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

March 26, 2001 – June 22, 2023 RL30920

Social Security: Major Decisions in the House
June 22, 2023
and Senate Since 1935
Tamar B. Breslauer
Social Security—formally known as Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance—was enacted
Senior Research Librarian
in 1935 and has been amended numerous times. Lists and summaries of individual major Social

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

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

During the 117th Congress, no legislation was enacted to amend the Social Security program or directly alter its financing
provisions. Consequently, the most recent legislation discussed in this report was enacted during the 116th Congress.

Congressional Research Service

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

Introduction
The Social Security Act of 1935 established a federal old-age pension financed with employee-
employer payroll taxes. Since then, Congress has amended the Social Security program for
multiple purposes, including to expand coverage, change the minimum age for retirement
benefits, provide an automatic cost-of-living adjustment to benefits, and address concerns about
solvency of the Social Security trust funds.
This report traces the major decisions affecting the Social Security program, from the earliest
enacting legislation through the most recent congressional session. It provides a summary of the
provisions and voting records for each bill, focusing on amendments to Old-Age, Survivors, and
Disability Insurance (OASDI), which is the formal name of Social Security. A list of
abbreviations used in the report can be found in the Appendix.
For an overview of the Social Security program, see CRS Report R42035, Social Security Primer,
by Barry F. Huston.
Table 1 lists major Social Security legislation from 1935 through 2020 (116th Congress). During
the 117th Congress, no legislation was enacted to amend the Social Security program or to directly
alter its financing provisions.
Table 1. Social Security Laws, 1935-2020
Year
Title
Public Law
Bill Number
1935
Social Security Act
P.L. 74-271a
H.R. 7260
1939
Social Security Act 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
Congressional Research Service

1

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

Year
Title
Public Law
Bill Number
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
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 Miscellaneous 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
2012
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
P.L. 112-96
H.R. 3630
2014
No Social Security for Nazis Act
P.L. 113-270
H.R. 5739
2015
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
P.L. 114-74
H.R. 1314
Congressional Research Service

2

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

Year
Title
Public Law
Bill Number
2016 Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5,
P.L. 115-8
H.J.Res 40
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the NICS Improvement
Act of 2007
2017
Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017
P.L. 115-59
H.R. 624
2018
Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of
P.L. 115-165
H.R. 4547
2018
2018
Tribal Social Security Fairness Act of 2018
P.L. 115-243
H.R. 6124
2018
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
P.L. 115-174
S. 2155
2020
ALS Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019
P.L. 116-250
S. 578
2020
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
P.L. 116-260
H.R. 133
Source: Table compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. The printed law does not show the number of the Congress that passed it. The number is given here for
reference purposes.
Chamber Votes
P.L. 271—74th Congress, Enactment of the Social Security Act
The Social Security Act became law on August 14, 1935, when President Franklin Roosevelt
signed H.R. 7260. Title II of the act created a compulsory national old-age benefits program,
covering nearly all workers in commerce and industry and providing monthly pensions for
insured workers aged 65 or older. A benefit weighted toward lower-paid workers was to be based
on cumulative wages and was to be payable beginning in 1942 to persons aged 65 or older who
had paid Social Security taxes for at least five years. The benefit was to be withheld from
otherwise qualified persons in any month in which they did any work. Under Title VIII of the act,
a payroll tax of 1%, each, on employees and employers, payable on earnings up to $3,000 each
year, was to be imposed on covered jobs as of January 1, 1937, and was scheduled to rise in steps
to 3% each 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 (i.e., the aged, the blind, and children under 16
who had been deprived of parental support), child welfare services, and maternal and child health
services.
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 (i.e., charity/welfare) approach to help the aged. They argued that the
payroll tax/insurance mechanism of the old-age benefits provisions might be unconstitutional and
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
Congressional Research Service

3

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

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, and the vast majority of Democrats voted for the final bill.
House Action
The Ways and Means Committee began holding executive sessions on the Social Security bill
soon after the conclusion of its hearings on it in January and February of 1935.2 The committee
reported H.R. 7260 on April 5, 1935, with 17 Democrats voting in favor of the bill and all 7
Republicans voting “present.”3
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.4
Four particularly significant votes were Representative Monaghan’s amendment proposing a
revised “Townsend plan” and Representative Connery’s amendment proposing the Lundeen plan,
both of which (described below) called for a more generous social insurance system;
Representative Treadway’s motion to recommit H.R. 7260 to delete the old-age benefits program
and its related taxes; and the vote on final passage of the bill.
On April 18, 1935, Representative Monaghan (D-MT) offered an amendment, introduced in its
original form by Representative Groarty (D-CA) and referred to as the Townsend plan, which
required the federal government to pay a $200-a-month pension to everyone 60 years of age or
older, to be financed by a 2% tax on “all financial” transactions (essentially a sales tax). (For
more details on the Townsend plan, see discussion of the 1939 amendments below.)
Representative Monaghan’s amendment, although less costly than the original Townsend plan,
was rejected by a vote of 56 to 206.5
On April 18, 1935, Representative Connery (D-MA) offered an amendment that contained the
provisions of a bill sponsored by Representative Lundeen (Farmer-Laborite-MN). The Lundeen
bill, which was approved 7-6 by the House Labor Committee, called for the “establishment of a
system of social insurance to compensate all workers and farmers, 18 years of age or older, in all

1 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, The Social Security Bill, report to accompany H.R. 7260, 74th
Cong., 1st sess., April 5, 1935, H.Rept. 615 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1935), p. 44.
2 Edwin E. Witte, The Development of the Social Security Act (University of Wisconsin Press, 1963), p. 91.
(Hereinafter cited as Witte, The Development of the Social Security Act.)
3 A reproduction of the Ways and Means Committee votes on 74 H.R. 7260 appears on p. 283 (PDF p. 293) of U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, The Committee on Ways and Means: A Bicentennial History 1789-
1989, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., January 1, 1989, H.Doc. 100-244, at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-CDOC-
100hdoc244. The reproduction shows that the bill, H.R. 7260, passed committee by a vote of 17 (17-D, 0-R) to 0 (0-D,
0-R). The seven Republican members of the committee voted “present.” One Democratic member of the committee
was absent and did not vote by proxy. For a list of committee membership in the 74th Congress by party, see p. 415
(PDF p. 425).
4 Witte, The Development of the Social Security Act, p. 98.
5 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

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

industries, occupations, and professions, who are unemployed through no fault of their own.... ”6
Representative Lundeen’s plan offered higher benefits than the bill reported out of the Committee
on Ways and Means, and it tied benefits to the cost of living. Under the Lundeen proposal, a more
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 or more per
year). There was a division vote of 52 in favor and 204 opposed. Representative Connery asked
for tellers. The Connery amendment was rejected by a 40-158 teller vote.7
On April 18, 1935, Representative Treadway (R-MA), the ranking minority Member of the Ways
and Means Committee, offered an amendment to strike Title II, the old-age benefit provisions,
from the bill. Representative Treadway was opposed to the old-age benefits provision and to the
taxing provisions of Title VIII. He said that the financing arrangement was unconstitutional. He
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.8 Representative Jenkins (R-OH), supporter of the Treadway amendment,
stated that making each worker pay 3% of his money for old-age benefits, whether he wanted to
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.”9 The Treadway amendment was defeated by a 49-125 teller
vote.10
On April 19, 1935, Representative Treadway made a motion to recommit H.R. 7260, including
instructions to the Ways and Means Committee to strike out the old-age and unemployment
insurance provisions and to increase the federal contribution for the welfare program of old-age
assistance, Title I of the bill.11 Representative 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, he stated that he would “vote most
strenuously in opposition to the bill at each and every opportunity.”12 During his April 19, 1935,
remarks, Representative Treadway said he was disgusted “at the attitude of business in that it has
not shown the proper interest in protecting itself by stating its case before Congress.”13 His
motion to recommit was rejected by a vote of 149 (95-R, 45-D, 9-I) to 253 (1-R, 252-D).14

6 Congressional Record, April 18, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Lundeen, p. 5965.
7 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.
8 Congressional Record, April 18, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Treadway, p. 5990. Also see, Congressional
Record, April 12, 1935, House, p. 5531.
9 Congressional Record, April 18, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Jenkins, p. 5993.
10 Congressional Record, April 18, 1935, House, p. 5994.
11 Congressional Record, April 19, 1935, p. 6068.
12 Congressional Record, April 12, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Treadway, p. 5531.
13 Congressional Record, April 19, 1935, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Treadway, p. 6053.
14 Congressional Record, April 19, 1935, House, Roll call no. 56, not voting 29, pp. 6068-6069.
Congressional Research Service

5

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

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).15
Senate Action
There were also four major votes in the Senate: Senator Long’s (D-LA) proposal to substitute
taxes on wealth and property for the payroll tax; Senator Clark’s amendment to exempt from
coverage employees in firms with private pensions; Senator Hastings’s motion to recommit; and
the vote on final passage of the bill.
On June 17, 1935, Senator Long offered an amendment to liberalize the proposed old-age
assistance program (Title I of the bill) and delete the payroll tax provisions (Title VIII and IX). In
place of the payroll tax, Senator Long recommended that states levy a tax on wealth or property.
Senator Long’s amendment was rejected by voice vote.16
On June 19, 1935, Senator Clark (D-MO) offered an amendment to exempt from coverage under
the old-age benefits system employees in firms with private old-age pension systems. This idea
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 that would be in true proportion to earnings and service; joint annuities to
protect spouses; earlier retirement for disability; and other factors. Supporters of the amendment
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 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).17
On June 19, 1935, Senator Hastings (R-DE) made a motion to strike out the old-age benefits
provisions from the bill. Senator Hastings stated that those provisions were an effort to write into
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
the older people of today.”18 Senator Hastings’s amendment was rejected by a vote of 15 (12-R,
3-D) to 63 (7-R, 54-D, 2-I).19
On June 19, 1935, Senator George (D-GA) offered an amendment to encourage formation of
industrial pensions as a substitute for Titles II and VIII. Under the amendment, employers were to
operate and manage their own plans. The amendment called for a uniform schedule of benefits

15 Congressional Record, April 19, 1935, House, Roll call no. 57, not voting 25, pp. 6069-6070.
16 Congressional Record, June 17, 1935, Senate, pp. 9427-9437.
17 Congressional Record, June 19, 1935, Senate, not voting 9, p. 9631.
18 Congressional Record, June 17, 1935, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Hastings, p. 9422.
19 Congressional Record, June 19, 1935, Senate, not voting 17, p. 9648.
Congressional Research Service

6

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

nationwide and provided for disability and survivor benefits along with old-age and
unemployment benefits. The amendment was defeated by voice vote.20
The Senate passed the bill on June 19, 1935, by a vote of 77 (15-R, 60-D, 2-I) to 6 (5-R, 1-D).21
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.22
On July 17, 1935, the House rejected Representative Treadway’s motion to accept the Clark
amendment by a vote of 78 to 268;23 then agreed by a vote of 269 to 65 to a motion by
Representative Doughton (D-NC) that the House insist that the Senate drop the Clark
amendment.24
On July 17, 1935, the Senate agreed, by voice vote, to Senator Harrison’s motion to insist on
keeping the Clark amendment and ask for a further conference.25
On August 8, 1935, the conference report cleared the House by a voice vote.26
On August 9, 1935, the Senate conferees agreed to delete the Clark amendment;27 the Senate then
agreed to the conference report by a voice vote.28
P.L. 379—76th Congress, Social Security Act Amendments of 1939
H.R. 6635, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1939, was signed into law on August 10,
1939, by President Franklin Roosevelt. Congress expressly provided in the 1935 Act that the
Social Security Board (a three-member panel appointed by the President with advice and consent
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. President Roosevelt sent the Social Security Board’s

20 Congressional Record, June 19, 1935, Senate, p. 9650.
21 Congressional Record, June 19, 1935, Senate, not voting 12, p. 9646.
22 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.)
23 Congressional Record, July 17, 1935, House, Roll call no. 132, not voting 83, pp. 11342-11343.
24 Congressional Record, July 17, 1935, House, Roll call no. 133, not voting 95, p. 11343.
25 Congressional Record, July 17, 1935, Senate, p. 11310.
26 Congressional Record, August 8, 1935, House, p. 12760.
27 Congressional Record, August 9, 1935, Senate, pp. 12793-12794.
28 Congressional Record, August 9, 1935, Senate, p. 12794.
Congressional Research Service

7

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

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)29 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. 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 1943-1945. The amendments also modified qualifying
provisions, including the definition of insured status, for consistency with other changes in the
act.30 Further, people receiving OASI benefits were permitted to earn up to $14.99 monthly: no
benefits were to be paid in any month in which the recipient earned $15 or more in covered
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.
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 on and voted against the Townsend old-age pension bill. The Townsend plan,
embodied in H.R. 6466 introduced by Representative McGroarty (D-CA) in January 1935, was
offered as a substitute for H.R. 6635.31 The Townsend plan would have provided a monthly
pension of $200 to every citizen aged 60 or older who had not been convicted of a felony. To
receive the pension, a person could not earn wages and was required to spend the entire pension
within 30 days. The plan would have been financed by a 2% tax on every commercial and
financial transaction; the President would have been given discretionary power to raise the tax to
3% or to lower it to 1%. During a 1935 Ways and Means Committee hearing, Representative
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 4 million people over the age
of 60 held jobs in 1930. He reiterated that to be eligible for the proposed pension of $200 a
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.32

29 The primary insurance amount (PIA) was the basic benefit amount for a worker who began receiving benefits at the
age of 65.
30 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 the age of 65 was fully insured.
31 The Townsend movement, led by Francis E. Townsend, a California doctor, began in 1934, survived for some 20
years, and was at its peak in the 1935-1941 period. See Derthick, Policymaking for Social Security, p. 193.
32 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Economic Security Act, hearings on H.R. 4120, 74th Cong.,
1st sess., January 21-31 and February 1, 2, 4-8, and 12, 1935 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1935), p. 680.
Congressional Research Service

8

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

Representative Sabath (D-IL) said he thought it was “decidedly out of place to bring the
Townsend bill to the floor.” He said that the bill “had no chance of passing in the first place;
neither was it feasible nor possible of operation.”33 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.
Edwin Witte wrote,
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
more than a half dozen members, all felt that the Townsend plan was utterly impossible; at
the same time they hesitated to vote against it.34
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).35
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.”36
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
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.”37
On June 9, 1939, Representative Havenner (D-CA) offered an amendment, endorsed by the
American Federation of Labor, to extend Social Security coverage to workers employed in
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.38
On June 9, 1939, Representative Kean (R-NJ) offered an amendment that required that the money
derived from the Social Security payroll tax be invested in one-year marketable U.S. government
bonds rather than in special nonmarketable Treasury obligations. Representative Kean remarked
that the adoption of the amendment would “prevent the present practice of using old-age taxes for
current expenses.” The amendment was rejected by voice vote.39
On June 9, 1939, Representative Carlson (R-KS) offered an amendment to exclude noncitizens
from coverage under Social Security. He was opposed to putting foreigners under the U.S. old-
age insurance provisions. Opponents of the amendment argued that exemption of such people

33 Congressional Record, June 6, 1939, House, p. 6681.
34 Witte, The Development of the Social Security Act, pp. 95-96.
35 Congressional Record, June 1, 1939, House, Roll call no. 85, not voting 29, pp. 6524-6525.
36 “The Townsend Plan Vote,” New York Times, June 2, 1939, Editorial page.
37 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Social Security Act Amendments of 1939, report to
accompany H.R. 6635, 76th Cong., 1st sess., June 2, 1939, H.Rept. 728 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1939), p. 113.
38 Congressional Record, June 9, 1939, House, p. 6935.
39 Congressional Record, June 9, 1939, House, p. 6936.
Congressional Research Service

9

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

would give employers of aliens a competitive advantage over vessels owned and manned by
Americans. Representative Carlson’s amendment was rejected 24 to 59 by a division vote.40
On June 10, 1939, Representative Carlson moved to recommit H.R. 6635 to the Committee on
Ways and Means. The motion was rejected by voice vote.41
On June 10, 1939, the House passed H.R. 6635 by a vote of 364 (142-R, 222-D) to 2 (2-R).42
Senate Action
On July 13, 1939, Senator Downey (D-CA), in the course of his statement on how “unworkable,
unjust, and unfair” the Social Security Act was, moved that the bill be recommitted to the Finance
Committee for more study of the whole pension and savings field. Senator Downey stated that
under H.R. 6635 covered workers in 1942 would receive only one-half as much in old-age
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).43
On July 13, 1939, Senator Reynolds (D-NC) offered an amendment to prohibit non-U.S. citizens
from being eligible for Social Security coverage or benefits. Senator Harrison (D-MS) offered
additional language to Senator Reynolds’s amendment that allowed benefit payments to aliens if
they lived within 50 miles of the United States. The amendment as modified was agreed to by
voice vote.44
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).45
Conference Action
The conference report was approved by the House on August 4, 1939, by voice vote,46 and by the
Senate on August 5, 1939, by a vote of 59 (14-R, 42-D, 3-I) to 4 (4-D).47
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%.
The Revenue Act of 1942, P.L. 753 (H.R. 7378, 77th Congress) was signed by President Franklin
Roosevelt on October 21, 1942. It provided that for calendar year 1943, the payroll tax rate for
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.

40 Congressional Record, June 9, 1939, House, pp. 6937-6939.
41 Congressional Record, June 10, 1939, House, p. 6970.
42 Congressional Record, June 10, 1939, House, Roll call no. 91, not voting 63, pp. 6970-6971.
43 Congressional Record, July 13, 1939, Senate, not voting 31, p. 9023.
44 Congressional Record, July 13, 1939, Senate, p. 9030.
45 Congressional Record, July 13, 1939, Senate, not voting 31, p. 9031.
46 Congressional Record, August 4, 1939, House, p. 11092.
47 Congressional Record, August 5, 1939, Senate, not voting 33, p. 11146.
Congressional Research Service

10

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

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.
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.”48 The
amendment passed by voice vote.49 The “Murray-Vandenberg” general revenue provision was
repealed in 1950, when the tax rate was increased.
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) of 1945, P.L. 495 (H.R. 5564, 78th Congress),
signed by President Roosevelt on December 16, 1944, froze the payroll tax rate at 1% until 1946
and scheduled the payroll tax rate to rise to 2.5% for the years 1946 through 1948, and to 3%
thereafter.
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.
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.
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 1950-1951 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.”50 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.

