Major Decisions in the House and Senate on
Social Security: 1935-2011
Gary Sidor
Information Research Specialist
January 11, 2012
The House Ways and Means Committee is making available this version of this Congressional Research Service
(C RS) report, with the cover date shown, for inclusion in its 2012 Green Book website. CRS works exclusively
for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to Committees and Members of both the
House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.
Congressional Research Service
RL30920
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
Summary
Since its enactment in 1935, the Social Security Act has been amended numerous times. This
paper is not fully comprehensive. It briefly summarizes discussions on individual major
amendments. These summations do not characterize the complete range of motivations behind
Social Security votes; rather, they record the arguments expressed at the time and, by so doing,
attempt to give the reader the tone and context of the debate on major Social Security issues
brought before the House and Senate chambers.
This report is intended to respond to the many inquiries that CRS gets for Social Security vote
information, which range from requests for general information about legislative action over the
years to requests for information about specific floor amendments. Thus, it is intended to be a
reference document on the major statutory decisions made by Congress on the Social Security
program. A detailed table of contents and a summary table of the legislation discussed are
provided to aid the reader.
This report will be updated as additional major Social Security provisions are considered.
Congressional Research Service
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Chamber Votes................................................................................................................................. 3
A. P.L. 271—74th Congress, Enactment of the Social Security Act .......................................... 3
1. House Action................................................................................................................... 4
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................... 6
3. Conference Action........................................................................................................... 7
B. P.L. 379—76th Congress, Social Security Amendments of 1939.......................................... 8
1. House Action................................................................................................................... 8
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 10
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 11
C. Payroll Tax Freeze, 1942-1947 ........................................................................................... 11
D. 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 ........................... 12
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 13
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 14
3. Veto................................................................................................................................ 14
4. Veto override ................................................................................................................. 15
E. P.L. 734—81st Congress, Social Security Act Amendments of 1950.................................. 15
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 15
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 16
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 18
F. P.L. 590—82nd Congress, Social Security Act Amendments of 1952.................................. 18
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 18
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 19
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 19
G. P.L. 761—83d Congress, Social Security Amendments of 1954 ........................................ 20
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 20
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 21
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 22
H. P.L. 880—84th Congress, Social Security Amendments of 1956........................................ 22
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 22
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 22
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 23
I. P.L. 85-840, Social Security Amendments of 1958.............................................................. 23
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 24
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 24
3. House Concurrence ....................................................................................................... 25
J. P.L. 86-778, Social Security Amendments of 1960 ............................................................. 25
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 25
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 26
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 27
K. P.L. 87-64, Social Security Amendments of 1961 .............................................................. 27
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 27
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 28
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 28
L. Proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964 ................................................................. 29
Congressional Research Service
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 29
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 29
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 30
M. P.L. 89-97, Social Security Amendments of 1965 ............................................................. 30
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 31
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 31
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 33
N. P.L. 89-368, Tax Adjustment Act of 1966........................................................................... 33
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 33
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 33
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 34
O. P.L. 90-248, Social Security Amendments of 1967 (H.R. 12080)...................................... 34
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 34
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 35
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 36
P. P.L. 91-172, The Tax Reform Act of 1969........................................................................... 36
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 36
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 36
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 37
Q. P.L. 92-5, Public Debt Limit Increase; Social Security Amendments ................................ 37
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 37
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 37
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 38
R. P.L. 92-336, Public Debt Limit; Disaster losses; Social Security Act Amendments .......... 38
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 39
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 39
3. House Response to Senate Amendment ........................................................................ 39
4. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 40
S. P.L. 92-603, Social Security Amendments of 1972............................................................. 40
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 41
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 41
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 42
T. P.L. 93-233, Social Security Benefits Increase.................................................................... 42
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 42
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 43
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 43
U. P.L. 95-216. The Social Security Amendments of 1977..................................................... 44
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 44
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 46
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 48
V. P.L. 96-265, Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980............................................ 48
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 49
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 49
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 50
W. P.L. 96-403, Reallocation of OASl and Dl Taxes............................................................... 50
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 50
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 51
X. P.L. 96-473, Retirement Test Amendments ........................................................................ 51
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 52
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 52
Congressional Research Service
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
3. House Concurrence ....................................................................................................... 53
4. Senate Concurrence....................................................................................................... 53
Y. P.L. 97-35, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981............................................ 53
1. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 54
2. House Action................................................................................................................. 54
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 55
Z. P.L. 97-123, The Social Security Amendments of 1981 ..................................................... 55
I. House Action.................................................................................................................. 56
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 56
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 57
AA. P.L. 97-455, An Act Relating to Taxes on Virgin Island Source Income and
Social Security Disability Benefits....................................................................................... 58
1. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 58
2. House Action................................................................................................................. 58
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 59
BB. P.L. 98-21, The Social Security Amendments of 1983..................................................... 59
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 60
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 60
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 61
CC. P.L. 98-460, Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984............................. 62
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 62
2. Administrative Action ................................................................................................... 63
3. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 63
4. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 64
DD. P.L. 99-177, Public Debt Limit—Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.............................................................................................................. 64
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 65
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 65
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 65
EE. S.Con.Res. 32, Proposed COLA Constraints in FY1986 Budget Resolution................... 65
1. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 66
2. House Action................................................................................................................. 66
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 67
FF. P.L. 99-509, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 ........................................ 67
1. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 67
2. House Action................................................................................................................. 68
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 68
GG. P.L. 100-203, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987..................................... 68
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 68
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 68
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 69
HH. P.L. 100-647, The Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988........................... 69
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 69
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 69
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 70
II. P.L. 101-239, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989........................................ 70
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 70
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 70
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 71
JJ. P.L. 101-508, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 ....................................... 71
Congressional Research Service
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 71
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 72
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 72
KK. P.L. 103-66, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 ...................................... 73
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 73
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 74
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 74
4. House Action................................................................................................................. 74
5. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 74
6. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 75
LL. P.L. 103-296, The Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994........................... 75
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 76
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 76
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 76
MM. P.L. 103-387, The Social Security Domestic Reform Act of 1994................................. 77
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 77
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 77
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 77
NN. P.L. 104-121, The Senior Citizens Right to Work Act of 1996........................................ 78
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 78
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 78
OO. P.L. 106-170, The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999........ 79
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 79
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 79
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 79
PP. P.L. 106-182, The Senior Citizens Right to Work Act....................................................... 80
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 80
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 80
3. Conference Action......................................................................................................... 81
QQ. P.L. 108-203, The Social Security Protection Act of 2004 .............................................. 81
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 83
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 83
3. House Response to Senate Action................................................................................. 83
RR. P.L. 111-312 The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
Creation Act of 2010 ............................................................................................................ 83
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 84
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 84
3. House Action................................................................................................................. 84
4. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 84
5. House Action................................................................................................................. 84
SS. P.L. 112-78, The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 .......................... 84
1. House Action................................................................................................................. 85
2. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 85
3. House Action................................................................................................................. 85
4. Senate Action................................................................................................................. 86
Congressional Research Service
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
Tables
Table 1. Social Security Laws, 1935-2011 ...................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 86
Congressional Research Service
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
Introduction
The Social Security Act of 1935 established a federal old-age pension financed with employee-
employer payroll taxes for most workers in commerce and industry. Congress since then has
changed the Social Security program many times.
Amendments to the original Act have: added survivors’ and dependents’ benefits; added
disability, hospital, and medical insurance; expanded coverage to new groups of workers; lowered
the minimum age for retirement benefits; increased payroll taxes; raised benefits; provided for
automatic adjustment of benefits to reflect inflation; and made numerous other changes. This
paper reviews the major votes taken by the House and Senate in passing the original act and in
amending it from 1936 to the present. Discussion centers on Old-Age, Survivors and Disability
Insurance (OASDI) votes, although Medicare and other programs are brought up occasionally.
Votes on programmatic proposals are included, but votes on funding and the appropriations
process generally are not. The discussion of the votes is set forth in terms of House action, Senate
action, and conference agreements and it gives the party breakdown for most votes discussed
(D = Democrat, R = Republican, I = Independent). The paper looks not only at votes on final
passage of bills and adoption of conference reports, but also at votes on amendments considered
on the floor of the House and Senate and at votes for recommittal to committee just before
passage. It generally does not examine votes that occurred at the committee level. The primary
source of the vote information was the Congressional Record. The primary source of the
information for the separation of the vote by political party was the Congressional Quarterly.
From the start the old-age benefits program aroused argument. Opponents said that the payroll or
Social Security tax was likely to overburden industry, reduce the purchasing power of workers,
and endanger the growth of private pension plans. In addition, some argued that huge reserves to
be built up in the old-age reserve account would become a tempting source of funds that the
government could borrow for current spending and, thus, would lead to an increase in the federal
debt. Fear that the reserve account would be used to subsidize “New Deal” projects was one
reason why some members argued for current financing (pay-as-you-go) of old-age benefits.
Some opponents maintained that the federal government did not have the constitutional power to
create a national pension plan. Some questioned whether the system could be kept financially
sound and whether adequate earnings records could be maintained for so many millions of
workers. Still others said that the program was not generous enough. They protested that it gave
only partial protection and minimal benefits and that it imposed a regressive “soak-the-poor” tax.
Proponents maintained that Social Security would provide protection against destitution and
dependency in old age and that it would provide persons with an opportunity to care for
themselves on a more adequate basis than could be obtained from state old-age assistance
payments (welfare). Some regarded the proposal’s self-financing method—payroll taxes on
employers and employees—as a strength. As workers would be required to pay taxes on their
wages in order to receive Social Security, they would acquire an earned right to benefits, and no
income test would apply. Further, some said that because the system would be financed by
earmarked payroll taxes, it would be relatively free from political and economic pressures that
might impair its financial soundness and capacity to do the job intended.
Congressional Research Service
1
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
Table 1. Social Security Laws, 1935-2011
Year Title
Public Law
Bill Number
1935
Social Security Act
P.L. 74-271a H.R.
7260
1939
Social Security Amendments of 1939
P.L. 76-379a H.R.
6635
1942
Revenue Act of 1942
P.L. 77-753a H.R.
7378
1943
Joint Resolution Regarding Tariff Act
P.L. 78-211a H.J.Res.
171
1943
Revenue Act of 1943
P.L. 78-235a H.R.
3687
1944
Federal Insurance Contributions Act of 1945
P.L. 78-495a H.R.
5564
1945
Revenue Act of 1945
P.L. 79-214a
H.R. 4309
1946
Social Security Amendments of 1946
P.L. 79-719a H.R.
7037
1947
Social Security Amendments of 1947
P.L. 80-379a H.R.
3818
1948
Exclusion of Certain Newspaper and Magazine Vendors from Social
P.L. 80-492a H.R.
5052
Security Coverage
1948
Maintain Status Quo Concept of Employee
P.L. 80-642a H.J.Res
296
1950
Social Security Act Amendments of 1950
P.L. 81-734a H.R.
6000
1952
Social Security Act Amendments of 1952
P.L. 82-590a H.R.
7800
1954
Social Security Amendments of 1954
P.L. 83-761a H.R.
9366
1956
Social Security Amendments of 1956
P.L. 84-880a H.R.
7225
1958
Social Security Amendments of 1958
P.L. 85-840
H.R. 13549
1960
Social Security Amendments of 1960
P.L. 86-778
H.R. 12580
1961
Social Security Amendments of 1961
P.L. 87-64
H.R. 6027
1964
Proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964
———
H.R. 11865
1965
Social Security Amendments of 1965
P.L. 89-97
H.R. 6675
1966
Tax Adjustment Act of 1966
P.L. 89-368
H.R. 12752
1967
Social Security Amendments of 1967
P.L. 90-248
H.R. 12080
1969
Tax Reform Act of 1969
P.L. 91-172
H.R. 13270
1971
Public Debt Limit, Increase; Social Security Act, Amendments
P.L. 92-5
H.R. 4690
1972
Public Debt Limit; Disaster Losses; Social Security Act, Amendments
P.L. 92-336
H.R. 15390
1972
Social Security Amendments of 1972
P.L. 92-603
H.R. 1
1973
Social Security Benefits, Increase
P.L. 93-233
H.R. 11333
1977
Social Security Amendments of 1977
P.L. 95-216
H.R. 9346
1980
Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980
P.L. 96-265
H.R. 3236
1980
Reallocation of OASl and Dl Taxes
P.L. 96-403
H.R. 7670
1980
Earnings Test Amendments
P.L. 96-473
H.R. 5295
1981
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
P.L. 97-35
H.R. 3982
1981
Social Security Amendments of 1981
P.L. 97-123
H.R. 4331
1983
An Act Relating to Taxes on Virgin Islands Source Income and Social
P.L. 97-455
H.R. 7093
Security Disability Benefits
1983
Social Security Amendments of 1983
P.L. 98-21
H.R. 1900
Congressional Research Service
2
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
Year Title
Public Law
Bill Number
1984
Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984
P.L. 98-460
H.R. 3755
1985
Public Debt Limit—Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
P.L. 99-177
H.J.Res. 372
Act of 1985
1985
COLA Constraints in FY86 Budget Resolution
———
S.Con.Res. 32
1986
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
P.L. 99-509
H.R. 5300
1987
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
P.L. 100-203
H.R. 3545
1988
Technical and Miscel aneous Act of 1988
P.L. 100-647
H.R. 4333
1989
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
P.L. 101-239
H.R. 3299
1990
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
P.L. 101-508
H.R. 5835
1993
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
P.L. 103-66
H.R. 2264
1994
Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994
P.L. 103-296
H.R. 4277
1994
Social Security Domestic Reform Act of 1994
P.L. 103-387
H.R. 4278
1996
Senior Citizens Right to Work Act of 1996
P.L. 104-121
H.R. 3136
1999
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999
P.L. 106-170
H.R. 1180
2000
Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act
P.L. 106-182
H.R. 5
2004
Social Security Protection Act of 2004
P.L. 108-203
H.R. 743
2010
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
P.L. 111-312
H.R. 4853
Creation Act of 2010
2011
Temporary Payrol Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011
P.L. 112-78
H.R. 3765
a. The printed law does not show the ordinal number of the Congress that passed it. The number is given
here for reference purposes.
Chamber Votes
A. P.L. 271—74th Congress, Enactment of the Social Security Act
The Social Security Act became law on August 14, 1935, when President Roosevelt 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 at age 65 for
insured workers. 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 and over who had paid Social
Security taxes for at least five years. The benefit was to be withheld from an otherwise qualified
person in any month in which he or she 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 year, was to be
imposed as of January 1, 1937, on covered jobs and was scheduled to rise in steps to 3% by 1949.
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
payments to certain categories of needy persons (the aged, the blind, and children under 16 who
had been deprived of parental support), child welfare services, and maternal and child health
services.
Congressional Research Service
3
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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
rely solely on the assistance (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
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
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
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
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
for the final Social Security bill. During congressional debate, Democrats generally supported the
proposed old-age benefits program.
1. House Action
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
player in the development of the Social Security Act, House leaders passed the word that they
wanted all amendments defeated.2
Four particularly significant votes were: Mr. Monaghan’s amendment proposing a revised
“Townsend plan” and Mr. Connery’s amendment proposing the Lundeen plan, both of which
(described below) called for a more generous social insurance system; Mr. 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.
a. On April 18, 1935, Mr. Monaghan (D-MT) offered an amendment, introduced in its original
form by Mr. 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 and 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, beginning on page 9.) Mr. Monaghan’s
amendment, although less costly than the original Townsend plan, was rejected by a vote of 56 to
206.3
b. On April 18, 1935, Mr. Connery (D-MA) offered an amendment that contained the provisions
of a bill sponsored by Mr. Lundeen (Farmer-Laborite-MN). The Lundeen bill, which was
approved 7-6 by the House Labor Committee, called for the “establishment of a system of social
1 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. The Social Security Bill. Report to Accompany H.R. 7260.
