference Action
In conference, most of the House provisions were accepted (but the major exclusion was making In conference, most of the House provisions were accepted (but the major exclusion was making
SSA an independent agency). Although neither version of H.R. 3299 included it, a provision was SSA an independent agency). Although neither version of H.R. 3299 included it, a provision was
added that, beginning in 1990, required that SSA provide estimates of earnings and future benefits added that, beginning in 1990, required that SSA provide estimates of earnings and future benefits
to all workers over the age of 24. to all workers over the age of 24.
On November 22, 1989 (legislative day November 21), the House approved the conference report On November 22, 1989 (legislative day November 21), the House approved the conference report
by a vote of 272 (R-86, D-186) to 128 (R-81, D-47).368 The Senate approved it the same day by a by a vote of 272 (R-86, D-186) to 128 (R-81, D-47).368 The Senate approved it the same day by a
voice vote. voice vote.
P.L. 101-508, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
On November 5, 1990, President George H. W. Bush signed H.R. 5835, the Omnibus Budget On November 5, 1990, President George H. W. Bush signed H.R. 5835, the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990. Among its Social Security provisions, it made permanent a temporary Reconciliation Act of 1990. Among its Social Security provisions, it made permanent a temporary
provision, first enacted in 1984 and subsequently extended, that provides the option for recipients provision, first enacted in 1984 and subsequently extended, that provides the option for recipients
to choose to continue to receive disability and Medicare benefits while their termination is being to choose to continue to receive disability and Medicare benefits while their termination is being
appealed; liberalized the definition of disability for disabled widow(er)s by making it consistent appealed; liberalized the definition of disability for disabled widow(er)s by making it consistent
with that for disabled workers; extended benefits to spouses whose marriage to the worker is with that for disabled workers; extended benefits to spouses whose marriage to the worker is
otherwise invalid, if the spouse was living with the worker before he or she died or filed for otherwise invalid, if the spouse was living with the worker before he or she died or filed for
benefits; removed the operation of the trust funds from budget deficit calculations under the benefits; removed the operation of the trust funds from budget deficit calculations under the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act; established separate House and Senate procedural safeguards to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act; established separate House and Senate procedural safeguards to
protect trust fund balances; extended coverage to employees of state and local governments who protect trust fund balances; extended coverage to employees of state and local governments who
are not covered by a retirement plan; and raised the maximum amount of earnings subject to HI are not covered by a retirement plan; and raised the maximum amount of earnings subject to HI
taxes to $125,000, effective in 1991, with raises thereafter indexed to increases in average wages. taxes to $125,000, effective in 1991, with raises thereafter indexed to increases in average wages.
House Action
In 1990, the congressional agenda was dominated by the debate over how to reduce a large In 1990, the congressional agenda was dominated by the debate over how to reduce a large
budget deficit, which, under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (GRH) sequestration rules, would budget deficit, which, under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (GRH) sequestration rules, would
have required billions of dollars of cuts in many federal programs. The Administration’s FY1991 have required billions of dollars of cuts in many federal programs. The Administration’s FY1991
budget contained several Social Security measures, the most prominent of which was to extend budget contained several Social Security measures, the most prominent of which was to extend

366 Congressional Record, October 5, 1989, House, Roll call no. 274, not voting 8, p. 23393. 366 Congressional Record, October 5, 1989, House, Roll call no. 274, not voting 8, p. 23393.
367 367 Congressional Record, October 13, 1989, Senate, Roll call no. 243, not voting 6, p. 24605. October 13, 1989, Senate, Roll call no. 243, not voting 6, p. 24605.
368 368 Congressional Record, November 21, 1989, House, Roll call no. 379, not voting 33, p. 31127. November 21, 1989, House, Roll call no. 379, not voting 33, p. 31127.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

66 66

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Social Security coverage to state and local government workers not covered by a retirement plan. Social Security coverage to state and local government workers not covered by a retirement plan.
The Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee included some of them in a package of The Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee included some of them in a package of
Social Security provisions it forwarded to the full committee. For several months budget Social Security provisions it forwarded to the full committee. For several months budget
negotiations stalled, as the democratic majority in Congress disagreed with the Administration’s negotiations stalled, as the democratic majority in Congress disagreed with the Administration’s
position that the deficit should be reduced entirely with spending cuts. As a result of a budget position that the deficit should be reduced entirely with spending cuts. As a result of a budget
“summit” between congressional and Administration leaders, an agreement was reached in which “summit” between congressional and Administration leaders, an agreement was reached in which
the President would put tax increases on the table and the Congress would consider spending cuts the President would put tax increases on the table and the Congress would consider spending cuts
in entitlements, including Social Security and Medicare. The resulting bill reported from the in entitlements, including Social Security and Medicare. The resulting bill reported from the
Budget Committee on October 15, H.R. 5835, extended Social Security coverage to state and Budget Committee on October 15, H.R. 5835, extended Social Security coverage to state and
local government workers not covered by a retirement plan and raised the maximum amount of local government workers not covered by a retirement plan and raised the maximum amount of
earnings subject to HI taxes to $100,000, effective in 1991. However, the same day the Ways and earnings subject to HI taxes to $100,000, effective in 1991. However, the same day the Ways and
Means Committee reported out H.R. 5828, a bill making miscellaneous and technical Means Committee reported out H.R. 5828, a bill making miscellaneous and technical
amendments to the Social Security Act, which incorporated most of the provisions that had earlier amendments to the Social Security Act, which incorporated most of the provisions that had earlier
been approved by the Social Security Subcommittee. been approved by the Social Security Subcommittee.
On October 16, 1990, the House approved H.R. 5835 by a vote of 227 (10-R, 217-D) to 203 (163- On October 16, 1990, the House approved H.R. 5835 by a vote of 227 (10-R, 217-D) to 203 (163-
R, 40-D).369 R, 40-D).369
Senate Action
During 1990, the debate about Social Security was largely dominated by a proposal by Senator During 1990, the debate about Social Security was largely dominated by a proposal by Senator
Moynihan (D-NY) to cut the Social Security payroll tax and return the program to true pay-as-Moynihan (D-NY) to cut the Social Security payroll tax and return the program to true pay-as-
you-go financing. The driving force behind the proposal was the growing realization that the you-go financing. The driving force behind the proposal was the growing realization that the
rapid rise in Social Security yearly surpluses, caused by payroll tax revenues that exceeded the rapid rise in Social Security yearly surpluses, caused by payroll tax revenues that exceeded the
program’s expenditures, were significantly reducing the size of the overall federal budget deficit. program’s expenditures, were significantly reducing the size of the overall federal budget deficit.
This had led to charges that the Social Security trust funds were being “raided” to finance the rest This had led to charges that the Social Security trust funds were being “raided” to finance the rest
of government and “masking” the true size of the deficit. In S. 3167, Senator Moynihan proposed of government and “masking” the true size of the deficit. In S. 3167, Senator Moynihan proposed
that the payroll tax rate be scheduled to fall and rise with changes in the program’s costs. that the payroll tax rate be scheduled to fall and rise with changes in the program’s costs.
On October 10, 1990, Senator Moynihan asked that the Senate vote on S. 3167. While the Senate On October 10, 1990, Senator Moynihan asked that the Senate vote on S. 3167. While the Senate
leadership agreed to bring the bill to the floor, a point of order was raised against it on the basis leadership agreed to bring the bill to the floor, a point of order was raised against it on the basis
that it violated the Budget Act. Although a majority of Senators voted to override the point of that it violated the Budget Act. Although a majority of Senators voted to override the point of
order, 54 (R-12, D-42) to 44 (31-R, 13-D), the measure fell short of the 60 votes required.370 order, 54 (R-12, D-42) to 44 (31-R, 13-D), the measure fell short of the 60 votes required.370
When the Senate considered H.R. 5835 on October 18, 1990, it accepted by a vote of 98 (43-R, When the Senate considered H.R. 5835 on October 18, 1990, it accepted by a vote of 98 (43-R,
55-D) to 2 (2-R, 0-D) an amendment by Senators Hollings (D-SC) and Heinz (R-PA) to remove 55-D) to 2 (2-R, 0-D) an amendment by Senators Hollings (D-SC) and Heinz (R-PA) to remove
Social Security from GRH budget deficit calculations.371 Social Security from GRH budget deficit calculations.371
On October 19, 1990 (legislative day October 18), the Senate passed the budget reconciliation bill On October 19, 1990 (legislative day October 18), the Senate passed the budget reconciliation bill
by a vote of 54 (23-R, 31-D) to 46 (22-R, 24-R).372 by a vote of 54 (23-R, 31-D) to 46 (22-R, 24-R).372
Conference Action
On October 27, 1990 (legislative day October 26), the House passed the conference report on On October 27, 1990 (legislative day October 26), the House passed the conference report on
H.R. 5835 by a vote of 228 (47-R, 181-D) to 200 (126-R, 74-D).373 H.R. 5835 by a vote of 228 (47-R, 181-D) to 200 (126-R, 74-D).373

369 369 Congressional Record, October 16, 1990, House, Roll call no. 475, not voting 3, p. 29923. October 16, 1990, House, Roll call no. 475, not voting 3, p. 29923.
370 370 Congressional Record, October 10, 1990, Senate, Roll call no. 262, not voting 2, p. 28190. October 10, 1990, Senate, Roll call no. 262, not voting 2, p. 28190.
371 371 Congressional Record, October 18, 1990, Senate, Roll call no. 283, not voting 0, p. 30640. October 18, 1990, Senate, Roll call no. 283, not voting 0, p. 30640.
372 372 Congressional Record, October 18, 1990, Senate, Roll call no. 292, not voting 0, p. 30731. October 18, 1990, Senate, Roll call no. 292, not voting 0, p. 30731.
373 373 Congressional Record, October 26, 1990, House, Roll call no. 528, not voting 5, p. 35253. October 26, 1990, House, Roll call no. 528, not voting 5, p. 35253.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

67 67

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

On October, 27, 1990, the Senate passed the conference report by a vote of 54 (19-R, 35-D) to 45 On October, 27, 1990, the Senate passed the conference report by a vote of 54 (19-R, 35-D) to 45
(25-R, 20-D)374 (25-R, 20-D)374
P.L. 103-66, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
On August 10, 1993, President Clinton signed H.R. 2264, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation On August 10, 1993, President Clinton signed H.R. 2264, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993. Effective in 1994, H.R. 2264 made up to 85% of Social Security benefits subject to Act of 1993. Effective in 1994, H.R. 2264 made up to 85% of Social Security benefits subject to
the income tax for recipients whose income plus one-half of their benefits exceed $34,000 the income tax for recipients whose income plus one-half of their benefits exceed $34,000
(single) and $44,000 (couple); and eliminated the maximum taxable earnings base for the HI (single) and $44,000 (couple); and eliminated the maximum taxable earnings base for the HI
payroll tax, (i.e., subjected all earnings to the HI tax), effective in 1994. payroll tax, (i.e., subjected all earnings to the HI tax), effective in 1994.
As part of his plan to cut the federal fiscal deficit, President Clinton proposed in his first budget As part of his plan to cut the federal fiscal deficit, President Clinton proposed in his first budget
that the proportion of benefits subject to taxation should be increased from 50% to 85%, effective that the proportion of benefits subject to taxation should be increased from 50% to 85%, effective
in 1994. His budget document said this would “move the treatment of Social Security and railroad in 1994. His budget document said this would “move the treatment of Social Security and railroad
retirement Tier I benefits toward that of private pensions” and would generate $32 billion in new retirement Tier I benefits toward that of private pensions” and would generate $32 billion in new
tax revenues over five years. The proceeds from the change would not be credited to the Social tax revenues over five years. The proceeds from the change would not be credited to the Social
Security trust funds, as under current law, but to the Medicare Hospital Insurance program, which Security trust funds, as under current law, but to the Medicare Hospital Insurance program, which
had a less favorable financial outlook than did Social Security. Doing so also would have avoided had a less favorable financial outlook than did Social Security. Doing so also would have avoided
procedural obstacles that could have been raised in the budget reconciliation process. The budget procedural obstacles that could have been raised in the budget reconciliation process. The budget
also proposed that the maximum taxable earnings base for HI be eliminated entirely beginning in also proposed that the maximum taxable earnings base for HI be eliminated entirely beginning in
1994. 1994.
Both proposals, especially the increase in the taxation of benefits, were opposed vigorously by the Both proposals, especially the increase in the taxation of benefits, were opposed vigorously by the
Republican minority. Critics maintained that the increase was unfair as it changed the rules in the Republican minority. Critics maintained that the increase was unfair as it changed the rules in the
middle of the game, penalizing recipients who relied on old law and who could not change past middle of the game, penalizing recipients who relied on old law and who could not change past
work and savings decisions. Regardless of abstract arguments about tax principles, many work and savings decisions. Regardless of abstract arguments about tax principles, many
recipients regarded increased taxation as simply a reduction in the benefits they had been recipients regarded increased taxation as simply a reduction in the benefits they had been
promised. They regarded taxation of benefits as an indirect means test, which would weaken the promised. They regarded taxation of benefits as an indirect means test, which would weaken the
“earned right” nature of the program and make it more like welfare, where need determines the “earned right” nature of the program and make it more like welfare, where need determines the
level of benefits. Finally, they maintained that it grossly distorts marginal tax rates and provides a level of benefits. Finally, they maintained that it grossly distorts marginal tax rates and provides a
strong disincentive for many recipients to work.375 strong disincentive for many recipients to work.375
House Action
H.Con.Res. 64, the FY1994 Concurrent Budget Resolution, included the additional revenue from H.Con.Res. 64, the FY1994 Concurrent Budget Resolution, included the additional revenue from
the President’s proposal. the President’s proposal.
On March 18, 1993, the House passed H.Con.Res. 64 by a vote of 243 (0-R, 242-D, 1-I) to 183 On March 18, 1993, the House passed H.Con.Res. 64 by a vote of 243 (0-R, 242-D, 1-I) to 183
(172-R, 11-D), which included the additional revenue from the President’s proposal.376 (172-R, 11-D), which included the additional revenue from the President’s proposal.376

374 374 Congressional Record, October 27, 1990, Senate, Roll call no. 326, not voting 1, p. 36278. October 27, 1990, Senate, Roll call no. 326, not voting 1, p. 36278.
375 Subsequently, after the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, the House twice passed 375 Subsequently, after the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, the House twice passed
legislation that would repeal the 1993 increase in taxation of benefits. Repeal of the 1993 provision was part of the legislation that would repeal the 1993 increase in taxation of benefits. Repeal of the 1993 provision was part of the
Republican “Contract with America” and was approved by the House as part of the omnibus budget reconciliation bill Republican “Contract with America” and was approved by the House as part of the omnibus budget reconciliation bill
(H.R. 2491) but was not included in the final law. On July 27, 2000, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 4865, (H.R. 2491) but was not included in the final law. On July 27, 2000, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 4865,
which, effective in 2001, would have repealed the 1993 provision, thus lowering the maximum amount of benefits which, effective in 2001, would have repealed the 1993 provision, thus lowering the maximum amount of benefits
subject to taxation from 85% to 50%, and replaced the resulting reduced revenue to Medicare with general fund subject to taxation from 85% to 50%, and replaced the resulting reduced revenue to Medicare with general fund
transfers. In neither instance were these measures approved by the Senate. transfers. In neither instance were these measures approved by the Senate.
376 376 Congressional Record, March 18, 1993, House, Roll call no. 85, not voting 4, p. 5674. March 18, 1993, House, Roll call no. 85, not voting 4, p. 5674.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