48 Congressional Record, January 19, 1944, Senate, in floor statement by Sen. Vandenberg, p. 374
49 Congressional Record, January 19, 1944, Senate, p. 374.
50 Congressional Record, October 9, 1942, Senate, pp. 7983-7984.
Congressional Research Service

11

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

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.51
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 Department of the Treasury issued regulations that to a certain extent
explained 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 Department of the Treasury 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 employee, however, was very unclear in cases of
outside salesmen.52
On December 31, 1946, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 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 or the Social Security
Administration (SSA), should determine national policy regarding Social Security coverage. It
was reported that H.J.Res. 296 was introduced primarily to prevent the release of new federal
regulations defining the meaning of employee along the lines interpreted by the Supreme Court in
three cases decided in June 1947.53 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,

51 Derthick, Policymaking for Social Security, p. 237.
52 Wilbur Cohen and James L. Calhoon, “Social Security Legislation. January-June 1948: Legislative History and
Background,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 11, no. 7, July 1948, pp. 3-11, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/
v11n7/v11n7p3.pdf.
53 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

12

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

and unemployment.”54 The action taken on H.R. 5052 illustrated the controversial issues involved
in determining who should be covered under Social Security.
House Action
On March 4, 1948, Representative Gearhart (R-CA) asked unanimous consent for immediate
consideration of H.R. 5052. He stated that “until the rendition of the federal court decisions I
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 decisions55 “these vendors were
arbitrarily declared to be employees and therefore subject to the payroll taxes though the money
they receive is not wages, as generally understood, but profits derived from an independent
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. Representative Gearhart stated in his remarks that “when newspaper vendors
are covered into the Social Security system—and I believe they will be by act of Congress before
this session ends—they will be brought in as the independent contractors which they are, as the
self-employed.... ” The House passed H.R. 5052 on March 4, 1948, by unanimous consent.56
On February 27, 1948, H.J.Res. 296 was passed by a vote of 275 to 52.57
Senate Action
On March 23, 1948, the Senate passed by unanimous consent H.R. 5052 in form identical to that
passed by the House.58
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 6.59
Although there was no conference on H.J.Res. 296, the House concurred with the Senate
amendments on June 4, 1948, by voice vote.60
Veto
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

54 Congressional Record, April 6, 1948, House, p. 4134.
55 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).
56 Congressional Record, March 4, 1948, House, p. 2143.
57 Congressional Record, February 27, 1948, House, Roll call no. 18, not voting 103, pp. 1908-1909.
58 Congressional Record, March 23, 1948, Senate, p. 3267
59 Congressional Record, June 4, 1948, Senate, not voting 16, p. 7134
60 Congressional Record, June 4, 1948, House, p. 7215.
Congressional Research Service

13

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

to extinguish their present rights pending a determination as to whether it is more appropriate for
them to be covered on some other basis.”61
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.”62
Veto Override
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).63 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).64
On June 14, 1948, President Truman’s veto of H.J.Res. 296 was overridden in the House by a
vote of 298 to 7565 and in the Senate by a vote of 65 (37-R, 28-D) to 12 (2-R, 10-D).66
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 female 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 (i.e., those aged 75 or
older could now earn any amount without losing OASI benefits); and gave free wage credits of
$160 for each month in which military service was performed between September 16, 1940, and
July 24, 1947.67

61 Congressional Record, April 6, 1948, House, p. 4134.
62 Congressional Record, June 14, 1948, House, p. 8188.
63 Congressional Record, April 14, 1948, House, Roll call no. 44, not voting 93, p. 4432.
64 Congressional Record, April 20, 1948, Senate, not voting 12, p. 4594.
65 Congressional Record, June 14, 1948, House, Roll call no. 105, not voting 57, p. 8191.
66 Congressional Record, June 14, 1948, Senate, not voting 19, p. 8093.
67 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

14

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

House Action
On August 22, 1949, the Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 6000. H.R. 6000 did not
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.
All 10 Republicans on the committee (including 7 who voted to send H.R. 6000 to the floor) filed
a minority report stating that OASI coverage and benefits should be limited so as to provide only
a “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.68
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.
On October 4, 1949, Representative Sabath (D-IL) offered a resolution for four days of debate,
with only the Committee on Ways and Means having the right to offer amendments, and with
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, 1949.69
On October 5, 1949, Representative Mason (R-IL) moved to recommit H.R. 6000, and offered
H.R. 6297 (a bill that carried out the minority view on H.R. 6000) as its substitute. H.R. 6297,
introduced by Representative Kean (R-NJ) on October 3, 1949, held the wage base to $3,000;
recommended greater coverage for domestic workers so that those who were less regularly
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).70
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).71

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

15

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

Senate Action
Since Congress adjourned shortly after the House action, the Senate did not consider H.R. 6000
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 OASI system so that OASI would be the primary method of offering “basic
security to retired persons and survivors,”72 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.
On June 14, 1950, following a Senate Republican Policy Committee meeting, Senator Millikin
(R-CO) and Senator Taft (R-OH) indicated that Republicans would support H.R. 6000 but
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 the age of 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.73
An amendment offered by Senator Myers (D-PA) to add a disability insurance program to OASI
was rejected by a voice vote.74
On June 20, 1950, another amendment offered by Senator Myers to boost the OASI wage base
from $3,000 to $4,200, closer to what President Truman had requested (instead of $3,600
specified in the George amendment—see below), was rejected 36 (9-R, 27-D) to 45 (27-R, 18-
D).75
On June 20, 1950, Senator Long (D-LA) introduced an amendment to provide federal grants to
States for needy disabled persons. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 41 (4-R, 37-D) to 42
(33-R, 9-D).76
On June 20, 1950, Senator George’s (D-GA) amendment to increase the basic wage base from
$3,000 to $3,600 was agreed to by voice vote.77
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.78
The Senate passed H.R. 6000 on June 20 by a vote of 81 (35-R, 47-D) to 2 (2-R).79

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

16

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

Conference Action
Conferees dropped the disability insurance proposal, but retained the public assistance program
for the permanently and totally disabled (i.e., the so-called charity approach). The conference
report was submitted to the House on August 1, 1950.
On August 16, 1950, Representative Byrnes (R-WI) moved to recommit the conference report on
H.R. 6000. He stated that his main reason for doing so was to prevent any attempt to remove from
the bill a Senate floor amendment by Representative Knowland (R-CA) to reduce federal control
over state-administered unemployment insurance. Representative Doughton (D-NC) moved the
previous question on the motion to recommit.80 The motion on the previous question was passed
by a vote of 188 (120-R, 68-D) to 186 (20-R, 165-D, 1-I). The motion to recommit the conference
report was rejected.
The conference report passed the House on August 16, 1950, 374 (140-R, 234-D) to 1 (1-R);81
and the Senate on August 17, 1950, by voice vote.82
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.)
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. Representative Reed (R-NY), the
minority leader of the Ways and Means Committee, was the primary spokesman for Members
who endorsed the AMA position.
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.83

80 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.
81 Congressional Record, August 16, 1950, House, Roll call no. 242, not voting 55, p. 12673.
82 Congressional Record, August 17, 1950, House, p. 12718.
83 Congressional Record, May 19, 1952, House, Roll call no. 79, not voting 139, pp. 5483-5484.
Congressional Research Service

17

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

On June 16, 1952, Democratic leaders brought H.R. 7800 to the floor under suspension of the
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.
Representative Reed said “... let no person on this floor be deceived. You have the same old H.R.
7800 here before you. While the socialized medicine advocates pretend to remove the specific
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.”84 Representative 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, 1952.85
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.
The committee amendment, offered by Senator George (D-GA), to drop the disability freeze
provision, was passed by voice vote on June 26, 1952.86
H.R. 7800 (without the disability freeze provision) was passed in the Senate by a voice vote on
June 26, 1952.87
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.”88 In addition, the conferees gave
responsibility for determining whether an applicant was disabled to appropriate state agencies
(such as public assistance, vocational rehabilitation, or workmen’s compensation), instead of the
FSA. The Federal Security administrator would be able to overturn a ruling by the state agencies
that a person was disabled, but would not be able to reverse a ruling by the state agencies that a
person was not disabled.
The conference report was agreed to July 5, 1952, by voice votes in both chambers.89
P.L. 761—83rd Congress, Social Security Amendments of 1954
H.R. 9366, the Social Security Amendments of 1954, was signed by President Eisenhower on
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

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

18

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

Social Security system.” The Social Security Amendments of 1954 extended mandatory coverage
to, among others, some self-employed farmers, engineers, architects, accountants, and funeral
directors, all federal employees not covered by government pension plans, and farm and domestic
service workers not covered by the 1950 amendments, and it extended 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 below), 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 aged 72 or older, and
dropped the five years of lowest earnings from average monthly wage determinations for benefit
computation purposes.
House Action
On June 1, 1954, Representative Smith (D-VA) and other farm area Democrats objected to
bringing H.R. 9366 to the floor under a closed rule because coverage of farmers was included in
the bill. Representative Smith stated, “I object to the feature of this bill that prohibits you from
offering any amendment. I think that requires a little discussion and a little understanding. We all
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.”90 On June 1,
1954, by a vote of 270 (171-R, 98-D, 1-I) to 76 (5-R, 71-D),91 debate of the closed rule was cut
off, and the closed rule was then adopted by voice vote.
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).92
The House passed H.R. 9366 on June 1, 1954, by a vote of 356 (181-R, 174-D, 1-I) to 8 (2-R, 6-
D).93
Senate Action
H.R. 9366 as reported by the Finance Committee included the coverage of farm and domestic
service workers, ministers, state and local government employees covered by a retirement system,
and a small number of professionals. It also increased the earnings test threshold to $1,200 a year;
reduced the age at which the earnings test no longer applied to 72; and increased the lump-sum

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

19

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

death benefit from $255 to $325.50. During the Senate debate on H.R. 9366, nine amendments
were adopted, six were rejected, and six were presented and then withdrawn.94
Among the amendments adopted on the floor by the Senate was a provision by Senator Long (D-
LA) to require the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to study the feasibility and costs
of providing increased minimum benefits of $55, $60, and $75 a month under the Social Security
program. On August 13, 1954, Senator Long’s amendment was agreed to by voice vote.95
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, Senator Johnston’s
amendment was rejected by voice vote.96 On August 13, 1954, the Stennis amendments were
rejected en bloc by voice vote.97 On August 13, 1954, Senator Humphrey’s amendment was
rejected on a division vote.98
Among the amendments that were presented and then withdrawn was an amendment by Senator
Lehman (D-NY) to extend Social Security coverage, increase benefits, add permanent and total
disability and temporary disability Social Security benefits, and to make other changes.99
On August 13, 1954, the Senate passed H.R. 9366, by voice vote.100
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.
Both chambers agreed to the conference report without amendments by voice vote on August 20,
1954, the last day of the session.101
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 years
or older of a deceased or retired insured worker if the child became disabled before age 18; to
female workers and wives at the age of 62, instead of 65, with actuarially reduced benefits;
reduced from 65 to 62 the age at which benefits were payable to widows or parents, with no

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

20

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

reduction; extended coverage to lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, optometrists, and all other self-
employed professionals except doctors;102 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% each for employees and employers); and created a
separate Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund. The Social Security program now consisted of
OASDI.
House Action
Major House Ways and Means Committee provisions provided benefits to disabled persons aged
50 or older and reduced the age at which women could first receive OASI benefits to 62.
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).103
Senate Action
At Senate Finance Committee hearings on the House-passed bill, the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Marion Folsom stated that the Administration was opposed to reducing
the retirement age to 62 for women and providing disability benefits. According to Congress and
the Nation, Senator Folsom said that OASI had stayed actuarially sound without excessive taxes
because it had been restricted to one purpose with “predictable costs”: providing income for the
aged.104 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.
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.
On July 17, 1956, Senator George (D-GA) offered an amendment reinstating the DI program and
the tax increase to finance it. The amendment provided for a separate DI Trust Fund (instead of
operating the new program out of the OASI Trust Fund). The amendment was passed by a vote of
47 (6-R, 41-D) to 45 (38-R, 7-D).105
Also, on July 17, 1956, the Senate agreed to Senator Kerr’s (D-OK) amendment to permit women
to receive benefits at age 62 at actuarially reduced rates. The amendment passed by a vote of 86
(40-R, 46-D) to 7 (5-R, 2-D).106
On July 17, 1956, the Senate passed H.R. 7225 by a vote of 90 (45-R, 45-D) to 0.107

102 P.L. 881-84th Congress, the Servicemen’s and Veterans’ Survivor Benefit Act (H.R. 7089), extended coverage of the
Social Security system to members of the uniformed services on active duty on a permanent contributory basis
beginning in 1957. It was signed into law on August 1, 1956.
103 Congressional Record, July 18, 1955, House, Roll call no. 119, not voting 29, pp. 10798-10799.
104 Sen. Folsom stated that until the ultimate costs were known, whether it was possible to make disability
determinations good enough to avoid “fraudulent’ claims for benefits, and whether disability pensions might
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.
105 Congressional Record, July 17, 1956, Senate, not voting 4, p. 13056.
106 Congressional Record, July 17, 1956, Senate, not voting 3, p. 13073.
107 Congressional Record, July 17, 1956, Senate, not voting 6, p. 13103.
Congressional Research Service

21

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

Conference Action
The House on July 26, 1956,108 and the Senate on July 27, 1956,109 cleared the conference report
on H.R. 7225 without amendments by voice votes.
P.L. 85-840, Social Security Amendments of 1958
H.R. 13549, the Social Security Amendments of 1958, was signed by President Eisenhower on
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.
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,
Representative Reed (R-NY) stated that the bill would strengthen the actuarial soundness of the
Social Security program.110
On July 31, 1958, the House passed H.R. 13549 by a vote of 374 to 2.111
Senate Action
On August 15, 1958, Senator Yarborough (D-TX) offered an amendment to increase benefits by
10%, rather than 7% as proposed in H.R. 13549. Senator Yarborough stated that in many states
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.”112
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. Senator Yarborough’s amendment was rejected by a
vote of 32 (6-R, 26-D) to 53 (33-R, 20-D).113
On August 16, 1958, Senator Kennedy (D-MA) offered an amendment to increase Social Security
benefits by 8% (rather than 7%). The Kennedy-Case amendment was rejected by voice vote.114

108 Congressional Record, July 26, 1956, House, p. 14828.
109 Congressional Record, July 27, 1956, Senate, p. 15107.
110 Congressional Record, July 31, 1958, House, p. 15740.
111 Congressional Record, July 31, 1958, House, Roll call no. 149, not voting 54, pp. 15775-15776.
112 Congressional Record, August 15, 1958, Senate, p. 17798.
113 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, not voting 11, pp. 17971-17972.
114 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 17985.
Congressional Research Service

22

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

On August 16, 1958, Senator Morse (D-OR) offered an amendment to increase Social Security
benefits by 25%, provide health insurance, and make other changes. Senator Morse’s amendment
was rejected by voice vote.115
On August 16, 1958, Senator Humphrey (D-MN) offered an amendment to provide health
insurance. (Senator Morse’s amendment was based in part on this Humphrey amendment.)
Senator Humphrey withdrew his amendment.116
On August 16, 1958, Senator Kennedy offered an amendment for himself and Senator Smathers
(D-NJ) to eliminate the dollar ceiling of $255 on the lump-sum death benefit and restore the 3-to-
1 ratio between the death benefit and the regular monthly benefit. The amendment was rejected
by voice vote.117
On August 16, 1958, Senator Revercomb (R-WV) offered an amendment to provide full Social
Security retirement benefits at age 62, for both men and women. Senator Revercomb’s
amendment was rejected by voice vote.118
The Senate passed H.R. 13549 on August 16, 1958, by a vote of 79 (37-R, 42-D) to 0.119
House Concurrence
On August 19, 1958, the House by a voice vote agreed to the Senate amendments.120
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 (i.e.,
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 or 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 the age of 50; established a new earnings test
whereby each dollar of yearly earnings between $1,200 and $1,500 would cause only a 50-cent
reduction in benefits with a dollar-for-dollar reduction in benefits 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 one for every two

115 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 18005.
116 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 18008.
117 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 17986.
118 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, p. 17982.
119 Congressional Record, August 16, 1958, Senate, not voting 17, p. 18014.
120 Congressional Record, August 19, 1958, House, p. 18540.
Congressional Research Service

23

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

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.
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.
The Ways and Means Committee rejected H.R. 4700, introduced by Representative Forand (D-
RI), which would have provided insurance against the cost of hospital, nursing home, and
surgical services for OASDI recipients, by a vote of 17 to 8.121
Proponents of H.R. 12580 said that it provided medical assistance for every aged person in any
state that implemented a medical assistance program. Representative Thompson (D-NJ), a
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.”122 He contended further that
“even this charity ... is contingent upon the action of the separate states.”123
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).124
Senate Action
The Senate deleted the bill’s new title, and instead adopted an amendment by Senator Kerr (D-
OK) and Senator Frear (D-DE) that amended Title I of the Social Security Act to provide medical
services for medically needy aged persons.
On August 20, 1960, Senator Javits (R-NY) offered an amendment to provide federal matching
grants to states to enable them to give health care to needy persons aged 65 or older. (This
proposal was more generous than the provisions—also based on the public assistance, i.e., charity
approach—already in the report by the Finance Committee.) On August 23, 1960, Senator Javits’s
amendment was rejected by a vote of 28 (28-R) to 67 (5-R, 62-D).125
Also on August 20, 1960, Senator Anderson (D-NM) offered an amendment to use Social
Security as well as the public assistance program for the aged to provide health care to the elderly.
On August 23, 1960, Senator Anderson’s amendment was rejected by a vote of 44 (1-R, 43-D) to
51 (32-R, 19-D).126