Report No.615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. Washington, GPO, 1935. p. 44.
2 Witte, Edwin E. The Development of the Social Security Act. University of Wisconsin Press, 1963. p. 98. (Hereinafter
cited as Witte, The Development of the Social Security Act.)
3 Congressional Record. 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
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
for the Townsend plan were conservative Republicans who opposed the entire Social Security bill. Witte, The
Development of the Social Security Act, p. 99.
Congressional Research Service
4
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
insurance to compensate all workers and farmers, 18 years of age and over, in all industries,
occupations, and professions, who are unemployed through no fault of their own ...”4 Mr.
Lundeen’s plan offered higher benefits than the Committee’s bill, and 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 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 taxation on inheritances, gifts, and
individual and corporation incomes of $5,000 a year and over). There was a division vote of 52 in
favor and 204 opposed. Mr. Connery asked for tellers. The Connery amendment was rejected by a
40-158 teller vote.5
c. On April 18, 1935, Mr. 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, from
the bill. Mr. 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 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 maintained that to
add a payroll tax to their burden would probably cause more unemployment and more
uncertainty.6 Mr. 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 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 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 “compulsion of the rankest kind.”7
The Treadway amendment was defeated by a 49-125 teller vote.8
d. On April 19, 1935, Mr. 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
insurance provisions and to increase the federal contribution for the welfare program of old-age
assistance, Title I of the bill.9 Mr. Treadway stated that the old-age benefit and 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 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, Mr. Treadway stated that he would “vote most strenuously
in opposition to the bill at each and every opportunity.”10 During his April 19, 1935, remarks, Mr.
Treadway said he was disgusted “at the attitude of business in that it has not shown the proper
4 Congressional Record. April 18, 1935. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Lundeen. p. 5965.
5 Congressional Record. 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
many years and was never used in the Senate.
6 Congressional Record. April 18, 1935. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Treadway. p. 5990. Also see, Congressional
Record. April 12, 1935. House. p. 5531.
7 Congressional Record. April 18,1935. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Jenkins. p. 5993.
8 Congressional Record. April 18, 1935. House. p. 5994.
9 Congressional Record. April 19, 1935. p. 6068.
10 Congressional Record. April 12, 1935. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Treadway. p. 5531.
Congressional Research Service
5
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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, 9-1) to 253 (l-R, 252-D).12
e. 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
2. Senate Action
There were also four major votes in the Senate: Mr. Long’s (D-LA) proposal to substitute taxes
on wealth and property for the payroll tax; Mr. Clark’s amendment to exempt from coverage
employees in firms with private pensions; Mr. Hastings’ motion to recommit; and the vote on
final passage of the bill.
a. On June 17, 1935, Mr. 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
place of the payroll tax, Mr. Long recommended that states levy a tax on wealth or property. Mr.
Long’s amendment was rejected by voice vote.14
b. On June 19, 1935, Mr. 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
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
private annuities which would be in true proportion to earnings and service; joint annuities to
protect spouses; earlier retirement for disability; and other reasons. Supporters of the amendment
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
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
business. Critics also 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
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
c. On June 19, 1935, Mr. Hastings (R-DE) made a motion to strike out the old-age benefits
provisions from the bill. Mr. 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 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
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
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
11 Congressional Record. April 19, 1935. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Treadway. p. 6053.
12 Congressional Record. April 19, 1935. House. Roll call no. 56, not voting 29. p. 6068-6069.
13 Congressional Record. April 19, 1935. House. Roll call no. 57, not voting 25. p. 6069-6070.
14 Congressional Record. June 17, 1935. Senate. p. 9427-9437.
15 Congressional Record. June 19, 1935. Senate. Not voting 9. p. 9631.
Congressional Research Service
6
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
the older people of today.”16 Mr. Hastings’ amendment was rejected by a vote of 15 (12-R, 3-D)
to 63 (7-R, 54-D, 2-I).17
d. On June 19, 1935, Mr. 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
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
unemployment benefits. The amendment was defeated by voice vote.18
e. The Senate passed the bill on June 19, 1935 by a vote of 77 (15-R, 60-D, 2-1) to 6 (5-R, 1-D).19
3. Conference Action
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,
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
private pension plans from coverage under Social Security and to report to the next Congress.20
a. On July 17, 1935, the House rejected Mr. 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 Mr. Doughton (D-NC)
that the House insist that the Senate drop the Clark amendment.22
b. On July 17, 1935, the Senate agreed, by voice vote, to Mr. Harrison’s motion to insist on
keeping the Clark amendment and ask for a further conference.23
c. On August 8, 1935, the conference report cleared the House by a voice vote.24
d. 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
16 Congressional Record. June 17,1935. Senate. In floor remarks by Mr. Hastings. p. 9422.
17 Congressional Record. Senate. June 19,1935. Not voting 17. p. 9648.
18 Congressional Record. June 19, 1935. Senate. p. 9650.
19 Congressional Record. June 19, 1935. Senate. Not voting 12. p. 9646.
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, Policymaking for Social
Security. The Brookings Institution, 1979. p. 282). (Hereinafter cited as Derthick, Policymaking for Social Security.)
21 Congressional Record. July 17, 1935. House. Roll call no. 132, not voting 83. p. 11342-11343.
22 Congressional Record. July 17, 1935. House. Roll call no. 133, not voting 95. p. 11343.
23 Congressional Record. July 17, 1935. Senate. p. 11310.
24 Congressional Record. August 8, 1935. House. p. 12760.
25 Congressional Record. August 9, 1935. Senate. p. 12793-12794.
26 Congressional Record. August 9, 1935. Senate. p. 12794.
Congressional Research Service
7
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
B. P.L. 379—76th Congress, Social Security Amendments of 1939
H.R. 6635, the Social Security Amendments of 1939, was signed into law on August 10, 1939, by
President 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 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 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. 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 made
recommendations on how the old-age benefits program should be changed, and many of their
recommendations were the same. The President sent the Social Security Board’s
recommendations to Congress on January 16, 1939. The 1939 amendments incorporated most of
the Board’s recommendations.
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
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
insurance amount (PIA)27 of the worker, and all other dependents would receive 50% of the PIA.
The starting date for monthly benefits was accelerated to January 1, 1940, instead of January 1,
1942. Also, 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,
replacing it with an increase to 2% in 1943-45. The amendments also modified qualifying
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:
dollar-for-dollar deductions were to be made for 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 also changed the old-age reserve account to a trust fund, managed by a board
of trustees.
1. House Action
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,
embodying its recommendations for amendments to the Social Security Act. The day before, the
House had debated and voted on the Townsend old-age pension bill. The Townsend plan,
embodied in H.R. 6466 introduced by Mr. McGroarty (D-CA) in January 1935, was offered as a
substitute for H.R. 6635.29 The Townsend plan would have provided a monthly pension of $200
to every citizen 60 years of age or older who had not been convicted of a felony. To receive the
27 The PIA was the basic benefit amount for a worker who began receiving benefits at age 65.
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
years after 1936 and before death or reaching age 65 was fully insured.
29 The Townsend movement, led by a California doctor named Francis E. Townsend, began in 1934, survived for some
20 years, and was at its peak in the 1935-1941 period, according to Derthick, Policymaking for Social Security, p. 193.
Congressional Research Service
8
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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 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, Mr. 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 giving people purchasing power.
He cited Census Bureau data that four million people over the age of 60 held jobs in 1930. He
reiterated that in order 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 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 increase demand and result
in more jobs.30
Mr. 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; 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 caring for the aged, asserting
that any liberalization of pensions should be done within the framework of the Social Security
Act.
Mr. Witte, in his book on the development of the Social Security Act, said:
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
received in support of this plan worried them greatly. With the exception of probably not
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 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
A New York Times 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)
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
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
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
30 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. Economic Security Act. Hearings on H.R. 4120, 74th Cong.,
lst Sess., January 21-31 and February 1, 2, 4-8, and 12, 1935. Washington, GPO, 1935. p. 680.
31 Congressional Record. June 6, 1939. House. p. 6681.
32 Witte, The Development of the Social Security Act, p. 95-96.
33 Congressional Record. June 1, 1939. House. Roll call no. 85, not voting 29. p. 6524-6525.
34 New York Times. June 2, 1939. Editorial page.
Congressional Research Service
9
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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
a. On June 9, 1939, Mr. Havenner (D-CA) offered an amendment, endorsed by the 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 educational institutions;
student nurses; and some agricultural workers. The amendment was rejected by voice vote.36
b. On June 9, 1939, Mr. 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 bonds
rather than in special nonmarketable Treasury obligations. Mr. Kean remarked 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
c. On June 9, 1939, Mr. Carlson (R-KS) offered an amendment to exclude non-citizens from
coverage under Social Security. Mr. Carlson was opposed to putting foreigners under the U.S.
old-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
Americans. Mr. Carlson’s amendment was rejected 24 to 59 by a division vote.38
d. On June 10, 1939, Mr. Carlson moved to recommit H.R. 6635 to the Committee on Ways and
Means. The motion was rejected by voice vote.39
e. On June 10, 1939, the House passed H.R. 6635 by a vote of 364 (142-R, 222-D) to 2 (2-R).40
2. Senate Action
On July 13, 1939, Mr. 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
Committee for more study of the whole pension and savings field. Mr. Downey stated that 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 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 was
rejected by a vote of 18 (12-R, 5-D, 1-I) to 47 (4-R, 41-D, 2-I).41
a. On July 13, 1939, Mr. Reynolds (D-NC) offered an amendment to prohibit non-U.S. citizens
from being eligible for Social Security coverage or benefits. Mr. Harrison (D-MS) offered
35 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. Social Security Amendments of 1939. Report to Accompany
H.R. 6635. H.Rept. No. 728, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. Washington, GPO, 1939. p. 113.
36 Congressional Record. June 9, 1939. House. p. 6935.
37 Congressional Record. June 9, 1939. House. p. 6936.
38 Congressional Record. June 9, 1939. House. p. 6937-6939.
39 Congressional Record. June 10, 1939. House. p. 6970.
40 Congressional Record. June 10. 1939. House. Roll call no. 91, not voting 63. p. 6970-6971.
41 Congressional Record. July 13, 1939. Senate. Not voting 31. p. 9023.
Congressional Research Service
10
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
additional language to Mr. Reynolds’ amendment that allowed benefit payments to aliens if they
lived within 50 miles of the U.S. The amendment as modified was agreed to by voice vote.42
b. 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
3. Conference Action
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
C. Payroll Tax Freeze, 1942-1947
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%.
1. The Revenue Act of 1942, P.L. 753 (H.R. 7378, 77th Congress) was signed by President
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
employers, each, instead of being increased to 2% on each as otherwise would have been
required.
2. 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,
1944. The purpose of the resolution was to give Congress time to consider the scheduled payroll
tax increase before it went into effect.
3. 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 and
by the Senate on February 25, 1944. The bill deferred the scheduled payroll tax increase (from 1
to 2%) until 1945.
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.
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
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
amendment passed by voice vote.47 The “Murray-Vandenberg” general revenue provision was
repealed in 1950, when the tax rate was increased.
42 Congressional Record. July 13, 1939. Senate. p. 9030.
43 Congressional Record. July 13, 1939. Senate. Not voting 31. p. 9031.
44 Congressional Record. August 4, 1939. House. p. 11092.
45 Congressional Record. August 5, 1939. Senate. Not voting 33. p. 11146.
46 Congressional Record. January 19, 1944. Senate. In floor statement by Mr. Vandenberg. p. 374
47 Congressional Record. January 19, 1944. Senate. p. 374.
Congressional Research Service
11
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
4. The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) of 1945, P.L. 495 (H.R. 5564, 78th Congress),
signed by President Rooseve1t 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%
thereafter.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
provided that it would rise to 1.5% for 1950-51 and to 2% thereafter.
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
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
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
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
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
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 proponents of the freeze maintained that the Administration wanted the tax increase to
retire the public debt accumulated by wartime expenditures.
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
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
D. 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
considered an employee for purposes of Social Security coverage. The term “employee” was not
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
48 Congressional Record. October 9, 1942. Senate. p. 7983-7984.
49 Derthick, Policymaking for Social Security. p. 237.
Congressional Research Service
12
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
the meaning of the terms “employee” and “employer.” In defining “employer,” both sets of
regulations 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 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
relationship and a number of court cases established generally applicable precedents. The
common-law meaning of the term employee, however, was very unclear in cases of outside
salesmen.50
On December 31, 1946, the U.S. district court, in the case of Hearst Publications, Inc. v. The
United States, ruled that newspaper vendors should be considered employees rather than
independent contractors. H.R. 5052, introduced in 1948, 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 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 independent contractors, by stating that Congress, not the courts
nor the Social Security Administration (SSA), should determine national policy regarding Social
Security coverage. It was reported that H.J.Res. 296 was primarily introduced to prevent the
release of new federal regulations defining the meaning of the term “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 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, 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.
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
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,
and unemployment.”52 The action taken on H.R. 5052 illustrated the controversial issues involved
in determining who should be covered under Social Security.
1. House Action
On March 4, 1948, Mr. Gearhart (R-CA) asked unanimous consent for immediate consideration
of H.R. 5052. Mr. Gearhart 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 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 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 they receive
50 Social Security Administration. “Social Security Legislation. January-June 1948: Legislative History and
Background” (by) Wilbur Cohen and James L. Calhoon. Social Security Bulletin, v. 11, no. 7, July 1948. p. 3-11.
51 Ibid.
52 Congressional Record. April 6, 1948. House. p. 4134.
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).
Congressional Research Service
13
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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 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
Social Security Act. Mr. 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 this
session ends—they will be brought in as the independent contractors which they are, as the self-
employed ...” H.R. 5052 was passed in the House on March 4, 1948, by unanimous consent.54
c. On February 27, 1948, H.J.Res. 296 was passed by a vote of 275 to 52.55
2. Senate Action
On March 23, 1948, the Senate passed by unanimous consent H.R. 5052 in form identical to that
passed by the House.56
a. 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
b. Although there was no conference on H.J.Res. 296, the House concurred in the Senate
amendments on June 4, 1948 by voice vote.58
3. Veto
a. 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,
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
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
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
them to be covered on some other basis.”59
b. 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
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
without serious inconvenience or complaint.”60
54 Congressional Record. March 4, 1948. House. p. 2143.
55 Congressional Record. February 27, 1948. House. Roll call no.18, not voting 103. p. 1908-1909.
56 Congressional Record. March 23, 1948. Senate, p. 3267
57 Congressional Record. June 4. 1948. Senate. Not voting 16. p. 7134
58 Congressional Record. June 4, 1948. House. p. 7215.
59 Congressional Record. April 6, 1948. House. p. 4134.
60 Congressional Record. June 14. 1948. House. p. 8188.
Congressional Research Service
14
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
4. Veto override
a. 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 the President’s veto and passed H.R. 5052 by a vote of 77 (48-R, 29-D) to 7 (7-D).62
b. On June 14, 1948, President Truman’s veto of H.J.Res. 296 was overridden in the House by a
vote of 298 to 75;63 and in the Senate by a vote of 65 (37-R, 28-D) to 12 (2-R, 10-D).64
E. 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
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
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
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
organizations. Dependent husbands, widowers, and, under certain circumstances children of
insured women were also made eligible for benefits (before, such benefits were not generally
available to children of women workers).
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
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
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 (those aged 75 and over
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 July
24, 1947.65
1. House Action
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
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
workers.