68 68

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Senate Action
The Senate devoted six days of debate to H.Con.Res. 64 at the end of March. The Senate devoted six days of debate to H.Con.Res. 64 at the end of March.
On March 24, 1993, the Senate rejected by a vote of 47 (43-R, 4-D) to 52 (0-R, 52-D) an On March 24, 1993, the Senate rejected by a vote of 47 (43-R, 4-D) to 52 (0-R, 52-D) an
amendment by Senator Lott (R-MS) that would have deleted from the resolution the revenue amendment by Senator Lott (R-MS) that would have deleted from the resolution the revenue
projected from the President’s proposal.377 projected from the President’s proposal.377
On March 24, 1993, the Senate approved, by a vote of 67 (12-R, 55-D) to 32 (31-R, 1-D), an On March 24, 1993, the Senate approved, by a vote of 67 (12-R, 55-D) to 32 (31-R, 1-D), an
amendment by Senators Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Exon (D-NE) expressing the sense of the Senate amendment by Senators Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Exon (D-NE) expressing the sense of the Senate
that the revenues set forth in the resolution assume that the Finance Committee would make every that the revenues set forth in the resolution assume that the Finance Committee would make every
effort to find alternative sources of revenue before imposing additional taxes on the Social effort to find alternative sources of revenue before imposing additional taxes on the Social
Security benefits of recipients with threshold incomes of less than $32,000 (single) and $40,000 Security benefits of recipients with threshold incomes of less than $32,000 (single) and $40,000
(couples). The thresholds for taxing 50% of benefits were to remain at the current law levels of (couples). The thresholds for taxing 50% of benefits were to remain at the current law levels of
$25,000 and $32,000.378 $25,000 and $32,000.378
On March 25, 1993, the Senate approved H.Con.Res. 64 by a vote of 54 (0-R, 54-D) to 45 (43-R, On March 25, 1993, the Senate approved H.Con.Res. 64 by a vote of 54 (0-R, 54-D) to 45 (43-R,
1-D).379 1-D).379
Conference Action
On March 31, 1993, the House approved the conference report on H.Con.Res. 64 by a vote of 240 On March 31, 1993, the House approved the conference report on H.Con.Res. 64 by a vote of 240
(0-R, 239-D, 1-I) to 184 (172-R, 12-D).380 On April 1, 1993, the Senate approved the conference (0-R, 239-D, 1-I) to 184 (172-R, 12-D).380 On April 1, 1993, the Senate approved the conference
report by a vote of 55 (0-R, 55-D) to 45 (43-R, 2-D).381 It included the sense of the Senate report by a vote of 55 (0-R, 55-D) to 45 (43-R, 2-D).381 It included the sense of the Senate
resolution. resolution.
House Action as Modified
On May 13, 1993, by a party-line vote of 24-14, the House Committee on Ways and Means On May 13, 1993, by a party-line vote of 24-14, the House Committee on Ways and Means
approved the President’s proposal, but modified it so that the additional proceeds would be approved the President’s proposal, but modified it so that the additional proceeds would be
credited to the General Fund instead of to Medicare. This measure was included in H.R. 2264, the credited to the General Fund instead of to Medicare. This measure was included in H.R. 2264, the
1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.
On May 27, 1993, the House passed H.R. 2264 by a vote of 219 (0-R, 218-D, 1-I) to 213 (175-R, On May 27, 1993, the House passed H.R. 2264 by a vote of 219 (0-R, 218-D, 1-I) to 213 (175-R,
38-D).382 38-D).382
Senate Action as Modified
On June 18, 1993, by a party-line vote of 11-9, the Finance Committee approved H.R. 2264, but On June 18, 1993, by a party-line vote of 11-9, the Finance Committee approved H.R. 2264, but
included the Lautenberg-Exon amendment to raise the taxation thresholds to $32,000 (single) and included the Lautenberg-Exon amendment to raise the taxation thresholds to $32,000 (single) and
$42,000 (couple). $42,000 (couple).
On June 24, 1993, the Senate rejected, by a vote of 46 (41-R, 5-D) to 51 (1-R, 50-D), an On June 24, 1993, the Senate rejected, by a vote of 46 (41-R, 5-D) to 51 (1-R, 50-D), an
amendment by Senator Lott to delete the taxation of benefits provision.383 amendment by Senator Lott to delete the taxation of benefits provision.383

377 377 Congressional Record, March 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 57, not voting 1, p. 6142. March 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 57, not voting 1, p. 6142.
378 378 Congressional Record, March 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 58, not voting 1, p. 6149. March 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 58, not voting 1, p. 6149.
379 379 Congressional Record, March 25, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 83, not voting 1, p. 6408. March 25, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 83, not voting 1, p. 6408.
380 380 Congressional Record, March 31, 1993, House, Roll call no. 127, not voting 6, p. 6964. March 31, 1993, House, Roll call no. 127, not voting 6, p. 6964.
381 381 Congressional Record, April 1, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 94, not voting 0, p. 7215. April 1, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 94, not voting 0, p. 7215.
382 382 Congressional Record, May 27, 1993, House, Roll call no. 199, not voting 0, p. 11952. May 27, 1993, House, Roll call no. 199, not voting 0, p. 11952.
383 383 Congressional Record, June 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 169, not voting 3, p. 14028. June 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 169, not voting 3, p. 14028.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

69 69

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

It also rejected, by a vote of 46 (3-R, 43-D) to 51 (40-R, 11-D) an amendment by Senator It also rejected, by a vote of 46 (3-R, 43-D) to 51 (40-R, 11-D) an amendment by Senator
DeConcini to increase the 85% thresholds to $37,000 (single) and $54,000 (couple),384 and, by a DeConcini to increase the 85% thresholds to $37,000 (single) and $54,000 (couple),384 and, by a
vote of 41 (40-R, 1-D) to 57 (3-R, 54-D) an amendment by Senator McCain to direct that the vote of 41 (40-R, 1-D) to 57 (3-R, 54-D) an amendment by Senator McCain to direct that the
proceeds of increased taxation of benefits be credited to the Social Security trust funds.385 proceeds of increased taxation of benefits be credited to the Social Security trust funds.385
On June 24, 1993, the Senate approved, by a vote of 50 (0-R, 50-D) to 49 (43-R, 6-D), the Budget On June 24, 1993, the Senate approved, by a vote of 50 (0-R, 50-D) to 49 (43-R, 6-D), the Budget
Reconciliation bill. It included the Lautenberg-Exon amendment creating second-tier thresholds Reconciliation bill. It included the Lautenberg-Exon amendment creating second-tier thresholds
of $32,000 and $40,000.386 of $32,000 and $40,000.386
Conference Action as Modified
On July 14, 1993, the House adopted, by a vote of 415 to 0, an amendment by Representative On July 14, 1993, the House adopted, by a vote of 415 to 0, an amendment by Representative
Sabo (D-MN) to instruct its conferees on the bill to accept the Senate version of taxation of Sabo (D-MN) to instruct its conferees on the bill to accept the Senate version of taxation of
benefits.387 benefits.387
When the House and Senate versions of the budget package were negotiated in conference, the When the House and Senate versions of the budget package were negotiated in conference, the
conferees modified the Senate taxation of Social Security benefits provision by setting the second conferees modified the Senate taxation of Social Security benefits provision by setting the second
tier thresholds at $34,000 (single) and $44,000 (couple). The measure was included in the final tier thresholds at $34,000 (single) and $44,000 (couple). The measure was included in the final
version of the reconciliation bill passed by the House on August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 (0-R, version of the reconciliation bill passed by the House on August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 (0-R,
217-D, 1-I) to 216 (175-R, 41-D).388 217-D, 1-I) to 216 (175-R, 41-D).388
On August 6, 1993, the Senate passed H.R. 2264 by a vote of 51 (0-R, 51-D) to 50 (44-R, 6-D).389 On August 6, 1993, the Senate passed H.R. 2264 by a vote of 51 (0-R, 51-D) to 50 (44-R, 6-D).389
P.L. 103-296, Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994
President Clinton signed H.R. 4277, the Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994, on President Clinton signed H.R. 4277, the Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994, on
August 15, 1994. P.L. 103-296 established the SSA as an independent agency, effective March 31, August 15, 1994. P.L. 103-296 established the SSA as an independent agency, effective March 31,
1995. It restricted DI and SSI benefits payable to drug addicts and alcoholics by creating 1995. It restricted DI and SSI benefits payable to drug addicts and alcoholics by creating
sanctions for failing to get treatment, limiting their enrollment to three years, and requiring that sanctions for failing to get treatment, limiting their enrollment to three years, and requiring that
those receiving DI benefits have a representative payee (formerly required only of SSI recipients). those receiving DI benefits have a representative payee (formerly required only of SSI recipients).
Representatives of the Clinton Administration initially opposed making SSA an independent Representatives of the Clinton Administration initially opposed making SSA an independent
agency, but President Clinton supported H.R. 4277’s final passage. agency, but President Clinton supported H.R. 4277’s final passage.
Interest in making SSA independent began in the early 1970s, when Social Security’s impact on Interest in making SSA independent began in the early 1970s, when Social Security’s impact on
fiscal policy was made more visible by including it in the federal budget. During congressional fiscal policy was made more visible by including it in the federal budget. During congressional
budget discussions in the early 1980s, proponents of independence wanted to insulate Social budget discussions in the early 1980s, proponents of independence wanted to insulate Social
Security from benefit cuts designed to meet short-term budget goals rather than policy concerns Security from benefit cuts designed to meet short-term budget goals rather than policy concerns
about Social Security. Many argued that making the agency independent would help insulate it about Social Security. Many argued that making the agency independent would help insulate it
from political and budgetary discussions, lead to better leadership, and reassure the public about from political and budgetary discussions, lead to better leadership, and reassure the public about
Social Security’s long-run survivability. Social Security’s long-run survivability.
Opponents argued that Social Security’s huge revenue and outlays should not be isolated from Opponents argued that Social Security’s huge revenue and outlays should not be isolated from
policy choices affecting other HHS social programs and that its financial implications for the policy choices affecting other HHS social programs and that its financial implications for the
economy and millions of recipients should be evaluated in conjunction with other economic and economy and millions of recipients should be evaluated in conjunction with other economic and

384 384 Congressional Record, June 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 172, not voting 2, p. 14069. June 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 172, not voting 2, p. 14069.
385 385 Congressional Record, June 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 184, not voting 2, p. 14107. June 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 184, not voting 2, p. 14107.
386 386 Congressional Record, June 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 190, not voting 2, p. 14172. The initial vote was 49 to June 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 190, not voting 2, p. 14172. The initial vote was 49 to
49, which necessitated that Vice President Gore cast the tie-breaking vote. 49, which necessitated that Vice President Gore cast the tie-breaking vote.
387 387 Congressional Record, July 14, 1993, House, Roll call no. 329, not voting 19, p. 15670. July 14, 1993, House, Roll call no. 329, not voting 19, p. 15670.
388 388 Congressional Record, August 5, 1993, House, Roll call no. 406, not voting 0, p. 19476. August 5, 1993, House, Roll call no. 406, not voting 0, p. 19476.
389 389 Congressional Record, August 6, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 247, not voting 0, p. 14107. The initial vote was 50 to August 6, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 247, not voting 0, p. 14107. The initial vote was 50 to
50, which necessitated that Vice President Gore cast the tie-breaking vote. 50, which necessitated that Vice President Gore cast the tie-breaking vote.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

70 70

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

social functions of the government. They further believed that making SSA independent would social functions of the government. They further believed that making SSA independent would
not necessarily resolve its administrative problems, which were heavily influenced by ongoing not necessarily resolve its administrative problems, which were heavily influenced by ongoing
policy changes to its programs resulting from legislation and court decisions. policy changes to its programs resulting from legislation and court decisions.
Starting in 1986, a number of attempts were made in Congress to make SSA independent. Various Starting in 1986, a number of attempts were made in Congress to make SSA independent. Various
Administrations generally opposed the idea, and a disagreement persisted between the House and Administrations generally opposed the idea, and a disagreement persisted between the House and
Senate over how such an agency should be administered. The House preferred an approach under Senate over how such an agency should be administered. The House preferred an approach under
which an independent SSA would be run by a three-member bipartisan board; the Senate which an independent SSA would be run by a three-member bipartisan board; the Senate
preferred an approach where it would be run by a single administrator. preferred an approach where it would be run by a single administrator.
House Action
On May 12, 1994, the Ways and Means Committee reported out H.R. 2264 (incorporating the On May 12, 1994, the Ways and Means Committee reported out H.R. 2264 (incorporating the
three-member bipartisan board approach), introduced by Representative Jacobs (D-IN). three-member bipartisan board approach), introduced by Representative Jacobs (D-IN).
The House passed H.R. 2264 on May 17, 1994, by a vote of 413-0.390 The House passed H.R. 2264 on May 17, 1994, by a vote of 413-0.390
Senate Action
On January 25, 1994, the Senate Finance Committee reported out S. 1560 (incorporating the On January 25, 1994, the Senate Finance Committee reported out S. 1560 (incorporating the
single-administrator approach), introduced by Senator Moynihan (D-NY). single-administrator approach), introduced by Senator Moynihan (D-NY).
The Senate passed S. 1560 by voice vote on March 2, 1994. The Senate passed S. 1560 by voice vote on March 2, 1994.
On May 23, 1994, the Senate approved H.R. 4277, after striking its language and substituting that On May 23, 1994, the Senate approved H.R. 4277, after striking its language and substituting that
of S. 1560, by voice vote. of S. 1560, by voice vote.
Conference Action
Conferees reached an agreement on July 20, 1994, under which SSA would be run by a single Conferees reached an agreement on July 20, 1994, under which SSA would be run by a single
administrator appointed for a six-year term, supported by a seven-member bipartisan advisory administrator appointed for a six-year term, supported by a seven-member bipartisan advisory
board. board.
The Senate passed the agreement by voice vote on August 5, 1994. The Senate passed the agreement by voice vote on August 5, 1994.
The House passed the agreement on August 11, 1994, by a vote of 431-0.391 The House passed the agreement on August 11, 1994, by a vote of 431-0.391
P.L. 103-387, Social Security Domestic Reform Act of 1994
President Clinton signed H.R. 4278, Social Security Domestic Reform Act of 1994, on October President Clinton signed H.R. 4278, Social Security Domestic Reform Act of 1994, on October
22, 1994. H.R. 4278 raised the threshold for Social Security coverage of household employees 22, 1994. H.R. 4278 raised the threshold for Social Security coverage of household employees
from $50 in wages a quarter to $1,000 a year, which would rise thereafter with the growth in from $50 in wages a quarter to $1,000 a year, which would rise thereafter with the growth in
average wages and reallocated taxes from the OASI fund to the DI fund. average wages and reallocated taxes from the OASI fund to the DI fund.
In early 1993, the issue of coverage of domestic workers burst into public awareness when In early 1993, the issue of coverage of domestic workers burst into public awareness when
several Cabinet nominees revealed that they had failed to report the wages they had paid to several Cabinet nominees revealed that they had failed to report the wages they had paid to
childcare providers. Subsequent media scrutiny made it apparent that under-reporting of childcare providers. Subsequent media scrutiny made it apparent that under-reporting of
household wages was common. It also highlighted that householders were supposed to be household wages was common. It also highlighted that householders were supposed to be
reporting even occasional work such as babysitting and lawn mowing. As the threshold had not reporting even occasional work such as babysitting and lawn mowing. As the threshold had not
been changed for 43 years, the question naturally arose of whether it should be raised. been changed for 43 years, the question naturally arose of whether it should be raised.

390 390 Congressional Record, May 17, 1994, House, Roll call no. 177, not voting 20, p. 10603. May 17, 1994, House, Roll call no. 177, not voting 20, p. 10603.
391 391 Congressional Record, August 11, 1994, House, Roll call no. 392, not voting 3, p. 21535. August 11, 1994, House, Roll call no. 392, not voting 3, p. 21535.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

71 71

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

House Action
Several measures were introduced in the 103rd Congress that would have raised the threshold by Several measures were introduced in the 103rd Congress that would have raised the threshold by
varying amounts. On March 22, 1994, Representative Andrew Jacobs (D-IN) introduced H.R. varying amounts. On March 22, 1994, Representative Andrew Jacobs (D-IN) introduced H.R.
4105, which would have raised the threshold to $1,250 a year in 1995, to be indexed thereafter to 4105, which would have raised the threshold to $1,250 a year in 1995, to be indexed thereafter to
increases in average wages. increases in average wages.
This measure was included in H.R. 4278, approved by the House on May 12, 1994, by a vote of This measure was included in H.R. 4278, approved by the House on May 12, 1994, by a vote of
420-0.392 420-0.392
Senate Action
When the Senate considered H.R. 4278 on May 25, 1994, it struck the House language and When the Senate considered H.R. 4278 on May 25, 1994, it struck the House language and
substituted the text of S. 1231, a bill by Senator Moynihan (D-NY) that would have raised the substituted the text of S. 1231, a bill by Senator Moynihan (D-NY) that would have raised the
annual threshold to the same level as that needed to earn a quarter of coverage ($620 in 1994) and annual threshold to the same level as that needed to earn a quarter of coverage ($620 in 1994) and
exempted from Social Security taxes the wages paid to domestic workers under the age of 18. exempted from Social Security taxes the wages paid to domestic workers under the age of 18.
The Senate passed the revised version of H.R. 4278 on May 25, 1994, by unanimous consent. The Senate passed the revised version of H.R. 4278 on May 25, 1994, by unanimous consent.
Conference Action
On October 5, 1994, conferees agreed to a measure that raised the threshold for Social Security On October 5, 1994, conferees agreed to a measure that raised the threshold for Social Security
coverage of household workers to $1,000, effective in 1994. The measure also provided that the coverage of household workers to $1,000, effective in 1994. The measure also provided that the
threshold would rise in the future, in $100 increments, in proportion to the growth in average threshold would rise in the future, in $100 increments, in proportion to the growth in average
wages in the economy.393 wages in the economy.393
On October 6, 1994, the conference report was approved in the House by a vote of 423-0. On October 6, 1994, the conference report was approved in the House by a vote of 423-0.
The same day, the Senate approved the conference report by unanimous consent. The same day, the Senate approved the conference report by unanimous consent.
P.L. 104-121, Senior Citizens Right to Work Act of 1996
On March 29, 1996, President Clinton signed H.R. 3136, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act On March 29, 1996, President Clinton signed H.R. 3136, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act
of 1996. H.R. 3136: raised the annual earnings test exempt amount, for recipients who have of 1996. H.R. 3136: raised the annual earnings test exempt amount, for recipients who have
attained the full retirement age (FRA), over a period of seven years, reaching $30,000 in 2002, attained the full retirement age (FRA), over a period of seven years, reaching $30,000 in 2002,
and then indexed that amount to wages; prohibited DI and SSI eligibility to individuals whose and then indexed that amount to wages; prohibited DI and SSI eligibility to individuals whose
disability is based on drug addiction or alcoholism; tightened eligibility requirements for disability is based on drug addiction or alcoholism; tightened eligibility requirements for
entitlements to benefits as a stepchild; and, as a way to produce program savings that would help entitlements to benefits as a stepchild; and, as a way to produce program savings that would help
compensate for the increased costs to the Social Security system due to liberalizing the earnings compensate for the increased costs to the Social Security system due to liberalizing the earnings
test, provided funds for additional continuing disability reviews. test, provided funds for additional continuing disability reviews.
On September 27, 1994, 300 Republican congressional candidates presented a “Contract with On September 27, 1994, 300 Republican congressional candidates presented a “Contract with
America” that listed 10 proposals that they would pursue if elected. One of the proposals, the America” that listed 10 proposals that they would pursue if elected. One of the proposals, the
“Senior Citizens Equity Act,” included a measure to increase the earnings test limits, for those “Senior Citizens Equity Act,” included a measure to increase the earnings test limits, for those
over age 64, over a period of five years, reaching $30,000 in 2000. After the Republican victory over age 64, over a period of five years, reaching $30,000 in 2000. After the Republican victory
in the election, the Senior Citizens Equity Act was sponsored by 131 Members in H.R. 8, in the election, the Senior Citizens Equity Act was sponsored by 131 Members in H.R. 8,
introduced January 4, 1995. Although the House approved the measure as part of H.R. 1215, it introduced January 4, 1995. Although the House approved the measure as part of H.R. 1215, it
was not included in the Balanced Budget Reconciliation bill (H.R. 2491) passed by the Congress was not included in the Balanced Budget Reconciliation bill (H.R. 2491) passed by the Congress
on November 20, 1995. on November 20, 1995.