121 See Social Security Administration (SSA), “Chronology: 1960s,” March 31, 1960, at http://www.ssa.gov/history/
1960.html.
122 Congressional Record, June 22, 1960, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Thompson, p. 13846.
123 Congressional Record, June 22, 1960, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Thompson, p. 13845.
124 Congressional Record, June 23, 1960, House, Roll call no. 143, not voting 24, pp. 14054-14055.
125 Congressional Record, August 23, 1960, Senate, Roll call no. 305, not voting 5, p. 17176.
126 Congressional Record, August 23, 1960, Senate, Roll call no. 307, not voting 5, p. 17220.
Congressional Research Service

24

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

On August 23, 1960, the Senate passed by voice vote Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) amendment to
permit men to retire at the age of 62 with actuarially reduced benefits. (The amendment was later
dropped in conference.)127
The Senate passed H.R. 12580 on August 23, 1960, by a vote of 91 (31-R, 60-D) to 2 (1-R,
1-D).128
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).
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).129
The Senate agreed to the conference report on August 29, 1960, by a vote of 74 (31-R, 43-D) to
11 (1-R, 10-D).130
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.131 The amendments
raised the minimum benefit to $40 per month; permitted men to claim retired worker’s benefits at
the age of 62, instead of 65, with actuarially reduced benefits; liberalized the insured status
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 if earnings were $1,200 a year or less, $1 withheld for each $2 earned between $1,200
and $1,700, and a $1 reduction in benefits for each additional dollar of earnings above $1,700;
and raised the employer and employee tax rates by 0.125% and the self-employed tax rate by
0.1875%.132
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

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

25

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

it would likely start a trend toward “compulsory retirement” at age 62. Speaking for himself and
most of the minority committee members, Representative Curtis (R-MO) stated, “The reason [we
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.”133
On April 20, 1961, Representative Curtis made a motion to recommit H.R. 6027134 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.135 Note that the provisions raising the minimum benefit and increasing benefits for
widows were already in H.R. 6027 as reported out of committee.
The House passed H.R. 6027 on April 20, 1961, by a vote of 400 (149-R, 251-D) to 14 (14-R).136
Senate Action
In the Senate, debate focused on Senator Cotton’s (R-NH) amendment made on June 26, 1961, to
increase the earnings test limit to $1,800 a year.137 Senator Kerr (D-OK) said that Senator
Cotton’s amendment failed to provide increased OASDI taxes to pay for the additional $427
million to $615 million that would be paid out each year under the proposed amendment.138
Senator Kerr stated that “an amendment which would result in the impairment of the fiscal
integrity of the fund should not be pressed.”139
Senator Hartke (D-IN) offered a substitute amendment that provided a slightly less generous new
earnings test limit ($1,700). The substitute amendment was passed June 26, 1961, by a vote of 59
(3-R, 56-D) to 30 (30-R).140 Provisions to finance this change were agreed to by unanimous
consent.141
On June 26, 1961, Senator Hartke’s amendment to broaden the definition of disability was
rejected by voice vote.142
The Senate passed H.R. 6027 90 (33-R, 57-D) to 0 on June 26, 1961.143
Conference Action
Both chambers cleared the conference report by voice votes June 29, 1961.144

133 Congressional Record, April 20, 1961, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Curtis, p. 6471.
134 Congressional Record, April 20, 1961, House, p. 6492.
135 Congressional Record, April 20, 1961, House, p. 6495.
136 Congressional Record, April 20, 1961, House, Roll call no. 40, not voting 17, p. 6495.
137 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, p. 11309.
138 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, p. 11314.
139 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Kerr, p. 11310.
140 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, Roll call no. 83, not voting 11, p. 11318.
141 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, p. 11325.
142 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, p. 11327.
143 Congressional Record, June 26, 1961, Senate, Roll call no. 85, not voting 10, p. 11328.
144 Congressional Record, June 29, 1961, House, p. 11791, and, Congressional Record, June 29, 1961, Senate, p.
11693.
Congressional Research Service

26

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

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 or older 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.
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.
On July 29, 1964, the House passed H.R. 11865 by a vote of 388 to 8.145
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.
On August 31, 1964, Senator Gore (D-TN) offered an amendment to Senator Long’s (D-LA)
amendment146 to increase the proposed across-the-board benefit increase to 7% (instead of the
proposed 5% increase) and to liberalize the earnings test.147 Senator Gore’s amendment included
the 1963 King (D-CA)-Anderson (D-NM) bill (H.R. 3920/S. 880), which would have provided
hospital insurance benefits for the aged under the Social Security program.
On September 2, 1964, the Gore amendment passed by a vote of 49 to 44.148
On September 3, 1964, the Senate passed H.R. 11865 by a vote of 60 to 28.149
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

145 Congressional Record, July 29, 1964, House, Roll call no. 193, not voting 35, pp. 17298-17299.
146 Congressional Record, August 31, 1964, Senate, p. 21103.
147 Congressional Record, August 31, 1964, Senate, p. 21086.
148 Congressional Record, September 2, 1964, Senate, Roll call no. 558, not voting 7, p. 21318.
149 Congressional Record, September 3, 1964, Senate, Roll call no. 561, not voting 12, p. 21553.
Congressional Research Service

27

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

House, by a 3 to 2 vote, refused to accept such provisions.150 The conference committee
adjourned on October 2, 1964.
P.L. 89-97, Social Security Amendments of 1965
H.R. 6675, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, was signed into law on July 30, 1965, by
President Lyndon Johnson. Although a federally operated health insurance program covering the
entire nation was considered by the Franklin Roosevelt Administration in 1935, it was not
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),151
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, aged 65
or older. A voluntary Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) plan (Part B) would help pay
doctor bills and related services, for all persons aged 65 or older, financed through monthly
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 were a full-time student (under prior law, they were available only through age 17),
permitted widows to receive actuarially reduced benefits at age 60 rather than age 62, provided
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 aged 72 or older to have insured status (from 6
quarters to 3 quarters for a worker and from 6 quarters to 3 quarters for a wife who reached age
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 (medical assistance for the aged that was enacted in
1960). The program was to be administered by the states, with federal matching funds. The new
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.
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,

150 SSA, “Social Security Legislation,” Commissioner’s Bulletin, no. 17, October 3, 1964.
151 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

28

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

however, brought 42 new Northern Democrats into the House, almost all of them Medicare
supporters.152
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 on March 29, 1965,153 with all 17 Democrats favoring the bill and
all 8 Republicans opposing it.154
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.
On April 8, 1965, the House rejected Representative Byrnes’s (R-WI) motion to recommit H.R.
6675 to the Ways and Means Committee with instructions to substitute the text of H.R. 7057, a
bill that Representative Byrnes had introduced a week earlier. H.R. 7057 was not offered as an
amendment because the rule did not permit such action. H.R. 7057 provided for all
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).155
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).156
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).
On July 7 and 8, 1965, three moves to expand H.R. 6675 were rejected. Senator Ribicoff’s (D-
CT) amendment to remove all time limits on length of hospital stays under Medicare was rejected
by a vote of 39 (13-R, 26-D) to 43 (12-R, 31-D).157 Senator Miller’s (R-IA) amendment to
provide for an automatic 3% increase in Social Security pensions whenever a 3% increase
occurred in the “retail” price index was rejected by a vote of 21 (15-R, 6-D) to 64 (9-R, 55-D).158
Senator Prouty’s (R-VT) amendment to provide benefit increases ranging from 75% in the low-
income brackets to 7% in the upper-income brackets was rejected by a vote of 12 (10-R, 2-D) to
79 (18-R, 61-D).159 In addition, Senator Curtis’s (R-NE) amendment to provide that the Medicare

152 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1965, Washington, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., p. 236.
153 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Social Security Amendments of 1965, report to accompany
H.R. 6675, 89th Cong., 1st sess., March 29, 1965, H.Rept. 89-213 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1965).
154 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1965, Washington, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., p. 236. See also Peter A.
Corning, The Evolution of Medicare, prepared under contract with the Social Security Administration, Chapter 4: The
Fourth Round-1957 to 1965, https://www.ssa.gov/history/corning.html.
155 Congressional Record, April 8, 1965, House, Roll call no. 70, not voting 5, pp. 7443-7444.
156 Congressional Record, April 8, 1965, House, Roll call no. 71, not voting 5, p. 7444.
157 Congressional Record, July 7, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 165, not voting 18, p. 15835.
158 Congressional Record, July 8, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 166, not voting 15, p. 15869.
159 Congressional Record, July 8, 1965, Senate, Roll call no. 167, not voting 9, p. 15909.
Congressional Research Service

29

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

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).160
On July 7, 1965, Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) amendment to lower the age at which workers could
receive Social Security benefits to 60 (rather than age 62, the existing minimum) was agreed to
by voice vote.161
On July 8, 1965, Senator Kennedy’s (D-NY) amendment to prohibit federal payments to any
hospital not meeting the standards required by the state or local government was passed by voice
vote.162
On July 9, 1965, Senator Hartke’s (D-IN) amendment to liberalize the definition of blindness
under the Social Security program, provide benefits to blind workers with at least 6 quarters of
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).163
On July 9, 1965, Senator Hartke’s amendment to eliminate the time limit on hospital care under
the proposed program was agreed to by voice vote.164
On July 9, 1965, Senator Smathers’s (D-FL) amendment to raise payroll taxes to finance the
benefits provided in floor amendments passed by a voice vote.165
On July 9, 1965, Senator Curtis (R-NE) offered an amendment to strike Medicare, Parts A and B,
from the bill. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 26 (18-R, 8-D) to 64 (11-R, 53-D).166
Senator Curtis also reintroduced, in a slightly different form, his amendment to provide a
deductible based on the Medicare patient’s ability to pay. This amendment, too, was rejected by a
vote of 40 to 52.167 In addition, Senator Curtis moved to recommit H.R. 6675 with instructions to
strike out the portions related to Medicare and substitute a plan patterned after the health
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).168
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).169
Conference Action
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).170

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

30

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

On July 28, 1965, the Senate adopted the conference report by a vote of 70 (13-R, 57-D) to 24
(17-R, 7-D).171
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. It extended OASI benefits of $35 per month to persons over the age of 71 who
were not covered, but with the benefit reduced by the amount of payments received under
government pension plans, veteran’s or civil service pensions, teacher’s retirement pension plans,
or welfare programs.
House Action
The House passed H.R. 12752, the Tax Adjustment Act of 1966, by a vote of 246 (46-R, 200-D)
to 146 (88-R, 58-D).172 The bill did not contain any Social Security provisions.
Senate Action
During the floor debate on H.R. 12752, Senator Prouty (R-VT) offered an amendment to extend a
minimum Social Security payment of $44 a month to all persons aged 70 or older who were not
then eligible for benefits (an estimated 1.8 million persons at a cost of $760 million in
FY1967).173
On March 8, 1966, Senator Long (D-LA) moved to table the Prouty amendment but his motion
was rejected by a vote of 37 (1-R, 36-D) to 51 (30-R, 21-D).174
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)175 and adopted by a vote of 44 (25-R, 19-D) to 43 (6-R, 37-D) a motion by Senator
Prouty to table Senator Mansfield’s (D-MT) motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the
amendment.176
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).177
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.
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).178

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

31

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

On March 15, 1966, the Senate adopted the conference report on H.R. 12752 by a vote of 72 (23-
R, 49-D) to 5 (4-R, I-D).179
P.L. 90-248, Social Security Amendments of 1967
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 each to 4.8% in 1969; raised the minimum benefit from $44 to $55 per
month; raised the earnings test limit to $1,680 a year instead of $1,500 (recipient lost $1 in
benefits for every $2 earned between $1,680 and $2,880, and lost $1 for each additional dollar
earned above $2,880); added benefits for disabled widows and widowers at age 50, with a stricter
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).
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 $1,680.180
On August 17, 1967, Representative Utt (R-CA) moved to recommit H.R. 12080. The motion was
rejected by voice vote.181
On August 17, 1967, the House passed H.R. 12080 by a roll call vote of 416 (182-R, 234-D) to 3
(1-R, 2-D).182 The bill was debated under a closed rule prohibiting floor amendments.
Senate Action
On November 14, 1967, the Senate Finance Committee reported a heavily amended bill that
contained several OASDI provisions as recommended by the Administration rather than as
modified by the House. The Senate bill provided a 15% across-the-board Social Security
increase, in contrast to the 12.5% increase in the House bill.
On November 17, 1967, Senator Prouty (R-VT) offered an amendment to finance the higher
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).183

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

32

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

On November 17, 1967, Senator Metcalf (D-MT) offered an amendment to delete from H.R.
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).184
On November 21, 1967, Senator Williams (R-DE) offered an amendment to implement the
Finance Committee’s recommended payroll tax increase in January 1968 (before the general
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).185
On November 21, 1967, the Senate, by a vote of 22 (17-R, 5-D) to 58 (9-R, 49-D), rejected a
Republican proposal offered by Senator Curtis (R-NE) and Senator Williams (R-DE) substituting
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.186
On November 21, 1967, Senator Bayh (D-IN) offered an amendment to raise the earnings test
limit from $1,680 to $2,400. The amendment passed by a vote of 50 (14-R, 36-D) to 23 (10-R,
13-D).187
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.188
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.
The House adopted the conference report on December 13, 1967, by a vote of 390 (167-R, 223-
D) to 3 (1-R, 2-D).189
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).190
P.L. 91-172, Tax Reform Act of 1969
H.R. 13270, the Tax Reform Act of 1969, was signed by President Nixon on December 30, 1969.
The new law included a 15% increase in Social Security benefits beginning in January 1, 1970.
House Action
On August 7, 1969, the House passed H.R. 13270 by a vote of 395 (176-R, 219-D) to 30 (10-R,
20-D).191 The bill did not contain any Social Security provisions.

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

33

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

Senate Action
On December 5, 1969, Senator Long (D-LA) offered an amendment to raise basic Social Security
benefits by 15% beginning in January 1970.
Senator Long’s amendment was passed by a vote of 73 (23-R, 50-D) to 14 (14-R).192
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).193
On December 5, 1969, Senator Williams (R-DE) offered a substitute amendment to provide a
10%, rather than a 15% benefit increase. The substitute amendment was rejected by a vote of 34
(33-R, 1-D) to 56 (5-R, 51-D).194
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).195
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.
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).196
On December 22, 1969, the Senate adopted H.R. 13270 by a vote of 71 (25-R, 46-D) to 6
(6-R).197
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 aged 72 or older who were not insured for regular benefits,
retroactive to January 1, 1971.
House Action
In 1970, a comprehensive Social Security bill (H.R. 17550) was passed by the House by a vote of
344 (166-R, 178-D) to 32 (32-D).198 H.R. 17550 increased benefits by 5%, provided for automatic

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

34

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

benefit increases with rises in the cost of living, and made other changes in the OASDI and
Medicare programs.
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 by 10%, providing a $100 minimum
monthly benefit, raising the taxable wage base from $7,800 to $9,000, and making changes in the
Medicare and Medicaid programs, was passed by the Senate on December 29, 1970, by a vote of
81 (35-R, 46-D) to 0.199 However, the House never agreed to a conference.200
Senator Long (D-LA), chairman of the Finance Committee and floor manager of H.R. 4690, said
that he had asked the House to take immediate action to raise Social Security benefits and as the
House had not responded, he was offering a benefit increase as an amendment to H.R. 4690, a bill
to increase the debt ceiling.201
On March 12, 1971, Senator Long’s amendment to provide a 10% increase in Social Security
payments, a $100 minimum monthly benefit, increases in earnings limitations, and other changes
passed by a vote of 82 (38-R, 44-D) to 0.202
The Senate, on March 12, 1971, passed H.R. 4690, after approving several Social Security
changes, including the benefit increase proposed by Senator Long, by a vote of 80 (37-R, 43-D)
to 0.203
Conference Action
Conferees accepted the Senate’s 10% benefit increase but reduced the $100 minimum benefit to
$70.40 and made several other modifications.
On March 16, 1971, the House adopted the conference report by a vote of 360 (150-R, 210-D) to
3 (3-R).204
On March 16, 1971, the Senate adopted the report by a vote of 76 (37-R, 39-D) to 0.205
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

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

35

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

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
which a benefit increase was then being considered, faced an uncertain future because of
controversy over its welfare provisions.206
House Action
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%.
On February 23, 1972, Representative Mills (D-AR), chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, introduced H.R. 13320, which provided for an immediate benefit increase of 20%.207
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 168.208
Senate Action
On June 29, 1972, Senator Aiken (R-VT) offered an amendment to the Church amendment to
increase Social Security benefits by 30%. Following Senator Long’s (D-LA) motion, Senator
Aiken’s amendment was tabled by a vote of 71 (31-R, 40-D) to 18 (8-R, 10-D).209
On June 30, 1972, an amendment by Senator Bennett (R-UT) to increase Social Security benefits
by 10% instead of 20% was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 20 (17-R, 3-D) to 66 (21-R,
45-D).210
On June 30, 1972, Senator Church’s (D-ID) amendment calling for a 20% benefit increase and
the automatic adjustment of benefits and the taxable wage base in the future was adopted by the
Senate by a vote of 82 (34-R, 48-D) to 4 (4-R).211 The amendment made benefit increases
automatic whenever the CPI rose by 3% or more in any calendar year.
On June 30, 1972, the Senate passed H.R. 15390 by a vote of 78 (36-R, 42-D) to 3 (1-R, 2-D).
H.R. 15390 was then sent back to the House.212
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.