61 Congressional Record. April 14, 1948. House. Roll call no. 44, not voting 93. p. 4432.
62 Congressional Record. April 20, 1948. Senate. Not voting 12. p. 4594.
63 Congressional Record. June 14, 1948. House. Roll call no. 105. Not voting 57. p. 8191.
64 Congressional Record. 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
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
pay, up to a maximum of $1,200 credit per year, beginning in 1978.
Congressional Research Service
15
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
All 10 Republicans on the Committee (including seven 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 “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
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
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.
a. On October 4, 1949, Mr. 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 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
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
policy. They said the closed rule negated the importance of other House members and usurped
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
(123-R, 12-D) on October 4, 1949.67
b. On October 5, 1949, Mr. 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, introduced by
Mr. 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 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 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.
The motion to recommit was defeated by a vote of 113 (112-R, 1-D) to 232 (29-R, 202-D, 1-I).68
c. 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
2. Senate Action
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
amendments to H.R. 6000. The Committee stated that the chief purpose of the bill was to
strengthen the OAS1 system so that OASI would be the primary method of offering “basic
66 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. Social Security Act of 1949. Report to Accompany H.R.
6000. Report No. 1300. 81st Cong., 1st Sess. Washington, GPO, 1949. p. 157-165.
67 Congressional Record. October 4, 1949. House. Roll call no. 215, not voting 106. p. 13819.
68 Congressional Record. October 5, 1949. House. Roll call no. 217, not voting 84. p. 13972-13973.
69 Congressional Record. October 5, 1949. House. Roll call no. 218, not voting-84. p. 13973-13974.
Congressional Research Service
16
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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
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,
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.
a. On June 14, 1950, following a Senate Republican Policy Committee meeting, Mr. Millikin (R-
CO) and Mr. 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 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 age 65, with 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
b. An amendment offered by Mr. Myers (D-PA) to add a disability insurance program to OASI
was rejected by a voice vote.72
c. On June 20, 1950, another amendment offered by Mr. Myers to boost the OASI wage base
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-
D).73
d. On June 20, 1950, Mr. 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
(33-R, 9-D).74
e. On June 20, 1950, Mr. George’s (D-GA) amendment to increase the basic wage base from
$3,000 to $3,600 was agreed to by voice vote.75
f. 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
g. 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. Social Security Act Amendments of 1950. Report to Accompany H.R.
6000. Report No.1669, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. May 17, 1950. Washington, GPO, 1950. p. 2.
71 Congress and the Nation: 1945-1964. Washington, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1965. p. 1243.
72 Congressional Record. June 20, 1950. Senate. p. 8904.
73 Congressional Record. June 20, 1950. Senate. Not voting 15. p. 8883.
74 Congressional Record. June 20, 1950. Senate. Not voting 13. p. 8889.
75 Congressional Record. June 20, 1950. Senate. p. 8883.
76 Congressional Record. June 20, 1950. Senate. p. 8878.
77 Congressional Record. June 20,1950. Senate. Not voting 13. p. 8910.
Congressional Research Service
17
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
3. Conference Action
Conferees dropped the disability insurance proposal, but retained the public assistance program
for the permanently and totally disabled (the so-called charity approach). The conference report
was submitted to the House on August 1, 1950.
a. On August 16, 1950, Mr. 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 the
bill a Senate floor amendment by Mr. Knowland (R-CA) to reduce federal control over state
administration of unemployment insurance. Mr. Doughton (D-NC) moved the 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, l65-D, 1-I). The motion to recommit the conference report was
rejected.
b. The conference report passed the House on August 16, 1950, 374 (140-R, 234-D) to 1 (l-R);79
and the Senate on August 17, 1950, by voice vote.80
F. 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
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
(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,
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
retirement by averaging the person’s wages only over his or her working years. (See following
conference action section for more details.)
1. House Action
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, 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 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 for by the Federal Security Agency (FSA). The American Medical
Association (AMA) claimed that this arrangement would lead to socialized medicine. Mr. Reed
(R-NY), the minority leader of the Ways and Means Committee, was the primary spokesman for
members who endorsed the AMA position.
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.
79 Congressional Record. August 16, 1950. House. Roll call no. 242, not voting 55. p. 12673.
80 Congressional Record. August 17, 1950. House. p. 12718.
Congressional Research Service
18
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
a. 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
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
b. 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
determinations, but omitted the language specifying how the FSA administrator should do so. Mr.
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 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. 7800, heretofore
defeated.”82 Mr. Reed later contended that because of the 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-I) to 22 (20-R, 2-D) on June 17,
1952.83
2. Senate Action
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.
a. The Committee amendment, offered by Mr. George (D-GA), to drop the disability freeze
provision, was passed by voice vote on June 26, 1952.84
b. H.R. 7800 (without the disability freeze provision) was passed in the Senate by a voice vote on
June 26, 1952.85
3. Conference Action
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
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
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
responsibility for determining whether an applicant was disabled to appropriate state agencies
(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 that a
81 Congressional Record. May 19, 1952. House. Roll call no. 79, not voting 139. p. 5483-5484.
82 Congressional Record. June 16, 1952. House. p. 7293.
83 Congressional Record. June 17, 1952. House. Roll call no. 106, not voting 46. p. 7387.
84 Congressional Record. June 26, 1952. Senate. p. 8141.
85 Congressional Record. June 26, 1952. Senate. p. 8155.
86 U.S. Congress. Conference Committee. 1952. Social Security Act Amendments of 1952. Conference Report to
Accompany H.R. 7800. July 1952. H.Rept. No.2491, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, GPO, 1952. p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
19
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
person was disabled, but would not be able to reverse a ruling by the State agencies that a person
was not disabled.
a. The conference report was agreed to July 5, 1952, by voice votes in both chambers.87
G. P.L. 761—83d Congress, Social Security Amendments of 1954
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
“OASI should promptly be expanded to cover millions of citizens who have been left out of the
Social Security system.” The Social Security Amendments of 1954 extended mandatory coverage
to, among others, some self-employed farmers, self-employed engineers, architects, accountants,
and funeral directors, all federal employees not covered by government pension plans, farm and
domestic service workers not covered by the 1950 amendments, and voluntary coverage to
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
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
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
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
effect (see discussion of House action on the 1952 amendments, beginning on page 20), with
disability 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 age 72 and
over, and dropped the five years of lowest earnings from average monthly wage determinations
for benefit computation purposes.
1. House Action
On June 1, 1954, Mr. 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 the bill. Mr.
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 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 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, 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.
87 Congressional Record. July 5, 1952. House. p. 9670. Also see, Congressional Record. July 5, 1952. Senate. p. 9523.
88 Congressional Record. June 1, 1954. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Smith. p. 7423.
89 Congressional Record. House. June 1, 1954. Roll call no.77, not voting 87. p. 7425.
Congressional Research Service
20
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
a. 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
under the House bill).90
b. The House passed H.R. 9366 on June 1, 1954, by a vote of 356 (18l-R, 174-D, 1-I) to 8 (2-R,
6-D).91
2. Senate Action
H.R. 9366 as reported by the Finance Committee included the coverage of farm and domestic
service workers, ministers, employees of state and local governments covered by a retirement
system, and a small number of professionals. It also increased the earnings test threshold to
$1,200 a year, reduced to 72 the age at the earnings test no longer applied, and increased the
lump-sum 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
a. Among the amendments adopted on the floor by the Senate was a provision by Mr. Long (D-
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
program. On August 13, 1954, Mr. Long’s amendment was agreed to by voice vote.93
b. 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
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, Mr. Johnston’s
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, Mr. Humphrey’s amendment was rejected
on a division vote.96
c. Among the amendments that were presented and then withdrawn was an amendment by Mr.
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
d. On August 13, 1954, the Senate passed H.R. 9366, by voice vote.98
90 The American Dental Association (ADA) 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. Congressional
Record. August 13, 1954. Senate. In floor remarks by Mr. Millikin (R-CO). p. 14422.
91 Congressional Record. June 1, 1954. House. Roll call no. 78, not voting 68. p. 7468.
92 Social Security Administration. “Social Security Act Amendments of 1954: A Summary and Legislative History”
[by] Wilbur J. Cohen, Robert M. Ball, and Robert J. Myers. Social Security Bulletin, v. 17, no. 9, September 1954. p. 3-
18.
93 Congressional Record. August 13, 1954. Senate. p. 14442.
94 Congressional Record. August 13, 1954. Senate. p. 14433.
95 Congressional Record. August 13, 1954. Senate. p. 14435.
96 Congressional Record. August 13, 1954. Senate. p. 14444.
97 Congressional Record. August 13, 1954. Senate. p. 14419.
98 Congressional Record. August 13, 1954. Senate. p. 14446.
Congressional Research Service
21
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
3. Conference Action
The conferees, among other things, accepted a provision mandatorily covering self-employed
farmers, accountants, architects, engineers, and funeral directors, but excluding lawyers, doctors,
dentists, or other medical professionals, and extended coverage to federal employees not covered
by staff retirement systems.
a. Both chambers agreed to the conference report without amendments by voice vote on August
20, 1954, the last day of the session.99
H. 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
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
years of coverage in the 10-year period before becoming disabled; to a dependent child 18 and
older of a deceased or retired insured worker if the child became disabled before age 18; to
women workers and wives at the age of 62, instead of 65, with actuarially reduced benefits;
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-
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
the aggregate tax rate ultimately to 4.25%); and created a separate disability insurance (DI) trust
fund. The Social Security program now consisted of old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
(OASDI).
1. House Action
Major House Ways and Means Committee provisions provided benefits to disabled persons age
50 and 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
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
passed by the House on July 18, 1955, by a vote of 372 (169-R, 203-D) to 31 (23-R, 8-D).101
2. Senate Action
At Senate Finance Committee hearings on the House-passed bill, the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Mr. Folsom, stated that the Administration was opposed to reducing the
retirement age to 62 for women and providing disability benefits. According to Congress and the
Nation, Mr. Folsom said that OASI had stayed actuarially sound without excessive taxes because
99 Congressional Record. August 20, 1954. House. p. 15544. Also, Congressional Record. August 20, 1954. Senate. p.
15414.
100 P.L. 881—84th Congress, the Servicemen’s and Veterans’ Survivor Benefit Act (H.R. 7089), extended coverage of
the OASDI 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.
101 Congressional Record. July 18, 1955. House. Roll call no. 119, not voting 29. p. 10798-10799.
Congressional Research Service
22
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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 with
welfare plans and federal studies dating back to 1937 showed that disability insurance was both
administratively and financially sound.
a. 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
age 62 to widows only.
b. On July 17, 1956, Mr. George (D-GA) offered an amendment reinstating the Disability
Insurance program and the tax increase to finance it. The amendment provided for a separate
disability insurance trust fund (instead of operating the new program out of the OASI fund). The
amendment was passed by a vote of 47 (6-R, 41-D) to 45 (38-R, 7-D).103
c. Also, on July 17, 1956, the Senate agreed to Mr. 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
(40-R, 46-D) to 7 (5-R, 2-D).104
d. On July 17, 1956, the Senate passed H.R. 7225 by a vote of 90 (45-R, 45-D) to 0.105
3. Conference Action
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.
I. P.L. 85-840, Social Security Amendments of 1958
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
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
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
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.
102 Mr. 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
discourage individual rehabilitative efforts, adding disability insurance to OASI would risk “overburdening and thus
wrecking” the Social Security system. Congress and the Nation: 1945-1964. p. 1251.
103 Congressional Record. July 17, 1956. Senate. Not voting 4. p. 13056.
104 Congressional Record. July 17, 1956. Senate. Not voting 3. p. 13073.
105 Congressional Record. July 17, 1956. Senate. Not voting 6. p. 13103.
106 Congressional Record. July 26, 1956. House. p. 14828.
107 Congressional Record. July 26, 1956. Senate. p. 15107.
Congressional Research Service
23
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
1. House Action
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,
Mr. Reed (R-NY) stated that the bill would strengthen the actuarial soundness of the Social
Security program.108
a. On July 31, 1958, the House passed H.R. 13549 by a vote of 374 to 2.109
2. Senate Action
On August 15, 1958, Mr. Yarborough (D-TX) offered an amendment to increase benefits by 10%,
rather than 7%, as proposed in H.R. 13549. Mr. Yarborough stated that in many states 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
a. 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 also received income from other sources. Some opponents of the amendment maintained
that it would jeopardize the enactment of the bill. Mr. Yarborough’s amendment was rejected by a
vote of 32 (6-R, 26-D) to 53 (33-R, 20-D).111
b. On August 16, 1958, Mr. 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
c. On August 16, 1958, Mr. Morse (D-OR) offered an amendment to increase Social Security
benefits by 25%, to provide health insurance, and to make other changes. Mr. Morse’s
amendment was rejected by voice vote.113
d On August 16, 1958, Mr. Humphrey (D-MN) offered an amendment to provide health insurance
(Mr. Morse’s amendment was based in part on this Humphrey amendment). Mr. Humphrey
withdrew his amendment.114
e. On August 16, 1958, Mr. Kennedy offered an amendment for himself and Mr. Smathers (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 by voice
vote.115
108 Congressional Record. July 31, 1958. House. p. 15740.
109 Congressional Record. July 31, 1958. House. Roll call no. 149, not voting 54. p. 15775-15776.
110 Congressional Record. August I5, 1958. Senate. p. 17798.
111 Congressional Record. August 16, 1958 . Senate. Not voting 11. p. 17971-17972.
112 Congressional Record. August 16, 1958. Senate. p. 17985.
113 Congressional Record. August 16, 1958. Senate. p. 18005.
114 Congressional Record. August 16, 1958. Senate. p. 18008.
115 Congressional Record. August 16, 1958. Senate. p. 17986.
Congressional Research Service
24
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
f. On August 16, 1958, Mr. Revercomb (R-WV) offered an amendment to provide full Social
Security retirement benefits at age 62, for both men and women. Mr. Revercomb’s amendment
was rejected by voice vote.116
g. The Senate passed H.R. 13549 on August 16, 1958, by a vote of 79 (37-R, 42-D) to 0.117
3. House Concurrence
On August 19, 1958, the House by a voice vote agreed to the Senate amendments.118
J. P.L. 86-778, Social Security Amendments of 1960
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
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
provided through the Social Security system or through the public assistance programs (charity
approach).
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
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
federal funds to help pay for medical care for persons aged 65 and older who were not recipients
of 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
disability benefits available to workers under age 50; established a new earnings test 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 for earnings above $1,500; 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 1 for every 2 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.
1. House Action
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
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)
designed to assist aged persons who were not eligible for public assistance but who were unable
to pay their medical bills.