392 392 Congressional Record, May 12, 1994, House, Roll call no. 169, not voting 15, p. 10028. May 12, 1994, House, Roll call no. 169, not voting 15, p. 10028.
393 393 Congressional Record, October 6, 1994, House, Roll call no. 494, not voting 11, p. 28504. October 6, 1994, House, Roll call no. 494, not voting 11, p. 28504.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

72 72

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

House Action
On November 28, 1995, the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee On November 28, 1995, the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee
approved H.R. 2684, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act, introduced by Chairman Bunning approved H.R. 2684, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act, introduced by Chairman Bunning
(R-KY), that would gradually increase the earnings test limits for those aged 65-69 to $30,000 in (R-KY), that would gradually increase the earnings test limits for those aged 65-69 to $30,000 in
2002. The full committee approved H.R. 2684 by a vote of 31-0 on November 30, 1995. 2002. The full committee approved H.R. 2684 by a vote of 31-0 on November 30, 1995.
The House approved H.R. 2684 on December 5, 1995, by a vote of 411 (230-R, 180-D, 1-I) to 4 The House approved H.R. 2684 on December 5, 1995, by a vote of 411 (230-R, 180-D, 1-I) to 4
(0-R, 4-D).394 (0-R, 4-D).394
On March 21, 1996, reportedly with the agreement of the Administration, a modified version of On March 21, 1996, reportedly with the agreement of the Administration, a modified version of
H.R. 2684 was included in H.R. 3136, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, H.R. 2684 was included in H.R. 3136, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996,
introduced by Representative Archer (D-TX). H.R. 3136, also included an increase in the debt introduced by Representative Archer (D-TX). H.R. 3136, also included an increase in the debt
ceiling and other measures. The part of H.R. 3136 relating to the earnings test was similar to H.R. ceiling and other measures. The part of H.R. 3136 relating to the earnings test was similar to H.R.
2684, but modified to slow the rise in the exempt amounts during the first five years of the phase-2684, but modified to slow the rise in the exempt amounts during the first five years of the phase-
in. in.
On March 28, 1996, H.R. 3136 was passed by the House by a vote of 328 (201-R, 127-D) to 91 On March 28, 1996, H.R. 3136 was passed by the House by a vote of 328 (201-R, 127-D) to 91
(30-R, 60-D, 1-I).395 (30-R, 60-D, 1-I).395
Senate Action
On December 14, 1995, the Senate Committee on Finance approved S. 1470, a bill similar to On December 14, 1995, the Senate Committee on Finance approved S. 1470, a bill similar to
H.R. 2684. H.R. 2684.
On March 28, 1996, H.R. 3136 was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent. On March 28, 1996, H.R. 3136 was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent.
P.L. 106-170, Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act
of 1999
President Clinton signed H.R. 1180, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Act of 1999, on President Clinton signed H.R. 1180, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Act of 1999, on
December 17, 1999. H.R. 1180 provided disabled recipients with vouchers they can use to December 17, 1999. H.R. 1180 provided disabled recipients with vouchers they can use to
purchase rehabilitative services from public or private providers and extended Medicare coverage purchase rehabilitative services from public or private providers and extended Medicare coverage
for up to 4.5 additional years for disabled recipients who work. for up to 4.5 additional years for disabled recipients who work.
In the 1990s, there was a growing movement to mitigate what was seen as a fundamental In the 1990s, there was a growing movement to mitigate what was seen as a fundamental
dilemma faced by many disabled Social Security recipients. While the disabled were encouraged dilemma faced by many disabled Social Security recipients. While the disabled were encouraged
to try to leave the Social Security rolls by attempting to work, in doing so they faced a limited to try to leave the Social Security rolls by attempting to work, in doing so they faced a limited
choice in seeking rehabilitation services and a potentially serious loss of Medicare and Medicaid choice in seeking rehabilitation services and a potentially serious loss of Medicare and Medicaid
benefits. Proponents of providing greater work opportunity argued that incentives for the disabled benefits. Proponents of providing greater work opportunity argued that incentives for the disabled
to attempt to work should be enhanced. to attempt to work should be enhanced.
House Action
On October 19, 1999, the House approved H.R. 1180, The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives On October 19, 1999, the House approved H.R. 1180, The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act of 1999, introduced by Representative Rick Lazio (R-NY), by a vote of 412 Improvement Act of 1999, introduced by Representative Rick Lazio (R-NY), by a vote of 412
(206-R, 205-D, 1-I) to 9 (9-R, 0-D).396 (206-R, 205-D, 1-I) to 9 (9-R, 0-D).396

394 394 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 5, 1995, House, Roll call no. 837, not voting 17, p. H13974. , daily edition, December 5, 1995, House, Roll call no. 837, not voting 17, p. H13974.
395 395 Congressional Record, March 28, 1996, House, Roll call no. 102, not voting 12, p. 6940. , March 28, 1996, House, Roll call no. 102, not voting 12, p. 6940.
396 396 Congressional Record, October 19, 1999, House, Roll call no. 513, not voting 12, p. 10273. , October 19, 1999, House, Roll call no. 513, not voting 12, p. 10273.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

73 73

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Senate Action
On June 16, 1999, the Senate passed a similar bill, S. 331, the Work Incentives Improvement Act On June 16, 1999, the Senate passed a similar bill, S. 331, the Work Incentives Improvement Act
of 1999, introduced by Senator James S. Jeffords (R-VT), by a vote of 99-0.397 On October 21, of 1999, introduced by Senator James S. Jeffords (R-VT), by a vote of 99-0.397 On October 21,
1999, the Senate passed H.R. 1180, after striking its language and substituting that of S. 331, by 1999, the Senate passed H.R. 1180, after striking its language and substituting that of S. 331, by
unanimous consent. unanimous consent.
Conference Action
On November 18, 1999, the House adopted the conference report by a vote of 418 (212-R, 205-D, On November 18, 1999, the House adopted the conference report by a vote of 418 (212-R, 205-D,
1-I) to 2 (0-R, 2-D).398 1-I) to 2 (0-R, 2-D).398
On November 19, 1999, the Senate adopted the conference report by a vote of 95 (51-R, 44-D) to On November 19, 1999, the Senate adopted the conference report by a vote of 95 (51-R, 44-D) to
1 (1-R, 0-D).399 1 (1-R, 0-D).399
P.L. 106-182, Senior Citizens Right to Work Act
President Clinton signed H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act, on April 7, 2000. H.R. 5 President Clinton signed H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act, on April 7, 2000. H.R. 5
eliminated the earnings test for recipients who have attained FRA, effective in 2000. eliminated the earnings test for recipients who have attained FRA, effective in 2000.
The earnings test has always been one of the most unpopular features of the Social Security The earnings test has always been one of the most unpopular features of the Social Security
program. Critics said it was unfair and inappropriate to impose a form of means test for a program. Critics said it was unfair and inappropriate to impose a form of means test for a
retirement benefit that has been earned by a lifetime of contributions to the program, that it has a retirement benefit that has been earned by a lifetime of contributions to the program, that it has a
strong negative effect on work incentives, and that it can hurt elderly individuals who need to strong negative effect on work incentives, and that it can hurt elderly individuals who need to
work to supplement their Social Security benefits. Defenders of the provision said that it is a work to supplement their Social Security benefits. Defenders of the provision said that it is a
reasonable means of executing the purpose of Social Security. Because the system is social reasonable means of executing the purpose of Social Security. Because the system is social
insurance that protects workers from loss of income due to the retirement, death, or disability of insurance that protects workers from loss of income due to the retirement, death, or disability of
the worker, they consider it appropriate to withhold benefits from workers who show by their the worker, they consider it appropriate to withhold benefits from workers who show by their
substantial earnings that they have not in fact “retired.” They also argued that eliminating or substantial earnings that they have not in fact “retired.” They also argued that eliminating or
significantly liberalizing the benefit would primarily help those who do not need help (i.e., the significantly liberalizing the benefit would primarily help those who do not need help (i.e., the
better-off). better-off).
However, over the years probably the main impediment to eliminating the earnings test was its However, over the years probably the main impediment to eliminating the earnings test was its
negative effect on the program’s financial status and on current federal budgets, which negative effect on the program’s financial status and on current federal budgets, which
perennially were in deficit. By 2000, the federal budget was running large surpluses, so major perennially were in deficit. By 2000, the federal budget was running large surpluses, so major
alterations to the test were deemed affordable. In addition, it was projected that eliminating the alterations to the test were deemed affordable. In addition, it was projected that eliminating the
test would have no negative impact on Social Security’s long-range financing because of test would have no negative impact on Social Security’s long-range financing because of
offsetting savings. The ground work for this offsetting effect had been laid in 1983, when offsetting savings. The ground work for this offsetting effect had been laid in 1983, when
Congress increased the Delayed Retirement Credit (DRC). The DRC increases benefits for Congress increased the Delayed Retirement Credit (DRC). The DRC increases benefits for
retirees by a certain percentage for each month they do not receive benefits after they attained retirees by a certain percentage for each month they do not receive benefits after they attained
FRA. The 1983 legislation provided for a long phase-in of the increase in the DRC, so that its FRA. The 1983 legislation provided for a long phase-in of the increase in the DRC, so that its
ultimate rate would not be achieved until 2008. At that point, it would be “actuarially fair,” ultimate rate would not be achieved until 2008. At that point, it would be “actuarially fair,”
meaning that the additional benefits a person would receive over his or her lifetime due to the meaning that the additional benefits a person would receive over his or her lifetime due to the
DRC would be approximately equal to the value of the benefits lost due to the earnings test. Thus, DRC would be approximately equal to the value of the benefits lost due to the earnings test. Thus,
the long-range cost of eliminating the earnings test for those above FRA would be offset by the the long-range cost of eliminating the earnings test for those above FRA would be offset by the
savings produced by fewer payments of DRCs. Because there was no threat to Social Security’s savings produced by fewer payments of DRCs. Because there was no threat to Social Security’s

397 397 Congressional Record, daily edition, June 16, 1999, Senate, Roll call no. 169, not voting 1, p. S7064. , daily edition, June 16, 1999, Senate, Roll call no. 169, not voting 1, p. S7064.
398 398 Congressional Record, daily edition, November 18, 1999, House, Roll call no. 611, not voting 15, p. H12832. , daily edition, November 18, 1999, House, Roll call no. 611, not voting 15, p. H12832.
399 399 Congressional Record, daily edition, November 19, 1999, Senate, Roll call no. 372, not voting 4, p. S14986. , daily edition, November 19, 1999, Senate, Roll call no. 372, not voting 4, p. S14986.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

74 74

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

long-range solvency and the short-range costs were judged to be affordable, the momentum to long-range solvency and the short-range costs were judged to be affordable, the momentum to
repeal the test for those at or over the retirement age was overwhelming. repeal the test for those at or over the retirement age was overwhelming.
House Action
On March 1, 2000, the House approved H.R. 5, a bill that would eliminate the earnings test for On March 1, 2000, the House approved H.R. 5, a bill that would eliminate the earnings test for
recipients who have attained FRA, introduced by Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX), by a vote recipients who have attained FRA, introduced by Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX), by a vote
of 422-0.400 of 422-0.400
Senate Action
On March 22, 2000, the Senate approved H.R. 5, with a modification to the monthly exempt On March 22, 2000, the Senate approved H.R. 5, with a modification to the monthly exempt
amounts in the year of attaining FRA, by a vote of 100-0.401 amounts in the year of attaining FRA, by a vote of 100-0.401
Conference Action
On March 28, 2000, the House approved the Senate version of H.R. 5 by a vote of 419-0.402 On March 28, 2000, the House approved the Senate version of H.R. 5 by a vote of 419-0.402
P.L. 108-203, Social Security Protection Act of 2004
President George W. Bush signed H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004, on March President George W. Bush signed H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004, on March
2, 2004. The measure included various provisions designed to reduce fraud and abuse in the 2, 2004. The measure included various provisions designed to reduce fraud and abuse in the
Social Security and SSI programs. Among other changes, H.R. 743 imposed stricter standards on Social Security and SSI programs. Among other changes, H.R. 743 imposed stricter standards on
individuals and organizations that serve as representative payees for Social Security and SSI individuals and organizations that serve as representative payees for Social Security and SSI
recipients; made nongovernmental representative payees liable for misused funds and subjected recipients; made nongovernmental representative payees liable for misused funds and subjected
them to civil monetary penalties; tightened restrictions on attorneys who represent Social Security them to civil monetary penalties; tightened restrictions on attorneys who represent Social Security
and SSI disability claimants; limited assessments on attorney fee payments; prohibited fugitive and SSI disability claimants; limited assessments on attorney fee payments; prohibited fugitive
felons from receiving Social Security benefits; modified the felons from receiving Social Security benefits; modified the last day rule under the Government under the Government
Pension Offset (GPO) provision; and required certain noncitizens to have authorization to work in Pension Offset (GPO) provision; and required certain noncitizens to have authorization to work in
the United States at the time a SSN is assigned, or at some later time, to gain insured status under the United States at the time a SSN is assigned, or at some later time, to gain insured status under
the Social Security program. Several major provisions of the law are described below.403 the Social Security program. Several major provisions of the law are described below.403
SSA may designate a “representative payee” to accept monthly benefit payments on behalf of SSA may designate a “representative payee” to accept monthly benefit payments on behalf of
Social Security and SSI recipients who are physically or mentally incapable of managing their Social Security and SSI recipients who are physically or mentally incapable of managing their
own funds, or on behalf of children under the age of 18. Before P.L. 108-203, SSA was required own funds, or on behalf of children under the age of 18. Before P.L. 108-203, SSA was required
to reissue benefits misused by an individual or organizational representative payee only in cases to reissue benefits misused by an individual or organizational representative payee only in cases
where the Social Security Commissioner found that SSA negligently failed to investigate or where the Social Security Commissioner found that SSA negligently failed to investigate or
monitor the payee. The new law eliminated the requirement that the reissuance of benefits be monitor the payee. The new law eliminated the requirement that the reissuance of benefits be
subject to a finding of negligence on the part of SSA. As a result, SSA is required to reissue any subject to a finding of negligence on the part of SSA. As a result, SSA is required to reissue any
benefits misused by an individual representative payee who represents 15 or more recipients, or benefits misused by an individual representative payee who represents 15 or more recipients, or
by an organizational representative payee. In addition, the law made nongovernmental by an organizational representative payee. In addition, the law made nongovernmental
representative payees (i.e., those other than federal, state, and local government agencies) liable representative payees (i.e., those other than federal, state, and local government agencies) liable
for the reimbursement of misused funds. Under the new law, SSA has the authority to impose a for the reimbursement of misused funds. Under the new law, SSA has the authority to impose a
civil monetary penalty (up to $5,000 for each violation) and an assessment (up to twice the civil monetary penalty (up to $5,000 for each violation) and an assessment (up to twice the

400 400 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 1, 2000, House, Roll call no. 27, not voting 13, p. H603. , daily edition, March 1, 2000, House, Roll call no. 27, not voting 13, p. H603.
401 401 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 22, 2000, Senate, Roll call no. 42, not voting 0, p. S1540. , daily edition, March 22, 2000, Senate, Roll call no. 42, not voting 0, p. S1540.
402 402 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 28, 2000, House, Roll call no. 79, not voting 16, p. H1450. daily edition, March 28, 2000, House, Roll call no. 79, not voting 16, p. H1450.
403 For more information, see SSA, “President Signs Into Law H.R. 743, The Social Security Protection Act Of 2004,” 403 For more information, see SSA, “President Signs Into Law H.R. 743, The Social Security Protection Act Of 2004,”
Social Security Legislative Bulletin, at http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_030404.html. Social Security Legislative Bulletin, at http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_030404.html.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