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

36

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

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 nongermane amendments added
by the Senate. Thus, the conference report was reported back to the House in disagreement.213
On June 30, 1972, Representative Byrnes (R-WI) called the proposed 20% increase
“irresponsible” and moved that the House concur with the Senate amendment but with the benefit
increase limited to 10%. The motion was rejected by a vote of 83 (63-R, 20-D) to 253 (73-R, 180-
D).214
On June 30, 1972, Representative Mills’s (D-AR) motion that the House concur with the Senate-
passed amendment granting a 20% Social Security benefit increase and annual automatic cost-of-
living adjustments (COLAs) was accepted by a vote of 302 (108-R, 194-D) to 35 (28-R, 7-D).215
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. From 1969 to 1972, Congress raised OASDI benefits three times. Benefits were
raised by 15% in 1969, 10% in 1971, and 20% in 1972 (discussed above, the latter with the
adoption of P.L. 92-336). P.L. 92-336 also provided for future automatic benefit increases, or
COLAs, starting in January 1975, whenever the consumer price index rose more than 3% in a
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.216
The 1972 amendments (H.R. 1) increased benefits for widows and widowers; raised the earnings
limit from $1,680 to $2,100 with automatic adjustment to average wages thereafter (benefits were
reduced by $1 for every $2 in earnings in excess of $2,100); reduced the waiting period for
disability benefits from six to five months; extended Medicare protection to disabled recipients
who had received benefits for at least two years; and provided a special minimum benefit of up to
$170 a month for those who had worked many years, but at low earnings. In addition, OASDI and
HI tax rate-increases scheduled for the periods 1973-1977, 1978-1980, 1981-1985, 1986-1992,
1993-1997, 1998-2010, and 2011 and years thereafter, were further raised.217
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
federalizing and consolidating adult public assistance programs for needy aged, blind, or disabled
persons in a new Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

213 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1972, pp. 402-403.
214 Congressional Record, June 30, 1972, House, Roll call no. 259, not voting 95, p. 23738.
215 Congressional Record, June 30, 1972, House, Roll call no. 260, not voting 95, pp. 23738-23739.
216 Congress and the Nation: 1969-1972, vol. III, p. 619.
217 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

37

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

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.
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).218
Senate Action
On September 27, 1972, Senator Mansfield (D-MT) offered an amendment to increase the
earnings test limit from $1,680 to $3,000. The amendment was agreed to by a vote of 76 (32-R,
44-D) to 5 (4-R, 1-D).219
On September 28, 1972, Senator Percy’s (R-IL) amendment to require the Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to review the Social Security earnings test, and
report to Congress on the feasibility of eliminating it, was accepted by voice vote.220
On September 29, 1972, Senator Long (D-LA) offered an amendment to provide a federal SSI
program for needy aged, blind, or disabled persons (in place of the existing state adult assistance
programs). The amendment was passed by a vote of 75 (32-R, 43-D) to 0.221
n September 29, 1972, the Finance Committee’s amendment to guarantee every person who
worked in employment covered under the Social Security program for at least 30 years a
minimum monthly benefit of $200 ($300 for a couple) passed by a vote of 73 (30-R, 43-D)
to 0.222
On September 30, 1972, Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) amendment to lower to 60 the age at which
reduced Social Security benefits could be received and to 55 the age at which a woman could
receive reduced widow’s benefits was agreed to by a vote of 29 (10-R, 19-D) to 25 (12-R,
13-D).223
On September 27, 1972, Senator Goldwater (R-AZ) offered an amendment to repeal the earnings
limitation for all Social Security recipients aged 65 or older. The amendment was rejected by
voice vote.224
H.R. 1 passed the Senate on October 5, 1972, by a vote of 68 (33-R, 35-D) to 5 (1-R, 4-D).225
Conference Action
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).226

218 Congressional Record, June 22, 1971, House, Roll call no. 157, not voting 13, p. 21463.
219 Congressional Record, September 27, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 478, not voting 19, p. 32488.
220 Congressional Record, September 28, 1972, Senate, p. 32720.
221 Congressional Record, September 29, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 484, not voting 25, p. 32905.
222 Congressional Record, September 29, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 485, not voting 27, p. 32907.
223 Congressional Record, September 30, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 488, not voting 46, p. 33000.
224 Congressional Record, September 27, 1972, Senate, p. 32485.
225 Congressional Record, October 5, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 536, not voting 27, p. 33995.
226 Congressional Record, October 17, 1972, Senate, Roll call no. 455, not voting 122, p. 36936.
Congressional Research Service

38

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

On October 17, 1972, the Senate adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 by a vote of 61 (24-R,
37-D) to 0.227
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 P.L. 93-66, which
had been enacted in July 1973.228 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.
House Action
With a rule allowing only one floor amendment (pertaining to SSI), the House passed H.R. 11333
on November 15, 1973.229
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.230 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.
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).231
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.
On November 29, 1973, Senator Byrd (D-WV) introduced an amendment that reduced to 55 the
age at which a woman could claim a Social Security widow’s benefit. Under existing law, a
widow could elect to retire at 60 with reduced benefits. Senator Byrd said that his amendment

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

39

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

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,”
Senator Curtis (R-NE) objected that it would be unjust to reduce the eligibility age for widows
“who have not worked under covered employment” while keeping the existing requirement at age
62 for “women who have had to work all their lives and will have to work until they are of
retirement age.” Senator Byrd’s amendment was adopted by a vote of 74 (28-R, 46-D) to 13 (9-R,
4-D).232
Senator Byrd introduced a second amendment that increased the earnings test limit from $2,400
to $3,000 and lowered from 72 to 70, the age at which the earnings limit would no longer apply.
The amendment was accepted November 29, 1973, by a vote of 83 (33-R, 50-D) to 1 (1-R).233
On November 29, 1973, Senator Hartke’s (D-IN) amendment making blind persons eligible for
disability benefits after working 18 months in covered employment was adopted by voice vote.
(Ordinarily a disabled person had to have covered employment in 20 quarters out of the last 40
quarters to be eligible.)
On November 30, 1973, the Senate passed H.R. 3153 by a vote of 66 (24-R, 42-D) to 8 (6-R, 2-
D).234
Conference Action
After the Senate passed H.R. 3153, it asked the House for a conference, but the House appointed
conferees only two days before the end of the session. The conferees did not act on H.R. 3153.
Instead, they agreed to work on revisions to H.R. 11333, the House-passed Social Security bill,
on which the Senate had never acted.235
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.
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.
The Senate passed H.R. 11333 with the amendments agreed to in conference on December 21,
1973, by a vote of 64 to 0.236
The House, on December 21, 1973, concurred in passing the bill by a vote of 301 (123-R, 178-D)
to 13 (10-R, 3-D).237
P.L. 95-216, 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

232 Congressional Record, November 29, 1973, Senate, Roll call no. 527, not voting 13, p. 38645.
233 Congressional Record, November 29, 1973, Senate, Roll call no. 528, not voting 15, pp. 38645-38646.
234 Congressional Record, November 30, 1973, Senate, Roll call no. 540, not voting 24, p. 38975.
235 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1973, p. 577-580.
236 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.
237 Congressional Record, December 21, 1973, House, Roll call no. 719, not voting 118, p. 43230.
Congressional Research Service

40

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

immediate financial problems was the “combination of rapid inflation and a recession, which
together raised Social Security benefit costs and reduced tax receipts.”238 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 (i.e., the so-called
counter cyclical use of general revenues). Instead, the new law met the short-run problem mostly
by increasing Social Security tax rates and the taxable earnings base and also by somewhat
reducing expenditures. The final bill contained “decoupling” procedures, which also had been
supported by the Ford Administration, for correcting a basic flaw in the benefit computation
formula, and thereby largely reduced the long-run problem. P.L. 95-216 also liberalized the
earnings test by providing a five-step ad hoc increase in the earnings limits for recipients aged 65
or older (the limit for persons under age 65 continued to be adjusted only for increases in average
wages after 1978); eliminated the earnings test for recipients aged 70 or older (reduced from age
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.

House Action
Legislation that incorporated the Administration’s recommendations (H.R. 8218) was introduced
on July 12, 1977, by Representative Burke (D-MA), chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee’s Social Security Subcommittee. After reworking the Administration’s package, the
subcommittee made recommendations to the full committee that were introduced by Chairman
Ullman (D-OR) on September 27, 1977, as H.R. 9346. On October 6, 1977, the full committee
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, 1977.239
On October 26, 1977, the House considered an amendment from the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service.240 The amendment would have deleted the provision in the Ways and Means
Committee bill covering federal, state, local, and nonprofit employees under Social Security.
Representative Fisher (D-VA) offered a substitute for the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee amendment. The Fisher substitute provided that federal employees would continue to

238 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1977, p. 161.
239 John Snee and Mary Ross, “Social Security Amendments of 1977: Legislative History and Summary of Provisions,”
Social Security Bulletin, vol. 41, no. 3, March 1978, pp. 6-9, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v41n3/
v41n3p3.pdf. (Hereinafter cited as “Social Security Amendments of 1977: Legislative History.”)
240 When H.R. 9346 was introduced, it was referred solely to the Ways and Means Committee. The chairman of the
Post Office and Civil Service Committee, Rep. Nix (D-PA), concerned over the Social Security coverage of federal
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.
Congressional Research Service

41

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

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 the 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, in contrast, argued that the committee bill,
by postponing the extension of coverage until 1982, allowed sufficient time to work out details.241
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.242 Representative Fisher’s substitute amendment was agreed to by a vote of 386
(129-R, 257-D) to 38 (14-R, 24-D).243 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).244
On October 26, 1977, Representative Pickle (D-TX) offered an amendment to strike another
committee provision authorizing standby loans to the OASDI system from general revenues
whenever trust fund reserves dipped below 25% of a year’s outgo. Representative Pickle argued
that any use of general treasury funds for Social Security undermined the contributory nature of
the program. He remarked that he did not want to see the Social Security program turned into a
“welfare or need program.” The Pickle amendment was rejected by a vote of 196 (122-R, 74-D)
to 221 (15-R, 206-D).245
On October 26, 1977, Representative Corman (D-CA) offered an amendment to eliminate the
minimum Social Security benefit for new recipients. He said that the minimum benefit gave those
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).246
On October 27, 1977, Representative Ketchum (R-CA) offered an amendment to gradually raise
the earnings limitation on recipients over age 65 and to phase it out completely in 1982. The
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).247
On October 27, 1977, Representative Conable (R-NY) moved to recommit H.R. 9346 to the Ways
and Means Committee with instructions to report out the bill with an amendment that mandated
coverage of federal workers, diverted half of the HI portion of the payroll tax to OASDI in 1980,
and replaced the lost HI revenues with general revenues. Representative Conable argued that an
amendment containing the above would enable both the wage base and the tax rate to remain as

241 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1977, p. 165.
242 Ibid.
243 Congressional Record, October 26, 1977, House, Roll call no. 697, not voting 10, p. 35315.
244 Congressional Record, October 26, 1977, House, Roll call no. 698, not voting 15, pp. 35315-35316.
245 Congressional Record, October 26, 1977, House, Roll call no. 700, not voting 17, p. 35323.
246 Congressional Record, October 26, 1977, House, Roll call no. 701, not voting 32, p. 35326.
247 Congressional Record, October 27, 1977, House, Roll call no. 704, not voting 17, p. 35394.
Congressional Research Service

42

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

scheduled under existing law. The recommittal motion was rejected by a vote of 57 (44-R, 13-D)
to 363 (97-R, 266-D).248
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).249
Senate Action
Preliminary hearings and markup sessions on financing and decoupling were held by the Senate
Committee on Finance in the summer and fall of 1977, even though the House had not yet passed
its Social Security bill.250 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.251
When H.R. 9346 as passed by the House came up for debate on the Senate floor on November 2,
1977, Senator Long (D-LA) introduced an amendment to substitute the Finance Committee
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 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. Senator Long’s amendment was agreed to with no recorded
vote.252 Thus, the text of H.R. 5322 became H.R. 9346 as amended by the Senate.
On November 3, 1977, Senator Curtis (R-NE) offered an amendment that would have kept the
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. Senator Curtis said his amendment would take care of the deficit in the Social Security
fund. He stated that raising the wage base would put half of the financing burden exclusively on
the people with higher incomes.
Senator Nelson (D-WI) acknowledged that the Curtis amendment would supply the necessary
funding to keep the retirement system solvent, but stressed that the average worker would pay a
higher tax under the Curtis plan than under the committee proposal. Senator Nelson’s motion to
table the Curtis amendment lost by a vote of 44 (3-R, 41-D) to 45 (31-R, 14-D),253 but the Senate
then rejected the Curtis amendment, 40 (27-R, 13-D) to 50 (7-R, 43-D).254
On November 4, 1977, Senator Goldwater (R-AZ) offered an amendment to lower the age at
which the earnings test would no longer apply from 72 to 65. Senator Goldwater said that his
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.

248 Congressional Record, October 27, 1977, House, Roll call no. 705, not voting 14, p. 35406.
249 Congressional Record, October 27, 1977, House, Roll call no. 706, not voting 13, pp. 35406-35407.
250 Social Security Amendments of 1977: Legislative History, p. 9.
251 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
252 Congressional Record, November 2, 1977, Senate, p. 36449.
253 Congressional Record, November 3, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 611, not voting 11, p. 36763.
254 Congressional Record, November 3, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 612, not voting 10, p. 36764.
Congressional Research Service

43

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

Senator Church (D-ID offered a substitute amendment to lower from 72 to 70 the age at which
the earnings test would no longer apply. Senator Goldwater’s motion to table the Church
amendment was rejected 33 (25-R, 8-D) to 53 (7-R, 46-D).255 The Senate adopted the Church
substitute amendment 59 (12-R, 47-D) to 28 (20-R, 8-D)256 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).257
An amendment offered by Senator Church on November 4, 1977, to provide for semiannual
COLAs when the rate of inflation for a six-month period was 4% or greater was adopted by a
vote of 50 (11-R, 39-D) to 21 (15-R, 6-D).258
On November 4, 1977, Senator Bayh (D-IN) offered an amendment to remove the earnings limit
for blind persons collecting disability benefits and to set the number of quarters blind persons
must work to qualify for disability benefit at six. The Bayh amendment was adopted by voice
vote.259
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, 1977.260
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 (aged 65
or 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.”261 The main controversy involved provisions dealing with welfare programs and college
tuition tax credits.
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).262 There was unease in the House because of the large tax increases.
Representative Conable (R-NY) claimed that more reasonable non-tax alternatives were
available.
On December 15, 1977, Representative Ullman (D-OR) stated that the conference report
“responsibly faces up to the issues of Social Security, both short range and long range.” He
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.... ”263

255 Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 620, not voting 14, pp. 37130-37131.
256 Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 621, not voting 13, p. 37132.
257 Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 622, not voting 17, p. 37132.
258 Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 627, not voting 29, p. 37162.
259 Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Senate, p. 37141.
260 Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 631, not voting 31, p. 37199-37200.
261 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1977, p. 171.
262 Congressional Record, December 15, 1977, House, Roll call no. 782, not voting 81, p. 39035.
263 Congressional Record, December 15, 1977, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Ullman, pp. 39007-39008.
Congressional Research Service

44

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

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).264
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.
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 markup 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 Representative Simon (D-IL) that would delay the implementation of a
provision affecting vocational rehabilitation funding by one year. Despite the passage of the rule,
“the opposition coalition was able to block floor consideration of the measure for 3 months.”265
Floor debate on H.R. 3236 did not begin until September 6, 1979.266
On September 6, 1979, the House agreed to the Ways and Means Committee and Representative
Simon’s amendments267 and passed H.R. 3236 by a vote of 235 (108-R, 127-D) to 162 (36-R,
126-D).268

264 Congressional Record, December 15, 1977, Senate, Roll call no. 636, not voting 22, pp. 39152-39153.
265 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1979, p. 505.
266 “Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History and Summary of Provisions,” Social Security
Bulletin, vol. 44, no. 4, April 1981, pp. 14-23, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v44n4/v44n4p14.pdf.
(Hereinafter cited as “Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History.”)
267 Congressional Record, September 6, 1979, House, p. 23398 and p. 23401.
268 Congressional Record, September 6, 1977, House, Roll call no. 447, not voting 37, pp. 23401-23402.
Congressional Research Service

45

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

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.269
On January 30, 1980, Senator Metzenbaum’s (D-OH) amendment to increase the limit on
disability benefits from 85% to 100% of the worker’s previous average earnings was defeated by
a vote of 47 (7-R, 40-D) to 47 (31-R, 16-D).270
On January 30, 1980, Senator Bayh (D-IN) offered an amendment to exempt terminally ill
applicants from the waiting period. The amendment was limited to people who, in the opinion of
two doctors, would probably die within a year. Senator Bayh said it was cruel to deny assistance
to desperately ill people on the basis of an arbitrary waiting period that lasted longer than most of
them were likely to live.
Senator Long (D-LA) said elimination of the waiting period for one group would eventually lead
to its elimination for all disabled persons, at a cost of $3 billion a year. Senator Long also argued
that the amendment was not germane because there was nothing in the bill relating to the waiting
period for benefits. The amendment was ruled out of order but the Senate voted 37 (19-R, 18D) to
55 (17-R, 38-D) against the ruling of the chair271 and then adopted the Bayh amendment by a vote
of 70 (25-R, 45-D) to 23 (12-R, 11-D).272
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).273
Conference Action
On May 13, 1980, the conference committee reported the bill.274 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.275 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.
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).276
On May 29, 1980, the Senate passed the conference report on H.R. 3236 by a voice vote.277

269 Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History, pp. 23-24.
270 Congressional Record, January 30, 1980, Senate, Roll call no. 23, not voting 6, p. 1231.
271 Congressional Record, January 30, 1980, Senate, Roll call no. 18, not voting 8, p. 1203.
272 Congressional Record, January 30, 1980, Senate, Roll call no. 19, not voting 7, p. 1207.
273 Congressional Record, January 31, 1980, Senate, Roll call no. 27, not voting 12, p. 1411.
274 Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980: Legislative History, p. 24.
275 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1980, p. 437.
276 Congressional Record, May 22, 1980, House, Roll call no. 253, not voting 42, pp. 12175-12176.
277 Congressional Record, May 29, 1980, Senate, p. 12628.
Congressional Research Service

46

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

P.L. 96-403, Reallocation of OASI and DI Taxes
On October 9, 1980, H.R. 7670, the Reallocation of Social Security Taxes Between OASI and DI
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 DI Trust Fund to the OASI Trust Fund during 1980 and 1981 so that adequate
reserves could be maintained in both trust funds at least through the end of calendar year 1981.
House Action
On July 21, 1980, Representative Pickle (D-TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 7670.
In his remarks, Representative Pickle said that “the bill we bring today is a deliberate step both to
insure the stability of the trust funds and to provide the Congress the time it will need to make
any further changes necessary.” He also stated that “Reallocation, the mechanism used in H.R.
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.”278
On July 21, 1980, the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 7670. There was no roll call
vote.279
Senate Action
On September 25, 1980, H.R. 7670 was passed by unanimous consent.280
P.L. 96-473, Retirement Test Amendments281
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, 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.282 The 1977 provision eliminating the
monthly earnings test was designed with retirees in mind. However, the language as enacted

278 Congressional Record, July 21, 1980, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Pickle, p. 18827.
279 Congressional Record, July 21, 1980, House, p. 18830.
280 Congressional Record, September 25, 1980, Senate, p. 27297.
281 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.
282 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1980, p. 295.
Congressional Research Service

47

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

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.283 P.L. 96-473 modified this by allowing individuals
who received certain dependents’ benefits (a child or student’s benefit, mother’s benefit, or
father’s benefit) to use the monthly earnings test in the year in which their entitlement to such
benefits ended. P.L. 96-473 also allowed all recipients to qualify for at least one “grace year” in
which the monthly earnings test applies and made other changes relating to the earnings test for
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.
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.
On December 19, 1979, Senator Long (D-LA) in discussing the earnings test as amended by the
1977 amendments said, “The purpose of the change was to simplify the test and make more
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.”284
On December 19, 1979, H.R. 5295, as amended, was passed unanimously by the House, 383
to 0.285
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.