116 Congressional Record. August 16, 1958. Senate. p. 17982.
117 Congressional Record. August 16, 1958. Senate. Not voting 17. p. 18014.
118 Congressional Record. August 19, 1958. House. p. 18540.
Congressional Research Service
25
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
The Ways and Means Committee rejected H.R. 4700, introduced by Mr. Forand (D-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
Proponents of H.R. 12580 said that it provided medical assistance for every aged person in any
state that implemented a medical assistance program. Mr. Thompson (D-NJ), a 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 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
a. 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
2. Senate Action
The Senate deleted the bill’s new title, and instead adopted an amendment by Mr. Kerr (D-OK)
and Mr. Frear (D-DE) that amended Title I of the Social Security Act to provide medical services
for medically needy aged persons.
a. On August 20, 1960, Mr. 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
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, Mr. Javits’
amendment was rejected by a vote of 28 (28-R) to 67 (5-R, 62-D).123
b. Also on August 20, 1960, Mr. 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. On
August 23, 1960, Mr. Anderson’s amendment was rejected by a vote of 44 (l-R, 43-D) to 51 (32-
R, 19-D).124
c. On August 23, 1960, the Senate passed by voice vote Mr. Byrd’s (D-WV) amendment to permit
men to retire at age 62 with actuarially reduced benefits. (The amendment was later dropped in
conference.)125
d. The Senate passed H.R. 12580 on August 23, 1960, by a vote of 91 (31-R, 60-D) to 2 (l-R,
1-D).126
119 See Social Security Online: Chronology, March 31, 1960, http://www.ssa.gov/history/1960.html.
120 Congressional Record. June 22, 1960. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Thompson. p. 13846.
121 Congressional Record. June 22, 1960. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Thompson. p. 13845.
122 Congressional Record. June 23, 1960. House. Roll call no. 143, not voting 24. p. 14054-14055.
123 Congressional Record. August 23, 1960. Senate. Roll call no. 305, not voting 5. p. 17176.
124 Congressional Record. August 23, 1960. Senate. Roll call no. 307, not voting 5. p. 17220.
125 Congressional Record. August 23, 1960. Senate. p. 17234.
126 Congressional Record. August 23, 1960. Senate. Roll call no. 309, not voting 7. p. 17235.
Congressional Research Service
26
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
3. Conference Action
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
known as the Kerr-Mills program, named for Senator Robert Kerr (D-OK) and House Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills (D-AR).
a. 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
b. The Senate agreed to the conference report on August 29, 1960, by a vote of 74 (31-R, 43-D) to
11 (l-R, 10-D).128
K. 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
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
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 retire at age 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 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 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 been entitled to if alive;
changed the earnings test so that an aged recipient had no benefits withheld for the first $1,200 a
year of earnings, $1 withheld for each $2 earned between $1,200 and $1,700, and a dollar-for-
dollar reduction of earnings above $1,700; and raised the employer and employee tax rates by
0.125% and the self-employed tax rate by 0.1875%.130
1. House Action
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
it would likely start a trend toward “compulsory retirement” at age 62. Speaking for himself and
most of the minority Committee members, Mr. 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 stay
in the labor market. This provides further incentive to drive them out.”131
127 Congressional Record. August 26, 1960. House. Roll call no. 197, not voting 44. p. 17893.
128 Congressional Record. August 29, 1960. Senate. Roll call no. 314, not voting 15. p. 18096.
129 Social Security Administration. “Social Security Amendments of 1961: Summary and Legislative History” [by]
Wilbur J. Cohen and William L. Mitchell. Social Security Bulletin, v. 24, no. 9, September 1961. p. 8.
130 Congress and the Nation: 1945-1964. p. 1255.
131 Congressional Record. April 20, 1961. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Curtis. p. 6471.
Congressional Research Service
27
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
a. On April 20, 1961, Mr. 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
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
widows were already in H.R. 6027 as reported out of Committee.
b. The House passed H.R. 6027 on April 20, 1961, by a vote of 400 (149-R, 251-D) to 14
(14-R).134
2. Senate Action
In the Senate, debate focused on Mr. Cotton’s (R-NH) amendment made on June 26, 1961 to
increase the earnings test limit to $1,800 a year.135 Mr. Kerr (D-OK) said that Mr. Cotton’s
amendment failed to provide increased OASDI taxes to pay for the additional $427-$615 million
that would be paid out each year under the proposed amendment.136 Mr. Kerr stated that “an
amendment which would result in the impairment of the fiscal integrity of the fund should not be
pressed.”137
a. Mr. 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
(3-R, 56-D) to 30 (30-R).138 Provisions to finance this change were agreed to by unanimous-
consent.139
b. On June 26, 1961, Mr. Hartke’s amendment to broaden the definition of disability was rejected
by voice vote.140
c. The Senate passed H.R. 6027 90 (33-R, 57-D) to 0 on June 26, 1961.141
3. Conference Action
Both chambers cleared the conference report by voice votes June 29, 1961.142
132 Congressional Record. April 20, 1961. House. p. 6492.
133 Congressional Record. April 20, 1961. House. p. 6495.
134 Congressional Record. April 20, 1961. House. Roll call no. 40, not voting 17. p. 6495.
135 Congressional Record. June 26, 1961. Senate. p. 11309.
136 Congressional Record. June 26, 1961. Senate. p. 11314.
137 Congressional Record. June 26, 1961. Senate. In floor remarks by Mr. Kerr. p. 11310.
138 Congressional Record. June 26, 1961. Senate. Roll call no. 83, not voting 11. p. 11318.
139 Congressional Record. June 26, 1961. Senate. p. 11325.
140 Congressional Record. June 26, 1961. Senate. p. 11327.
141 Congressional Record. June 26, 1961. Senate. Roll call no. 85, not voting 10. p. 11328.
142 Congressional Record. June 29, 1961. House. p. 11791. And, Congressional Record. June 29, 1961. Senate. p.
11693.
Congressional Research Service
28
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
L. Proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964
H.R. 11865, the proposed 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
3, 1964 without making any recommendations.
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
she were in school; allowed widows to retire at age 60, with actuarially reduced benefits;
provided limited benefits to persons aged 72 and over who had some Social Security coverage but
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
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
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
religious groups to reject Social Security coverage if they had religious objections to social
insurance).
1. House Action
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
Committee amendments. No amendments were offered.
a. On July 29, 1964, the House passed H.R. 11865 by a vote of 388 to 8.143
2. Senate Action
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
the Social Security program.
a. On August 31, 1964, Mr. Gore (D-TN) offered an amendment to Mr. Long’s (D-LA)
amendment144 to increase the proposed across-the-board benefit increase to 7% (instead of the
proposed 5% increase) and liberalized the earnings test.145 Mr. Gore’s amendment included the
1963 King (D-CA)-Anderson (D-NM) bill (H.R. 3920/S. 880), that would have provided hospital
insurance benefits for the aged under the Social Security program.
b. On September 2, 1964, the Gore amendment passed by a vote of 49 to 44.146
c. On September 3, 1964, the Senate passed H.R. 11865 by a vote of 60 to 28.147
143 Congressional Record. July 29, 1964. House. Roll call no.193, not voting 35. p. 17298-17299.
144 Congressional Record. August 31, 1964. Senate. p. 21103.
145 Congressional Record. August 31, 1964. Senate. p. 21086.
146 Congressional Record. September 2, 1964. Senate. Roll call no. 558, not voting 7. p. 21318.
Congressional Research Service
29
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
3. Conference Action
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
House, by a 3 to 2 vote, refused to accept such provisions.148 The Conference Committee
adjourned on October 2, 1964.
M. 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
President Johnson. Although a federally operated health insurance program covering the entire
nation was considered by the Roosevelt Administration in 1935, it was not 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 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 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 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 program
would serve recipients of the Social Security and railroad retirement programs, age 65 and older.
A voluntary Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) plan (Part B) would help pay doctor bills
and related services, for all persons age 65 and older, financed through monthly 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
compulsory self-employment coverage to doctors, made child’s benefits available through age 21
if the child attended school full time (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
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
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
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 age 72 or over 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
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).
Further, a new federal-state medical assistance program established under Title XIX of the Social
Security Act replaced the Kerr-Mills law (medica1 assistance for the aged that was enacted in
1960). The program was to be administered by the states, with federal matching funds. The new
(...continued)
147 Congressional Record. September 3, 1964. Senate. Roll call no. 561, not voting 12. p. 21553.
148 Social Security Administration. “Social Security Legislation.” Commissioner’s Bulletin, 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
President to propose a national health insurance program.
Congressional Research Service
30
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
Medicaid program was available to all people receiving assistance under the public assistance
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.
1. House Action
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
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
supporters.150
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
Committee reported H.R. 6675 March 29, 1965, with all 17 Democrats favoring the bill and all 8
Republicans opposing it.
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
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)
with a Medicaid-like program underpinning it to provide medical assistance for the needy aged.
a. On April 8, 1965, the House rejected Mr. Byrnes’ (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 bill that Mr.
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 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 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
b. 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
2. Senate Action
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).
a. On July 7 and 8, 1965, three moves to expand H.R. 6675 were rejected. Mr. Ribicoff’s (D-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 Mr. Miller’s (R-IA) amendment to provide for an
automatic 3% increase in Social Security pensions whenever a 3% increase occurred in the
150 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1965. Washington, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. p. 236.
151 Congressional Record. April 8, 1965. House. Roll call no. 70, not voting 5. p. 7443-7444.
152 Congressional Record. April 8, 1965. House. Roll call no. 71, not voting 5. p. 7444.
153 Congressional Record. July 7, 1965. Senate. Roll call no. 165, not voting 18. p. 15835.
Congressional Research Service
31
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
“retail” price index was rejected by a vote of 21 (15-R, 6-D) to 64 (9-R, 55-D).154 Mr. 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 79 (18-R, 61-D).155
In addition, Mr. Curtis’ (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 (4-R, 47-D).156
b. On July 7, 1965, Mr. 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
by voice vote.157
c. On July 8, 1965, Mr. 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
vote.158
d. On July 9, 1965, Mr. 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 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
e. On July 9, 1965, Mr. Hartke’s amendment to eliminate the time limit on hospital care under the
proposed program was agreed to by voice vote.160
f. On July 9, 1965, Mr. Smathers’ (D-FL) amendment to raise payroll taxes to finance the benefits
provided in floor amendments passed by a voice vote.161
g. On July 9, 1965, Mr. 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 Mr.
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 vote of 40 to
52.163 In addition, Mr. 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 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
154 Congressional Record. July 8, 1965. Senate. Roll call no. 166, not voting 15. p. 15869.
155 Congressional Record. July 8, 1965. Senate. Roll call no. 167, not voting 9. p. 15909.
156 Congressional Record. July 8, 1965. Senate. Roll call no. 168, not voting 8. p. 15927.
157 Congressional Record. July 7, 1965. Senate. p. 15794.
158 Congressional Record. July 8, 1965. Senate. p. 15904.
159 Congressional Record. July 9, 1965. Senate. p. 16115.
160 Congressional Record. July 9, 1965. Senate. p. 16130.
161 Congressional Record. July 9, 1965. Senate. p. 16138.
162 Congressional Record. July 9, 1965. Senate. Roll call no. 170, not voting 10. p. 16100.
163 Congressional Record. July 9, 1965. Senate. Roll call no. 174, not voting 8. p. 16119.
164 Congressional Record. July 9, 1965. Senate. Roll call no. 175, not voting 11. p. 16126.
Congressional Research Service
32
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
h. 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
3. Conference Action
a. 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
b. 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
N. 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
the Vietnam War. In addition, it extended OASI benefits of $35 per month to persons over age
71who 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,
or welfare programs.
1. House Action
a. 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 H.R. 12752, as passed by the House, did not contain any Social
Security provisions.
2. Senate Action
During the floor debate on H.R. 12752, Mr. Prouty (R-VT) offered an amendment to extend a
minimum Social Security payment of $44 a month to all persons age 70 or older who were not
then eligible for benefits (an estimated 1.8 million persons at a cost of $760 million in
FY1967).169
a. On March 8, 1966, Mr. Long (D-LA) moved to table the Prouty amendment but his motion was
rejected by a vote of 37 (l-R, 36-D) to 51 (30-R, 21-D).170
b. 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 Mr.
165 Congressional Record. July 9, 1965. Senate. Roll call no. 176, not voting 11. p. 16157.
166 Congressional Record. July 27, 1965. House. Roll call no. 203, not voting 11. p. 18393-18394.
167 Congressional Record. July 28, 1965. Senate. Roll call no.201, not voting 6. p. 18514.
168 Congressional Record. February 23, 1966. House. Roll call no. 20, not voting 41. p. 3719-3720.
169 Congressional Record. March 8, 1966. Senate. In floor remarks by Mr. Prouty. p. 5289-5292.
170 Congressional Record. March 8, 1966. Senate. Roll call no. 46, not voting 12. p. 5298.
171 Congressional Record. March 8, 1966. Senate. Roll call no. 47, not voting 15. p. 5298.
Congressional Research Service
33
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
Prouty to table Mr. Mansfield’s (D-MT) motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the
amendment.172
c. 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
3. Conference Action
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.
a. 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
b. 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
O. P.L. 90-248, Social Security Amendments of 1967 (H.R. 12080)
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
the taxable wage base from $6,600 to $7,800; increased the payroll tax rate from 4.4% on
employers and employees 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 for every
$2 earned between $1,680 and $2,880, and lost dollar-for-dollar for earnings 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 clarified the
definition of disability.
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,
introduced in the House on February 20, 1967, by the Committee on Ways and Means Chairman,
Wilbur Mills (D-AR).
1. House Action
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
Administration’s Social Security proposals, notably a provision that raised the earnings test limit
from $1,500 to $1,680.176
172 Congressional Record. March 8, 1966. Senate. Roll call no. 48, not voting 13. p. 5301.
173 Congressional Record. March 9, 1966. Senate. Roll call no. 52, not voting 12. p. 5485.
174 Congressional Record. March 15, 1966. House. Roll call no. 36, not voting 41. p. 5801.
175 Congressional Record. March 15, 1966. Senate. Roll call no. 57, not voting 23. p. 5960.
176 Social Security Administration. “Social Security Amendments of 1967: Summary-and Legislative History” [by]
Wilbur J. Cohen and Robert M. Ball. Social Security Bulletin, v. 31, no. 2, February 1968.
Congressional Research Service
34
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
a. On August 17, 1967, Mr. Utt (R-CA) moved to recommit H.R. 12080. Mr. Utt’s motion was
rejected by voice vote.177
b. On August 17, 1967, the House passed H.R. 12080 by a roll call vote of 416 (182-R, 234-D) to
3 (l-R, 2-D).178 The bill was debated under a closed rule prohibiting floor amendments.
2. Senate Action
On November 14, 1967, the Senate Finance Committee reported a heavily-amended bill that
contained several of the OASDI provisions as they had been recommended by the Administration
rather than as they had been 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.
a. On November 17, 1967, Mr. Prouty (R-VT) offered an amendment to finance the higher
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
b. On November 17, 1967, Mr. 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 34 (6-R,
28-D) to 20 (16-R, 4-D).180
c. On November 21, 1967, Mr. Williams (R-DE) offered an amendment to implement the 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) to 49 (4-R,
45-D).181
d. 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 Mr. Curtis (R-NE) and Mr. Williams (R-DE) substituting 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
e. On November 21, 1967, Mr. Bayh (D-IN) offered an amendment to raise the earnings test limit
from $1,680 to $2,400. Mr. Bayh’s amendment passed by a vote of 50 (14-R, 36-D) to 23 (10-R,
13-D).183
f. 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
177 Congressional Record. August 17, 1967. House. p. 23132.
178 Congressional Record. August 17, 1967. House. Roll call no. 222, not voting 3. p. 23132.
179 Congressional Record. November 17, 1967. Senate. Roll call no. 327, not voting 32. p. 33078.
180 Congressional Record. November 17, 1967. Senate. Roll call no. 329, not voting 46. p. 33119.
181 Congressional Record. November 21, 1967. Senate. Roll call no. 335, not voting 24. p. 33496.
182 Congressional Record. November 21, 1967. Senate. Roll call no. 337, not voting 20. p. 33510.
183 Congressional Record. November 21, 1967. Senate. Roll call no. 349, not voting 27. p. 33587.
184 Congressional Record. November 22, 1967. Senate. Roll call no. 350, not voting 16. p. 33637.
Congressional Research Service
35
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
3. Conference Action
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
the other provisions.
a. The House adopted the conference report on December 13, 1967, by a vote of 390 (167-R, 223-
D) to 3 (l-R, 2-D).185
b. 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
P. P.L. 91-172, The Tax Reform Act of 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.
1. 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,
20-D).187 The bill did not contain any Social Security provisions.