75 75

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

amount of misused benefits) on representative payees who misuse benefits. The new law included amount of misused benefits) on representative payees who misuse benefits. The new law included
a number of other provisions aimed at strengthening the accountability of representative payees. a number of other provisions aimed at strengthening the accountability of representative payees.
Social Security and SSI disability claimants may choose to have an attorney or other qualified Social Security and SSI disability claimants may choose to have an attorney or other qualified
individual represent them in proceedings before SSA, and the claimant representative may charge individual represent them in proceedings before SSA, and the claimant representative may charge
a fee for his or her services. The fee, which is subject to limits, must be authorized by SSA. If a a fee for his or her services. The fee, which is subject to limits, must be authorized by SSA. If a
Social Security disability claimant is awarded past-due benefits and his or her representative is an Social Security disability claimant is awarded past-due benefits and his or her representative is an
attorney, SSA withholds the attorney’s fee payment from the benefit award and sends the attorney, SSA withholds the attorney’s fee payment from the benefit award and sends the
payment directly to the attorney. To cover the administrative costs associated with the fee payment directly to the attorney. To cover the administrative costs associated with the fee
withholding process for attorney representatives of Social Security disability claimants, SSA withholding process for attorney representatives of Social Security disability claimants, SSA
withholds an assessment of up to 6.3% from the attorney’s fee. Before P.L. 108-203, if the withholds an assessment of up to 6.3% from the attorney’s fee. Before P.L. 108-203, if the
claimant representative was not an attorney, or the claim was for SSI benefits, SSA would send claimant representative was not an attorney, or the claim was for SSI benefits, SSA would send
the full benefit award to the claimant and the claimant representative would be responsible for the full benefit award to the claimant and the claimant representative would be responsible for
collecting his or her fee from the individual. The new law capped the assessment for processing collecting his or her fee from the individual. The new law capped the assessment for processing
attorney fee payments at the lesser of 6.3% of the attorney’s fee and $75 (indexed to inflation); attorney fee payments at the lesser of 6.3% of the attorney’s fee and $75 (indexed to inflation);
provided for a temporary (five-year) extension of the attorney fee withholding process to SSI provided for a temporary (five-year) extension of the attorney fee withholding process to SSI
claims; authorized a five-year demonstration project to extend the fee withholding process to non-claims; authorized a five-year demonstration project to extend the fee withholding process to non-
attorney representatives in both Social Security and SSI claims; and required the Government attorney representatives in both Social Security and SSI claims; and required the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to study the fee payment process for claimant representatives. Accountability Office (GAO) to study the fee payment process for claimant representatives.
Before P.L. 108-203, SSA was prohibited from paying SSI benefits only (not Social Security Before P.L. 108-203, SSA was prohibited from paying SSI benefits only (not Social Security
benefits) to fugitive felons (i.e., persons fleeing prosecution, custody, or confinement after benefits) to fugitive felons (i.e., persons fleeing prosecution, custody, or confinement after
conviction, and persons violating probation or parole). In addition, upon written request, SSA was conviction, and persons violating probation or parole). In addition, upon written request, SSA was
required to provide information about these individuals (current address, SSN, and photograph) to required to provide information about these individuals (current address, SSN, and photograph) to
law enforcement officials. The new law prohibited SSA from paying Social Security benefits as law enforcement officials. The new law prohibited SSA from paying Social Security benefits as
well to fugitive felons and required SSA, upon written request, to provide information to law well to fugitive felons and required SSA, upon written request, to provide information to law
enforcement officials to assist in the apprehension of these individuals. The new law authorized enforcement officials to assist in the apprehension of these individuals. The new law authorized
the Social Security Commissioner to pay, with good cause, SSI and Social Security benefits the Social Security Commissioner to pay, with good cause, SSI and Social Security benefits
previously denied because of an individual’s status as a fugitive felon.404 previously denied because of an individual’s status as a fugitive felon.404
If an individual receives a government pension from work that was not covered by Social If an individual receives a government pension from work that was not covered by Social
Security, his or her Social Security spousal or widow(er) benefit is reduced by an amount equal to Security, his or her Social Security spousal or widow(er) benefit is reduced by an amount equal to
two-thirds of the noncovered government pension, under a provision known as the GPO. Before two-thirds of the noncovered government pension, under a provision known as the GPO. Before
P.L. 108-203, a state or local government employee who was not covered by Social Security P.L. 108-203, a state or local government employee who was not covered by Social Security
would be exempt from the GPO if he or she worked in a Social Security-covered government would be exempt from the GPO if he or she worked in a Social Security-covered government
position on the position on the last day of employment. That is, under the . That is, under the last day rule, a noncovered state or , a noncovered state or
local government employee could avoid having his or her Social Security spousal or widow(er) local government employee could avoid having his or her Social Security spousal or widow(er)
benefit reduced under the GPO by switching to a Social Security-covered government position benefit reduced under the GPO by switching to a Social Security-covered government position
for one day (or longer). Under the new law, a state or local government employee must be for one day (or longer). Under the new law, a state or local government employee must be
covered by Social Security for at least the covered by Social Security for at least the last 60 calendar months of employment to be exempt to be exempt
from the GPO.405 from the GPO.405
Before P.L. 108-203, a noncitizen was not required to have authorization to work in the United Before P.L. 108-203, a noncitizen was not required to have authorization to work in the United
States at any point to qualify for Social Security benefits. Under the new law, a noncitizen who is States at any point to qualify for Social Security benefits. Under the new law, a noncitizen who is
assigned a SSN in assigned a SSN in 2004 or later is required to have work authorization at the time the SSN is is required to have work authorization at the time the SSN is
assigned, or at some later time, to gain insured status under the Social Security program. assigned, or at some later time, to gain insured status under the Social Security program.
Specifically, if the individual obtains work authorization at some point, Specifically, if the individual obtains work authorization at some point, all of his or her Social of his or her Social

404 For more information on this topic and a related decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 404 For more information on this topic and a related decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in December 2005, see the SSA’s Acquiescence Ruling on the Fowlkes v. Adamec case at https://www.ssa.gov/Circuit in December 2005, see the SSA’s Acquiescence Ruling on the Fowlkes v. Adamec case at https://www.ssa.gov/
OP_Home/rulings/ar/02/AR2006-01-ar-02.html. OP_Home/rulings/ar/02/AR2006-01-ar-02.html.
405 For more information, see CRS Report RL32453, 405 For more information, see CRS Report RL32453, Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO). .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

76 76

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Security-covered earnings count toward qualifying for benefits (all authorized and unauthorized Security-covered earnings count toward qualifying for benefits (all authorized and unauthorized
earnings). If the individual never obtains authorization to work in the United States, earnings). If the individual never obtains authorization to work in the United States, none of his or of his or
her Social Security-covered earnings count toward qualifying for benefits. A noncitizen who was her Social Security-covered earnings count toward qualifying for benefits. A noncitizen who was
assigned an SSN assigned an SSN before 2004 is not subject to the work authorization requirement established is not subject to the work authorization requirement established
under the new law (i.e., all of the individual’s Social Security-covered earnings count toward under the new law (i.e., all of the individual’s Social Security-covered earnings count toward
qualifying for benefits, regardless of his or her work authorization status). qualifying for benefits, regardless of his or her work authorization status).
House Action
On April 2, 2003, the House approved H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2003, On April 2, 2003, the House approved H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2003,
introduced by Representative E. Clay Shaw (R-FL), by a vote of 396 (219-R, 176-D, 1-I) to 28 introduced by Representative E. Clay Shaw (R-FL), by a vote of 396 (219-R, 176-D, 1-I) to 28
(3-R, 25-D).406 (3-R, 25-D).406
Senate Action
On September 17, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment in the nature of On September 17, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 743, as passed by the House, by a voice vote. a substitute to H.R. 743, as passed by the House, by a voice vote.
On December 9, 2003, the Senate approved H.R. 743, with an amendment that substituted for the On December 9, 2003, the Senate approved H.R. 743, with an amendment that substituted for the
version of the bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee, by unanimous consent. version of the bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee, by unanimous consent.
House Response to Senate Action
On February 11, 2004, the House agreed to the Senate version and passed H.R. 743 (renamed the On February 11, 2004, the House agreed to the Senate version and passed H.R. 743 (renamed the
Social Security Protection Act of 2004), by a vote of 402 (221-R, 180-D, 1-I) to 19 (4-R, Social Security Protection Act of 2004), by a vote of 402 (221-R, 180-D, 1-I) to 19 (4-R,
15-D).407 15-D).407
P.L. 111-312, Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization,
and Job Creation Act of 2010
President Obama signed H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, President Obama signed H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization,
and Job Creation Act of 2010, on December 17, 2010. Section 601 of the law reduced, in 2011 and Job Creation Act of 2010, on December 17, 2010. Section 601 of the law reduced, in 2011
only, the Social Security portion of the payroll tax applied to both the wages and salaries of only, the Social Security portion of the payroll tax applied to both the wages and salaries of
FICA-covered workers and to the net earnings of SECA-covered self-employed workers, each by FICA-covered workers and to the net earnings of SECA-covered self-employed workers, each by
two percentage points. The Social Security initiative was just one among other provisions two percentage points. The Social Security initiative was just one among other provisions
included in the legislation intended to stimulate the economy by creating jobs, extending public included in the legislation intended to stimulate the economy by creating jobs, extending public
payments to the unemployed, and providing workers with more disposable income. payments to the unemployed, and providing workers with more disposable income.
The act temporarily reduced the FICA tax rate from 6.2% of covered earnings to 4.2% for The act temporarily reduced the FICA tax rate from 6.2% of covered earnings to 4.2% for
employees, and the SECA tax rate from 12.4% of covered net self-employed earnings to 10.4%. employees, and the SECA tax rate from 12.4% of covered net self-employed earnings to 10.4%.
The law did not change the FICA rate for employers in 2011, which remained at 6.2%. The law did not change the FICA rate for employers in 2011, which remained at 6.2%.
Net revenue to the Social Security trust funds was not affected by P.L. 111-312. Any decline in Net revenue to the Social Security trust funds was not affected by P.L. 111-312. Any decline in
tax revenue in 2011 attributed to the act was covered by appropriate transfers from the General tax revenue in 2011 attributed to the act was covered by appropriate transfers from the General
Fund of the U.S. Treasury. Fund of the U.S. Treasury.

406 406 Congressional Record, daily edition, April 2, 2003, House, Roll call no. 102, not voting 10, pp. H2668-H2669. daily edition, April 2, 2003, House, Roll call no. 102, not voting 10, pp. H2668-H2669.
407 407 Congressional Record, daily edition, February 11, 2004, House, Roll call no. 23, not voting 11, pp. H477-H478. daily edition, February 11, 2004, House, Roll call no. 23, not voting 11, pp. H477-H478.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

77 77

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

House Action
On March 17, 2010, the House approved H.R. 4853, under suspension of the rules by voice vote. On March 17, 2010, the House approved H.R. 4853, under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
The bill, introduced by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), at the time was known as the The bill, introduced by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), at the time was known as the
ultimately unrelated Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. ultimately unrelated Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010.
Senate Action
On September 23, 2010, the Senate passed the bill, with an amendment in the nature of a On September 23, 2010, the Senate passed the bill, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 4853, as passed by the House, by unanimous consent. The Senate’s substitute to H.R. 4853, as passed by the House, by unanimous consent. The Senate’s
amendment, still focused on the aviation industry, was titled the Airport and Airway Extension amendment, still focused on the aviation industry, was titled the Airport and Airway Extension
Act of 2010, Part III. Act of 2010, Part III.
House Action as Amended
After a few days of debate on tax relief and the economy in early December, the House moved to After a few days of debate on tax relief and the economy in early December, the House moved to
strip out all aviation provisions in H.R. 4853 and subsequently used the bill as a vehicle for tax strip out all aviation provisions in H.R. 4853 and subsequently used the bill as a vehicle for tax
relief measures. On December 2, 2010, the House agreed to adopt an amendment to H.R. 4853, as relief measures. On December 2, 2010, the House agreed to adopt an amendment to H.R. 4853, as
amended by the Senate, by a vote of 234 (231-D, 3-R) to 188 (168-R, 20-D).408 amended by the Senate, by a vote of 234 (231-D, 3-R) to 188 (168-R, 20-D).408
Senate Action as Amended
The Senate immediately began deliberation of its version of tax relief in response to the House The Senate immediately began deliberation of its version of tax relief in response to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment of H.R. 4853. On December 9, 2010, the Senate produced a amendment to the Senate amendment of H.R. 4853. On December 9, 2010, the Senate produced a
new substitute to H.R. 4853, in the form of yet another amendment. This version included a new substitute to H.R. 4853, in the form of yet another amendment. This version included a
provision to grant a one year partial payroll tax “holiday” to workers and the self-employed in provision to grant a one year partial payroll tax “holiday” to workers and the self-employed in
2011. The holiday was packaged as a two percentage point reduction in the FICA and SECA 2011. The holiday was packaged as a two percentage point reduction in the FICA and SECA
payroll tax rates. payroll tax rates.
On December 15, 2010, the Senate approved this new version of the bill, by a vote of 81 (43-D, On December 15, 2010, the Senate approved this new version of the bill, by a vote of 81 (43-D,
37-R, 1-I) to 19 (13-D, 5-R, 1-I).409 37-R, 1-I) to 19 (13-D, 5-R, 1-I).409
House Action Approved Amendment
On December 17, 2010, the House approved the latest Senate version of H.R. 4853 (officially, the On December 17, 2010, the House approved the latest Senate version of H.R. 4853 (officially, the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment of H.R. 4853). The House Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment of H.R. 4853). The House
approved the measure by a vote of 277 (139-D, 138-R) to 148 (112-D, 36-R).410 approved the measure by a vote of 277 (139-D, 138-R) to 148 (112-D, 36-R).410
P.L. 112-78, Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011
President Obama signed H.R. 3765, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, on President Obama signed H.R. 3765, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, on
December 23, 2011. Section 101 of the law extended the expiring temporary Social Security December 23, 2011. Section 101 of the law extended the expiring temporary Social Security
payroll tax contribution rates that were provided in P.L. 111-312, the Tax Relief, Unemployment payroll tax contribution rates that were provided in P.L. 111-312, the Tax Relief, Unemployment
Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312), effective in calendar Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312), effective in calendar
year 2011, into calendar year 2012. In addition to the Social Security payroll tax provisions, P.L. year 2011, into calendar year 2012. In addition to the Social Security payroll tax provisions, P.L.
112-78 also included extensions of unemployment insurance and health provisions, as well as 112-78 also included extensions of unemployment insurance and health provisions, as well as
provisions relating to mortgage fees and the construction of a transcontinental oil pipeline. provisions relating to mortgage fees and the construction of a transcontinental oil pipeline.

408 408 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2010, House, Roll call no. 604, not voting 12, pp. H7889-H7890. daily edition, December 2, 2010, House, Roll call no. 604, not voting 12, pp. H7889-H7890.
409 409 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 15, 2010, Senate, Roll call no. 276, p. S10255. daily edition, December 15, 2010, Senate, Roll call no. 276, p. S10255.
410 410 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 17, 2010, House, Roll call no. 647, not voting 8, pp. H8594-H8595. daily edition, December 17, 2010, House, Roll call no. 647, not voting 8, pp. H8594-H8595.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

78 78

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Specifically, the Social Security portion of the payroll tax applied to the covered net earnings of Specifically, the Social Security portion of the payroll tax applied to the covered net earnings of
SECA-covered self-employed workers remained reduced throughout 2012 at 10.4%, down from SECA-covered self-employed workers remained reduced throughout 2012 at 10.4%, down from
the SECA tax rate of 12.4%. The act also extended the 2011 temporary reduction of the FICA tax the SECA tax rate of 12.4%. The act also extended the 2011 temporary reduction of the FICA tax
rate on employee covered earnings from 6.2% to 4.2% through February 2012 only. rate on employee covered earnings from 6.2% to 4.2% through February 2012 only.
Throughout 2011, several proposals were introduced to extend the 2011 temporary payroll tax Throughout 2011, several proposals were introduced to extend the 2011 temporary payroll tax
reductions through calendar year 2012. H.R. 3630 received attention as the vehicle for a year-long reductions through calendar year 2012. H.R. 3630 received attention as the vehicle for a year-long
extension, which had bipartisan and bicameral support, but the bill stalled as respective versions extension, which had bipartisan and bicameral support, but the bill stalled as respective versions
advanced by the House and Senate differed on how to replace revenue lost as a result of the advanced by the House and Senate differed on how to replace revenue lost as a result of the
payroll tax rate reductions. Ultimately, H.R. 3765 emerged as a short-term compromise, and it payroll tax rate reductions. Ultimately, H.R. 3765 emerged as a short-term compromise, and it
extended the payroll tax reductions for two months. The year-long extension of payroll tax cuts extended the payroll tax reductions for two months. The year-long extension of payroll tax cuts
through calendar year 2012 is addressed in the “P.L. 112-96, The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job through calendar year 2012 is addressed in the “P.L. 112-96, The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012” section below, in which Congress revisited H.R. 3630 after the adoption of Creation Act of 2012” section below, in which Congress revisited H.R. 3630 after the adoption of
H.R. 3765 into P.L. 112-78. H.R. 3765 into P.L. 112-78.
House Action
On December 23, 2011, the House approved H.R. 3765, introduced by Representative Dave On December 23, 2011, the House approved H.R. 3765, introduced by Representative Dave
Camp (R-MI) without objection. Camp (R-MI) without objection.
Senate Action
On December 23, 2011, the Senate approved H.R. 3765 by unanimous consent. On December 23, 2011, the Senate approved H.R. 3765 by unanimous consent.
P.L. 112-96, Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
President Obama signed H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, President Obama signed H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,
on February 22, 2012. Section 1001 of the law further extended, through 2012, expiring reduced on February 22, 2012. Section 1001 of the law further extended, through 2012, expiring reduced
Social Security payroll tax contribution rates first provided in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Social Security payroll tax contribution rates first provided in the Tax Relief, Unemployment
Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312). Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312).
The payroll tax rate reductions included in P.L. 113-312 addressed above in the “P.L. 111-312, The payroll tax rate reductions included in P.L. 113-312 addressed above in the “P.L. 111-312,
The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010” The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010”
section, were initially intended to be applied only in 2011. These rate reductions were extended section, were initially intended to be applied only in 2011. These rate reductions were extended
for an additional two months, through February 2012, by the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut for an additional two months, through February 2012, by the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut
Continuation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-78). The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of Continuation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-78). The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012 further extended the rate reductions through the end of calendar year 2012. 2012 further extended the rate reductions through the end of calendar year 2012.
In addition to the Social Security payroll tax provisions, P.L. 112-96 also included extensions of In addition to the Social Security payroll tax provisions, P.L. 112-96 also included extensions of
unemployment insurance, health, and welfare provisions, as well as provisions relating to the unemployment insurance, health, and welfare provisions, as well as provisions relating to the
retirement contributions for federal employees and to public safety programs. retirement contributions for federal employees and to public safety programs.
In the second session of the 112th Congress, the House and Senate came to an agreement on how In the second session of the 112th Congress, the House and Senate came to an agreement on how
to pay for the provisions in H.R. 3630, and the legislation advanced with the filing of a to pay for the provisions in H.R. 3630, and the legislation advanced with the filing of a
conference report on February 16, 2012. The temporary payroll tax rates extended under P.L. 112-conference report on February 16, 2012. The temporary payroll tax rates extended under P.L. 112-
96 expired at the end of 2012. The tax rates returned to 6.2% of covered earnings for employees 96 expired at the end of 2012. The tax rates returned to 6.2% of covered earnings for employees
and 12.4% of covered net earnings for the self-employed in 2013. and 12.4% of covered net earnings for the self-employed in 2013.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