283 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Earnings Test for Social Security Recipients, report to
accompany H.R. 5295, 96th Cong., 1st sess., October 19, 1979, H.Rept. 96-537 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1979).
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Amendments to the Social Security Program, report to accompany H.R.
5295, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., September 24, 1980, H.Rept. 96-987 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1980).
284 Congressional Record, December 19, 1979, House, p. 36961.
285 Congressional Record, December 19, 1979, House, Roll call no. 751, not voting 50, p. 36969.
Congressional Research Service

48

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

On September 30, 1980, the Senate passed H.R. 5295, with amendments, by unanimous
consent.286
House Concurrence
On October 1, 1980, Representative Conable (R-NY) remarked “The only amendment that we are
asking to be attached here that goes to the Senate is an amendment that changes the word ‘crime’
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.”287
On October 1, 1980, the House concurred in the Senate amendments with an amendment by
unanimous consent.288
Senate Concurrence
On October 1, 1980, Senator Byrd’s motion that the Senate concur with the House amendment to
the Senate amendment was agreed to by voice vote.289
P.L. 97-35, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
H.R. 3982, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, was signed into law (P.L. 97-35) by
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,290 phased out benefits for students in postsecondary schools (aged 18 or
older, except for those under aged 19 still in high school), made lump-sum death benefits
available only to a spouse who was living with the worker or a spouse or child eligible for
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.

286 Congressional Record, September 30, 1980, Senate, p. 28195.
287 Congressional Record, October 1, 1980, House, pp. 8676-28677.
288 Congressional Record, October 1, 1980, House, p. 28677.
289 Congressional Record, October 1, 1980, Senate, p. 28881.
290 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

49

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

Senate Action291
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 on May 21, 1981, of the First Concurrent Budget
Resolution, both the House and the Senate were acting within similar reconciliation guidelines.292
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.
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, Senator 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).293
On June 25, 1981, the Senate passed S. 1377, with the Finance Committee’s Social Security
proposals, by a vote of 80 (52-R, 28-D) to 15 (0-R, 15-D).294
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.295 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 Representative Gramm (D-
TX) and Representative Latta (R-OH).296 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.297
On June 25, 1981, the original rule for floor consideration of the bill was defeated by a vote of
210 (1-R, 209-D) to 217 (188-R, 29-D).298

291 The Senate action is given first because the Senate passed the bill before the House did.
292 John A. Svahn, “Social Security Administration, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History
and Summary of OASDI and Medicare Provisions,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 44, no. 10, October 1981, p. 7, at
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v44n10/v44n10p3.pdf. (Hereinafter cited as “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1981: Legislative History.”)
293 Congressional Record, June 23, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 160, not voting 2, p. 13304.
294 Congressional Record, June 25, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 182, not voting 5, p. 13933.
295 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History, p. 11.
296 Ibid.
297 Ibid.
298 Congressional Record, June 25, 1981, House, Roll call no. 104, not voting 4, pp. 14078-14079.
Congressional Research Service

50

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

A package of amendments by Representative Latta, the so-called Gramm-Latta II alternative,
called for (1) deleting the Ways and Means’ proposal to move the COLA from July to October
and (2) changing the effective date of the Senate-passed minimum benefit proposal, affecting
both current and future recipients, and (3) modifying the Senate-passed student benefit phase-out
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).299
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).300
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.301
On July 30, 1981, Representative Bolling (D-MO), chairman of the House Rules Committee,
threatened to prevent the conference agreement from being brought to the House floor for final
approval until something could be negotiated to modify the minimum benefit provision. An
agreement was worked out permitting a bill that would modify the minimum benefit provision to
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.)
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 (1-R, 13-D).302
P.L. 97-123, 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.303 H.R. 4331 also
allowed the financially troubled OASI Trust Fund to borrow from the healthier DI and HI Trust
Funds until December 31, 1982. The law specified that the borrowing could not exceed amounts
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.

299 Congressional Record, June 26, 1981, House, Roll call no. 111, not voting 4, pp. 14681-14682.
300 Congressional Record, June 26, 1981, House, Roll call no. 113, not voting 6, pp. 14794-14795.
301 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Legislative History, p. 13.
302 Congressional Record, July 31, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 247, not voting 6, p. 19144.
303 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1981, p. 117.
Congressional Research Service

51

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

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 (DHHS) access to recorded Social Security numbers
(SSNs) to prevent ineligible prisoners from receiving disability benefits.
House Action
On July 21, 1981, the House, by a vote of 405 (176-R, 229-D) to 13 (10-R, 3-D),304 adopted a
nonbinding resolution (H.Res. 181) urging that steps be taken “to ensure that Social Security
benefits are not reduced for those currently receiving them.” After the conference report on the
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.305 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.
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).306
Senate Action
When H.R. 4331 was sent to the Senate, Senators Riegle (D-MI), Moynihan (D-NY), and
Kennedy (D-MA) moved to have the Senate immediately consider it. The Senate’s presiding
officer ruled the motion out of order, and the ruling was upheld by a vote of 57 to 30,307 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
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 interfund borrowing.
On October 14, 1981, the Senate by a voice vote agreed to (1) Senator Danforth’s (R-MO)
amendment to override provisions of the federal Privacy Act to allow access to prison records so

304 Congressional Record, July 21, 1981, House, Roll call no. 145, not voting 15, pp. 16659-16660.
305 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1981, p. 119-120.
306 Congressional Record, July 31, 1981, House, Roll call no. 189, not voting 10, pp. 18899-18900.
307 Congressional Record, July 31, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 248, not voting 12, p. 19148.
Congressional Research Service

52

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

that disability payments to ineligible inmates could be stopped;308 and (2) Senator Baucus’s (D-
MT) amendment to make it a felony to alter or counterfeit a Social Security card.309
On October 15, 1981, Senator Dole’s (R-KS) amendment to apply the Social Security payroll tax
to the first six months of all employer-financed sick pay, except that paid as insurance, was
accepted by voice vote.310
On October 15, 1981, Senator Moynihan’s (D-NY) amendment requiring counterfeit-proof Social
Security cards was agreed to by voice vote.311
On October 15, 1981, Senator Eagleton (D-MO) offered an amendment to repeal a provision of
the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-34) that had reduced windfall profit taxes on
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).312
On October 15, 1981, by a unanimous vote of 95 (48-R, 47-D) to 0, the Senate passed H.R. 4331,
as amended.313
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.”314 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.
The Senate agreed to the conference report on December 15, 1981, by a vote of 96 (50-R, 46-D)
to 0.315
The House agreed to the conference report on December 16, 1981, by a vote of 412 (181-R, 231-
D) to 10 (7-R, 3-D).316
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

308 Congressional Record, October 14, 1981, Senate, p. 23967.
309 Congressional Record, October 14, 1981, Senate, p. 23971.
310 Congressional Record, October 15, 1981, Senate, p. 24107.
311 Congressional Record, October 15, 1981, Senate, p. 24108.
312 Congressional Record, October 15, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 312, not voting 5, pp. 24096-24097.
313 Congressional Record, October 15, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 315, not voting 5, p. 24120.
314 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1981, p. 121.
315 Congressional Record, December 15, 1981, Senate, Roll call no. 486, not voting 4, p. 31309.
316 Congressional Record, December 16, 1981, House, Roll call no. 365, not voting 11, p. 31699.
Congressional Research Service

53

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

review process. It provided, temporarily, an opportunity for individuals dropped from the rolls
before October 1, 1983, to elect to receive DI and Medicare benefits while they appealed the
decision; June 1984 was to be the last month for which such payments could be made.317 The DI
benefits would have to be repaid if the appeal were lost. The measure also required the DHHS to
provide, as of January 1, 1984, face-to-face hearings during reconsideration of any decision to
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.
Senate Action318
On September 28, 1982, the Finance Committee marked up S. 2942, which contained a number
of continuing disability review provisions. The chairman, Senator Dole (R-KS), asked that S.
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.
On December 3, 1982, Senator Heinz (R-PA) said, “... this emergency legislation does not
completely solve the problem of the unfair terminations of hundreds of thousands of disabled
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.”319
On December 3, 1982, the Senate passed H.R. 7093 by a vote of 70 (43-R, 27-D) to 4 (1-R,
3-D).320
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.321
On December 14, 1982, the House amended the Senate-passed version of H.R. 7093 and passed it
by unanimous consent.322 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.

317 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.
318 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.
319 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 3, 1982, Senate, p. S13857.
320 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 3, 1982, Senate, Roll call no. 394, not voting 26, p. S13869.
321 Congressional Record, daily edition, September 20, 1982, House, p. H7219.
322 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 14, 1982, House, p. H9665.
Congressional Research Service

54

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

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.
The House passed the conference report on H.R. 7093 on December 21, 1982, by a vote of 259
(115-R, 144-D) to 0.323
The Senate passed the report by a voice vote on December 21, 1982.324
P.L. 98-21, Social Security Amendments of 1983
H.R. 1900, the Social Security Amendments of 1983, was signed by President Reagan on April
20, 1983. The latest projections showed that the OASDI program was projected to run out of
funds by mid-1983 and to need about $150 billion to $200 billion to provide reasonable assurance
that it would remain solvent for the rest of the decade.325 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 were 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 21st century; increased benefits for certain groups
of widow(er)s; liberalized the earnings test; increased the delayed retirement credit; reduced
benefits for workers also getting pensions based on noncovered employment; called for the earlier
implementation of scheduled payroll tax increases; and substantially raised payroll tax rates on
the self-employed. P.L. 98-21 also stipulated that beginning with the FY1993 budget, income and
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.
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

323 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 21, 1982, House, Roll call no. 487, not voting 174, pp. H10679-
H10680.
324 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 21, 1982, Senate, p. S15966.
325 Based on estimates by the National Commission on Social Security Reform.
Congressional Research Service

55

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

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.
On March 9, 1983, Representative Pickle’s (D-TX) amendment calling for increases in the age at
which “full” retirement benefits (i.e., unreduced for early retirement) are payable to 66 by 2009
and to 67 by 2027 was approved by a vote of 228 (152-R, 76-D) to 202 (14-R, 188-D).326 Early
retirement at age 62 would be maintained but at 70% of full benefits (instead of 80%) after the
“full retirement age” reached 67.
Representative Pepper (D-FL) then offered a substitute amendment to raise the OASDI tax rate
from 6.20% to 6.73% beginning in 2010. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 132 (1-R,
131-D) to 296 (165-R, 131-D).327 Had the amendment passed, it would have superseded
Representative Pickle’s amendment.
The House passed H.R. 1900, as it had been amended, by a vote of 282 (97-R, 185-D) to 148 (69-
R, 79-D)328 on March 9, 1983.
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.
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.
On March 23, 1983, Senator Long (D-LA) offered an amendment to make coverage of newly
hired federal employees contingent upon enactment of a supplemental civil service plan for them.
It was passed by a voice vote.329
An amendment to the Long amendment by Senator Stevens (R-AL) and Senator Mathias (R-MD)
to exclude federal workers from coverage altogether was rejected by a vote of 12 (8-R, 4-D) to 86
(46-R, 40-D) on March 23, 1983.330
Senator Stevens’s amendment to the Long amendment to require the creation of a supplemental
civil service retirement program by October 1985, while granting new employees wage credits
toward such a plan in the meantime, was rejected 45 (41R, 4-D) to 50 (12-R, 38-D) on March 23,
1983.331
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).332

326 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 9, 1983, House, Roll call no. 22, not voting 3, pp. H1064-H1065.
327 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 9, 1983, House, Roll call no. 24, not voting 5, p. H1079.
328 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 9, 1983, House, Roll call no. 26, not voting 3, pp. H1080-H1081.
329 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 23, 1983, Senate, p. S3711.
330 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 23, 1983, Senate, Roll call no. 47, not voting 2, p. S3714.
331 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 23, 1983, Senate, Roll call no. 48, not voting 4, p. S3720.
332 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 23, 1983, Senate, Roll call no. 53, not voting 3, p. S3775.
Congressional Research Service

56

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

Conference Action333
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, whereas the Senate bill proposed to increase the retirement age to
66, eliminate the earnings test, and cut initial benefit payments 5%. Another major difference was
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 because, 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.
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).334
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).335
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 DI program of ineligible recipients through an expanded periodic review
process. The expanded reviews had been authorized by the 1980 disability amendments.336
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 SSA’s
termination policies and procedures and petitioned Congress for legislative relief.337 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

333 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1983, p. 226.
334 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 24, 1983, House, Roll call no. 47, not voting 88, p. H1787.
335 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 24, 1983, Senate, Roll call no. 54, not voting 28, p. S4104.
336 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1984, p. 160.
337 Katharine P. Collins and Anne Erfle, “Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984: Legislative History
and Summary of Provisions,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 48, no. 4, April 1985, p. 12, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/
docs/ssb/v48n4/v48n4p5.pdf. (Hereinafter cited as “Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984:
Legislative History.”)
Congressional Research Service

57

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

impairments must be considered in making a disability determination; (5) the DHHS 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.
House Action
On March 14, 1984, the House Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 3755 with
amendments.
During debate on H.R. 3755, Representative Conable (R-NY) remarked that the intent of the
1980 legislation, requiring continuing disability reviews, was meritorious, but the results were not
what the drafters intended. He further stated, “Not only were ineligible recipients terminated, but
some eligible recipients were taken from the rolls, as well. Many, especially those with mental
impairments, suffered duress and the economic hardship of interrupted benefits.” Representative
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.”338
The sponsor of H.R. 3755, Representative Pickle (D-TX), said, “In the past 3 years nearly half a
million disabled recipients have been notified that their benefits will end. Far too often this notice
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.”339
On March 27, 1984, the House passed H.R. 3755 by a vote of 410 (160-R, 250-D) to 1 (1-R).340
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.341

338 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 27, 1984, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Conable, p. H1958.
339 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 27, 1984, House, in floor remarks by Rep. Pickle, p. H1959.
340 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 27, 1984, House, Roll call no. 55, not voting 22, pp. H1992-H1993.
341 Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984: Legislative History, p. 27.
Congressional Research Service

58

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

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.
On May 22, 1984, Senator Cohen (R-ME), one of the sponsors of S. 476, said, “The need for
fundamental change in the disability reviews has been evident for some time. Since the reviews
began, more than 12,000 individuals have filed court actions challenging SSA’s termination of
their benefits. An additional 40 class action suits had been filed as of last month. The legislation
before the Senate today would end this chaos and insure an equitable review process.”342
Senator Levin (D-MI), another sponsor, said, “It has taken us 3 years to come to grips with the
problems in the disability review process as a legislative body. And while it was long in coming, I
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.”343
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 0.344
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.
On September 19, 1984, the House and Senate passed H.R. 3755 unanimously; 402 to 0 in the
House,345 and 99 to 0 in the Senate.346
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 nonexempt programs by a uniform percentage 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 is generally referred to by the names of its sponsors—Senators Gramm (R-TX),

342 Congressional Record, daily edition, May 22, 1984, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Cohen, pp. S6213-S6214.
343 Congressional Record, daily edition, May 22, 1984, Senate, in floor remarks by Sen. Levin, p. 86230.
344 Congressional Record, daily edition, May 22, 1984, Senate, Roll call no. 109, not voting 4, p. S6241.
345 Congressional Record, daily edition, September 19, 1984, House, Roll call no. 404, not voting 30, pp. H9838-
H9839.
346 Congressional Record, daily edition, September 19, 1984, Senate, Roll call no. 243, not voting 1, p. S11477.
Congressional Research Service

59

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

Rudman (R-NH), and Hollings (D-SC).347 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, 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.
House Action
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).348
Senate Action
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).349
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).350
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.
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)351 and the Senate by a vote of 61 (39-R,
22-D) to 31 (9-R, 22-D).352
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.

347 In July 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that the automatic budget-cutting procedures in the legislation referred to as
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings were unconstitutional.
348 Congressional Record, daily edition, August 1, 1985, House, Roll call no. 290, call no. 290, not voting 5, pp.
H7166-H7167.
349 Congressional Record, daily edition, October 9, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 213, not voting 1, p. S12988.
350 Congressional Record, daily edition, October 10, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 222, not voting 12, p. S13114.
351 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 11, 1985, House, Roll call no. 454, not voting 9, pp. H11903-
H11904.
352 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 11, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 371, not voting 6, pp. S17443-
S17444.
Congressional Research Service

60

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

However, the House-passed version had no COLA freeze, and the proposal was dropped in
conference.
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
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)353 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 one year, it
would have limited the COLAs for the next three years to 2% per year plus any amount by which
inflation exceeded the Administration’s assumptions (its assumptions at that time suggested that
inflation 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 three years (as well as higher savings in
later years).
Senate Action
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)354 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.
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)355 an entirely revised budget package, introduced by Senator
Dole, which incorporated the original COLA freeze recommended by the committee.
Subsequently, the Senate considered an amendment by Senator Moynihan (D-NY) to provide a
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).356
The final budget resolution, passed by a voice vote, assumed later enactment of the 1986 COLA
freezes, including one affecting Social Security.
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.