2. Senate Action
On December 5, 1969, Mr. Long (D-LA) offered an amendment to raise basic Social Security
benefits by 15% beginning in January 1970.
a. Mr. Long’s amendment was passed by a vote of 73 (23-R, 50-D) to 14 (14-R).188
b. 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
$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
c. On December 5, 1969, Mr. 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 (33-R,
1-D) to 56 (5-R, 51-D).190
d. 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
185 Congressional Record. December 13, 1967. House. Roll call no. 439, not voting 38. p. 36393.
186 Congressional Record. December 15, 1967. Senate. Roll call no.392, not voting 24. p. 36924.
187 Congressional Record. August 7, 1969. House. Roll call No. 149, not voting 7. p. 22808-22809.
188 Congressional Record. December 5, 1969. Senate. Roll call no. 179, not voting 13. p. 37247.
189 Congressional Record. December 5, 1969. Senate. Roll call no. 177, not voting 10. p. 37240.
190 Congressional Record. December 5, 1969. Senate. Roll call no. 175, not voting 9. p. 37230.
Congressional Research Service
36
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
3. Conference Action
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
another bill, H.R. 15095. The conferees dropped the other provisions that were added on the
Senate floor.
a. 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
b. On December 22, 1969, the Senate adopted H.R. 13270 by a vote of 71 (25-R, 46-D) to 6
(6-R).193
Q. 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
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,
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
special benefits payable to individuals age 72 and older who were not insured for regular benefits,
retroactive to January 1, 1971.
1. House Action
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
benefit increases with rises in the cost of living, and made other changes in the OASDI and
Medicare programs.
2. Senate Action
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
rest of the bill. H.R. 17550, with provisions raising benefits 10%, providing a $100 minimum
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
81 (35-R, 46-D) to 0.195 However, the House never agreed to a conference.196
(...continued)
191 Congressional Record. December 11, 1969. Senate. Roll call no. 223, not voting 6. p. 38396.
192 Congressional Record. December 22.1969. House. Roll call no. 351, not voting 50. p. 40899-40900.
193 Congressional Record. December 22, 1969. Senate. Roll call no. 273, not voting 23. p. 40718.
194 Congressional Record. May 21, 1970. House. Roll call no. 136, not voting 53. p. 16587-16588.
195 Congressional Record. December 29, 1970. Senate. Roll call no. 455, not voting 19. p. 43868.
Congressional Research Service
37
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
Mr. 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
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
a. On March 12, 1971, Mr. Long’s amendment to provide a 10% increase in Social Security
payments, a $100 minimum benefit, increases in earnings limitations, and other changes passed
by a vote of 82 (38-R, 44-D) to 0.198
b. The Senate, on March 12, 1971, passed H.R. 4690, after approving several Social Security
changes, including the benefit increase proposed by Mr. Long, by a vote of 80 (37-R, 43-D)
to 0.199
3. Conference Action
Conferees accepted the Senate’s 10% benefit increase but reduced the $100 minimum benefit to
$70.40 and made several other modifications.
a. On March 16, 1971, the House adopted the conference report by a vote of 360 (150-R, 210-D)
to 3 (3-R).200
b. On March 16, 1971, the Senate adopted the report by a vote of 76 (37-R, 39-D) to 0.201
R. 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.
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
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
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
in 1973 and to $12,000 in 1974, with automatic adjustment thereafter. The Congressional
Quarterly Almanac reported that:
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 be
unlikely to veto a bill that contained a debt limit increase, and (2) H.R. 1, the bill under
(...continued)
196 Congressional Quarterly Almanac; 1971. p. 421-425.
197 Congressional Record. March 12, 1971. Senate. p. 6374.
198 Congressional Record. March 12, 1971. Senate. Roll call no. 20, not voting 18. p. 6381.
199 Congressional Record. March 12, 1971. Senate. Roll call no. 23, not voting 20. p. 6390.
200 Congressional Record. March 16, 1971. House. Roll call no. 20, not voting 68. p. 6741-6742.
201 Congressional Record. March 16, 1971. Senate. Roll call no. 24, not voting 24. p. 6688.
Congressional Research Service
38
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
which a benefit increase was then being considered, faced an uncertain future because of
controversy over its welfare provisions.202
1. House Action
a. 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%.
b. On February 23, 1972, Mr. Mills (D-AR), Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee,
introduced H.R. 13320, which provided for an immediate benefit increase of 20%.203
c. 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
2. Senate Action
a. On June 29, 1972, Mr. Aiken (R-VT) offered an amendment to the Church amendment [See (c)
below] to increase Social Security benefits by 30%. Following Mr. Long’s (D-LA) motion, Mr.
Aiken’s amendment was tabled by a vote of 71 (3l-R, 40-D) to 18 (8-R, 10-D).205
b. On June 30, 1972, an amendment by Mr. 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,
45-D).206
c. On June 30, 1972, Mr. 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
Senate by a vote of 82 (34-R, 48-D) to 4 (4-R).207 The amendment made benefit increases
automatic whenever the consumer price index rose more than 3% in any calendar year.
d. On June 30, 1972, the Senate passed H.R. 15390 by a vote of 78 (36-R, 42-D) to 3 (l-R, 2-D).
H.R. 15390 was then sent back to the House.208
3. House Response to Senate Amendment
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
because the debt limit was to revert automatically to $400 billion (from the existing $450 billion)
at midnight on June 30, 1972.
202 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1972. p. 399.
203 Congressional Record. February 23, 1972. House. p. 5269-5270.
204 Congressional Record. June 27, 1972. House. Roll call no. 237, not voting 53. p. 22558-22559.
205 Congressional Record. June 29, 1972. Senate. Roll call no. 266, not voting 11. p. 23294.
206 Congressional Record. June 30, 1972. Senate. Roll call no. 267, not voting 13. p. 23511-23512.
207 Congressional Record. June 30, 1972. Senate. Roll call no. 268, not voting 13. p. 23512.
208 Congressional Record. June 30, 1972. Senate. Roll call no. 272, not voting 19. p. 23545.
Congressional Research Service
39
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
4. Conference Action
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 non-germane amendments
added by the Senate. Thus, the conference report was reported back to the House in
disagreement.209
a. On June 30, 1972, Mr. Byrnes (R-WI) called the proposed 20% increase “irresponsible” and
moved that the House concur with the Senate amendment but with the benefit increase limited to
10%. Mr. Byrnes’ motion was rejected by a vote of 83 (63-R, 20-D) to 253 (73-R, 180-D).210
b. On June 30, 1972, Mr. Mills’ (D-AR) motion that the House concur with the Senate-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
S. 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
President Nixon. During 1969-72, Congress raised OASDI benefits 3 times. In 1969, benefits
were raised by 15%; in 1971, by 10%, and by 20% in 1972 (P.L. 92-336). P.L. 92-336 also
provided for future automatic benefit increases, called cost of living adjustments (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 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 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
limit from $1,680 to $2,100 with automatic adjustment to average wages thereafter (earnings
above $2,100 benefits were reduced dollar-for-dollar without limit); reduced the waiting period
for 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 $170 a month for those who had worked many years, but at low earnings. In
addition, OASDHI 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
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
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
209 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1972. p. 402-403.
210 Congressional Record. June 30, 1972. House. Roll call no. 259, not voting 95. p. 23738.
211 Congressional Record. June 30, 1972. House. Roll call no. 260, not voting 95. p. 23738-23739.
212 Congress and the Nation: 1969-1972. 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
P.L. 92-603 advanced the tax rate schedule and raised the out-year rates.
Congressional Research Service
40
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
federalizing and consolidating adult public assistance programs for needy aged, blind, and
disabled persons in a new “Supplemental Security Income” (SSI) program.
1. House Action
Most of the debate on H.R. 1 dealt with the family welfare provisions, with little debate on the
OASDI and Medicare provisions.
a. 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
2. Senate Action
a. On September 27, 1972, Mr. Mansfield (D-MT) offered an amendment to increase the earnings
test limit from $1,680 to $3,000. Mr. Mansfield’s amendment was agreed to by a vote of 76 (32-
R, 44-D) to 5 (4-R, 1-D).215
b. On September 28, 1972, Mr. 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
report to Congress on the feasibility of eliminating it, was accepted by voice vote.216
c. On September 29, 1972, Mr. Long (D-LA) offered an amendment to provide a federal
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 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
d On 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
minimum monthly benefit of $200 ($300 for a couple) passed by a vote of 73 (30-R, 43-D)
to 0.218
e. On September 30, 1972, Mr. 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
receive reduced widow’s benefits was agreed to by a vote of 29 (10-R, 19-D) to 25 (12-R,
13-D).219
f. On September 27, 1972, Mr. Goldwater (R-AZ) offered an amendment to repeal the earnings
limitation for all Social Security recipients age 65 and over. The amendment was rejected by
voice vote.220
214 Congressional Record. June 22, 1971. House. Roll call no. 157, not voting 13. p. 21463.
215 Congressional Record. September 27, 1972. Senate. Roll call no. 478, not voting 19. p. 32488.
216 Congressional Record. September 28, 1972. Senate. p. 32720.
217 Congressional Record. September 29, 1972. Senate. Roll call no. 484, not voting 25. p. 32905.
218 Congressional Record. September 29, 1972. Senate. Roll call no. 485, not voting 27. p. 32907.
219 Congressional Record. September 30, 1972. Senate. Roll call no. 488, not voting 46. p. 33000.
220 Congressional Record. September 27, 1972. Senate. p. 32485.
Congressional Research Service
41
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
g. H.R. 1 passed the Senate on October 5, 1972, by a vote of 68 (33-R, 35-D) to 5 (l-R, 4-D).221
3. Conference Action
a. 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
b. 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
T. P.L. 93-233, Social Security Benefits Increase
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 legislation, P.L.
93-66, that 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.
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
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
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
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.
1. House Action
With a rule allowing only one floor amendment (pertaining to SSI), the House passed H.R. 11333
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
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-
step 11% Social Security benefit increase in 1974, accelerated SSI benefit increases, and payroll
tax increases.
a. 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
221 Congressional Record. October 5, 1972. Senate. Roll call no. 536, not voting 27. p. 33995.
222 Congressional Record. October 17, 1972. Senate. Roll call no. 455, not voting 122. p. 36936.
223 Congressional Record. 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.
225 Congressional Record. November 15, 1973. House. Roll call no. 592, not voting 22. p. 37159.
226 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1973. p. 573.
227 Congressional Record. November 15, 1973. House. Roll call no. 592, not voting 22. p. 37159.
Congressional Research Service
42
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
2. Senate Action
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
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
number of technical and conforming amendments to the Social Security Act that had been omitted
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.
a. On November 29, 1973, Mr. 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
widow could elect to retire at 60 with reduced benefits. Mr. Byrd said that his amendment 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,”
Mr. 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 62
for “women who have had to work all their lives and will have to work until they are of
retirement age.” Mr. Byrd’s amendment was adopted by a vote of 74 (28-R, 46-D) to 13 (9-R,
4-D).228
b. Mr. 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. The
amendment was accepted November 29, 1973, by a vote of 83 (33-R, 50-D) to 1 (l-R).229
c. On November 29, 1973, Mr. Hartke’s (D-IN) amendment making blind persons eligible for
disability benefits after working 18 months in covered employment was adopted by voice vote.
(Ordinarily a disabled person had to work in 20 out of the last 40 quarters to be eligible.)
d. 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
3. Conference Action
After the Senate passed H.R. 3153, it asked the House for a conference, but the House appointed
conferees with 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, 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
conference on H.R. 3153 in 1974 to consider additional Senate amendments, but the conference
never took place.
228 Congressional Record. November 29, 1973. Senate. Roll call no. 527, not voting 13. p. 38645.
229 Congressional Record. November 29, 1973. Senate. Roll call no. 528, not voting 15. p. 38645-38646.
230 Congressional Record. November 30, 1973. Senate. Roll call no. 540, not voting 24. p. 38975.
231 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1973. p. 577-580.
Congressional Research Service
43
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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
federal SSI benefit level.
a. 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
b. The House, on December 21, 1973, concurred in passing the bill by a vote of 301 (123-R, 178-
D) to 13 (l0-R, 3-D).233
U. P.L. 95-216. The Social Security Amendments of 1977
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
emerged in the mid-1970s. The Congressional Quarterly Almanac says that the main cause of the
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
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
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
and possibly eliminate the projected long-run deficit by modifying the benefit formula to stabilize
replacement rates.
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 (the so-called “counter
cyclical” use of general revenues). Instead, to meet the short-run problem the new law mostly
increased Social Security tax rates and the taxable earnings base and somewhat reduced
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 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 age 65 and over (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 and over (reduced from age 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
recipients.
1. House Action
Legislation that incorporated the Administration’s recommendations (H.R. 8218) was introduced
on July 12, 1977, by Mr. Burke (D-MA), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s
Social Security Subcommittee. After reworking the Administration’s package, the Subcommittee
232 Congressional Record. 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.
233 Congressional Record. December 21, 1973. House. Roll call no. 719, not voting 118. p. 43230.
234 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1977. p. 161.
Congressional Research Service
44
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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 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 H.R. 9346
began on October 26, 1977.235
a. 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 Committee bill covering federal, state, local, and nonprofit employees under Social
Security.
b. Mr. 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 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 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 Commission, the Departments of
Treasury and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Office 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 coverage issue should be
conducted first. Opponents, on the other hand, argued that the Committee bill, by postponing the
extension of coverage until 1982, allowed sufficient time to work out details.237 In order 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 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 amendment.238 Mr. 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 Committee amendment, as amended by the
Fisher amendment, by a vote of 380 (124-R, 256-D) to 39 (14-R, 25-D).240
c. On October 26, 1977, Mr. Pickle (D-TX) offered an amendment to strike another Committee
provision authorizing standby loans to the OASDI system from general revenues whenever trust
fund reserves dipped below 25% of a year’s outgo. Mr. Pickle argued that any use of general
treasury funds for Social Security undermined the contributory nature of the program. He
235 Social Security Administration. “Social Security Amendments of 1977: Legislative History and Summary of
Provisions.” Prepared by John Snee and Mary Ross, Office of Program Evaluation and Planning, Social Security
Administration. Social Security Bulletin, v. 41, no. 3, March 1978. p. 6-9. (Hereinafter cited as “Social Security
Amendments of 1977: Legislative History.”)
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, Mr. 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 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
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.
237 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1977. p. 165.
238 Ibid.
239 Congressional Record. October 26, 1977. House. Roll call no. 697, not voting 10. p. 35315.
240 Congressional Record. October 26, 1977. House. Roll call no. 698, not voting 15. p. 35315-35316.
Congressional Research Service
45
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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) to 221 (15-R, 206-
D).241
d. On October 26, 1977, Mr. Corman (D-CA) offered an amendment to eliminate the minimum
Social Security benefit for new recipients. Mr. Corman 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
monthly wage.” He stated that his amendment restored “a measure of the social insurance
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
e. On October 27, 1977, Mr. Ketchum (R-CA) offered an amendment to raise the earnings
limitation on recipients over age 65 gradually 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 was adopted by a vote of 268 (139-R, 129-D) to 149 (1-R, 148-D).243
f. On October 27, 1977, Mr. 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
coverage of federal workers, diverted half of the HI portion of the Social Security tax to OASDI
in 1980, and replaced the lost HI revenues with general revenues. Mr. Conable argued that an
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)
to 363 (97-R, 266-D).244
g. 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
2. Senate Action
Preliminary hearings and mark-up 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
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
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
a. When H.R. 9346 as passed by the House came up for debate on the Senate floor on November
2, 1977, Mr. 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 included
decoupling measures similar to those in the House bill. They also included provisions that would
241 Congressional Record. October 26, 1977. House. Roll call no. 700, not voting 17. p. 35323.
242 Congressional Record. October 26, 1977. House. Roll call no. 701, not voting 32. p. 35326.
243 Congressional Record. October 27, 1977. House. Roll call no. 704, not voting 17. p. 35394.
244 Congressional Record. October 27, 1977. House. Roll call no. 705, not voting 14. p. 35406.
245 Congressional Record. October 27, 1977. House. Roll call no. 706, not voting 13. p. 35406-35407.
246 “Social Security Amendments of 1977: Legislative History.” p. 9.