79 79

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

House Action
On December 13, 2011, the House approved H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job On December 13, 2011, the House approved H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2011, introduced by Representative Dave Camp (R-MI), by a vote of 234 (224-R, Creation Act of 2011, introduced by Representative Dave Camp (R-MI), by a vote of 234 (224-R,
10-D) to 193 (14-R, 179-D).411 10-D) to 193 (14-R, 179-D).411
Senate Action
On December 17, 2011, the Senate approved its version of H.R. 3630, as an amendment in the On December 17, 2011, the Senate approved its version of H.R. 3630, as an amendment in the
nature of a substitute and renamed the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 by nature of a substitute and renamed the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 by
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), by a vote of 89 (49-D, 39-R, 1-I) to 10 (2-D, 7-R, 1-I).412 Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), by a vote of 89 (49-D, 39-R, 1-I) to 10 (2-D, 7-R, 1-I).412
House Action as Agreed
On February 17, 2012, the House agreed to the conference report of the bill, now identified as the On February 17, 2012, the House agreed to the conference report of the bill, now identified as the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, by a vote of 293 (147-D, 146-R) to 132 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, by a vote of 293 (147-D, 146-R) to 132
(91-R, 41-D).413 (91-R, 41-D).413
Senate Action as Agreed
On February 17, 2012, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote of 60 (45-D, 14-R, 1- On February 17, 2012, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote of 60 (45-D, 14-R, 1-
I) to 36 (30-R, 5-D, 1-I).414 I) to 36 (30-R, 5-D, 1-I).414
P.L. 113-270, No Social Security for Nazis Act
President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 5739, the No Social Security for Nazis Act, on President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 5739, the No Social Security for Nazis Act, on
December 18, 2014. Before P.L. 113-270, Title II of the Social Security Act provided for the December 18, 2014. Before P.L. 113-270, Title II of the Social Security Act provided for the
termination of Social Security benefits for individuals who were ordered removed due to termination of Social Security benefits for individuals who were ordered removed due to
participation in Nazi persecutions, genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings under Section participation in Nazi persecutions, genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings under Section
237(a)(4)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. SSA was required to terminate benefits for 237(a)(4)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. SSA was required to terminate benefits for
such individuals upon notification that final orders of removal were issued against the such individuals upon notification that final orders of removal were issued against the
individuals.415 Physical removal of the individual from the United States was not a necessary individuals.415 Physical removal of the individual from the United States was not a necessary
condition for the termination of benefits in such cases as it is with all other individuals who have condition for the termination of benefits in such cases as it is with all other individuals who have
been ordered removed; rather, the issuance of a final order of removal was the basis for the been ordered removed; rather, the issuance of a final order of removal was the basis for the
termination of benefits. termination of benefits.
P.L. 113-270 expanded the conditions under which Social Security benefits would be terminated P.L. 113-270 expanded the conditions under which Social Security benefits would be terminated
for those who participated in Nazi persecutions. In addition, under P.L. 113-270, benefits would for those who participated in Nazi persecutions. In addition, under P.L. 113-270, benefits would
be reinstated for those who are ordered removed based on participation in genocide, torture, or be reinstated for those who are ordered removed based on participation in genocide, torture, or
extrajudicial killings until those persons are physically removed. extrajudicial killings until those persons are physically removed.
The act broadened the existing provision of the Social Security Act described above for those The act broadened the existing provision of the Social Security Act described above for those
who participated in Nazi persecutions in response to concerns that certain individuals believed to who participated in Nazi persecutions in response to concerns that certain individuals believed to

411 411 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 13, 2011, House, Roll call no. 923, not voting 6, p. H8824. , daily edition, December 13, 2011, House, Roll call no. 923, not voting 6, p. H8824.
412 412 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 17, 2011, Senate, Roll call no. 232, not voting 1, pp. S8748- , daily edition, December 17, 2011, Senate, Roll call no. 232, not voting 1, pp. S8748-
S87489. S87489.
413 413 Congressional Record, daily edition, February 17, 2012, House, Roll call no. 72, not voting 8, p. H926. , daily edition, February 17, 2012, House, Roll call no. 72, not voting 8, p. H926.
414 414 Congressional Record, daily edition, February 17, 2012, Senate, Roll call no. 22, not voting 4, p. S892. , daily edition, February 17, 2012, Senate, Roll call no. 22, not voting 4, p. S892.
415 For a discussion of the removal process, see CRS Report R43892, 415 For a discussion of the removal process, see CRS Report R43892, Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and
Trends. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

80 80

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

have participated in Nazi persecutions during World War II have been living outside the United have participated in Nazi persecutions during World War II have been living outside the United
States and receiving Social Security benefits. Specifically, concern focused on a small surviving States and receiving Social Security benefits. Specifically, concern focused on a small surviving
group of individuals who had lived in the United States previously and, due to their participation group of individuals who had lived in the United States previously and, due to their participation
in Nazi persecutions, had been under investigation by the Department of Justice and left the in Nazi persecutions, had been under investigation by the Department of Justice and left the
country before being ordered removed.416 Because these individuals left the United States before country before being ordered removed.416 Because these individuals left the United States before
being issued an order of removal, their Social Security benefits were not subject to termination. being issued an order of removal, their Social Security benefits were not subject to termination.
(These individuals would also have met other requirements for the payment of Social Security (These individuals would also have met other requirements for the payment of Social Security
benefits outside the United States.) benefits outside the United States.)
P.L. 113-270 provided for the termination of Social Security benefits for these additional P.L. 113-270 provided for the termination of Social Security benefits for these additional
individuals determined to have participated in Nazi persecutions, and it prohibited them from individuals determined to have participated in Nazi persecutions, and it prohibited them from
receiving Social Security benefits based on another person’s work record. It also clarified the receiving Social Security benefits based on another person’s work record. It also clarified the
timeframe in which the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security must timeframe in which the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security must
notify SSA of certain actions involving these individuals. The change in benefit eligibility for notify SSA of certain actions involving these individuals. The change in benefit eligibility for
those who participated in genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings as a result of P.L. 113-270 those who participated in genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings as a result of P.L. 113-270
(i.e., making the (i.e., making the physical removal of such individuals from the United States a necessary of such individuals from the United States a necessary
condition for the termination of benefits, rather than the condition for the termination of benefits, rather than the issuance of a final order of removal) is ) is
likely an unintended consequence of the legislative language.417 likely an unintended consequence of the legislative language.417
House Action
On December 2, 2014, the House moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5739 by a vote of On December 2, 2014, the House moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5739 by a vote of
420 (228-R, 192-D) to 0.418 420 (228-R, 192-D) to 0.418
Senate Action
On December 4, 2014, H.R. 5739 was passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous On December 4, 2014, H.R. 5739 was passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent. consent.
P.L. 114-74, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
President Barack Obama signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (H.R. 1314) on President Barack Obama signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (H.R. 1314) on
November 2, 2015. The broad budget legislation contained a number of Social Security-related November 2, 2015. The broad budget legislation contained a number of Social Security-related
provisions, including changes to rules that apply when a person files an application for Social provisions, including changes to rules that apply when a person files an application for Social
Security benefits, and a temporary reallocation of Social Security payroll tax revenues from the Security benefits, and a temporary reallocation of Social Security payroll tax revenues from the
OASI Trust Fund to the DI Trust Fund. OASI Trust Fund to the DI Trust Fund.
Changes to Social Security’s Filing Rules
Section 831 of P.L. 114-74 made changes to two types of filing rules: (1) Section 831 of P.L. 114-74 made changes to two types of filing rules: (1) deemed filing and (2) and (2)
the the voluntary suspension of benefits. The changes affect options available to claimants who are . The changes affect options available to claimants who are

416 Such persons were often under Department of Justice investigation, and either had been denaturalized, were going to 416 Such persons were often under Department of Justice investigation, and either had been denaturalized, were going to
be denaturalized, or were going to be placed in removal proceedings. Many chose to renounce their U.S. citizenship be denaturalized, or were going to be placed in removal proceedings. Many chose to renounce their U.S. citizenship
and leave the country rather than being subjected to denaturalization and removal proceedings. and leave the country rather than being subjected to denaturalization and removal proceedings.
417 For related information, see SSA, “Senate Passes H. R. 5739, the No Social Security for Nazis Act,” Social Security 417 For related information, see SSA, “Senate Passes H. R. 5739, the No Social Security for Nazis Act,” Social Security
Legislative Bulletin, Number 113-31, December 5, 2014, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/Legislative Bulletin, Number 113-31, December 5, 2014, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/
legis_bulletin_120514b.html; and SSA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), legis_bulletin_120514b.html; and SSA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Payment of Social Security Benefits to
Individuals Who May Have Participated in Nazi Persecution, Congressional Response Report No. A-09-15-50013, , Congressional Response Report No. A-09-15-50013,
May 2015, at https://oig.ssa.gov/sites/default/files/audit/full/pdf/A-09-15-50013.pdf. May 2015, at https://oig.ssa.gov/sites/default/files/audit/full/pdf/A-09-15-50013.pdf.
418 418 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2014, House, Roll call no. 537, not voting 14, p. H8260. , daily edition, December 2, 2014, House, Roll call no. 537, not voting 14, p. H8260.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

81 81

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

full retirement age (FRA) or older (the FRA ranges from 65 to 67, depending on the person’s year (the FRA ranges from 65 to 67, depending on the person’s year
of birth).419 of birth).419
Deemed Filing
A worker who qualifies for both a retired-worker benefit and a spousal benefit generally cannot A worker who qualifies for both a retired-worker benefit and a spousal benefit generally cannot
restrict his or her application to only one type of benefit. Rather, when the person files for one restrict his or her application to only one type of benefit. Rather, when the person files for one
benefit, he or she is required (or deemed) to file for the other benefit at the same time. The person benefit, he or she is required (or deemed) to file for the other benefit at the same time. The person
becomes simultaneously entitled to a retired-worker benefit and a spousal benefit, and the spousal becomes simultaneously entitled to a retired-worker benefit and a spousal benefit, and the spousal
benefit is reduced under the benefit is reduced under the dual entitlement rule. Under the dual entitlement rule, a person . Under the dual entitlement rule, a person
receives his or her own retired-worker benefit first, plus a spousal benefit that has been reduced receives his or her own retired-worker benefit first, plus a spousal benefit that has been reduced
by the amount of the retired-worker benefit (the spousal benefit may be reduced to zero). In by the amount of the retired-worker benefit (the spousal benefit may be reduced to zero). In
effect, the person receives the higher of the two benefit amounts (not both).420 effect, the person receives the higher of the two benefit amounts (not both).420
Before P.L. 114-74, deemed filing applied only to claimants who are Before P.L. 114-74, deemed filing applied only to claimants who are below FRA. A claimant who . A claimant who
was was FRA or older could file a could file a restricted application for benefits; that is, he or she could file for for benefits; that is, he or she could file for
spousal benefits only, for example, and wait until a later time to file for retired-worker benefits. spousal benefits only, for example, and wait until a later time to file for retired-worker benefits.
This would allow the person to receive a This would allow the person to receive a full spousal benefit now (the dual entitlement rule would spousal benefit now (the dual entitlement rule would
not be applied at this time) and to file for a not be applied at this time) and to file for a higher retired-worker benefit later.421 When the person retired-worker benefit later.421 When the person
filed for his or her own retired-worker benefit later on, the spousal benefit would then be reduced filed for his or her own retired-worker benefit later on, the spousal benefit would then be reduced
under the dual entitlement rule. Some beneficiaries used this “claiming strategy” as a way to under the dual entitlement rule. Some beneficiaries used this “claiming strategy” as a way to
maximize their Social Security retired-worker and spousal benefits. maximize their Social Security retired-worker and spousal benefits.
P.L. 114-74 eliminated the restricted application option for claimants who are FRA or older. Like P.L. 114-74 eliminated the restricted application option for claimants who are FRA or older. Like
claimants who are below FRA, they are deemed to file for both a retired-worker benefit and a claimants who are below FRA, they are deemed to file for both a retired-worker benefit and a
spousal benefit, if eligible for both. The deemed filing change is effective for people born in 1954 spousal benefit, if eligible for both. The deemed filing change is effective for people born in 1954
or later (i.e., people who reach age 62—the age at which one first becomes eligible for retirement or later (i.e., people who reach age 62—the age at which one first becomes eligible for retirement
benefits—on or after January 2, 2016). People born before 1954 (i.e., people who reached age 62 benefits—on or after January 2, 2016). People born before 1954 (i.e., people who reached age 62
before January 2, 2016) are “grandfathered” under the old rules. They can file a restricted before January 2, 2016) are “grandfathered” under the old rules. They can file a restricted
application for spousal benefits only or retired-worker benefits only application for spousal benefits only or retired-worker benefits only when they reach FRA. If they . If they
claim benefits before FRA, they are subject to deemed filing rules. claim benefits before FRA, they are subject to deemed filing rules.
Voluntary Suspension of Benefits
Social Security benefits replace a portion of earnings lost due to the worker’s retirement, Social Security benefits replace a portion of earnings lost due to the worker’s retirement,
disability, or death. Therefore, family members generally cannot claim benefits on a worker’s disability, or death. Therefore, family members generally cannot claim benefits on a worker’s
record if the worker has not claimed benefits. Before P.L. 114-74, a worker who was FRA or record if the worker has not claimed benefits. Before P.L. 114-74, a worker who was FRA or
older could file an application for retired-worker benefits and then request that the benefit older could file an application for retired-worker benefits and then request that the benefit
payments be suspended. This “file and suspend” approach (1) allowed the worker to accrue payments be suspended. This “file and suspend” approach (1) allowed the worker to accrue
delayed retirement credits (DRCs) during the period of voluntary suspension (i.e., his or her delayed retirement credits (DRCs) during the period of voluntary suspension (i.e., his or her
retired-worker benefit would increase 8% per year from FRA up to age 70) and at the same time retired-worker benefit would increase 8% per year from FRA up to age 70) and at the same time
(2) allowed eligible family members (such as a spouse or dependent child) to claim benefits on (2) allowed eligible family members (such as a spouse or dependent child) to claim benefits on
the worker’s record. the worker’s record.