353 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 99th Cong. 1st sess., 1985, vol. XLT, p. 447.
354 Congressional Record, May 1, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 35, not voting 1, p. 10075.
355 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.
356 Congressional Record, May 9, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 73, not voting 2, p. 11477.
Congressional Research Service

61

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

On May 22, 1985, the House rejected an amendment by Representative Dannemeyer (R-CA) to
limit Social Security COLAs to 2% per year for the three-year period FY1986-FY1988 by a vote
of 382 (135-R, 247-D) to 39 (39-R, 0-D).357
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.358
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, 1985.359
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.
P.L. 99-509, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
President Reagan signed H.R. 5300, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, on October
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.
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, that is, it
permanently eliminated the 3% requirement.
The Senate approved S. 2706 on September 20, 1986, by a vote of 88 (50-R, 38-D) to 7 (0-R,
7-D).360
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.

357 Congressional Record, May 22, 1985, House, Roll call no. 124, not voting 13, p. 13066.
358 Congressional Record, May 23, 1985, House, Roll call no. 129, not voting 5, p. 13387.
359 Congressional Record, May 23, 1985, House, Roll call no. 131, not voting 6, p. 13407.
360 Congressional Record, September 20, 1985, Senate, Roll call no. 277, not voting 5, p. 24918.
Congressional Research Service

62

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

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).361
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.362
P.L. 100-203, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
H.R. 3545, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, was signed into law on December
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 months 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.
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 months 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.
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).363
Senate Action
When the Finance Committee approved H.R. 3545 on December 3, 1987, it included the House
Social Security coverage provisions.
On December 10, 1987, the Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Kassebaum (R-KS) that
would have limited the 1988 Social Security COLA to 2%, by a vote of 71 (34-R, 37-D) to 25
(11-R, 14-D).364
On December 11, 1987, the Senate approved H.R. 3545 by a voice vote.

361 Congressional Record, September 24, 1986, House, Roll call no. 408, not voting 17, p. 26024.
362 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.
363 Congressional Record, October 29, 1987, House, Roll call no. 392, not voting 22, p. 30237.
364 Congressional Record, December 10, 1987, Senate, Roll call no. 405, not voting 4, p. 34882.
Congressional Research Service

63

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

Conference Action
The conference committee generally accepted the House-passed version of H.R. 3545.
On December 21, 1987, the House passed the conference report by a vote of 237 (44-R, 193-D) to
181 (130-R, 51-D).365
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).366

P.L. 100-647, Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988
On November 10, 1988, President Reagan signed H.R. 4333, the Technical and Miscellaneous
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 years to 20 years.
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.
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).367
Senate Action
The Finance Committee adopted about half of the House Social Security provisions.
The Senate approved H.R. 4333 on October 11, 1988, by a vote of 87 (38-R, 49-D) to 1 (0-R, 1-
D).368
Conference Action
The conference committee generally accepted the House-passed version of H.R. 4333.
On October 21, 1988, the House passed the conference report by a vote of 358 (150-R, 208-D) to
1 (0-R, 1-D).369
On October 21, 1988, the Senate passed the conference report by a voice vote.

365 Congressional Record, December 21, 1987, House, Roll call no. 508, not voting 15, p. 37088.
366 Congressional Record, December 21, 1987, Senate, Roll call no. 419, not voting 11, p. 37712.
367 Congressional Record, August 4, 1988, House, Roll call no. 266, not voting 26, p. 20502.
368 Congressional Record, October 11, 1988, Senate, Roll call no. 366, not voting 12, p. 29792.
369 Congressional Record, October 21, 1988, House, Roll call no. 463, not voting 72, p. 33116.
Congressional Research Service

64

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

P.L. 101-239, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
On December 19, 1989, President George H. W. Bush signed H.R. 3299, the Omnibus Budget
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; further 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 the age of 24.
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 the age of 64; extending benefits to children adopted after
the worker became entitled to benefits, regardless of whether the child was dependent on the
worker before the worker’s entitlement; further extending the existing provision for continued
payment of benefits during appeal; and including deferred compensation in the determination of
average wages for purposes of determining benefits and the maximum amount of earnings subject
to the FICA tax.
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).370
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
it specifically earmarked the revenue therefrom to pay for proposed increases in the earnings test
limits. It also approved making SSA an independent agency, but with a single administrator as
opposed to the three-person board specified in the House version. However, because it was
thought that a “clean bill” would improve chances of passage, the bill was stripped of its Social
Security provisions before it reached the floor.
The senate approved its version of H.R. 3299 on October 13, 1989, by a vote of 87 (R-40, D-47)
to 7 (R-2, D-5).371
Conference Action
In conference, most of the House provisions were accepted (but the major exclusion was making
SSA an independent agency). Although neither version of H.R. 3299 included it, a provision was
added that, beginning in 1990, required that SSA provide estimates of earnings and future benefits
to all workers over the age of 24.

370 Congressional Record, October 5, 1989, House, Roll call no. 274, not voting 8, p. 23393.
371 Congressional Record, October 13, 1989, Senate, Roll call no. 243, not voting 6, p. 24605.
Congressional Research Service

65

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

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).372 The Senate approved it the same day by a
voice vote.
P.L. 101-508, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
On November 5, 1990, President George H. W. Bush signed H.R. 5835, the Omnibus Budget
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.
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
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, which incorporated most of the provisions that had earlier
been approved by the Social Security Subcommittee.
On October 16, 1990, the House approved H.R. 5835 by a vote of 227 (10-R, 217-D) to 203 (163-
R, 40-D).373
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

372 Congressional Record, November 21, 1989, House, Roll call no. 379, not voting 33, p. 31127.
373 Congressional Record, October 16, 1990, House, Roll call no. 475, not voting 3, p. 29923.
Congressional Research Service

66

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

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.
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 of the 60 votes required.374
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.375
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).376
Conference Action
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).377
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)378
P.L. 103-66, 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 the HI
payroll tax, (i.e., subjected all earnings to the HI tax), effective in 1994.
As part of his plan to cut the federal fiscal deficit, President Clinton proposed in his first budget
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 from the change would not be credited to the Social
Security trust funds, as under current law, but to the Medicare Hospital Insurance program, which
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

374 Congressional Record, October 10, 1990, Senate, Roll call no. 262, not voting 2, p. 28190.
375 Congressional Record, October 18, 1990, Senate, Roll call no. 283, not voting 0, p. 30640.
376 Congressional Record, October 18, 1990, Senate, Roll call no. 292, not voting 0, p. 30731.
377 Congressional Record, October 26, 1990, House, Roll call no. 528, not voting 5, p. 35253.
378 Congressional Record, October 27, 1990, Senate, Roll call no. 326, not voting 1, p. 36278.
Congressional Research Service

67

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

middle of the game, penalizing recipients who relied on old law and who could not change past
work and savings decisions. Regardless of abstract arguments about tax principles, many
recipients regarded increased taxation as simply a reduction in the benefits they had been
promised. They regarded taxation of benefits as an indirect means test, which would weaken the
“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.379
House Action
H.Con.Res. 64, the FY1994 Concurrent Budget Resolution, included the additional revenue from
the President’s proposal.
On March 18, 1993, the House passed H.Con.Res. 64 by a vote of 243 (0-R, 242-D, 1-I) to 183
(172-R, 11-D), which included the additional revenue from the President’s proposal.380
Senate Action
The Senate devoted six days of debate to H.Con.Res. 64 at the end of March.
On March 24, 1993, the Senate rejected by a vote of 47 (43-R, 4-D) to 52 (0-R, 52-D) an
amendment by Senator Lott (R-MS) that would have deleted from the resolution the revenue
projected from the President’s proposal.381
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 $32,000.382
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).383
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).384 On April 1, 1993, the Senate approved the conference

379 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 have repealed the 1993 provision, thus lowering the maximum amount of benefits
subject to taxation from 85% to 50%, and replaced the resulting reduced revenue to Medicare with general fund
transfers. In neither instance were these measures approved by the Senate.
380 Congressional Record, March 18, 1993, House, Roll call no. 85, not voting 4, p. 5674.
381 Congressional Record, March 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 57, not voting 1, p. 6142.
382 Congressional Record, March 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 58, not voting 1, p. 6149.
383 Congressional Record, March 25, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 83, not voting 1, p. 6408.
384 Congressional Record, March 31, 1993, House, Roll call no. 127, not voting 6, p. 6964.
Congressional Research Service

68

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

report by a vote of 55 (0-R, 55-D) to 45 (43-R, 2-D).385 It included the sense of the Senate
resolution.
House Action as Modified
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.
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).386
Senate Action as Modified
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).
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.387
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),388 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.389
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 $40,000.390
Conference Action as Modified
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.391
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).392

385 Congressional Record, April 1, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 94, not voting 0, p. 7215.
386 Congressional Record, May 27, 1993, House, Roll call no. 199, not voting 0, p. 11952.
387 Congressional Record, June 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 169, not voting 3, p. 14028.
388 Congressional Record, June 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 172, not voting 2, p. 14069.
389 Congressional Record, June 24, 1993, Senate, Roll call no. 184, not voting 2, p. 14107.
390 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.
391 Congressional Record, July 14, 1993, House, Roll call no. 329, not voting 19, p. 15670.
392 Congressional Record, August 5, 1993, House, Roll call no. 406, not voting 0, p. 19476.
Congressional Research Service

69

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

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).393
P.L. 103-296, Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994
President Clinton signed H.R. 4277, the Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994, on
August 15, 1994. P.L. 103-296 established the SSA as an independent agency, effective March 31,
1995. It restricted DI and SSI benefits payable to drug addicts and alcoholics by creating
sanctions for failing to get treatment, limiting their enrollment to three years, and requiring that
those receiving DI benefits have a representative payee (formerly required only of SSI recipients).
Representatives of the Clinton Administration initially opposed making SSA an independent
agency, but President Clinton supported H.R. 4277’s final passage.
Interest in making SSA independent began in the early 1970s, when Social Security’s impact on
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, 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.
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).
The House passed H.R. 2264 on May 17, 1994, by a vote of 413-0.394
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).
The Senate passed S. 1560 by voice vote on March 2, 1994.
On May 23, 1994, the Senate approved H.R. 4277, after striking its language and substituting that
of S. 1560, by voice vote.

393 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.
394 Congressional Record, May 17, 1994, House, Roll call no. 177, not voting 20, p. 10603.
Congressional Research Service

70

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

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.
The Senate passed the agreement by voice vote on August 5, 1994.
The House passed the agreement on August 11, 1994, by a vote of 431-0.395
P.L. 103-387, Social Security Domestic Reform Act of 1994
President Clinton signed H.R. 4278, Social Security Domestic Reform Act of 1994, on October
22, 1994. H.R. 4278 raised the threshold for Social Security coverage of household employees
from $50 in wages a quarter to $1,000 a year, which would rise thereafter with the growth in
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.
House Action
Several measures were introduced in the 103rd Congress that would have raised the threshold by
varying amounts. On March 22, 1994, Representative Andrew Jacobs (D-IN) introduced H.R.
4105, which would have raised the threshold to $1,250 a year in 1995, to be indexed thereafter to
increases in average wages.
This measure was included in H.R. 4278, approved by the House on May 12, 1994, by a vote of
420-0.396
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) that 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.
The Senate passed the revised version of H.R. 4278 on May 25, 1994, by unanimous consent.
Conference Action
On October 5, 1994, conferees agreed to a measure that raised the threshold for Social Security
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.397

395 Congressional Record, August 11, 1994, House, Roll call no. 392, not voting 3, p. 21535.
396 Congressional Record, May 12, 1994, House, Roll call no. 169, not voting 15, p. 10028.
397 Congressional Record, October 6, 1994, House, Roll call no. 494, not voting 11, p. 28504.
Congressional Research Service

71

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

On October 6, 1994, the conference report was approved in the House by a vote of 423-0.
The same day, the Senate approved the conference report by unanimous consent.
P.L. 104-121, Senior Citizens Right to Work Act of 1996
On March 29, 1996, President Clinton signed H.R. 3136, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act
of 1996. H.R. 3136: raised the annual earnings test exempt amount, for recipients who have
attained the full retirement age (FRA), over a period of seven years, reaching $30,000 in 2002,
and then indexed that amount to wages; prohibited DI and SSI eligibility to individuals whose
disability is based on drug addiction or alcoholism; tightened eligibility requirements for
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.
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 would gradually increase the earnings test limits for those aged 65-69 to $30,000 in
2002. The full committee approved H.R. 2684 by a vote of 31-0 on November 30, 1995.
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).398
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 Representative Archer (D-TX). H.R. 3136, also included an increase in the debt
ceiling and other measures. The part of H.R. 3136 relating to the earnings test was similar to H.R.
2684, but modified to slow the rise in the exempt amounts during the first five years of the phase-
in.
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).399
Senate Action
On December 14, 1995, the Senate Committee on Finance approved S. 1470, a bill similar to
H.R. 2684.
On March 28, 1996, H.R. 3136 was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent.

398 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 5, 1995, House, Roll call no. 837, not voting 17, p. H13974.
399 Congressional Record, March 28, 1996, House, Roll call no. 102, not voting 12, p. 6940.
Congressional Research Service

72

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

P.L. 106-170, Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act
of 1999
President Clinton signed H.R. 1180, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Act of 1999, on
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. 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.
House Action
On October 19, 1999, the House approved H.R. 1180, The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act of 1999, introduced by Representative Rick Lazio (R-NY), by a vote of 412
(206-R, 205-D, 1-I) to 9 (9-R, 0-D).400
Senate Action
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 99-0.401 On October 21,
1999, the Senate passed H.R. 1180, after striking its language and substituting that of S. 331, by
unanimous consent.
Conference Action
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).402
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).403
P.L. 106-182, Senior Citizens Right to Work Act
President Clinton signed H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act, on April 7, 2000. H.R. 5
eliminated the earnings test for recipients who have attained FRA, effective in 2000.
The earnings test has always been one of the most unpopular features of the Social Security
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

400 Congressional Record, October 19, 1999, House, Roll call no. 513, not voting 12, p. 10273.
401 Congressional Record, daily edition, June 16, 1999, Senate, Roll call no. 169, not voting 1, p. S7064.
402 Congressional Record, daily edition, November 18, 1999, House, Roll call no. 611, not voting 15, p. H12832.
403 Congressional Record, daily edition, November 19, 1999, Senate, Roll call no. 372, not voting 4, p. S14986.
Congressional Research Service

73

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

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.” They also 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 program’s financial status and on current federal budgets, which
perennially were in deficit. By 2000, the federal budget was running large surpluses, so major
alterations to the test were deemed affordable. In addition, it was projected that eliminating the
test would have no negative impact on Social Security’s long-range financing because of
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 attained
FRA. The 1983 legislation provided for a long phase-in of the increase in the DRC, so that its
ultimate rate would not be achieved until 2008. At that point, it would be “actuarially fair,”
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 FRA 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.
House Action
On March 1, 2000, the House approved H.R. 5, a bill that would eliminate the earnings test for
recipients who have attained FRA, introduced by Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX), by a vote
of 422-0.404
Senate Action
On March 22, 2000, the Senate approved H.R. 5, with a modification to the monthly exempt
amounts in the year of attaining FRA, by a vote of 100-0.405
Conference Action
On March 28, 2000, the House approved the Senate version of H.R. 5 by a vote of 419-0.406
P.L. 108-203, Social Security Protection Act of 2004
President George W. Bush signed H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004, on March
2, 2004. The measure included various provisions designed to reduce fraud and abuse in the
Social Security and SSI programs. Among other changes, H.R. 743 imposed stricter standards on
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

404 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 1, 2000, House, Roll call no. 27, not voting 13, p. H603.
405 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 22, 2000, Senate, Roll call no. 42, not voting 0, p. S1540.
406 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 28, 2000, House, Roll call no. 79, not voting 16, p. H1450.
Congressional Research Service

74

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

felons from receiving Social Security benefits; modified the last day rule under the Government
Pension Offset (GPO) provision; and required certain noncitizens to have authorization to work in
the United States at the time a SSN is assigned, or at some later time, to gain insured status under
the Social Security program. Several major provisions of the law are described below.407
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 the age of 18. Before P.L. 108-203, SSA was required
to reissue benefits misused by an individual or organizational representative payee only in cases
where the Social Security Commissioner found that SSA negligently failed to investigate or
monitor the payee. The new law eliminated the requirement that the reissuance of benefits be
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 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 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 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to study the fee payment process for claimant representatives.
Before P.L. 108-203, SSA was prohibited from paying SSI benefits only (not Social Security
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, SSN, 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 Social Security Commissioner to pay, with good cause, SSI and Social Security benefits
previously denied because of an individual’s status as a fugitive felon.408

407 For more information, see SSA, “President Signs Into Law H.R. 743, The Social Security Protection Act Of 2004,”
Social Security Legislative Bulletin, at http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_030404.html.
408 For more information on this topic and a related decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

75

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

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 noncovered government pension, under a provision known as the GPO. Before
P.L. 108-203, a state or local government employee who was not covered by Social Security
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 noncovered 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.409
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 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 earnings count toward
qualifying for benefits, regardless of his or her work authorization status).
House Action
On April 2, 2003, the House approved H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2003,
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).410
Senate Action
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.
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.
House Response to Senate Action
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).411

December 2005, see the SSA’s Acquiescence Ruling on the Fowlkes v. Adamec case at https://www.ssa.gov/
OP_Home/rulings/ar/02/AR2006-01-ar-02.html.
409 For more information, see CRS Report RL32453, Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO).
410 Congressional Record, daily edition, April 2, 2003, House, Roll call no. 102, not voting 10, pp. H2668-H2669.
411 Congressional Record, daily edition, February 11, 2004, House, Roll call no. 23, not voting 11, pp. H477-H478.
Congressional Research Service

76

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

P.L. 111-312, Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization,
and Job Creation Act of 2010
President Obama signed H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization,
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, each by
two percentage points. The Social Security initiative was just one among other provisions
included in the legislation intended to stimulate the economy by creating jobs, extending public
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 affected by P.L. 111-312. Any decline in
tax revenue in 2011 attributed to the act was covered by appropriate transfers from the General
Fund of the U.S. Treasury.
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 the time was known as the
ultimately unrelated Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010.
Senate Action
On September 23, 2010, the Senate passed the bill, with an amendment in the nature of a
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.
House Action as Amended
After a few days of debate on tax relief and the economy in early December, the House moved to
strip out all aviation provisions in H.R. 4853 and subsequently used the bill as a vehicle for tax
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).412
Senate Action as Amended
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.