247 Ibid., p. 10-11.
Congressional Research Service
46
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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 work not
covered by Social Security. Mr. 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.
b. On November 3, 1977, Mr. 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
the Committee proposal) but would have raised the tax rate above the Committee-recommended
levels. Mr. 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 the
people with higher incomes.
Mr. 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 higher tax
under the Curtis plan than under the Committee proposal. Mr. 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 then rejected
the Curtis amendment, 40 (27-R, 13-D) to 50 (7-R, 43-D).250
c. On November 4, 1977, Mr. Goldwater (R-AZ) offered an amendment to lower the age at which
the earnings test would no longer apply from 72 to 65. Mr. Goldwater said that his 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 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
lucrative jobs past retirement age.
Mr. Church (D-ID offered a substitute amendment to lower from 72 to 70 the age at which the
earnings test would no longer apply. Mr. 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 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
d. An amendment offered by Mr. 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 vote of 50
(11-R, 39-D) to 21 (15-R, 6-D).254
e. On November 4, 1977, Mr. 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
must work to qualify for disability benefit at six. The Bayh amendment was adopted by voice
vote.255
248 Congressional Record. November 2, 1977. Senate. p. 36449.
249 Congressional Record. November 3, 1977. Senate. Roll call no. 611, not voting 11. p. 36763.
250 Congressional Record. November 3, 1977. Senate. Roll call no. 612, not voting 10. p. 36764.
251 Congressional Record. November 4, 1977. Senate. Roll call no. 620, not voting 14. p. 37130-37131.
252 Congressional Record. November 4, 1977. Senate. Roll call no. 621, not voting 13. p. 37132.
253 Congressional Record. November 4, 1977. Senate. Roll call no. 622, not voting 17. p. 37132.
254 Congressional Record. November 4, 1977. Senate. Roll call no. 627, not voting 29. p. 37162.
255 Congressional Record. November 4, 1977. Senate. p. 37141.
Congressional Research Service
47
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
f. 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
3. Conference Action
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
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
bill, the conferees agreed to raise, over five years, the earnings tests limit for the elderly (65 and
older).
Despite numerous differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, the
Congressional Quarterly Almanac stated that the conferees resolved their differences “without
trouble.”257 The main controversy involved provisions dealing with welfare programs and college
tuition tax credits.
a. 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. Mr.
Conable (R-NY) claimed that more reasonable non-tax alternatives were available.
b. On December 15, 1977, Mr. Ullman (D-OR) stated that the conference report “responsibly
faces up to the issues of Social Security, both short range and long range.” Mr. Ullman also
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
c. 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
V. 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
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
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
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
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
federal Medicare health insurance.
256 Congressional Record. November 4, 1977. Senate. Roll call no. 631, not voting 31. p. 37199-37200.
257 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1977. p. 171.
258 Congressional Record. December 15,1977. House. Roll call no. 782, not voting 81. p. 39035.
259 Congressional Record. December 15, 1977. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Ullman. p. 39007-39008.
260 Congressional Record. December 15, 1977. Senate. Roll call no. 636, not voting 22. p. 39152-39153
Congressional Research Service
48
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
1. House Action
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 mark-up sessions
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
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
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
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
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
be those recommended by the Ways and Means Committee (which were not amendable) and an
amendment offered by Mr. Simon (D-IL) that would delay the implementation of a provision
affecting vocational rehabilitation funding by one year. Despite the passage of the rule, “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
a. On September 6, 1979, the House agreed to the Ways and Means Committee and Mr. Simon’s
amendments263 and passed H.R. 3236 by a vote of 235 (108-R, 127-D) to 162 (36-R, 126-D).264
2. Senate Action
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 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 family benefits.265
a. On January 30, 1980, Mr. 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 a vote of 47
(7-R, 40-D) to 47 (31-R, 16-D).266
b. On January 30, 1980, Mr. 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
two doctors, would probably die within a year. Mr. 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
them were likely to live.
261 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1979. p. 505.
262 Social Security Administration. “Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History and Summary
of Provisions.” Social Security Bulletin, v. 44, no. 4, April 1981. p. 14-23. (Hereinafter cited as “Social Security
Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History.”)
263 Congressional Record. September 6, 1979. House. p. 23398 and p. 23401.
264 Congressional Record. September 6, 1977. House. Roll call no.447, not voting 37. p. 23401-23402.
265 “Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History.” p. 23-24.
266 Congressional Record. January 30, 1980. Senate. Roll call no.23, not voting 6. p. 1231.
Congressional Research Service
49
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
Mr. 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. Mr. Long also argued that the
amendment was not germane since 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 55 (17-R,
38-D) against the ruling of the chair,267 and then adopted the Bayh amendment by a vote of 70
(25-R, 45-D) to 23 (12-R, 11-D).268
c. 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
3. Conference Action
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
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
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.
a. 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
b. On May 29, 1980, the Senate passed the conference report on H.R. 3236 by a voice vote.273
W. P.L. 96-403, Reallocation of OASl and Dl Taxes
On October 9, 1980, H.R. 7670, the Reallocation of Social Security Taxes Between OASl and Dl
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
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
revenues from the Disability Insurance Trust Fund to the Old-Age and Survivors 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.
1. House Action
On July 21, 1980, Mr. Pickle (D-TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 7670. In his
remarks, Mr. Pickle said that “the bill we bring today is a deliberate step both to insure the
267 Congressional Record. January 30, 1980. Senate. Roll call no. 18, not voting 8. p. 1203.
268 Congressional Record. January 30, 1980. Senate. Roll call no. 19, not voting 7. p. 1207.
269 Congressional Record. January 31, 1980. Senate. Roll call no. 27, not voting 12. p. 1411.
270 “Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History.” p. 24.
271 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1980. p. 437.
272 Congressional Record. May 22, 1980. House. Roll call no. 253, not voting 42. p. 12175-12176.
273 Congressional Record. May 29, 1980. Senate. p. 12628.
Congressional Research Service
50
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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. 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 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 different mix than
currently projected.”274
a. On July 21, 1980, the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 7670. There was no roll call
vote.275
2. Senate Action
a. On September 25, 1980, H.R. 7670 was passed by unanimous consent.276
X. 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
earnings test provisions enacted in 1977 and limited the circumstances under which Social
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
earned more than the annual limit, his 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
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
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
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
become overpayments and had to be repaid.279 P.L. 96-473 modified this by allowing individuals
who received a dependent’s benefit (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 benefits
ended. P.L. 96-473 also allowed all recipients to qualify for at least 1 “grace year” in which the
274 Congressional Record. July 21, 1980. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Pickle. p. 18827.
275 Congressional Record. July 21, 1980. House. p. 18830.
276 Congressional Record. 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
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
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
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.
278 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1980. p. 295.
279 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. Earnings Test for Social Security Recipients. Report to
Accompany H.R. 5295. October 19, 1979. Report No. 96-537. 96th Cong., 1st Sess. Washington, GPO, 1979.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Finance. Amendments to the Social Security Program. Report to Accompany
H.R. 5295. September 24, 1980. Report No. 96-987. 96th Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, GPO, 1980.
Congressional Research Service
51
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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.
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,
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
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
in determining disability while the person remains in prison.
1. House Action
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
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
prisoners were introduced.
a. On December 19, 1979, Mr. 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
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
problems with the new annual earnings test, however, and have been disadvantaged by it. H.R.
5295 is designed to correct those inequities.”280
b. On December 19, 1979, H.R. 5295, as amended, was passed unanimously by the House, 383
to 0.281
2. Senate Action
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
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
that prohibited payment of Social Security disability benefits to prisoners convicted of crimes.
The Finance Committee also included this measure in H.R. 5295.
a. On September 30, 1980, the Senate passed H.R. 5295, with amendments, by unanimous
consent.282
280 Congressional Record. December 19, 1979. House. p. 36961.
281 Congressional Record. December 19, 1979. House. Roll call no. 751, not voting 50. p. 36969.
282 Congressional Record. September 30, 1980. Senate. p. 28195.
Congressional Research Service
52
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
3. House Concurrence
a. On October 1, 1980, Mr. 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” 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
b. On October 1, 1980, the House concurred in the Senate amendments with an amendment by
unanimous consent.284
4. Senate Concurrence
a. On October 1, 1980, Mr. Byrd’s motion that the Senate concur with the House amendment to
the Senate amendment was agreed to by voice vote.285
Y. P.L. 97-35, The 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
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
provisions were among many outlay reduction measures intended to constrain federal
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
“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 (age 18 and
older, except for those under age 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 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
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
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
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
and Means Committee.
283 Congressional Record. October 1, 1980. House. p. 8676-28677.
284 Congressional Record. October 1, 1980. House. p. 28677.
285 Congressional Record. 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
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
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
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.
Congressional Research Service
53
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
1. Senate Action287
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
House and the Senate. After final adoption (May 21, 1981) of the First Concurrent Budget
Resolution, both the House and the Senate were acting within similar reconciliation guidelines.288
a. 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 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 Administration with some minor modifications.
b. 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
already on the benefit rolls. On June 23, 1981, Mr. Riegle (D-MI) offered an amendment that
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
c. 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 (O-R, 15-D).290
2. House Action
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
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.
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
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
(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 Mr. Gramm (D-TX) and
Mr. 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 original proposals and
with S. 1377 then pending in the Senate.293
287 The Senate action is given first because the Senate passed the bill before the House did.
288 “Social Security Administration. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History and Summary of
OASDI and Medicare Provisions” [by] John A. Svahn. Social Security Bulletin, v. 44, no.10, October 1981. p. 7.
(Herineafter cited as “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History.”)
289 Congressional Record. June 23, 1981. Senate. Roll call no. 160, not voting 2. p. 13304.
290 Congressional Record. June 25, 1981. Senate. Roll call no. 182, not voting 5. p. 13933.
291 “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History,” p. 11.
292 Ibid.
293 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
54
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
a. On June 25, 1981, the original rule for floor consideration of the bill was defeated by a vote of
210 (l-R, 209-D) to 217 (188-R, 29-D).294
b. A package of amendments by Mr. Latta, the so-called Gramm-Latta II alternative, called for (1)
deletion of 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 both current
and future recipients, and (3) the Senate-passed student benefit phase-out 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, 29-D) to 211 (2-
R, 209-D).295
c. 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
3. Conference Action
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
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
differences.297
On July 30, 1981, Mr. Bolling (D-MO), Chairman of the House Rules Committee, threatened to
prevent the conference agreement from being brought to the House floor for final approval until
something could be worked out to modify the minimum benefit provision. An 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 was H.R. 4331,
the Social Security Amendments of 1981. (See following section for further details.)
a. 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)
to 14 (l-R, 13-D).298
Z. P.L. 97-123, The Social Security Amendments of 1981
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
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
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
294 Congressional Record. June 25, 1981. House. Roll call no. 104, not voting 4. p. 14078-14079.
295 Congressional Record. June 26, 1981. House. Roll call no. 111, not voting 4. p. 14681-14682.
296 Congressional Record. June 26, 1981. House. Roll call no. 113, not voting 6. p. 14794-14795.
297 “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History.” p. 13.
298 Congressional Record. July 31,1981. Senate. Roll call no. 247, not voting 6. p. 19144.
299 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1981. p. 117.
Congressional Research Service
55
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
allowed the financially troubled OASI trust fund to borrow from the healthier disability insurance
and hospital insurance trust 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. 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.
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
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
Department of Health and Human Services access to recorded Social Security numbers to prevent
ineligible prisoners from receiving disability benefits.
I. 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
non-binding 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
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
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
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
minimum benefit, thereby reinstating the minimum benefit for current and future recipients.
a. 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
2. Senate Action
When H.R. 4331 was sent to the Senate, Mr. Riegle (D-MI), Mr. Moynihan (D-NY), and Mr.
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
permitting consideration of the bill by the Finance Committee and delaying a Senate vote until
October.
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-
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
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
300 Congressional Record. July 21,1981. House. Roll call no. 145, not voting 15. p. 16659-16660.
301 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1981. p. 119-120.
302 Congressional Record. July 31, 1981. House. Roll call no. 189, not voting 10. p. 18899-18900.
303 Congressional Record. July 31, 1981. Senate. Roll call no. 248, not voting 12. p. 19148.
Congressional Research Service
56
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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).
The bill also allowed inter-fund borrowing.
a. On October 14, 1981, the Senate by a voice vote agreed to (1) Mr. Danforth’s (R-MO)
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) Mr. Baucus’ (D-MT)
amendment to make it a felony to alter or counterfeit a Social Security card.305
b. On October 15, 1981, Mr. 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 accepted
by voice vote.306
c. On October 15, 1981, Mr. Moynihan’s (D-NY) amendment requiring counterfeit-proof Social
Security cards was agreed to by voice vote.307
d. On October 15, 1981, Mr. 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 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
e. 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
3. Conference Action
The Congressional Quarterly Almanac 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.
The conferees finally agreed to accept only the sick pay tax “on the condition that inter-fund
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
reduce the minimum for those also receiving government pensions above $300 per month and (2)
to limit further family benefits in OASI cases.
a. The Senate agreed to the conference report on December 15, 1981, by a vote of 96 (50-R,
46-D) to 0.311
b. The House agreed to the conference report on December 16, 1981, by a vote of 412 (18l-R,
231-D) to 10 (7-R, 3-D).312
304 Congressional Record. October 14, 1981. Senate. p. 23967.
305 Congressional Record. October 14, 1981. Senate. p. 23971.
306 Congressional Record. October 15, 1981. Senate. p. 24107.
307 Congressional Record. October 15, 1981. Senate. p. 24108.
308 Congressional Record. October 15, 1981. Senate. Roll call no. 312, not voting 5. p. 24096-24097.
309 Congressional Record. October 15, 1981. Senate. Roll call no. 315, not voting 5. p. 24120.
310 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1981. p. 121.
311 Congressional Record. December 15, 1981. Senate. Roll call no. 486, not voting 4. p. 31309.
Congressional Research Service
57
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
AA. 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
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
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
review process. It provided, temporally, an opportunity for individuals dropped from the rolls
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
benefits would have to be repaid if the appeal were lost. The measure also required the
Department of Health and Human Services 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 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 Secretary authority to decrease the number of
disability cases sent to State agencies for review.
1. Senate Action314
On September 28, 1982, the Finance Committee marked up S. 2942, which contained a number
of continuing disability review provisions. The Chairman, Mr. Dole (R-KS), asked that S. 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.
a. On December 3, 1982, Mr. Heinz (R-PA) said, “... this emergency legislation does not
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
been wrongly terminated will not be financially ruined because they have been deprived of their
benefits during a lengthy appeals process.”315
b. On December 3, 1982, the Senate passed H.R. 7093 by a vote of 70 (43-R, 27-D) to 4 (l-R,
3-D).316
2. House Action
On September 20, 1982, the House passed H.R. 7093 by voice vote. This version of the bill
contained no Social Security provisions.317
(...continued)
312 Congressional Record. 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
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
Security provisions) before the House did.