419 A majority of beneficiaries claim benefits before they reach FRA and therefore would not be affected by the 419 A majority of beneficiaries claim benefits before they reach FRA and therefore would not be affected by the
changes to Social Security’s filing rules. changes to Social Security’s filing rules.
420 Deemed filing applies to applications for spousal benefits (including divorced spouse’s benefits), with some 420 Deemed filing applies to applications for spousal benefits (including divorced spouse’s benefits), with some
exceptions. It does not apply if an individual receives a spousal benefit and is also entitled to disability benefits, or if an exceptions. It does not apply if an individual receives a spousal benefit and is also entitled to disability benefits, or if an
individual receives a spousal benefit because he or she is caring for the worker’s eligible child (the child must be under individual receives a spousal benefit because he or she is caring for the worker’s eligible child (the child must be under
the age of 16 or disabled). Finally, deemed filing does not apply to applications for widow(er)’s benefits. the age of 16 or disabled). Finally, deemed filing does not apply to applications for widow(er)’s benefits.
421 Retired-worker benefits are increased 8% per year from FRA up to age 70 based on delayed retirement credits 421 Retired-worker benefits are increased 8% per year from FRA up to age 70 based on delayed retirement credits
(DRCs). (DRCs).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

82 82

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

In addition, a beneficiary who had voluntarily suspended his or her own retired-worker benefit In addition, a beneficiary who had voluntarily suspended his or her own retired-worker benefit
could receive a spousal or widow(er)’s benefit based on another person’s record. A spousal or could receive a spousal or widow(er)’s benefit based on another person’s record. A spousal or
widow(er)’s benefit would be reduced under the dual entitlement rule as if the beneficiary’s own widow(er)’s benefit would be reduced under the dual entitlement rule as if the beneficiary’s own
retired-worker benefit had not been suspended (i.e., the beneficiary could receive any retired-worker benefit had not been suspended (i.e., the beneficiary could receive any excess
spousal or widow(er)’s benefits). A worker could also “unsuspend” his or her benefits on a spousal or widow(er)’s benefits). A worker could also “unsuspend” his or her benefits on a
retroactive basis and receive a lump sum payment for the past-due period. and receive a lump sum payment for the past-due period.
Under P.L. 114-74, a worker who is FRA or older can file for retired-worker benefits and Under P.L. 114-74, a worker who is FRA or older can file for retired-worker benefits and
voluntarily suspend benefits between FRA and age 70 to accrue DRCs (as before). This approach voluntarily suspend benefits between FRA and age 70 to accrue DRCs (as before). This approach
could be used by a beneficiary who claims retired-worker benefits and then returns to work, for could be used by a beneficiary who claims retired-worker benefits and then returns to work, for
example. Under the new rules, however, benefits are no longer payable to eligible family example. Under the new rules, however, benefits are no longer payable to eligible family
members based on the worker’s record during the period of voluntary suspension, with the members based on the worker’s record during the period of voluntary suspension, with the
exception of exception of divorced spouses. A divorced spouse may collect benefits on the worker’s record . A divorced spouse may collect benefits on the worker’s record
during the period of suspension. Widow(er)’s benefits are also payable on the record of a during the period of suspension. Widow(er)’s benefits are also payable on the record of a
deceased worker who had suspended his or her own retired-worker benefits. deceased worker who had suspended his or her own retired-worker benefits.
In addition, a worker can no longer receive benefits based on another person’s record while his or In addition, a worker can no longer receive benefits based on another person’s record while his or
her own retired-worker benefit is suspended; nor can a worker “unsuspend” his or her benefits her own retired-worker benefit is suspended; nor can a worker “unsuspend” his or her benefits
retroactively and receive a lump sum payment. The period of voluntary suspension ends with the retroactively and receive a lump sum payment. The period of voluntary suspension ends with the
earlier of (1) the month before the person turns age 70, or (2) the month following the person’s earlier of (1) the month before the person turns age 70, or (2) the month following the person’s
request to resume benefit payments. The changes apply to requests for the voluntary suspension request to resume benefit payments. The changes apply to requests for the voluntary suspension
of benefits made after April 29, 2016. of benefits made after April 29, 2016.
The changes to Social Security’s filing rules were intended to prevent the use of “claiming The changes to Social Security’s filing rules were intended to prevent the use of “claiming
strategies” viewed as inconsistent with the concept behind Social Security spousal benefits, and strategies” viewed as inconsistent with the concept behind Social Security spousal benefits, and
that otherwise allowed workers and spouses to collect more in Social Security benefits than that otherwise allowed workers and spouses to collect more in Social Security benefits than
Congress intended.422 Before P.L. 114-74, a person who was FRA or older could claim spousal Congress intended.422 Before P.L. 114-74, a person who was FRA or older could claim spousal
benefits only,benefits only, when he or she also qualified for retired-worker benefits. As a result, the person when he or she also qualified for retired-worker benefits. As a result, the person
could receive could receive full spousal benefits for several years, before claiming a higher retired-worker spousal benefits for several years, before claiming a higher retired-worker
benefit and only then being subject to the dual entitlement rule. In addition, the “restricted benefit and only then being subject to the dual entitlement rule. In addition, the “restricted
application” and “file and suspend” options were being used in combination by some married application” and “file and suspend” options were being used in combination by some married
couples, for example, to allow both members of the couple to maximize their own retired-worker couples, for example, to allow both members of the couple to maximize their own retired-worker
benefit (through the accrual of DRCs) and to allow one member of the couple to receive benefit (through the accrual of DRCs) and to allow one member of the couple to receive full
spousal benefits at the same time (by avoiding the dual entitlement rule). spousal benefits at the same time (by avoiding the dual entitlement rule).
Social Security Payroll Tax Reallocation
In July 2015, the Social Security Board of Trustees (the Trustees) released projections showing In July 2015, the Social Security Board of Trustees (the Trustees) released projections showing
that the asset reserves held by the DI Trust Fund would be depleted by the end of calendar year that the asset reserves held by the DI Trust Fund would be depleted by the end of calendar year
2016; had this occurred, Social Security would have been unable to pay disability benefits in full 2016; had this occurred, Social Security would have been unable to pay disability benefits in full
and on time from that point forward.423 Section 833 of P.L. 114-74 provided a temporary and on time from that point forward.423 Section 833 of P.L. 114-74 provided a temporary
reallocation of the Social Security payroll tax rate between the OASI and DI Trust Funds, reallocation of the Social Security payroll tax rate between the OASI and DI Trust Funds,
directing a larger share of total payroll tax revenues to the DI Trust Fund over a three-year period directing a larger share of total payroll tax revenues to the DI Trust Fund over a three-year period
(2016 through 2018). Updated projections following enactment of P.L. 114-74 show that the (2016 through 2018). Updated projections following enactment of P.L. 114-74 show that the
reallocation extends DI Trust Fund solvency from the end of calendar year 2016 to calendar year reallocation extends DI Trust Fund solvency from the end of calendar year 2016 to calendar year

422 These “claiming strategies” were not based on practices explicitly approved by Congress. Rather, they stemmed 422 These “claiming strategies” were not based on practices explicitly approved by Congress. Rather, they stemmed
from interactions between filing rules in place and various legislative changes to the program over time. from interactions between filing rules in place and various legislative changes to the program over time.
423 Projections based on the intermediate assumptions of 423 Projections based on the intermediate assumptions of The 2015 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, July 22, 2015, at , July 22, 2015, at
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2015/tr2015.pdf. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2015/tr2015.pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

83 83

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

2023. The reallocation did not change the year of projected reserve depletion for the OASI Trust 2023. The reallocation did not change the year of projected reserve depletion for the OASI Trust
Fund; it is projected to remain solvent until calendar year 2035.424 Fund; it is projected to remain solvent until calendar year 2035.424
P.L. 114-74 also contained a number of other provisions designed to address fraud and other P.L. 114-74 also contained a number of other provisions designed to address fraud and other
program integrity issues in SSA’s disability programs.425 program integrity issues in SSA’s disability programs.425
On March 4, 2015, Representative Patrick Meehan (PA) introduced H.R. 1314, the Ensuring Tax On March 4, 2015, Representative Patrick Meehan (PA) introduced H.R. 1314, the Ensuring Tax
Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act. At the time, the bill contained no Social Security Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act. At the time, the bill contained no Social Security
provisions. The bill was approved by the House on April 15, 2015, and was moved to the Senate. provisions. The bill was approved by the House on April 15, 2015, and was moved to the Senate.
On May 22, 2015, the Senate passed H.R. 1314, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, On May 22, 2015, the Senate passed H.R. 1314, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
and it was now known as the Trade Act of 2015. After attempts by the House to resolve and it was now known as the Trade Act of 2015. After attempts by the House to resolve
differences with the Senate amendment (which still did not contain Social Security provisions), differences with the Senate amendment (which still did not contain Social Security provisions),
the Trade Act of 2015 was tabled on June 25, 2015. On October 28, 2015, the House reported an the Trade Act of 2015 was tabled on June 25, 2015. On October 28, 2015, the House reported an
amendment to the Senate amendment of H.R. 1314, now titled the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. amendment to the Senate amendment of H.R. 1314, now titled the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.
The version of H.R. 1314 reported in the House amendment included the Social Security tax rate The version of H.R. 1314 reported in the House amendment included the Social Security tax rate
reallocation and the unrelated provisions mentioned above. Details of congressional action prior reallocation and the unrelated provisions mentioned above. Details of congressional action prior
to the bill being renamed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 are not reflected in this report. to the bill being renamed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 are not reflected in this report.
House Action
On October 28, 2015, the House adopted their amendment to H.R. 1314, as amended by the On October 28, 2015, the House adopted their amendment to H.R. 1314, as amended by the
Senate, by a vote of 266 (187-D, 79-R) to 167 (167-R).426 Senate, by a vote of 266 (187-D, 79-R) to 167 (167-R).426
Senate Action
On October 30, 2015, the Senate agreed to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to On October 30, 2015, the Senate agreed to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to
H.R. 1314 by a vote of 64 (44-D, 18-R, 2-I) to 35 (35-R).427 H.R. 1314 by a vote of 64 (44-D, 18-R, 2-I) to 35 (35-R).427
P.L. 115-8, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8
of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social
Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
President Donald Trump signed H.J.Res. 40 on February 28, 2017. Under the Congressional President Donald Trump signed H.J.Res. 40 on February 28, 2017. Under the Congressional
Review Act, the law nullified the “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of Review Act, the law nullified the “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of
2007” rule which was finalized by SSA on December 19, 2016, and had been scheduled to be 2007” rule which was finalized by SSA on December 19, 2016, and had been scheduled to be
implemented as of January 18, 2017.428 The final rule would have required SSA to send the names implemented as of January 18, 2017.428 The final rule would have required SSA to send the names
of individuals meeting certain criteria to the National Instant Criminal History Background Check of individuals meeting certain criteria to the National Instant Criminal History Background Check

424 Projections based on the intermediate assumptions of 424 Projections based on the intermediate assumptions of The 2016 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, June 22, 2016, at , June 22, 2016, at
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/tr2016.pdf. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/tr2016.pdf.
425 For more information, see CRS Report R44250, 425 For more information, see CRS Report R44250, Social Security and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)
Provisions in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. See also SSA, “Congress Passes H.R. 1314, the Bipartisan Budget Act . See also SSA, “Congress Passes H.R. 1314, the Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2015,” Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 114-8, November 3, 2015, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/of 2015,” Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 114-8, November 3, 2015, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/
legis_bulletin_110315.html. legis_bulletin_110315.html.
426 426 Congressional Record, daily edition, October 28, 2015, House, Roll call no. 579, not voting 2, p. H7312. , daily edition, October 28, 2015, House, Roll call no. 579, not voting 2, p. H7312.
427 427 Congressional Record, daily edition, October 30, 2015, House, Roll call no. 294, not voting 1, p. S7674. , daily edition, October 30, 2015, House, Roll call no. 294, not voting 1, p. S7674.
428 SSA, “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007,” 81 428 SSA, “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007,” 81 Federal Register 91702, December 91702, December
19, 2016. 19, 2016.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

84 84

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

System. The criteria included individuals who received benefit payments through a representative System. The criteria included individuals who received benefit payments through a representative
payee because they had been determined to be mentally incapable of managing benefit payments payee because they had been determined to be mentally incapable of managing benefit payments
on their own.429 The proposed rule received over 90,000 comments.430 on their own.429 The proposed rule received over 90,000 comments.430
This law vacated SSA final rule. It also barred SSA from issuing any future rule that would be This law vacated SSA final rule. It also barred SSA from issuing any future rule that would be
“substantially the same” as the vacated rule unless the agency received a new statutory “substantially the same” as the vacated rule unless the agency received a new statutory
authorization to do so.431 authorization to do so.431
In the retraction of the rule, SSA notes that, “Although the final rule had an effective date of In the retraction of the rule, SSA notes that, “Although the final rule had an effective date of
January 18, 2017, we delayed the compliance date of the rule until December 19, 2017 (81 FR at January 18, 2017, we delayed the compliance date of the rule until December 19, 2017 (81 FR at
91720). Therefore, we did not report any records to the National Instant Criminal Background 91720). Therefore, we did not report any records to the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS) pursuant to the final rule.”432 Check System (NICS) pursuant to the final rule.”432
House Action
H.J.Res. 40 was introduced by Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX) on January 30, 2017, and the H.J.Res. 40 was introduced by Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX) on January 30, 2017, and the
House debated the joint resolution on February 2, 2017. Members raised multiple issues, House debated the joint resolution on February 2, 2017. Members raised multiple issues,
including the concern that SSA rule stigmatized those with mental health issues or intellectual including the concern that SSA rule stigmatized those with mental health issues or intellectual
disabilities. They cited letters from several advocacy groups, as well as a letter from the National disabilities. They cited letters from several advocacy groups, as well as a letter from the National
Council on Disability favoring the joint resolution.433 Representatives voicing opposition to the Council on Disability favoring the joint resolution.433 Representatives voicing opposition to the
joint resolution cited several factors including that SSA final rule only impacted a small subset of joint resolution cited several factors including that SSA final rule only impacted a small subset of
beneficiaries and that the joint resolution disregarded the decisionmaking processes of the beneficiaries and that the joint resolution disregarded the decisionmaking processes of the
agency.434 At the conclusion of debate, the resolution was passed by a voice vote. A recorded vote agency.434 At the conclusion of debate, the resolution was passed by a voice vote. A recorded vote
occurred later that afternoon, and H.J.Res. 40 was passed by a vote of 235 (R-229, D-6) to 180 occurred later that afternoon, and H.J.Res. 40 was passed by a vote of 235 (R-229, D-6) to 180
(R-2, D-178).435 (R-2, D-178).435
Senate Action
On February 15, 2017, H.J.Res. 40 was passed by the Senate without amendment by a vote of 57 On February 15, 2017, H.J.Res. 40 was passed by the Senate without amendment by a vote of 57
(R-52, D-4, I-1) to 43 (D-42, I-1).436 (R-52, D-4, I-1) to 43 (D-42, I-1).436
P.L. 115-59, Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017
President Donald Trump signed H.R. 624, the Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of President Donald Trump signed H.R. 624, the Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of
2017, on September 15, 2017. The law included several provisions to limit federal agencies from 2017, on September 15, 2017. The law included several provisions to limit federal agencies from
including an individual’s SSN on documents sent by mail. It requires the head of each CFO437 including an individual’s SSN on documents sent by mail. It requires the head of each CFO437

429 For related information, see SSA, “House Passes H.J.Res. 40, Disapproving the NICS Rule,” Social Security 429 For related information, see SSA, “House Passes H.J.Res. 40, Disapproving the NICS Rule,” Social Security
Legislative Bulletin, Number 115-3, March 2, 2017, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_030217.html. Legislative Bulletin, Number 115-3, March 2, 2017, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_030217.html.
430 SSA, “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007,” 81 430 SSA, “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007,” 81 Federal Register 91702, December 91702, December
19, 2016. Comments for proposed rule are available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=SSA-2016-0011. 19, 2016. Comments for proposed rule are available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=SSA-2016-0011.
431 For more detailed context, consult CRS Report R44752, 431 For more detailed context, consult CRS Report R44752, Gun Control, Mental Incompetency, and Social Security
Administration Final Rule, by William J. Krouse, Scott D. Szymendera, and William R. Morton. , by William J. Krouse, Scott D. Szymendera, and William R. Morton.
432 SSA, “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007,” 82 432 SSA, “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007,” 82 Federal Register 22741, May 18, 22741, May 18,
2017. 2017.
433 The National Council on Disability is an independent federal agency. More information is available at 433 The National Council on Disability is an independent federal agency. More information is available at
https://www.ncd.gov/. https://www.ncd.gov/.
434 House debate, 434 House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 163 (February 2, 2017), pp. H894-H907. daily edition, vol. 163 (February 2, 2017), pp. H894-H907.
435 435 Congressional Record, daily edition, February 2, 2017, House, Roll call no. 77, not voting 17, p. H895. daily edition, February 2, 2017, House, Roll call no. 77, not voting 17, p. H895.
436 436 Congressional Record, daily edition, February 15, 2018, Senate, Roll call no. 66, p. S1169. , daily edition, February 15, 2018, Senate, Roll call no. 66, p. S1169.
437 The term 437 The term CFO Act agency refers to the agencies identified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 31 U.S.C. §901(b). These refers to the agencies identified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 31 U.S.C. §901(b). These
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