412 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2010, House, Roll call no. 604, not voting 12, pp. H7889-H7890.
Congressional Research Service

77

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

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).413
House Action Approved Amendment
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).414
P.L. 112-78, Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011
President Obama signed H.R. 3765, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, on
December 23, 2011. Section 101 of the law extended the expiring temporary Social Security
payroll tax contribution rates that were provided in P.L. 111-312, the Tax Relief, Unemployment
Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312), effective in calendar
year 2011, into calendar year 2012. In addition to the Social Security payroll tax provisions, P.L.
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.
Specifically, the Social Security portion of the payroll tax applied to the covered net earnings of
SECA-covered self-employed workers remained reduced throughout 2012 at 10.4%, down from
the SECA tax rate of 12.4%. The act also extended the 2011 temporary reduction of the FICA tax
rate on employee covered earnings from 6.2% to 4.2% through February 2012 only.
Throughout 2011, several proposals were introduced to extend the 2011 temporary payroll tax
reductions through calendar year 2012. H.R. 3630 received attention as the vehicle for a year-long
extension, which had bipartisan and bicameral support, but the bill stalled as respective versions
advanced by the House and Senate differed on how to replace revenue lost as a result of the
payroll tax rate reductions. Ultimately, H.R. 3765 emerged as a short-term compromise, and it
extended the payroll tax reductions for two months. The year-long extension of payroll tax cuts
through calendar year 2012 is addressed in the “P.L. 112-96, The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012” section below, in which Congress revisited H.R. 3630 after the adoption of
H.R. 3765 into P.L. 112-78.
House Action
On December 23, 2011, the House approved H.R. 3765, introduced by Representative Dave
Camp (R-MI) without objection.
Senate Action
On December 23, 2011, the Senate approved H.R. 3765 by unanimous consent.
P.L. 112-96, Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
President Obama signed H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,
on February 22, 2012. Section 1001 of the law further extended, through 2012, expiring reduced

413 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 15, 2010, Senate, Roll call no. 276, p. S10255.
414 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 17, 2010, House, Roll call no. 647, not voting 8, pp. H8594-H8595.
Congressional Research Service

78

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

Social Security payroll tax contribution rates first provided in the Tax Relief, Unemployment
Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312).
The payroll tax rate reductions included in P.L. 113-312 addressed above in the “P.L. 111-312,
The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010”
section, were initially intended to be applied only in 2011. These rate reductions were extended
for an additional two months, through February 2012, by the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut
Continuation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-78). The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012 further extended the rate reductions through the end of calendar year 2012.
In addition to the Social Security payroll tax provisions, P.L. 112-96 also included extensions of
unemployment insurance, health, and welfare provisions, as well as provisions relating to the
retirement contributions for federal employees and to public safety programs.
In the second session of the 112th Congress, the House and Senate came to an agreement on how
to pay for the provisions in H.R. 3630, and the legislation advanced with the filing of a
conference report on February 16, 2012. The temporary payroll tax rates extended under P.L. 112-
96 expired at the end of 2012. The tax rates returned to 6.2% of covered earnings for employees
and 12.4% of covered net earnings for the self-employed in 2013.
House Action
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).415
Senate Action
On December 17, 2011, the Senate approved its version of H.R. 3630, as an amendment in the
nature of a substitute and renamed the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 by
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).416
House Action as Agreed
On February 17, 2012, the House agreed to the conference report of the bill, now identified as the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, by a vote of 293 (147-D, 146-R) to 132
(91-R, 41-D).417
Senate Action as Agreed
On February 17, 2012, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote of 60 (45-D, 14-R, 1-
I) to 36 (30-R, 5-D, 1-I).418
P.L. 113-270, No Social Security for Nazis Act
President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 5739, the No Social Security for Nazis Act, on
December 18, 2014. Before P.L. 113-270, Title II of the Social Security Act provided for the

415 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 13, 2011, House, Roll call no. 923, not voting 6, p. H8824.
416 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 17, 2011, Senate, Roll call no. 232, not voting 1, pp. S8748-
S87489.
417 Congressional Record, daily edition, February 17, 2012, House, Roll call no. 72, not voting 8, p. H926.
418 Congressional Record, daily edition, February 17, 2012, Senate, Roll call no. 22, not voting 4, p. S892.
Congressional Research Service

79

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

termination of Social Security benefits for individuals who were ordered removed due to
participation in Nazi persecutions, genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings under Section
237(a)(4)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. SSA was required to terminate benefits for
such individuals upon notification that final orders of removal were issued against the
individuals.419 Physical removal of the individual from the United States was not a necessary
condition for the termination of benefits in such cases as it is with all other individuals who have
been ordered removed; rather, the issuance of a final order of removal was the basis for the
termination of benefits.
P.L. 113-270 expanded the conditions under which Social Security benefits would be terminated
for those who participated in Nazi persecutions. In addition, under P.L. 113-270, benefits would
be reinstated for those who are ordered removed based on participation in genocide, torture, or
extrajudicial killings until those persons are physically removed.
The act broadened the existing provision of the Social Security Act described above for those
who participated in Nazi persecutions in response to concerns that certain individuals believed to
have participated in Nazi persecutions during World War II have been living outside the United
States and receiving Social Security benefits. Specifically, concern focused on a small surviving
group of individuals who had lived in the United States previously and, due to their participation
in Nazi persecutions, had been under investigation by the Department of Justice and left the
country before being ordered removed.420 Because these individuals left the United States before
being issued an order of removal, their Social Security benefits were not subject to termination.
(These individuals would also have met other requirements for the payment of Social Security
benefits outside the United States.)
P.L. 113-270 provided for the termination of Social Security benefits for these additional
individuals determined to have participated in Nazi persecutions, and it prohibited them from
receiving Social Security benefits based on another person’s work record. It also clarified the
timeframe in which the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security must
notify SSA of certain actions involving these individuals. The change in benefit eligibility for
those who participated in genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings as a result of P.L. 113-270
(i.e., making the physical removal of such individuals from the United States a necessary
condition for the termination of benefits, rather than the issuance of a final order of removal) is
likely an unintended consequence of the legislative language.421
House Action
On December 2, 2014, the House moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5739 by a vote of
420 (228-R, 192-D) to 0.422

419 For a discussion of the removal process, see CRS Report R43892, Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and
Trends.
420 Such persons were often under Department of Justice investigation, and either had been denaturalized, were going to
be denaturalized, or were going to be placed in removal proceedings. Many chose to renounce their U.S. citizenship
and leave the country rather than being subjected to denaturalization and removal proceedings.
421 For related information, see SSA, “Senate Passes H. R. 5739, the No Social Security for Nazis Act,” Social Security
Legislative Bulletin, Number 113-31, December 5, 2014, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/
legis_bulletin_120514b.html; and SSA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Payment of Social Security Benefits to
Individuals Who May Have Participated in Nazi Persecution, Congressional Response Report No. A-09-15-50013,
May 2015, at https://oig-files.ssa.gov/audits/full/A-09-15-50013.pdf.
422 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2014, House, Roll call no. 537, not voting 14, p. H8260.
Congressional Research Service

80

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

Senate Action
On December 4, 2014, H.R. 5739 was passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent.
P.L. 114-74, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
President Barack Obama signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (H.R. 1314) on
November 2, 2015. The broad budget legislation contained a number of Social Security-related
provisions, including changes to rules that apply when a person files an application for Social
Security benefits, and a temporary reallocation of Social Security payroll tax revenues from the
OASI Trust Fund to the DI Trust Fund.
Changes to Social Security’s Filing Rules
Section 831 of P.L. 114-74 made changes to two types of filing rules: (1) deemed filing and (2)
the voluntary suspension of benefits. The changes affect options available to claimants who are
full retirement age (FRA) or older (the FRA ranges from 65 to 67, depending on the person’s year
of birth).423
Deemed Filing
A worker who qualifies for both a retired-worker benefit and a spousal benefit generally cannot
restrict his or her application to only one type of benefit. Rather, when the person files for one
benefit, he or she is required (or deemed) to file for the other benefit at the same time. The person
becomes simultaneously entitled to a retired-worker benefit and a spousal benefit, and the spousal
benefit is reduced under the dual entitlement rule. Under the dual entitlement rule, a person
receives his or her own retired-worker benefit first, plus a spousal benefit that has been reduced
by the amount of the retired-worker benefit (the spousal benefit may be reduced to zero). In
effect, the person receives the higher of the two benefit amounts (not both).424
Before P.L. 114-74, deemed filing applied only to claimants who are below FRA. A claimant who
was FRA or older could file a restricted application for benefits; that is, he or she could file for
spousal benefits only, for example, and wait until a later time to file for retired-worker benefits.
This would allow the person to receive a full spousal benefit now (the dual entitlement rule would
not be applied at this time) and to file for a higher retired-worker benefit later.425 When the person
filed for his or her own retired-worker benefit later on, the spousal benefit would then be reduced
under the dual entitlement rule. Some beneficiaries used this “claiming strategy” as a way to
maximize their Social Security retired-worker and spousal benefits.
P.L. 114-74 eliminated the restricted application option for claimants who are FRA or older. Like
claimants who are below FRA, they are deemed to file for both a retired-worker benefit and a
spousal benefit, if eligible for both. The deemed filing change is effective for people born in 1954
or later (i.e., people who reach age 62—the age at which one first becomes eligible for retirement

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

81

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

benefits—on or after January 2, 2016). People born before 1954 (i.e., people who reached age 62
before January 2, 2016) are “grandfathered” under the old rules. They can file a restricted
application for spousal benefits only or retired-worker benefits only when they reach FRA. If they
claim benefits before FRA, they are subject to deemed filing rules.
Voluntary Suspension of Benefits
Social Security benefits replace a portion of earnings lost due to the worker’s retirement,
disability, or death. Therefore, family members generally cannot claim benefits on a worker’s
record if the worker has not claimed benefits. Before P.L. 114-74, a worker who was FRA or
older could file an application for retired-worker benefits and then request that the benefit
payments be suspended. This “file and suspend” approach (1) allowed the worker to accrue
delayed retirement credits (DRCs) during the period of voluntary suspension (i.e., his or her
retired-worker benefit would increase 8% per year from FRA up to age 70) and at the same time
(2) allowed eligible family members (such as a spouse or dependent child) to claim benefits on
the worker’s record.
In addition, a beneficiary who had voluntarily suspended his or her own retired-worker benefit
could receive a spousal or widow(er)’s benefit based on another person’s record. A spousal or
widow(er)’s benefit would be reduced under the dual entitlement rule as if the beneficiary’s own
retired-worker benefit had not been suspended (i.e., the beneficiary could receive any excess
spousal or widow(er)’s benefits). A worker could also “unsuspend” his or her benefits on a
retroactive basis and receive a lump sum payment for the past-due period.
Under P.L. 114-74, a worker who is FRA or older can file for retired-worker benefits and
voluntarily suspend benefits between FRA and age 70 to accrue DRCs (as before). This approach
could be used by a beneficiary who claims retired-worker benefits and then returns to work, for
example. Under the new rules, however, benefits are no longer payable to eligible family
members based on the worker’s record during the period of voluntary suspension, with the
exception of divorced spouses. A divorced spouse may collect benefits on the worker’s record
during the period of suspension. Widow(er)’s benefits are also payable on the record of a
deceased worker who had suspended his or her own retired-worker benefits.
In addition, a worker can no longer receive benefits based on another person’s record while his or
her own retired-worker benefit is suspended; nor can a worker “unsuspend” his or her benefits
retroactively and receive a lump sum payment. The period of voluntary suspension ends with the
earlier of (1) the month before the person turns age 70, or (2) the month following the person’s
request to resume benefit payments. The changes apply to requests for the voluntary suspension
of benefits made after April 29, 2016.
The changes to Social Security’s filing rules were intended to prevent the use of “claiming
strategies” viewed as inconsistent with the concept behind Social Security spousal benefits, and
that otherwise allowed workers and spouses to collect more in Social Security benefits than
Congress intended.426 Before P.L. 114-74, a person who was FRA or older could claim spousal
benefits only, when he or she also qualified for retired-worker benefits. As a result, the person
could receive full spousal benefits for several years, before claiming a higher retired-worker
benefit and only then being subject to the dual entitlement rule. In addition, the “restricted
application” and “file and suspend” options were being used in combination by some married
couples, for example, to allow both members of the couple to maximize their own retired-worker

426 These “claiming strategies” were not based on practices explicitly approved by Congress. Rather, they stemmed
from interactions between filing rules in place and various legislative changes to the program over time.
Congressional Research Service

82

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

benefit (through the accrual of DRCs) and to allow one member of the couple to receive full
spousal benefits at the same time (by avoiding the dual entitlement rule).
Social Security Payroll Tax Reallocation
In July 2015, the Social Security Board of Trustees (the Trustees) released projections showing
that the asset reserves held by the DI Trust Fund would be depleted by the end of calendar year
2016; had this occurred, Social Security would have been unable to pay disability benefits in full
and on time from that point forward.427 Section 833 of P.L. 114-74 provided a temporary
reallocation of the Social Security payroll tax rate between the OASI and DI Trust Funds,
directing a larger share of total payroll tax revenues to the DI Trust Fund over a three-year period
(2016 through 2018), which extended its solvency.428 P.L. 114-74 also contained a number of
other provisions designed to address fraud and other program integrity issues in SSA’s disability
programs.429
On March 4, 2015, Representative Patrick Meehan (PA) introduced H.R. 1314, the Ensuring Tax
Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act. At the time, the bill contained no Social Security
provisions. The bill was approved by the House on April 15, 2015, and was moved to the Senate.
On May 22, 2015, the Senate passed H.R. 1314, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
and it was now known as the Trade Act of 2015. After attempts by the House to resolve
differences with the Senate amendment (which still did not contain Social Security provisions),
the Trade Act of 2015 was tabled on June 25, 2015. On October 28, 2015, the House reported an
amendment to the Senate amendment of H.R. 1314, now titled the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.
The version of H.R. 1314 reported in the House amendment included the Social Security tax rate
reallocation and the unrelated provisions mentioned above. Details of congressional action prior
to the bill being renamed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 are not reflected in this report.
House Action
On October 28, 2015, the House adopted their amendment to H.R. 1314, as amended by the
Senate, by a vote of 266 (187-D, 79-R) to 167 (167-R).430
Senate Action
On October 30, 2015, the Senate agreed to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to
H.R. 1314 by a vote of 64 (44-D, 18-R, 2-I) to 35 (35-R).431

427 Projections based on the intermediate assumptions of The 2015 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, July 22, 2015, at
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2015/tr2015.pdf.
428 For more information on the temporary payroll tax reallocation, see CRS Report R43318, The Social Security
Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund: Background and Current Status. For more information on the solvency of the DI
Trust Fund, see CRS In Focus IF10506, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).
429 For more information, see CRS Report R44250, Social Security and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)
Provisions in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. See also SSA, “Congress Passes H.R. 1314, the Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2015,” Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 114-8, November 3, 2015, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/
legis_bulletin_110315.html.
430 Congressional Record, daily edition, October 28, 2015, House, Roll call no. 579, not voting 2, p. H7312.
431 Congressional Record, daily edition, October 30, 2015, House, Roll call no. 294, not voting 1, p. S7674.
Congressional Research Service

83

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

P.L. 115-8, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8
of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social
Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
President Donald Trump signed H.J.Res. 40 on February 28, 2017. Under the Congressional
Review Act, the law nullified the “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of
2007” rule which was finalized by SSA on December 19, 2016, and had been scheduled to be
implemented as of January 18, 2017.432 The final rule would have required SSA to send the names
of individuals meeting certain criteria to the National Instant Criminal History Background Check
System. The criteria included individuals who received benefit payments through a representative
payee because they had been determined to be mentally incapable of managing benefit payments
on their own.433 The proposed rule received over 90,000 comments.434
This law vacated SSA final rule. It also barred SSA from issuing any future rule that would be
“substantially the same” as the vacated rule unless the agency received a new statutory
authorization to do so.435
In the retraction of the rule, SSA notes that, “Although the final rule had an effective date of
January 18, 2017, we delayed the compliance date of the rule until December 19, 2017 (81 FR at
91720). Therefore, we did not report any records to the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS) pursuant to the final rule.”436
House Action
H.J.Res. 40 was introduced by Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX) on January 30, 2017, and the
House debated the joint resolution on February 2, 2017. Members raised multiple issues,
including the concern that SSA rule stigmatized those with mental health issues or intellectual
disabilities. They cited letters from several advocacy groups, as well as a letter from the National
Council on Disability favoring the joint resolution.437 Representatives voicing opposition to the
joint resolution cited several factors including that SSA final rule only impacted a small subset of
beneficiaries and that the joint resolution disregarded the decisionmaking processes of the
agency.438 At the conclusion of debate, the resolution was passed by a voice vote. A recorded vote
occurred later that afternoon, and H.J.Res. 40 was passed by a vote of 235 (R-229, D-6) to 180
(R-2, D-178).439