315 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, December 3, 1982. Senate. p. Sl3857.
316 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, December 3, 1982. Senate. Roll call no. 394, not voting 26. p. S13869.
Congressional Research Service
58
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
a. 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 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
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,
only one-third of a spouse’s government pension would be taken into account when applying the
government pension offset provision enacted in 1977.
3. Conference Action
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.
a. 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
b. The Senate passed the report by a voice vote on December 21, 1982.320
BB. P.L. 98-21, The Social Security Amendments of 1983
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
funds by mid-1983, and to need about $150 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 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 was projected to plunge the 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 the
system’s financing problems. On January 15, 1983, a majority of the Commission members
reached agreement on a package of changes.
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 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 of each year (which caused a delay of six months in 1983); made up to one-
half of the benefits received by higher income recipients subject to federal income taxation;
gradually raised the full benefit retirement age from 65 to 67 early in the next century; increased
benefits for certain groups of widow(er)s; liberalized the earnings test; increased the delayed
(...continued)
317 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, September 20, 1982. House. p. H7219.
318 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, December 14, 1982. House. p. H9665.
319 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, December 21, 1982. House. Roll call no. 487, not voting 174. p. HI0679-
10680.
320 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, December 21, 1982. Senate. p. S15966.
321 Based on estimates by the National Commission on Social Security Reform.
Congressional Research Service
59
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
retirement credit; reduced benefits for workers also getting pensions based on noncovered
employment; called for the earlier implementation of scheduled payroll tax increases; and
substantially raised the tax rates on 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 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 gender-based distinctions, and made numerous
additional technical changes in the law.
1. House Action
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
Social Security provisions, and other measures mostly related to long-run financing issues, along
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
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.
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.
a. On March 9, 1983, Mr. 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 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%), becoming
fully effective after the “full retirement age” reached 67.
Mr. 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, 131-D) to 296
(16-R, 131-D).323 Had the amendment passed, it would have superseded Mr. Pickle’s amendment.
b. The House passed H.R. 1900, as it had been amended, by a vote of 282 (97-R, 18-D) to 148
(69-R, 79-D)324 on March 9, 1983.
2. Senate Action
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
National Commission and provisions affecting the Medicare and Unemployment Insurance
programs.
322 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, March 9, 1983. House. Roll call no. 22, not voting 3. p. H1064-H1065.
323 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, March 9, 1983. House. Roll call no. 24, not voting 5. p. H1079.
324 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, March 9, 1983. House. Roll call no. 26, not voting 3. p. H1080-H1081.
Congressional Research Service
60
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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
the major amendments debated.
a. On March 23, 1983, Mr. 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. It
was passed by a voice vote.325
b. An amendment to the Long amendment by Mr. Stevens (R-AL) and Mr. Mathias (R-MD) 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
c. Mr. Stevens’ 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 toward
such a plan in the meantime, was rejected 45 (41R, 4-D) to 50 (12-R, 38-D) on March 23,
1983.327
d. 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
3. Conference Action329
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
increase in the retirement age, while 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 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
made, no revenues from the proposed coverage could be counted on for the Social Security
bailout plan since, if such a plan were not subsequently developed, federal workers might escape
coverage altogether.
The conferees agreed to the House retirement age change. Senate conferees then agreed to recede
on the federal employee coverage issue.
a. 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
b. 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
325 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, March 23, 1983. Senate. p. S3711.
326 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, March 23, 1983. Senate. Roll call no. 47, not voting 2. p. S3714.
327 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, March 23, 1983. Senate. Roll call no. 48, not voting 4. p. S3720.
328 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, March 23, 1983. Senate. Roll call no. 53, not voting 3. p. S3775.
329 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1983. p. 226.
330 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, March 24, 1983. House. Roll call no. 47, not voting 88. p. H1787.
331 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, March 24, 1983. Senate. Roll call no. 54, not voting 28. p. S4104.
Congressional Research Service
61
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
CC. 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
Reform Act of 1984. P.L. 98-460 ended three years of controversy over the Administration’s
efforts to rid the Disability Insurance program of ineligible recipients through an expanded
periodic review 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
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
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
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 the Social
Security Administration’s 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.
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
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
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 must be considered in making a disability determination; (5) the Department of
Health and Human Services Secretary initiate demonstration projects providing personal
appearance interviews between the recipient 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 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 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 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 of pain and directed that a study of the problem of evaluating
pain be made by a commission to be appointed by the Secretary.
1. House Action
On March 14, 1984, the House Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 3755 with
amendments.
332 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1984. p. 160.
333 Social Security Administration. “Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984: Legislative History and
Summary of Provisions.” Social Security Bulletin, v. 48, no. 4, April 1985. p. 12. (Hereinafter cited as “Social Security
Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984: Legislative History.”)
Congressional Research Service
62
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
a. During debate on H.R. 3755, Mr. Conable (R-NY) remarked that the intent of the 1980
legislation, requiring continuing disability reviews, was meritorious, but the results were not what
the drafters intended. Mr. Conable further stated, “Not only were ineligible recipients terminated,
but 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.” Mr. 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 an appeal of
an adverse decision ... H.R. 3755 represents the next step.”334
The sponsor of H.R. 3755, Mr. 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 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
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
the disability program. It does restore order and humanity to the disability review process.”335
b. On March 27, 1984, the House passed H.R. 3755 by a vote of 410 (160-R, 250-D) to 1 (l-R).336
2. Administrative Action
Six months before legislation was enacted, Secretary Heckler imposed a moratorium on periodic
continuing disability reviews. The Secretary said:
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
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
order and consensus in the disability program.337
3. Senate Action
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
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
bore the burden of proof that his or her condition had not improved.
a. On May 22, 1984, Mr. 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
began, more than 12,000 individuals have filed court actions challenging the Social Security
Administration’s termination of their benefits. An additional 40 class action suits had been filed
334 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, March 27, 1984. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Conable. p. H1958.
335 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, March 27, 1984. House. In floor remarks by Mr. Pickle. p. H1959.
336 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, March 27, 1984. House. Roll call no. 55, not voting 22. p. H1992-H1993.
337 Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984: Legislative History, p. 27.
Congressional Research Service
63
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
as of last month. The legislation before the Senate today would end this chaos and insure an
equitable review process.”338
b. Mr. 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
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
ingredients to the development of a fair and responsible review process.”339
c. 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
4. Conference Action
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
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.
a. 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
DD. 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
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
circumstances required across-the-board cuts of non-exempt programs by a uniform percentages
to 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 P.L. 99-177 generally is 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 “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-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 (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,
338 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, May 22, 1984. Senate. In floor remarks by Mr. Cohen. p. S6213-S6214.
339 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, May 22, 1984. Senate. In floor remarks by Mr. Levin. p. 86230.
340 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, May 22, 1984. Senate. Roll call no. 109, not voting 4. p. S6241.
341 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, September 19, 1984. House. Roll call no. 404, not voting 30. p. H9838-
H9839.
342 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, September 19, 1984. Senate. Roll call no. 243, not voting 1. p. 11477.
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.
Congressional Research Service
64
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
and to issue to the trust funds obligations bearing interest rates and maturities identical to those of
securities redeemed between August 31, 1985, and September 30, 1985.
1. House Action
a. 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,
67-D).344
2. Senate Action
a. 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
(4-R, 20-D).345
b. 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
3. Conference Action
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
conference report was filed on December 10, 1985.
a. 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, 22-D) to 31 (9-R, 22-D).348
EE. 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
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
conference.
a. 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
344 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, August 1, 1985. House. Roll call no. 290, call no. 290, not voting 5. p.
H7166-H7167.
345 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, October 9, 1985. Senate. Roll call no. 213, not voting 1. p. S12988.
346 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, October 10, 1985. Senate. Roll call no. 222, not voting 12. p. S13114.
347 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, December 11, 1985. House. Roll call no. 454, not voting 9. p. Hl1903-
Hl1904.
348 Congressional Record. Daily Edition, December 11, 1985. Senate. Roll call no. 371, not voting 6. p. S17443-
S17444.
Congressional Research Service
65
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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
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
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
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
leadership. Instead of freezing COLAs in the affected federal retirement programs for 1 year, it
would have limited the COLAs for the next 3 years to 2% per year plus any amount by which
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
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 3 years (as well as higher savings in
later years).
1. Senate Action
a. 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
(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.
b. 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
Dole, which incorporated the original COLA freeze recommended by the Committee.
c. 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
(3-R, 44-D).352
d. The final budget resolution, passed by a voice vote, assumed later enactment of the 1986
COLA freezes, including one affecting Social Security.
2. House Action
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.
a. On May 22, 1985, the House rejected an amendment by Mr. Dannemeyer (R-CA) to limit
Social Security COLAs to 2% per year for the 3-year period FY1986-FY1988 by a vote of 382
(135-R, 247-D) to 39 (39-R, 0-D)353
349 Congressional Quarterly Almanac. 99th Congress. 1st Sess. 1985. Vol. XLT. p. 447.
350 Congressional Record. May 1, 1985. Senate. Roll call no. 35, not voting 1. p. 10075.
351 Congressional Record. 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.
352 Congressional Record. May 9, 1985. Senate. Roll call no. 73, not voting 2. p. 11477.
Congressional Research Service
66
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
b. 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, federal retirement, and veterans’ compensation while adding back 20% of the
anticipated savings to programs that aid needy elderly and disabled people.354
c. 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
May 23, 1985.355
3. Conference Action
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
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
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
conference agreement on the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY1986, passed on
August 1, 1985, did not assume any such savings.
FF. P.L. 99-509, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
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%
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.
1. Senate Action
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
Social Security COLA in January 1987 no matter how low inflation turned out to be, i.e., it
permanently eliminated the 3% requirement.
a. 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
(...continued)
353 Congressional Record. May 22, 1985. House. Roll call no. 124, not voting 13. p. 13066.
354 Congressional Record. May 23, 1985. House. Roll call no. 129, not voting 5. p. 13387.
355 Congressional Record. May 23, 1985. House. Roll call no. 131, not voting 6. p. 13407.
356 Congressional Record. September 20, 1985. Senate. Roll call no. 277, not voting 5. p. 24918.
Congressional Research Service
67
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
2. House Action
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,
included a similar measure.
a. 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
3. Conference Action
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
and 61(33-R, 28-D) to 25 (10-R, 15-D) in the Senate.358
GG. P.L. 100-203, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
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:
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 to 36 months the 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 1988.
1. House Action
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
Social Security. Two of these provisions—extending coverage to military training of inactive
reservists and group term life insurance—had been requested by President Reagan. In addition,
the Committee agreed to lengthen from 15 to 36 months the period during which a 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 agricultural
workers, children and spouses in family businesses.
a. 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
2. Senate Action
When the Finance Committee approved H.R. 3545 on December 3, 1987, it included the House
Social Security coverage provisions.
357 Congressional Record. September 24, 1986. House. Roll call no. 408, not voting 17. p. 26024.
358 Congressional Record. 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.
359 Congressional Record. October 29, 1987. House. Roll call no. 392, not voting 22. p. 30237.
Congressional Research Service
68
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
a. On December 10, 1987, the Senate rejected an amendment by Ms. 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
(11-R, 14-D).360
b. On December 11, 1987, the Senate approved H.R. 3545 by a voice vote.
3. Conference Action
The Conference Committee generally accepted the House-passed version of H.R. 3545.
a. 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
b. 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
HH. P.L. 100-647, The Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of
1988
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
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
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
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
a pension from noncovered employment) from 25 to 20 years.
1. House Action
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.
a. 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
2. Senate Action
The Finance Committee adopted about half of the House Social Security provisions.
360 Congressional Record. December 10, 1987. Senate. Roll call no. 405, not voting 4. p. 34882.
361 Congressional Record. December 21, 1987. House. Roll call no. 508, not voting 15. p. 37088.
362 Congressional Record. December 21, 1987. Senate. Roll call no. 419, not voting 11. p. 37712.
363 Congressional Record. August 4, 1988. House. Roll call no. 266, not voting 26. p. 20502.
Congressional Research Service
69
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
a. 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
3. Conference Action
The Conference Committee generally accepted the House-passed version of H.R. 4333.
a. 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
b. On October 21, 1988, the Senate passed the conference report by a voice vote.
II. P.L. 101-239, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
On December 19, 1989, President Bush signed H.R. 3299, the Omnibus Budget 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 was
dependent on the worker before the worker’s entitlement; again extended the existing 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 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 age 24.
1. House Action
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
independent agency, raising the Special Minimum benefit by $35 a month, increasing the
earnings test limits for recipients over age 64, extending benefits 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, again extending the existing provision for continued 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 to the
FICA tax.
a. 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
2. Senate Action
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
specifically earmarked the revenue therefrom to pay for proposed increases in the earnings test
364 Congressional Record. October 11, 1988. Senate. Roll call no. 366, not voting 12. p. 29792.
365 Congressional Record. October 21, 1988. House. Roll call no. 463, not voting 72. p. 33116.
366 Congressional Record. October 5, 1989. House. Roll call no. 274, not voting 8. p. 23393.
Congressional Research Service
70
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
limits. It also approved making SSA an independent agency, but with a single administrator as
opposed to a 3-person board 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 Security provisions
before it reached the floor.
a. 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
3. Conference Action
In conference, most of the House provisions were accepted (the major exclusion was making 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
to all workers over age 24.
a. 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 voice vote.
JJ. P.L. 101-508, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
On November 5, 1990, President Bush signed H.R. 5835, the Omnibus Budget 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 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 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 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 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 taxes to
$125,000, effective in 1991, with raises thereafter indexed to increases in average wages.
1. House Action
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
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
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
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
367 Congressional Record. October 13, 1989. Senate. Roll call no. 243, not voting 6. p. 24605.
368 Congressional Record. November 21, 1989. House. Roll call no. 379, not voting 33. p. 31127.
Congressional Research Service
71
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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
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
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
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
amendments to the Social Security Act, that incorporated most of the provisions that had earlier
been approved by the Social Security Subcommittee.
a. 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
2. Senate Action
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-
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
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
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.
a. 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 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 the 60 votes required.370
b. 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
Social Security from GRH budget deficit calculations.371
c. 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
3. Conference Action
a 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
369 Congressional Record. October 16, 1990. House. Roll call no. 475, not voting 3. p. 29923.
370 Congressional Record. October 10, 1990. Senate. Roll call no. 262, not voting 2. p. 28190.
371 Congressional Record. October 18, 1990. Senate. Roll call no. 283, not voting 0. p. 30640.
372 Congressional Record. October 18, 1990. Senate. Roll call no. 292, not voting 0. p. 30731.
373 Congressional Record. October 26, 1990. House. Roll call no. 528, not voting 5. p. 35253.
Congressional Research Service
72
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
b. 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
KK. P.L. 103-66, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
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
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 HI, 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
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
retirement Tier I benefits toward that of private pensions” and would generate $32 billion in new
tax revenues over five years. The proceeds would not be credited to the Social 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
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
1994.
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
middle of the game, penalizing recipients who relied on old law and who cannot change past
work and savings decisions. Regardless of abstract arguments about tax principles, many
recipients regard 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 “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 strong
disincentive for many recipients to work.375
1. House Action
H.Con.Res. 64, the FY1994 Concurrent Budget Resolution, included the additional revenue from
the President’s proposal.
a. 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
374 Congressional Record. 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
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
(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 repeal the 1993 provision, thus lowering the maximum amount of benefits subject to
taxation from 85% to 50%, and replace the resulting reduced revenue to Medicare with general fund transfers. In
neither instance were these measures approved by the Senate.