85 85

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

(chief financial officer) Act agency to issue regulations no later than five years after enactment, (chief financial officer) Act agency to issue regulations no later than five years after enactment,
which specify the circumstances under which a SSN would be necessary to include on a which specify the circumstances under which a SSN would be necessary to include on a
document sent by mail.438 In addition, it stipulates that each agency must issue several reports document sent by mail.438 In addition, it stipulates that each agency must issue several reports
demonstrating the agency’s progress in removing the SSN from agency documents. The final demonstrating the agency’s progress in removing the SSN from agency documents. The final
report would list any remaining documents produced by the CFO Act agency that continued to report would list any remaining documents produced by the CFO Act agency that continued to
include an SSN. include an SSN.
House Action
H.R. 624 was introduced by Representative David G. Valadao (R-CA) on January 24, 2017. The H.R. 624 was introduced by Representative David G. Valadao (R-CA) on January 24, 2017. The
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform adopted, by voice vote, a substitute Committee on Oversight and Government Reform adopted, by voice vote, a substitute
amendment extending the deadline for issuing regulations from one year to five years on amendment extending the deadline for issuing regulations from one year to five years on
February 14, 2017. The House approved the bill, as amended, under suspension of the rules by a February 14, 2017. The House approved the bill, as amended, under suspension of the rules by a
voice vote on May 24, 2017.439 voice vote on May 24, 2017.439
Senate Action
On September 6, 2017, H.R. 624 was passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous On September 6, 2017, H.R. 624 was passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent.440 consent.440
P.L. 115-165, Strengthening Protections for Social Security
Beneficiaries Act of 2018
President Donald Trump signed H.R. 4547 on April 13, 2018. The law amended Titles II and XVI President Donald Trump signed H.R. 4547 on April 13, 2018. The law amended Titles II and XVI
of the Social Security Act. It was designed to increase oversight of representative payees and of the Social Security Act. It was designed to increase oversight of representative payees and
protect vulnerable beneficiaries.441 The law required SSA to make annual grants to each state’s protect vulnerable beneficiaries.441 The law required SSA to make annual grants to each state’s
protection and advocacy system for the purpose of conducting reviews of representative payees protection and advocacy system for the purpose of conducting reviews of representative payees
under Social Security and SSI. under Social Security and SSI.
Impetus for this law came as details emerged of significant cases of abuse by representative Impetus for this law came as details emerged of significant cases of abuse by representative
payees. In one case, reported by SSA’s Office of Inspector General, a woman in Philadelphia payees. In one case, reported by SSA’s Office of Inspector General, a woman in Philadelphia
imprisoned mentally ill adults and confiscated their Social Security benefits by identifying herself imprisoned mentally ill adults and confiscated their Social Security benefits by identifying herself
as their representative payee.442 This case, and similar ones, led to the publication of two reports as their representative payee.442 This case, and similar ones, led to the publication of two reports
by the Social Security Advisory Board: by the Social Security Advisory Board: Representative Payees: A Call to Action (2016)443 and (2016)443 and
Improving Social Security’s Representative Payee Program (2018).444 The GAO also published a (2018).444 The GAO also published a

can be found at http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title31/subtitle1/chapter9&edition=prelim. can be found at http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title31/subtitle1/chapter9&edition=prelim.
Examples include the Department of Labor, the Department of State, and the Department of Education. Examples include the Department of Labor, the Department of State, and the Department of Education.
438 For related information, see SSA, “President Signs H.R. 624, The Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 438 For related information, see SSA, “President Signs H.R. 624, The Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of
2017”, Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 115-5, September 19, 2017, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2017”, Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 115-5, September 19, 2017, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/
legis_bulletin_091917.html. legis_bulletin_091917.html.
439 439 Congressional Record, daily edition, May 24, 2017, House, p. H4535. daily edition, May 24, 2017, House, p. H4535.
440 440 Congressional Record, daily edition, September 6, 2017, Senate, p. S5020. , daily edition, September 6, 2017, Senate, p. S5020.
441 For related information, see SSA, “President Signs H.R. 4547, the Strengthening Protections for Social Security 441 For related information, see SSA, “President Signs H.R. 4547, the Strengthening Protections for Social Security
Beneficiaries Act of 2018,” Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 115-9, April 24, 2018, at Beneficiaries Act of 2018,” Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 115-9, April 24, 2018, at
https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_042418.html. https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_042418.html.
442 SSA, OIG, “Philadelphia Woman Sentenced to Life in Prison in Racketeering and Hate Crimes Case,” Office of 442 SSA, OIG, “Philadelphia Woman Sentenced to Life in Prison in Racketeering and Hate Crimes Case,” Office of
Investigations, November 5, 2015, at https://oig.ssa.gov/audits-and-investigations/investigations/nov5-weston-sentence. Investigations, November 5, 2015, at https://oig.ssa.gov/audits-and-investigations/investigations/nov5-weston-sentence.
443 Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB), 443 Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB), Representative Payees: A Call to Action, Issue Brief, March 3, 20167, at , Issue Brief, March 3, 20167, at
https://www.ssab.gov/research/representative-payees-a-call-to-action/ https://www.ssab.gov/research/representative-payees-a-call-to-action/
444 SSAB, 444 SSAB, Improving Social Security’s Representative Payee Program Report, January 11, 2018, at , January 11, 2018, at
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

86 86

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

report, report, SSA Representative Payee Program: Addressing Long-Term Challenges Requires a More
Strategic Approach (2013).445 (2013).445
The Social Security Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means held hearings in The Social Security Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means held hearings in
2017 on the representative payee program, including 2017 on the representative payee program, including Examining the Social Security
Administration’s Representative Payee Program: Determining Who Needs Help on February 7, on February 7,
2017,446 and 2017,446 and Examining the Social Security Administration’s Representative Payee Program: Who
Provides Help on March 22, 2017.447 on March 22, 2017.447
P.L. 115-165 included a provision designed to enhance personal control by allowing beneficiaries P.L. 115-165 included a provision designed to enhance personal control by allowing beneficiaries
to designate their preferred payee in advance. It directed SSA to take a greater role in assessing to designate their preferred payee in advance. It directed SSA to take a greater role in assessing
the appropriateness of representative payees, and banned individuals with certain criminal the appropriateness of representative payees, and banned individuals with certain criminal
convictions from serving as payees. In addition, it prohibited individuals who have a payee from convictions from serving as payees. In addition, it prohibited individuals who have a payee from
serving as a payee for others. serving as a payee for others.
House Action
H.R. 4547 was introduced on December 5, 2017, by Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX). It was H.R. 4547 was introduced on December 5, 2017, by Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX). It was
referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. On February 5, 2018, the House moved to referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. On February 5, 2018, the House moved to
suspend the rules and passed H.R. 4547, as amended, by a vote of 396 (225-R, 171-D) to 0.448 suspend the rules and passed H.R. 4547, as amended, by a vote of 396 (225-R, 171-D) to 0.448
Senate Action
On March 23, 2018, the Senate passed the House bill without amendment by unanimous On March 23, 2018, the Senate passed the House bill without amendment by unanimous
consent.449 consent.449
P.L. 115-243, Tribal Social Security Fairness Act of 2018
President Donald Trump signed H.R. 6124, the Tribal Social Security Fairness Act of 2018, on President Donald Trump signed H.R. 6124, the Tribal Social Security Fairness Act of 2018, on
September 20, 2018. The law amended Title II of the Social Security Act and directed SSA to September 20, 2018. The law amended Title II of the Social Security Act and directed SSA to
extend OASDI benefits to tribal council leaders, if requested to do so by an Indian tribe. The law extend OASDI benefits to tribal council leaders, if requested to do so by an Indian tribe. The law
also allowed tribal council members to receive Social Security credit for taxes paid prior to the also allowed tribal council members to receive Social Security credit for taxes paid prior to the
establishment of the agreement, if taxes were paid in good faith and not subsequently refunded. It establishment of the agreement, if taxes were paid in good faith and not subsequently refunded. It
reversed an SSA policy that prevented tribal leaders from being covered under the Social Security reversed an SSA policy that prevented tribal leaders from being covered under the Social Security
program.450 program.450

https://www.ssab.gov/research/improving-social-securitys-representative-payee-program/. https://www.ssab.gov/research/improving-social-securitys-representative-payee-program/.
445 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 445 U.S. Government Accountability Office, SSA Representative Payee Program: Addressing Long-Term Challenges
Requires a More Strategic Approach, GAO-13-473, May 2013, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654893.pdf. , GAO-13-473, May 2013, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654893.pdf.
446 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittees on Social Security and Oversight, 446 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittees on Social Security and Oversight, Joint
Hearing on Social Security’s Representative Payee Program, hearing, 115th Cong., 1st sess., February 7, 2017, H.Hrg. , hearing, 115th Cong., 1st sess., February 7, 2017, H.Hrg.
115-SS01, at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/WM/WM01/20170207/105525/HHRG-115-WM01-20170207-115-SS01, at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/WM/WM01/20170207/105525/HHRG-115-WM01-20170207-
SD001.pdf. SD001.pdf.
447 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittees on Oversight and Social Security, 447 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittees on Oversight and Social Security, Joint
Hearing on Social Security’s Representative Payee Program, hearing, 115th Cong., 1st sess., March 22, 2017, H.Hrg. , hearing, 115th Cong., 1st sess., March 22, 2017, H.Hrg.
115-OS02 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2019), at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg33365/pdf/CHRG-115-OS02 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2019), at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg33365/pdf/CHRG-
115hhrg33365.pdf. 115hhrg33365.pdf.
448 448 Congressional Record,, daily edition, February 5, 2018, House, Roll call no. 51, not voting 34, pp. H762-H763. daily edition, February 5, 2018, House, Roll call no. 51, not voting 34, pp. H762-H763.
Amendments to the bill included a change in the Short Title and new reporting requirements.Amendments to the bill included a change in the Short Title and new reporting requirements.
449 449 Congressional Record,, daily edition, March 22, 2018, Senate, p. S1982. daily edition, March 22, 2018, Senate, p. S1982.
450 The prior policy can be found in the SSA, Program Operations Manual System, Section RS 01901.700 (accessed 450 The prior policy can be found in the SSA, Program Operations Manual System, Section RS 01901.700 (accessed
12/18/2018) stating, “Services Performed by Members of Indian Tribal Councils: Services performed by members of 12/18/2018) stating, “Services Performed by Members of Indian Tribal Councils: Services performed by members of
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

87 87

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

House Action
H.R. 6124 was introduced by Representative Dave Reichert (R-WA) on June 15, 2018. An H.R. 6124 was introduced by Representative Dave Reichert (R-WA) on June 15, 2018. An
amendment in the nature of a substitute was presented in the Committee on Ways and Means by amendment in the nature of a substitute was presented in the Committee on Ways and Means by
Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX). The substitute amendment was adopted by a voice vote in Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX). The substitute amendment was adopted by a voice vote in
committee on June 21, 2018. committee on June 21, 2018.
H.R. 6124, as amended, was considered by the House under suspension of the rules and passed by H.R. 6124, as amended, was considered by the House under suspension of the rules and passed by
a voice vote on July 24, 2018.451 a voice vote on July 24, 2018.451
Senate Action
On September 6, 2018, the House bill passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous On September 6, 2018, the House bill passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent.452 consent.452
P.L. 115-174, Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act
President Donald Trump signed S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and President Donald Trump signed S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and
Consumer Protection Act, on May 24, 2018. Section 215 required SSA to accept the electronic Consumer Protection Act, on May 24, 2018. Section 215 required SSA to accept the electronic
signature of an individual who consents to allow a financial institution to verify his or her name, signature of an individual who consents to allow a financial institution to verify his or her name,
date of birth, and SSN using SSA’s Consent Based Social Security Number Verification (CBSV) date of birth, and SSN using SSA’s Consent Based Social Security Number Verification (CBSV)
Service.453 Service.453
Some identity thieves use a technique called synthetic identity theft in which they apply for credit Some identity thieves use a technique called synthetic identity theft in which they apply for credit
using a mixture of real, verifiable information of an existing person with fictitious information, using a mixture of real, verifiable information of an existing person with fictitious information,
thus creating a “synthetic” identity. Often the information includes real SSNs of people who are thus creating a “synthetic” identity. Often the information includes real SSNs of people who are
unlikely to have existing credit files, such as children or recent immigrants.454 CBSV was created unlikely to have existing credit files, such as children or recent immigrants.454 CBSV was created
to fight identity fraud such as this, but prior to the enactment of P.L. 115-174 it required financial to fight identity fraud such as this, but prior to the enactment of P.L. 115-174 it required financial
institutions to obtain a physical written signature to make a verification request. Some observers institutions to obtain a physical written signature to make a verification request. Some observers
believed this requirement was outdated and time consuming, undermining the effectiveness of the believed this requirement was outdated and time consuming, undermining the effectiveness of the
program.455 Section 215 aimed to modernize SSA’s verification system and make it more efficient program.455 Section 215 aimed to modernize SSA’s verification system and make it more efficient
by allowing the use of electronic signatures. by allowing the use of electronic signatures.
Section 215 directed SSA to allow certain financial institutions to receive customers’ consent by Section 215 directed SSA to allow certain financial institutions to receive customers’ consent by
electronic signature to verify their name, date of birth, and SSN with SSA. In addition, the section electronic signature to verify their name, date of birth, and SSN with SSA. In addition, the section

Indian tribal councils in their capacities as council members do not constitute employment under Section 210 of the Indian tribal councils in their capacities as council members do not constitute employment under Section 210 of the
Social Security Act. Therefore, remuneration paid to Indian tribal council members is not subject to taxation under the Social Security Act. Therefore, remuneration paid to Indian tribal council members is not subject to taxation under the
Federal Insurance Contributions Act and their services are not covered under Social Security and Medicare.” Federal Insurance Contributions Act and their services are not covered under Social Security and Medicare.”
451 451 Congressional Record, daily edition, July 4, 2018, House, p. H7118. daily edition, July 4, 2018, House, p. H7118.
452 452 Congressional Record, daily edition, September 6, 2018, Senate, p. S6103.daily edition, September 6, 2018, Senate, p. S6103.
453 For related information, see SSA, “Senate Passes S.2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer 453 For related information, see SSA, “Senate Passes S.2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act,”Protection Act,” Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 115-8, March 29, 2018, at https://www.ssa.gov/Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 115-8, March 29, 2018, at https://www.ssa.gov/
legislation/legis_bulletin_032918.html. legislation/legis_bulletin_032918.html.
454 Representative Randy Hultgren, “How to Better Combat Identity Fraud,” 454 Representative Randy Hultgren, “How to Better Combat Identity Fraud,” Crain’s Chicago Business, March 9, 2018. , March 9, 2018.
455 Letter from Senators Bill Cassidy, Tim Scott, Claire McCaskill and Gary Peters, to Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting 455 Letter from Senators Bill Cassidy, Tim Scott, Claire McCaskill and Gary Peters, to Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, February 12, 2018, at https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Commissioner of Social Security, February 12, 2018, at https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
Synthetic%20Identity%20Fraud.pdf. Synthetic%20Identity%20Fraud.pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

88 88

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

directed SSA to modify their databases and systems to allow financial institutions to directed SSA to modify their databases and systems to allow financial institutions to
electronically and quickly request and receive accurate verification of the consumer data.456 electronically and quickly request and receive accurate verification of the consumer data.456
Senate Action
Senator Mike Crapo introduced S. 2155 on November 16, 2017. As introduced, the bill did not Senator Mike Crapo introduced S. 2155 on November 16, 2017. As introduced, the bill did not
include any Social Security provisions. S.Amdt. 2151, an amendment in the nature of a substitute, include any Social Security provisions. S.Amdt. 2151, an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
which included the Social Security provisions in Section 215, was offered on the Senate floor on which included the Social Security provisions in Section 215, was offered on the Senate floor on
March 7, 2018.457 During floor debate, Senator Tim Scott identified himself as the author of the March 7, 2018.457 During floor debate, Senator Tim Scott identified himself as the author of the
provisions in Section 215.458 Senator Scott explained that the purpose of Section 215 was to provisions in Section 215.458 Senator Scott explained that the purpose of Section 215 was to
reduce synthetic identity theft by providing options for entities to crosscheck consumer reduce synthetic identity theft by providing options for entities to crosscheck consumer
information with SSA. Senator Scott also expressed his expectation that the database that SSA information with SSA. Senator Scott also expressed his expectation that the database that SSA
would create to allow this cross check to occur would be operational within one year of would create to allow this cross check to occur would be operational within one year of
enactment. enactment.
S.Amdt. 2151, as modified, passed the Senate by a roll call vote of 67 (R-50, D-16, I-1) to 31(D- S.Amdt. 2151, as modified, passed the Senate by a roll call vote of 67 (R-50, D-16, I-1) to 31(D-
30, I-1) on March 14, 2018.459 30, I-1) on March 14, 2018.459
House Action
On May 22, 2018, the House passed the Senate version of the bill in a roll call vote of 258 (R- On May 22, 2018, the House passed the Senate version of the bill in a roll call vote of 258 (R-
225, D-33) to 159 (R-1, D-158).460 225, D-33) to 159 (R-1, D-158).460
P.L. 116-250, ALS Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019
President Donald Trump signed S. 578 on December 22, 2020. The law eliminates the five-month President Donald Trump signed S. 578 on December 22, 2020. The law eliminates the five-month
waiting period for disability insurance benefits for disabled workers with amyotrophic lateral waiting period for disability insurance benefits for disabled workers with amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease).461 sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease).461
Under its Compassionate Allowances (CAL) initiative, SSA expedites claims involving certain Under its Compassionate Allowances (CAL) initiative, SSA expedites claims involving certain
impairments that invariably meet DI’s disability standard, including ALS. The average processing impairments that invariably meet DI’s disability standard, including ALS. The average processing
time for CAL claims is 39 days, compared with 110-114 days for all initial disability claims.462 time for CAL claims is 39 days, compared with 110-114 days for all initial disability claims.462
However, this fast-track process has no effect on the five-month waiting period. Thus, upon However, this fast-track process has no effect on the five-month waiting period. Thus, upon
receiving an award notice from SSA, most ALS disabled workers were required to wait the receiving an award notice from SSA, most ALS disabled workers were required to wait the
remainder of the five-month period before becoming entitled to disability insurance benefits. remainder of the five-month period before becoming entitled to disability insurance benefits.
P.L. 116-250 amends Title II of the Social Security Act to specify that an individual who meets P.L. 116-250 amends Title II of the Social Security Act to specify that an individual who meets
the requirements for disability insurance benefits and who is medically determined to have ALS the requirements for disability insurance benefits and who is medically determined to have ALS

456 This overview was adapted from CRS Report R45073, 456 This overview was adapted from CRS Report R45073, Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act (P.L. 115-174) and Selected Policy Issues. .
457 457 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 8, 2018, Senate, pp. S1529-S1565. daily edition, March 8, 2018, Senate, pp. S1529-S1565.
458 458 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 14, 2018, Senate, p. S1714. , daily edition, March 14, 2018, Senate, p. S1714.
459 459 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 14, 2018, Senate, Roll call no. 54, not voting 2, p. S1730. daily edition, March 14, 2018, Senate, Roll call no. 54, not voting 2, p. S1730.
460 460 Congressional Record, daily edition, May 22, 2018, House, Roll call no. 216, not voting 10, p. H4367. daily edition, May 22, 2018, House, Roll call no. 216, not voting 10, p. H4367.
461 For related information, see SSA, “President Signs S.578, the “ALS Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019,”461 For related information, see SSA, “President Signs S.578, the “ALS Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019,”
Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 116-26, December 28, 2020, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 116-26, December 28, 2020, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/
legis_bulletin_122220.html. legis_bulletin_122220.html.
462 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security, 462 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security, Determining Eligibility
for Disability Benefits: Challenges Facing the Social Security Administration, hearing, 115th Congress, 1st sess., , hearing, 115th Congress, 1st sess.,
September 6, 2017 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2017), p. 82, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-September 6, 2017 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2017), p. 82, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-
115hhrg33616/pdf/CHRG-115hhrg33616.pdf. 115hhrg33616/pdf/CHRG-115hhrg33616.pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

89 89

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

shall be entitled to such benefits beginning with the first month during all of which the individual shall be entitled to such benefits beginning with the first month during all of which the individual
is under a disability.is under a disability.463 In effect, the law eliminates the five-month waiting period for disabled In effect, the law eliminates the five-month waiting period for disabled
workers with ALS.workers with ALS. ~~This provision applies to claims filed after the date of enactment.463~~464
Senate Action
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced S. 578 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced S. 578 on February 27, 2019. on February 27, 2019.
On December 2, 2020, the Senate proceeded to consider S. 578. Senator Mitch McConnell On December 2, 2020, the Senate proceeded to consider S. 578. Senator Mitch McConnell
offered an amendment, S.Amdt. 2689, on behalf of Senator Charles Grassley to increase the offered an amendment, S.Amdt. 2689, on behalf of Senator Charles Grassley to increase the
Social Security overpayment collection threshold from $10 to 10% of benefits, which was a Social Security overpayment collection threshold from $10 to 10% of benefits, which was a
proposal in the President’s FY2021 budget.proposal in the President’s FY2021 budget.~~464~~465 Senator Grassley noted that the amendment was Senator Grassley noted that the amendment was
designed to offset the bill’s cost as well as possible future costs from similar waivers that designed to offset the bill’s cost as well as possible future costs from similar waivers that
lawmakers might one day provide for other types of impairments. S.Amdt. 2689 was defeated by lawmakers might one day provide for other types of impairments. S.Amdt. 2689 was defeated by
a vote of 48 (R-48, D-0) to 49 (R-3, D-45, I-1).a vote of 48 (R-48, D-0) to 49 (R-3, D-45, I-1).~~465~~466 The Senate then passed S. 578 by a roll call The Senate then passed S. 578 by a roll call
vote of 96 (R-51, D-44, I-1) to 1 (R-1).vote of 96 (R-51, D-44, I-1) to 1 (R-1).~~466~~467
In justifying his vote against the bill, Senator Mike Lee stated he supported eliminating In justifying his vote against the bill, Senator Mike Lee stated he supported eliminating the the
waiting period for ALS patients, but he believed the bill’s provisions should have been extended waiting period for ALS patients, but he believed the bill’s provisions should have been extended
to individuals with other incurable and fatal diseases, some of which have lower average life to individuals with other incurable and fatal diseases, some of which have lower average life
expectancies than ALS.expectancies than ALS.~~467~~468
House Action
On December 8, 2020, the House proceeded to consider S. 578. After multiple members shared On December 8, 2020, the House proceeded to consider S. 578. After multiple members shared
testimonials to express support of the bill, the House passed the Senate version of the bill by testimonials to express support of the bill, the House passed the Senate version of the bill by
voice vote, under suspension of the rules.voice vote, under suspension of the rules.~~468~~469
P.L. 116-260, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
On December 27, 2020, President Trump signed H.R. 133, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, On December 27, 2020, President Trump signed H.R. 133, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021, which combines FY2021 appropriations with stimulus and other measures. Division FF, 2021, which combines FY2021 appropriations with stimulus and other measures. Division FF,
Title VIII, Section 801, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (“Access to Death Title VIII, Section 801, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (“Access to Death
Information Furnished to or Maintained by the Social Security Administration”), amends Section Information Furnished to or Maintained by the Social Security Administration”), amends Section
205(r) of the Social Security Act to ensure that states and SSA are reimbursed for state death 205(r) of the Social Security Act to ensure that states and SSA are reimbursed for state death
information, and to require SSA to share state death information with the Department of the information, and to require SSA to share state death information with the Department of the
Treasury for its Do Not Pay (DNP) system.Treasury for its Do Not Pay (DNP) system.~~469~~
~~The amendments to Section 205(r) require SSA to establish a new fee structure for SSA to pay~~
~~states for death data and require agencies receiving death data from SSA to reimburse SSA for~~

~~463 This overview was adapted from CRS Insight IN11551, The ALS Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019 (S. 578).~~
~~464 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2020, Senate, p. S7157.~~
~~465~~470 463 This overview was adapted from CRS Insight IN11551, The ALS Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019 (S. 578). 464 P.L. 117-3 made a technical correction to the effective date established by P.L. 116-250. Initially, P.L. 116-250 eliminated the five-month waiting period for disabled workers with ALS who apply for benefits on or after December 23, 2020. P.L. 117-3 amended P.L. 116-250 to eliminate the five-month waiting period for disabled workers with ALS who are approved for benefits on or after July 23, 2020. The technical correction was designed to capture those disabled workers with ALS who applied for benefits on or before the date of P.L. 116-250’s enactment (December 22, 2020) but who were still subject to the five-month waiting period requirement when the legislation was signed into law. 465 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2020, Senate, p. S7157. 466 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2020, Senate, Roll call no. 249, not voting 3, p. S7163. daily edition, December 2, 2020, Senate, Roll call no. 249, not voting 3, p. S7163.
~~466~~467 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2020, Senate, Roll call no. 250, not voting 3, p. S7164. , daily edition, December 2, 2020, Senate, Roll call no. 250, not voting 3, p. S7164.
~~467~~468 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2020, Senate, p. S7169. daily edition, December 2, 2020, Senate, p. S7169.
~~468~~469 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 8, 2020, House, pp. H6988-H6991. daily edition, December 8, 2020, House, pp. H6988-H6991.
~~469~~470 For related information, see SSA, “President Signs the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021,” For related information, see SSA, “President Signs the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021,” Social Security Social Security
~~Legislative Bulletin, Number 116-27, December 28, 2020, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/~~
~~legis_bulletin_122720.html.~~
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

90 90

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

The amendments to Section 205(r) require SSA to establish a new fee structure for SSA to pay states for death data and require agencies receiving death data from SSA to reimburse SSA for their proportional share of the cost of obtaining the data and the full cost of sharing the data.their proportional share of the cost of obtaining the data and the full cost of sharing the data.~~470~~471
Under this law, SSA payments to states shall include additional fees to pay for the expanded Under this law, SSA payments to states shall include additional fees to pay for the expanded
federal use of state death data and will reimburse a share of the costs to the state for the following federal use of state death data and will reimburse a share of the costs to the state for the following
activities: (1) collecting and maintaining death data; (2) ensuring the completeness, timeliness, activities: (1) collecting and maintaining death data; (2) ensuring the completeness, timeliness,
and accuracy of death data; and (3) maintaining, enhancing, and operating the systems for and accuracy of death data; and (3) maintaining, enhancing, and operating the systems for
transmitting death data to SSA. The law does not permit SSA to use funds from its Limitations on transmitting death data to SSA. The law does not permit SSA to use funds from its Limitations on
Administrative Expenses appropriation for payments to the states, except as determined by the Administrative Expenses appropriation for payments to the states, except as determined by the
Commissioner of Social Security on a temporary basis and subject to reimbursement from Commissioner of Social Security on a temporary basis and subject to reimbursement from
agencies that receive death data from SSA. agencies that receive death data from SSA.
Under this law, reimbursement to SSA from agencies that receive death data from SSA is required Under this law, reimbursement to SSA from agencies that receive death data from SSA is required
to consist of the recipient agency’s share of the following costs, as determined by the to consist of the recipient agency’s share of the following costs, as determined by the
Commissioner of Social Security in consultation with the head of the recipient agency: (1) SSA’s Commissioner of Social Security in consultation with the head of the recipient agency: (1) SSA’s
payments to the states to obtain the data, (2) the cost to SSA of establishing death data contracts payments to the states to obtain the data, (2) the cost to SSA of establishing death data contracts
with the states, and (3) the cost to SSA of carrying out a new study on options for obtaining and with the states, and (3) the cost to SSA of carrying out a new study on options for obtaining and
distributing death data (described below). The provision requires the recipient agency to distributing death data (described below). The provision requires the recipient agency to
reimburse SSA for the full cost to SSA of transmitting death data to the recipient agency. The reimburse SSA for the full cost to SSA of transmitting death data to the recipient agency. The
same reimbursement requirement applies to agencies that receive death data from SSA for same reimbursement requirement applies to agencies that receive death data from SSA for
statistical and research purposes. statistical and research purposes.
The provision authorizes SSA to notify states and affected individuals of corrections to erroneous The provision authorizes SSA to notify states and affected individuals of corrections to erroneous
deaths and requires SSA to share its full file of death information (including state-reported death deaths and requires SSA to share its full file of death information (including state-reported death
data) with DNP to prevent improper payments to deceased individuals. The provision specifies data) with DNP to prevent improper payments to deceased individuals. The provision specifies
that data sharing with DNP will take place for a three-year period beginning three years after that data sharing with DNP will take place for a three-year period beginning three years after
enactment. Death data sharing arrangements between SSA and DNP after the three-year period enactment. Death data sharing arrangements between SSA and DNP after the three-year period
ends are not specified. ends are not specified.
In addition, the legislation includes a requirement for SSA to commission a study, within 180 In addition, the legislation includes a requirement for SSA to commission a study, within 180
days of enactment, to be conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration of the days of enactment, to be conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration of the
current and potential sources for, and provision of access to, state death data for use by federal current and potential sources for, and provision of access to, state death data for use by federal
agencies for program administration and program integrity purposes. The study is to assess the agencies for program administration and program integrity purposes. The study is to assess the
strengths and limitations of options for distributing state-reported death data to federal agencies, strengths and limitations of options for distributing state-reported death data to federal agencies,
including distribution via SSA as well as federal agencies contracting directly with states, and including distribution via SSA as well as federal agencies contracting directly with states, and
shall also address options for reimbursement structures. Although the act does not specify a due shall also address options for reimbursement structures. Although the act does not specify a due
date, SSA is required to transmit the completed study to the House Committees on Ways and date, SSA is required to transmit the completed study to the House Committees on Ways and
Means and Oversight and Reform and the Senate Committees on Finance and Homeland Security Means and Oversight and Reform and the Senate Committees on Finance and Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs. and Governmental Affairs.
House Action
Representative Cuellar introduced H.R. 133 on January 3, 2019. As introduced, the bill did not Representative Cuellar introduced H.R. 133 on January 3, 2019. As introduced, the bill did not
include any Social Security provisions. The final version of the provision, “Access to Death include any Social Security provisions. The final version of the provision, “Access to Death
Information Furnished to or Maintained by the Social Security Administration,” was introduced Information Furnished to or Maintained by the Social Security Administration,” was introduced
as part of a House amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 133 as part of a House amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 133
~~on December 21, 2020, by Representative Nita Lowey.471 The House amendment in the nature of~~
~~a substitute included the provision, “Access to Death Information Furnished to or Maintained by~~

~~470~~ Legislative Bulletin, Number 116-27, December 28, 2020, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_122720.html. 471 This overview was adapted from CRS Report R46640, This overview was adapted from CRS Report R46640, The Social Security Administration’s Death Data:
~~In Brief~~.
471 Congressional Record~~, daily edition, December 21, 2020, House, p. H7301~~In Brief, by Paul S. Davies. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

91 91

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

on December 21, 2020, by Representative Nita Lowey.472 The House amendment in the nature of a substitute included the provision, “Access to Death Information Furnished to or Maintained by the Social Security Administration” in Division FF, Title VIII.the Social Security Administration” in Division FF, Title VIII.~~472~~473 The House voted three times on The House voted three times on
the bill. The first vote was a vote limited to Divisions B, C, E, and F. The vote asked, “Will the the bill. The first vote was a vote limited to Divisions B, C, E, and F. The vote asked, “Will the
House concur in the Senate amendment with the matter proposed to be inserted as Divisions B, C, House concur in the Senate amendment with the matter proposed to be inserted as Divisions B, C,
E, and F of the amendment of the House?” This vote did not involve any Social Security E, and F of the amendment of the House?” This vote did not involve any Social Security
provisions and passed, 327 (R-134, D-192, I-1) to 85 (R-43, D-41, I-1).provisions and passed, 327 (R-134, D-192, I-1) to 85 (R-43, D-41, I-1). ~~473~~474 The second vote The second vote
addressed, “Will the House concur in the Senate amendment with all of the matter proposed to be addressed, “Will the House concur in the Senate amendment with all of the matter proposed to be
inserted by the amendment of the House inserted by the amendment of the House other than Divisions B, C, E, and F?” (emphasis added). Divisions B, C, E, and F?” (emphasis added).
This vote included Division FF, which included the Social Security provisions. It passed, 359 (R-This vote included Division FF, which included the Social Security provisions. It passed, 359 (R-
128, D-230, I-1) to 53 (R-50, D-2, I-1).128, D-230, I-1) to 53 (R-50, D-2, I-1).~~474~~475 The third vote addressed whether the House agreed to The third vote addressed whether the House agreed to
an amendment to the Senate amendment and was agreed to without objection.an amendment to the Senate amendment and was agreed to without objection.~~475~~476
Senate Action
On December 21, 2020, the Senate passed the House amendment to the Senate amendment to On December 21, 2020, the Senate passed the House amendment to the Senate amendment to
H.R. 133, 92 (R-47, D-43, I-2) to 6 (R-6, D-0).H.R. 133, 92 (R-47, D-43, I-2) to 6 (R-6, D-0).~~476~~477

472 472 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 21, 2020, daily edition, December 21, 2020, House, p. H7301. 473 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 21, 2020, House, pp. H7852-H7853. Also at U.S. Congress, House , House, pp. H7852-H7853. Also at U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Rules, Committee on Rules, Text of the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 133 (showing the text of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021), committee print, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., December 21, 2020, Rules Committee , committee print, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., December 21, 2020, Rules Committee
Print 116-68 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2020), at https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-Print 116-68 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2020), at https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-
116HR133SA-RCP-116-68.pdf 116HR133SA-RCP-116-68.pdf
~~473~~474 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 21, 2020, House, Roll call no. 250, not voting 18, p. H7313. daily edition, December 21, 2020, House, Roll call no. 250, not voting 18, p. H7313.
~~474~~475 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 21, 2020, House, Roll call no. 251, not voting 17, p. H7314. daily edition, December 21, 2020, House, Roll call no. 251, not voting 17, p. H7314.
~~475~~476 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 21, 2020, House, pp. H7323-H7878. daily edition, December 21, 2020, House, pp. H7323-H7878.
~~476~~477.. Congressional Record, daily edition, December 21, 2020, Senate, Roll call no. 289, not voting 2, p. S7927. daily edition, December 21, 2020, Senate, Roll call no. 289, not voting 2, p. S7927.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

92 92

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

Appendix. List of Acronyms
Acronym
Description
AMA
American Medical Association American Medical Association
CBSV
Consent Based Social Security Number Verification Consent Based Social Security Number Verification
COLA
Cost-of-Living Adjustment Cost-of-Living Adjustment
DHHS
Department of Health and Human Services Department of Health and Human Services
DI
Disability Insurance Disability Insurance
DNP
Do Not Pay Do Not Pay
DRC
Delayed Retirement Credit Delayed Retirement Credit
FICA
Federal Insurance Contributions Act Federal Insurance Contributions Act
FRA
Ful Retirement Age Ful Retirement Age
FSA
Federal Security Agency Federal Security Agency
GAO
Government Accountability Office Government Accountability Office
GPO
Government Pension Offset Government Pension Offset
GRH
Gramm-Rudman-Hol ings Gramm-Rudman-Hol ings
HI
Hospital Insurance Hospital Insurance
NICS
National Instant Criminal Background Check System National Instant Criminal Background Check System
OAA
Old-Age Assistance Old-Age Assistance
OASDI
Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (also referred to as Social Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (also referred to as Social
Security) Security)
OASI
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
PIA
Primary Insurance Amount Primary Insurance Amount
SECA
Self-Employed Contributions Act Self-Employed Contributions Act
SMI
Supplementary Medical Insurance Supplementary Medical Insurance
SSA
Social Security Administration Social Security Administration
SSAB
Social Security Advisory Board Social Security Advisory Board
SSI
Supplemental Security Income Supplemental Security Income
SSDI
Social Security Disability Insurance Social Security Disability Insurance
SSN
Social Security Number Social Security Number

Author Information Tamar B. Breslauer William R. Morton Senior Research Librarian Analyst in Income Security Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

93 93

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House and Senate Since 1935

~~Author Information~~

~~Tamar B. Breslauer~~
~~William R. Morton~~
~~Research Librarian~~
~~Analyst in Income Security~~

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
RL30920 RL30920 · VERSION 2730 · UPDATED
94 94