376 Congressional Record. March 18, 1993. House. Roll call no. 85, not voting 4. p. 5674.
Congressional Research Service
73
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
2. Senate Action
The Senate devoted six days of debate to H.Con.Res. 64 at the end of March.
a. 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
projected from the President’s proposal.377
b. 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
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
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
$25,000 and $32,000.378
c. 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
3. Conference Action
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
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.
4. House Action
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
credited to the General Fund instead of to Medicare. This measure was included in H.R. 2264, the
1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.
a. 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
5. Senate Action
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
$42,000 (couple).
377 Congressional Record. March 24, 1993. Senate. Roll call no. 57, not voting 1. p. 6142.
378 Congressional Record. March 24, 1993. Senate. Roll call no. 58, not voting 1. p. 6149.
379 Congressional Record. March 25, 1993. Senate. Roll call no. 83, not voting 1. p. 6408.
380 Congressional Record. March 31, 1993. House. Roll call no. 127, not voting 6. p. 6964.
381 Congressional Record. April 1, 1993. Senate. Roll call no. 94, not voting 0. p. 7215.
382 Congressional Record. May 27, 1993. House. Roll call no. 199, not voting 0. p. 11952.
Congressional Research Service
74
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
a. 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
b. 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
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
c. 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 of $32,000 and $40,000.386
6. Conference Action
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
benefits.387
a. 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
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,
217-D, 1-I) to 216 (175-R, 41-D).388
b. 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
LL. P.L. 103-296, The Social Security Administrative Reform Act
of 1994
President Clinton signed H.R. 4277, the Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994, on
August 15, 1994. P.L. 103-296: established the Social Security Administration (SSA) as an
independent agency, effective March 31, 1995; and restricted DI and SSI benefits payable to drug
addicts and alcoholics by creating sanctions for failing to get treatment, limiting their enrollment
to 3 years, and requiring that 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 agency, but President Clinton supported H.R. 4277‘s final passage.
383 Congressional Record. June 24, 1993. Senate. Roll call no. 169, not voting 3. p. 14028.
384 Congressional Record. June 24, 1993. Senate. Roll call no. 172, not voting 2. p. 14069.
385 Congressional Record. June 24, 1993. Senate. Roll call no. 184, not voting 2. p. 14107.
386 Congressional Record. 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.
387 Congressional Record. July 14, 1993. House. Roll call no. 329, not voting 19. p. 15670.
388 Congressional Record. August 5, 1993. House. Roll call no. 406, not voting 0. p. 19476.
389 Congressional Record. 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.
Congressional Research Service
75
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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
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
about Social Security. Many argued that making the agency independent would help insulate it
from political and budgetary discussions, would lead to better leadership, and reassure the public
about Social Security’s long-run survivability.
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
economy and millions of recipients should be evaluated in conjunction with other economic and
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
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
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
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.
1. House Action
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).
a. The House passed H.R. 2264 on May 17, 1994, by a vote of 413-0.390
2. Senate Action
On January 25, 1994, the Senate Finance Committee reported out S. 1560 (incorporating the
single-administrator approach), introduced by Senator Moynihan (D-NY).
a. The Senate passed S. 1560 by voice vote on March 2, 1994.
b. On May 23, 1994, the Senate approved H.R. 4277, after striking its language and substituting
that of S. 1560, by voice vote.
3. Conference Action
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
board.
a. The Senate passed the agreement by voice vote on August 5, 1994.
390 Congressional Record. May 17, 1994. House. Roll call no. 177, not voting 20. p. 10603.
Congressional Research Service
76
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
b. The House passed the agreement on August 11, 1994, by a vote of 431-0.391
MM. P.L. 103-387, The Social Security Domestic Reform Act of 1994
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
from remuneration of $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.
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
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
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.
1. House Action
Several measures were introduced in the 103rd Congress that would have raised the threshold by
varying amounts. On March 22, 1994, Mr. 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 increases in
average wages.
a. This measure was included in H.R. 4278, approved by the House on May 12, 1994 by a vote of
420-0.392
2. Senate Action
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) which would have raised the
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.
a. The Senate passed the revised version of H.R. 4278 on May 25, 1994, by unanimous consent.
3. Conference Action
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
threshold would rise in the future, in $100 increments, in proportion to the growth in average
wages in the economy (it rose to $1,100 in 1998, $1,200 in 2000, and $1,300 in 2001).393
a. On October 6, 1994, the conference report was approved in the House by a vote of 423-0.
391 Congressional Record. August 11, 1994. House. Roll call no. 392, not voting 3. p. 21535.
392 Congressional Record. May 12, 1994. House. Roll call no. 169, not voting 15. p. 10028.
393 Congressional Record. October 6, 1994. House. Roll call no. 494, not voting 11. p. 28504.
Congressional Research Service
77
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
b. The same day, the Senate approved the conference report by unanimous consent.
NN. P.L. 104-121, The 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
of 1996. H.R. 3136: raised the annual earnings test exempt amount, for recipients who have
attained the full retirement age, over a period of seven years, reaching $30,000 in 2002;
prohibited DI and SSI eligibility to individuals whose 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 compensate for the increased costs to the Social
Security system due to liberalizing the earnings test, provided funds for additional continuing
disability reviews.
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
“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
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
was not included in the Balanced Budget Reconciliation bill (H.R. 2491) passed by the Congress
on November 20, 1995.
1. House Action
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,
(R-KY) that gradually would 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.
a. 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
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,
introduced by Mr. 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. 2684, but
modified to slow the rise in the exempt amounts during the first five years of the phase-in.
a. 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
2. Senate Action
On December 14, 1995, the Senate Committee on Finance approved S. 1470, a bill similar to
H.R. 2684.
394 Congressional Record, December 5, 1995, House, Roll call no. 837, not voting 17. p. H13974.
395 Congressional Record, March 28, 1996, House, Roll call no. 102, not voting 12. p. 6940.
Congressional Research Service
78
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
a. On March 28, 1996, H.R. 3136 was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent.
OO. P.L. 106-170, The 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
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
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
dilemma faced by many disabled Social Security recipients. The dilemma was that, while the
disabled were encouraged 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 benefits. Proponents of providing greater work opportunity argued that
incentives for the disabled to attempt to work should be enhanced.
1. House Action
a. On October 19, 1999, the House approved H.R. 1180, The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act of 1999, introduced By Representative Vic Lazio (R-NY), by a vote of 412
(206-R, 205-D, 1-I) to 9 (9-R, 0-D).396
2. Senate Action
a. 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, 1999, the Senate passed H.R. 1180, after striking its language and substituting that of S. 331,
by unanimous consent.
3. Conference Action
a. 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
b. 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
396 Congressional Record, October 19, 1999, House, Roll call no. 513, not voting 12. p. 10273.
397 Congressional Record, June 16, 1999, Senate, Roll call no. 169, not voting 1. p. S7064.
398 Congressional Record, November 18, 1999, House, Roll call no. 611, not voting 15. p. H12832.
399 Congressional Record, November 19, 1999, Senate, Roll call no. 372, not voting 4. p. S14986.
Congressional Research Service
79
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
PP. P.L. 106-182, The 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
eliminated the earnings test for recipients who have attained the full retirement age, effective in
2000.
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
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
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
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
substantial earnings that they have not in fact “retired.” Also, they argued that eliminating or
significantly liberalizing the benefit would primarily help those who do not need help (i.e., the
better-off).
However, over the years probably the main impediment to eliminating the earnings test was its
negative effect on the financial status of the program and on current federal budgets, which
perennially were in deficit. By 2000, the federal budget was running large surpluses, so major
alterations to the test were deemed affordable. Also, it was projected that eliminating the 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 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 attain their full
retirement age. 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 “actuarial,”
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,
the long-range cost of eliminating the earnings test for those above the full retirement age would
be offset by the savings produced by fewer payments of DRCs. Because there was no threat to
Social Security’s 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.
1. House Action
a. On March 1, 2000, the House approved H.R. 5, a bill that would eliminate the earnings test for
recipients who have attained the full retirement age, introduced by Representative Sam Johnson
(R-TX), by a vote of 422-0.400
2. Senate Action
a. On March 22, 2000, the Senate approved H.R. 5, with a modification to the monthly exempt
amounts in the year of attaining the full retirement age, by a vote of 100-0.401
400 Congressional Record, March 1, 2000, House. Roll call no. 27, not voting 13. p. H603.
401 Congressional Record, March 22, 2000, Senate. Roll call no. 42, not voting 0. p. S1540.
Congressional Research Service
80
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
3. Conference Action
a. On March 28, 2000, the house approved the Senate version of H.R. 5 by a vote of 419-0.402
QQ. P.L. 108-203, The Social Security Protection Act of 2004
President 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 Social
Security403 and Supplemental Security Income (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 recipients; made nongovernmental representative payees liable for
misused funds and subjected 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 felons from receiving Social Security benefits; modified the last
day rule under the Government Pension Offset provision; and required certain noncitizens to have
authorization to work in the United States at the time a Social Security Number is assigned, or at
some later time, to gain insured status under the Social Security program. Several major
provisions of the new law are described below.404
The Social Security Administration (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 own funds, or on behalf of children under age 18. Before
P.L. 108-203, SSA was required to reissue benefits misused by an individual or organizational
representative payee only in cases where the Commissioner of Social Security found that SSA
negligently failed to investigate or 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 benefits misused by an individual representative payee who
represents 15 or more recipients, or by an organizational representative payee. In addition, the
new law made nongovernmental 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 civil monetary penalty (up to $5,000 for each violation) and an
assessment (up to twice the 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.
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
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
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
withholding process for attorney representatives of Social Security disability claimants, SSA
402 Congressional Record. March 28, 2000. House. Roll call no. 79, not voting 16. p. H1450.
403 The Social Security program is also known by its formal name—the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
(OASDI) program.
404 For more information, see the summary of P.L. 108-203 available on the SSA website at http://www.ssa.gov/
legislation/legis_bulletin_030404.html, and CRS Report RL32089, The Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (H.R.
743), by Dawn Nuschler.
Congressional Research Service
81
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
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
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
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
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 General
Accounting Office (now known as the Government Accountability Office) 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
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
required to provide information about these individuals (current address, Social Security Number,
and photograph) to 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 enforcement officials to assist in the apprehension of these individuals. The
new law authorized the Commissioner of Social Security to pay, with good cause, SSI and Social
Security benefits previously denied because of an individual’s status as a fugitive felon.405
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
two-thirds of the non-covered government pension, under a provision known as the Government
Pension Offset (GPO). Before 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 position on the last day of employment. That is, under the “last day
rule,” a non-covered state or 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 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 last 60 calendar months
of employment to be exempt from the GPO.406
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
assigned a Social Security Number (SSN) in 2004 or later 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. Specifically, if the individual obtains work authorization at some point, all of
his or her Social 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, none of his or her Social Security-covered earnings count toward qualifying for benefits. A
noncitizen who was assigned an SSN before 2004 is not subject to the work authorization
requirement established under the new law (i.e., all of the individual’s Social Security-covered
405 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 CRS Report RL33394, Social Security Administration: Suspension of Benefits for
Fugitive Felons and the Agency’s Response to the Fowlkes Decision, by Scott Szymendera and Kathleen S.
Swendiman.
406 For more information, see CRS Report RL32453, Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO), by
Alison M. Shelton.
Congressional Research Service
82
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
earnings count toward qualifying for benefits, regardless of his or her work authorization
status).407
1. House Action
a. 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
(3-R, 25-D).408
2. Senate Action
a. 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.
b. 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.
3. House Response to Senate Action
a. 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,
15-D).409
RR. P.L. 111-312 The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance
Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010
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
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, by two
percentage points. The Social Security initiative was just one among other provisions included in
the legislation intending to stimulate the economy by creating jobs, extending public 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
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%.
Net revenue to the Social Security trust funds was not impacted by P.L. 111-312. Any decline in
tax revenue in 2011 attributed to the act was covered by appropriate transfers from the General
Fund of the U.S. Treasury.
407 For more information, see CRS Report RL32004, Social Security Benefits for Noncitizens, by Dawn Nuschler and
Alison Siskin.
408 Congressional Record. April 2, 2003. House. Roll call no. 102, not voting 10. pp. H2668- H2669.
409 Congressional Record. February 11, 2004. House. Roll call no. 23, not voting 11. pp. H477- H478.
Congressional Research Service
83
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
1. House Action
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 this time was known as the
ultimately unrelated ‘Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010.
2. Senate Action
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 amendment,
still focused on the aviation industry, was titled the ‘Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010,
Part III.’
3. House Action
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 use 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
amended by the Senate, by a vote of 234 (231-D, 3-R) to 188 (168-R, 20-D).410
4. Senate Action
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
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
2011. The holiday was packaged as a two percentage point reduction in the FICA and SECA
payroll tax rates. 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).411
5. House Action
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
approved the measure by a vote of 277 (139-D, 138-R) to 148 (112-D, 36-R).412
SS. P.L. 112-78, The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of
2011
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 expiring temporary Social Security payroll
410 Congressional Record. December 2, 2010. House. Roll call no. 604, not voting 12. pp. H7889-H7890.
411 Congressional Record. December 15, 2010. Senate. Roll call no. 276. p. S10255.
412 Congressional Record. December 17, 2010. House. Roll no. 647, not voting. 8. pp. H8594-H8595.
Congressional Research Service
84
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
tax contribution rates provided in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and
Job Creation Act of 2010, effective in calendar year 2011, into 2012.
The Social Security portion of the payroll tax applied to the covered net earnings of SECA-
covered self-employed workers will remain reduced throughout 2012 at 10.4%, down from the
SECA tax rate of 12.4%. The act also extends the 2011 temporary reduction of the FICA tax rate
on employee covered earnings from 6.2% to 4.2% through February 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 provisions relating to mortgage fees
and the construction of a transcontinental oil pipeline.
Throughout 2011, several proposals were introduced to extend 2011 temporary payroll tax
reductions to 2012. As 2011 drew to a close, an extension, in theory, had bipartisan support but
the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate differed on how to
replace lost revenue to the Social Security trust funds as a result of such reductions, and
ultimately, if a short-term extension should be approved with funding unresolved. H.R. 3630
became the vehicle for the initial advancement of payroll tax cut negotiations, and H.R. 3765
eventually emerged as the result of compromise for a short-term solution.
With the passage of P.L. 112-78, Congress resumed its focus on H.R. 3630. At the release of this
report, House and Senate leadership had appointed conferees to negotiate a compromise that
could extend the temporary payroll tax cut for covered workers through 2012.
1. House Action
a. 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,
10-D) to 193 (14-R, 179-D).413
2. Senate Action
a. On December 17, 2011, the Senate approved their version of H.R. 3630, in the 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).414
3. House Action
a. On December 20, 2011, the House voted to disagree to the Senate amendments to H.R. 3630,
and thus go to conference, by a vote of 229 (229-R) to 193 (7-R, 186-D).415
b. On December 23, 2011, the House approved new short-term compromise bill H.R. 3765,
introduced by Representative Dave Camp (R-MI) without objection.
413 Congressional Record, December 13, 2011. House. Roll call no. 923, not voting 6. p. H8824.
414 Congressional Record, December 17, 2011. Senate. Roll call no. 232, not voting 1. pp. S8748-9.
415 Congressional Record, December 20, 2011. House. Roll call no. 946, not voting 11. pp. 9977-8.
Congressional Research Service
85
Major Decisions in the House and Senate on Social Security: 1935-2011
4. Senate Action
a. On December 23, 2011, the Senate approved H.R. 3765 by unanimous consent.
Acknowledgments
This report was originally written by Geoffrey C. Kollmann and Carmen Solomon-Fears. The listed author
updated the report and can respond to inquiries on the subject.
Congressional Research Service
86