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

84

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

Senate Action
On February 15, 2017, H.J.Res. 40 was passed by the Senate without amendment by a vote of 57
(R-52, D-4, I-1) to 43 (D-42, I-1).440
P.L. 115-59, Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017
President Donald Trump signed H.R. 624, the Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of
2017, on September 15, 2017. The law included several provisions to limit federal agencies from
including an individual’s SSN on documents sent by mail. It requires the head of each CFO441
(chief financial officer) Act agency to issue regulations no later than five years after enactment,
which specify the circumstances under which a SSN would be necessary to include on a
document sent by mail.442 In addition, it stipulates that each agency must issue several reports
demonstrating the agency’s progress in removing the SSN from agency documents. The final
report would list any remaining documents produced by the CFO Act agency that continued to
include an SSN.
House Action
H.R. 624 was introduced by Representative David G. Valadao (R-CA) on January 24, 2017. The
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform adopted, by voice vote, a substitute
amendment extending the deadline for issuing regulations from one year to five years on
February 14, 2017. The House approved the bill, as amended, under suspension of the rules by a
voice vote on May 24, 2017.443
Senate Action
On September 6, 2017, H.R. 624 was passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent.444
P.L. 115-165, Strengthening Protections for Social Security
Beneficiaries Act of 2018
President Donald Trump signed H.R. 4547 on April 13, 2018. The law amended Titles II and XVI
of the Social Security Act. It was designed to increase oversight of representative payees and
protect vulnerable beneficiaries.445 The law required SSA to make annual grants to each state’s

440 Congressional Record, daily edition, February 15, 2018, Senate, Roll call no. 66, p. S1169.
441 The term CFO Act agency refers to the agencies identified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 31 U.S.C. §901(b). These
can be found at http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title31/subtitle1/chapter9&edition=prelim.
Examples include the Department of Labor, the Department of State, and the Department of Education.
442 For related information, see SSA, “President Signs H.R. 624, The Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of
2017”, Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 115-5, September 19, 2017, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/
legis_bulletin_091917.html.
443 Congressional Record, daily edition, May 24, 2017, House, p. H4535.
444 Congressional Record, daily edition, September 6, 2017, Senate, p. S5020.
445 For related information, see SSA, “President Signs H.R. 4547, the Strengthening Protections for Social Security
Beneficiaries Act of 2018,” Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 115-9, April 24, 2018, at
https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_042418.html.
Congressional Research Service

85

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

protection and advocacy system for the purpose of conducting reviews of representative payees
under Social Security and SSI.
Impetus for this law came as details emerged of significant cases of abuse by representative
payees. In one case, reported by SSA’s Office of Inspector General, a woman in Philadelphia
imprisoned mentally ill adults and confiscated their Social Security benefits by identifying herself
as their representative payee.446 This case, and similar ones, led to the publication of two reports
by the Social Security Advisory Board: Representative Payees: A Call to Action (2016)447 and
Improving Social Security’s Representative Payee Program (2018).448 The GAO also published a
report, SSA Representative Payee Program: Addressing Long-Term Challenges Requires a More
Strategic Approach (2013).449
The Social Security Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means held hearings in
2017 on the representative payee program, including Examining the Social Security
Administration’s Representative Payee Program: Determining Who Needs Help on February 7,
2017,450 and Examining the Social Security Administration’s Representative Payee Program: Who
Provides Help on March 22, 2017.451
P.L. 115-165 included a provision designed to enhance personal control by allowing beneficiaries
to designate their preferred payee in advance. It directed SSA to take a greater role in assessing
the appropriateness of representative payees, and banned individuals with certain criminal
convictions from serving as payees. In addition, it prohibited individuals who have a payee from
serving as a payee for others.
House Action
H.R. 4547 was introduced on December 5, 2017, by Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX). It was
referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. On February 5, 2018, the House moved to
suspend the rules and passed H.R. 4547, as amended, by a vote of 396 (225-R, 171-D) to 0.452

446 SSA, OIG, “Philadelphia Woman Sentenced to Life in Prison in Racketeering and Hate Crimes Case,” Office of
Investigations, November 5, 2015, at https://oig.ssa.gov/audits-and-investigations/investigations/nov5-weston-sentence.
447 Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB), Representative Payees: A Call to Action, Issue Brief, March 3, 20167, at
https://www.ssab.gov/research/representative-payees-a-call-to-action/.
448 SSAB, Improving Social Security’s Representative Payee Program Report, January 11, 2018, at
https://www.ssab.gov/research/improving-social-securitys-representative-payee-program/.
449 U.S. Government Accountability Office, SSA Representative Payee Program: Addressing Long-Term Challenges
Requires a More Strategic Approach, GAO-13-473, May 2013, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654893.pdf.
450 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittees on Social Security and Oversight, Joint
Hearing on Social Security’s Representative Payee Program, hearing, 115th Cong., 1st sess., February 7, 2017, H.Hrg.
115-SS01, at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/WM/WM01/20170207/105525/HHRG-115-WM01-20170207-
SD001.pdf.
451 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittees on Oversight and Social Security, Joint
Hearing on Social Security’s Representative Payee Program, hearing, 115th Cong., 1st sess., March 22, 2017, H.Hrg.
115-OS02 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2019), at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg33365/pdf/CHRG-
115hhrg33365.pdf.
452 Congressional Record, daily edition, February 5, 2018, House, Roll call no. 51, not voting 34, pp. H762-H763.
Amendments to the bill included a change in the Short Title and new reporting requirements.
Congressional Research Service

86

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

Senate Action
On March 23, 2018, the Senate passed the House bill without amendment by unanimous
consent.453
P.L. 115-243, Tribal Social Security Fairness Act of 2018
President Donald Trump signed H.R. 6124, the Tribal Social Security Fairness Act of 2018, on
September 20, 2018. The law amended Title II of the Social Security Act and directed SSA to
extend OASDI benefits to tribal council leaders, if requested to do so by an Indian tribe. The law
also allowed tribal council members to receive Social Security credit for taxes paid prior to the
establishment of the agreement, if taxes were paid in good faith and not subsequently refunded. It
reversed an SSA policy that prevented tribal leaders from being covered under the Social Security
program.454
House Action
H.R. 6124 was introduced by Representative Dave Reichert (R-WA) on June 15, 2018. An
amendment in the nature of a substitute was presented in the Committee on Ways and Means by
Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX). The substitute amendment was adopted by a voice vote in
committee on June 21, 2018.
H.R. 6124, as amended, was considered by the House under suspension of the rules and passed by
a voice vote on July 24, 2018.455
Senate Action
On September 6, 2018, the House bill passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent.456
P.L. 115-174, Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act
President Donald Trump signed S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and
Consumer Protection Act, on May 24, 2018. Section 215 required SSA to accept the electronic
signature of an individual who consents to allow a financial institution to verify his or her name,
date of birth, and SSN using SSA’s Consent Based Social Security Number Verification (CBSV)
Service.457

453 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 22, 2018, Senate, p. S1982.
454 The prior policy can be found in the SSA, Program Operations Manual System, Section RS 01901.700 (accessed
12/18/2018) stating, “Services Performed by Members of Indian Tribal Councils: Services performed by members of
Indian tribal councils in their capacities as council members do not constitute employment under Section 210 of the
Social Security Act. Therefore, remuneration paid to Indian tribal council members is not subject to taxation under the
Federal Insurance Contributions Act and their services are not covered under Social Security and Medicare.”
455 Congressional Record, daily edition, July 4, 2018, House, p. H7118.
456 Congressional Record, daily edition, September 6, 2018, Senate, p. S6103.
457 For related information, see SSA, “Senate Passes S.2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act,” Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 115-8, March 29, 2018, at https://www.ssa.gov/
legislation/legis_bulletin_032918.html.
Congressional Research Service

87

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

Some identity thieves use a technique called synthetic identity theft in which they apply for credit
using a mixture of real, verifiable information of an existing person with fictitious information,
thus creating a “synthetic” identity. Often the information includes real SSNs of people who are
unlikely to have existing credit files, such as children or recent immigrants.458 CBSV was created
to fight identity fraud such as this, but prior to the enactment of P.L. 115-174 it required financial
institutions to obtain a physical written signature to make a verification request. Some observers
believed this requirement was outdated and time consuming, undermining the effectiveness of the
program.459 Section 215 aimed to modernize SSA’s verification system and make it more efficient
by allowing the use of electronic signatures.
Section 215 directed SSA to allow certain financial institutions to receive customers’ consent by
electronic signature to verify their name, date of birth, and SSN with SSA. In addition, the section
directed SSA to modify their databases and systems to allow financial institutions to
electronically and quickly request and receive accurate verification of the consumer data.460
Senate Action
Senator Mike Crapo introduced S. 2155 on November 16, 2017. As introduced, the bill did not
include any Social Security provisions. S.Amdt. 2151, an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
which included the Social Security provisions in Section 215, was offered on the Senate floor on
March 7, 2018.461 During floor debate, Senator Tim Scott identified himself as the author of the
provisions in Section 215.462 Senator Scott explained that the purpose of Section 215 was to
reduce synthetic identity theft by providing options for entities to crosscheck consumer
information with SSA. Senator Scott also expressed his expectation that the database that SSA
would create to allow this cross check to occur would be operational within one year of
enactment.
S.Amdt. 2151, as modified, passed the Senate by a roll call vote of 67 (R-50, D-16, I-1) to 31(D-
30, I-1) on March 14, 2018.463
House Action
On May 22, 2018, the House passed the Senate version of the bill in a roll call vote of 258 (R-
225, D-33) to 159 (R-1, D-158).464

458 Representative Randy Hultgren, “How to Better Combat Identity Fraud,” Crain’s Chicago Business, March 9, 2018.
459 Letter from Senators Bill Cassidy, Tim Scott, Claire McCaskill and Gary Peters, to Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, February 12, 2018, at https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
Synthetic%20Identity%20Fraud.pdf.
460 This overview was adapted from CRS Report R45073, Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act (P.L. 115-174) and Selected Policy Issues.
461 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 8, 2018, Senate, pp. S1529-S1565.
462 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 14, 2018, Senate, p. S1714.
463 Congressional Record, daily edition, March 14, 2018, Senate, Roll call no. 54, not voting 2, p. S1730.
464 Congressional Record, daily edition, May 22, 2018, House, Roll call no. 216, not voting 10, p. H4367.
Congressional Research Service

88

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

P.L. 116-250, ALS Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019
President Donald Trump signed S. 578 on December 22, 2020. The law eliminates the five-month
waiting period for disability insurance benefits for disabled workers with amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease).465
Under its Compassionate Allowances (CAL) initiative, SSA expedites claims involving certain
impairments that invariably meet DI’s disability standard, including ALS. The average processing
time for CAL claims is 39 days, compared with 110-114 days for all initial disability claims.466
However, this fast-track process has no effect on the five-month waiting period. Thus, upon
receiving an award notice from SSA, most ALS disabled workers were required to wait the
remainder of the five-month period before becoming entitled to disability insurance benefits.
P.L. 116-250 amends Title II of the Social Security Act to specify that an individual who meets
the requirements for disability insurance benefits and who is medically determined to have ALS
shall be entitled to such benefits beginning with the first month during all of which the individual
is under a disability.467 In effect, the law eliminates the five-month waiting period for disabled
workers with ALS.468
Senate Action
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced S. 578 on February 27, 2019.
On December 2, 2020, the Senate proceeded to consider S. 578. Senator Mitch McConnell
offered an amendment, S.Amdt. 2689, on behalf of Senator Charles Grassley to increase the
Social Security overpayment collection threshold from $10 to 10% of benefits, which was a
proposal in the President’s FY2021 budget.469 Senator Grassley noted that the amendment was
designed to offset the bill’s cost as well as possible future costs from similar waivers that
lawmakers might one day provide for other types of impairments. S.Amdt. 2689 was defeated by
a vote of 48 (R-48, D-0) to 49 (R-3, D-45, I-1).470 The Senate then passed S. 578 by a roll call
vote of 96 (R-51, D-44, I-1) to 1 (R-1).471
In justifying his vote against the bill, Senator Mike Lee stated he supported eliminating the
waiting period for ALS patients, but he believed the bill’s provisions should have been extended

465 For related information, see SSA, “President Signs S.578, the “ALS Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019,”
Social Security Legislative Bulletin, Number 116-26, December 28, 2020, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/
legis_bulletin_122220.html.
466 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security, Determining Eligibility
for Disability Benefits: Challenges Facing the Social Security Administration, hearing, 115th Congress, 1st sess.,
September 6, 2017 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2017), p. 82, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-
115hhrg33616/pdf/CHRG-115hhrg33616.pdf.
467 This overview was adapted from CRS Insight IN11551, The ALS Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019 (S. 578).
468 P.L. 117-3 made a technical correction to the effective date established by P.L. 116-250. Initially, P.L. 116-250
eliminated the five-month waiting period for disabled workers with ALS who apply for benefits on or after December
23, 2020. P.L. 117-3 amended P.L. 116-250 to eliminate the five-month waiting period for disabled workers with ALS
who are approved for benefits on or after July 23, 2020. The technical correction was designed to capture those
disabled workers with ALS who applied for benefits on or before the date of P.L. 116-250’s enactment (December 22,
2020) but who were still subject to the five-month waiting period requirement when the legislation was signed into law.
469 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2020, Senate, p. S7157.
470 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2020, Senate, Roll call no. 249, not voting 3, p. S7163.
471 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2020, Senate, Roll call no. 250, not voting 3, p. S7164.
Congressional Research Service

89

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

to individuals with other incurable and fatal diseases, some of which have lower average life
expectancies than ALS.472
House Action
On December 8, 2020, the House proceeded to consider S. 578. After multiple members shared
testimonials to express support of the bill, the House passed the Senate version of the bill by
voice vote, under suspension of the rules.473
P.L. 116-260, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
On December 27, 2020, President Trump signed H.R. 133, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021, which combines FY2021 appropriations with stimulus and other measures. Division FF,
Title VIII, Section 801, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (“Access to Death
Information Furnished to or Maintained by the Social Security Administration”), amends Section
205(r) of the Social Security Act to ensure that states and SSA are reimbursed for state death
information, and to require SSA to share state death information with the Department of the
Treasury for its Do Not Pay (DNP) system.474
The amendments to Section 205(r) require SSA to establish a new fee structure for SSA to pay
states for death data and require agencies receiving death data from SSA to reimburse SSA for
their proportional share of the cost of obtaining the data and the full cost of sharing the data.475
Under this law, SSA payments to states shall include additional fees to pay for the expanded
federal use of state death data and will reimburse a share of the costs to the state for the following
activities: (1) collecting and maintaining death data; (2) ensuring the completeness, timeliness,
and accuracy of death data; and (3) maintaining, enhancing, and operating the systems for
transmitting death data to SSA. The law does not permit SSA to use funds from its Limitations on
Administrative Expenses appropriation for payments to the states, except as determined by the
Commissioner of Social Security on a temporary basis and subject to reimbursement from
agencies that receive death data from SSA.
Under this law, reimbursement to SSA from agencies that receive death data from SSA is required
to consist of the recipient agency’s share of the following costs, as determined by the
Commissioner of Social Security in consultation with the head of the recipient agency: (1) SSA’s
payments to the states to obtain the data, (2) the cost to SSA of establishing death data contracts
with the states, and (3) the cost to SSA of carrying out a new study on options for obtaining and
distributing death data (described below). The provision requires the recipient agency to
reimburse SSA for the full cost to SSA of transmitting death data to the recipient agency. The
same reimbursement requirement applies to agencies that receive death data from SSA for
statistical and research purposes.
The provision authorizes SSA to notify states and affected individuals of corrections to erroneous
deaths and requires SSA to share its full file of death information (including state-reported death
data) with DNP to prevent improper payments to deceased individuals. The provision specifies

472 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 2, 2020, Senate, p. S7169.
473 Congressional Record, daily edition, December 8, 2020, House, pp. H6988-H6991.
474 For related information, see SSA, “President Signs the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021,” Social Security
Legislative Bulletin, Number 116-27, December 28, 2020, at https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/
legis_bulletin_122720.html.
475 This overview was adapted from CRS Report R46640, The Social Security Administration’s Death Data: In Brief,
by Paul S. Davies.
Congressional Research Service

90

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

that data sharing with DNP will take place for a three-year period beginning three years after
enactment. Death data sharing arrangements between SSA and DNP after the three-year period
ends are not specified.
In addition, the legislation includes a requirement for SSA to commission a study, within 180
days of enactment, to be conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration of the
current and potential sources for, and provision of access to, state death data for use by federal
agencies for program administration and program integrity purposes. The study is to assess the
strengths and limitations of options for distributing state-reported death data to federal agencies,
including distribution via SSA as well as federal agencies contracting directly with states, and
shall also address options for reimbursement structures. Although the act does not specify a due
date, SSA is required to transmit the completed study to the House Committees on Ways and
Means and Oversight and Reform and the Senate Committees on Finance and Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
House Action
Representative Cuellar introduced H.R. 133 on January 3, 2019. As introduced, the bill did not
include any Social Security provisions. The final version of the provision, “Access to Death
Information Furnished to or Maintained by the Social Security Administration,” was introduced
as part of a House amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 133
on December 21, 2020, by Representative Nita Lowey.476 The House amendment in the nature of
a substitute included the provision, “Access to Death Information Furnished to or Maintained by
the Social Security Administration” in Division FF, Title VIII.477 The House voted three times on
the bill. The first vote was a vote limited to Divisions B, C, E, and F. The vote asked, “Will the
House concur in the Senate amendment with the matter proposed to be inserted as Divisions B, C,
E, and F of the amendment of the House?” This vote did not involve any Social Security
provisions and passed, 327 (R-134, D-192, I-1) to 85 (R-43, D-41, I-1).478 The second vote
addressed, “Will the House concur in the Senate amendment with all of the matter proposed to be
inserted by the amendment of the House other than Divisions B, C, E, and F?” (emphasis added).
This vote included Division FF, which included the Social Security provisions. It passed, 359 (R-
128, D-230, I-1) to 53 (R-50, D-2, I-1).479 The third vote addressed whether the House agreed to
an amendment to the Senate amendment and was agreed to without objection.480
Senate Action
On December 21, 2020, the Senate passed the House amendment to the Senate amendment to
H.R. 133, 92 (R-47, D-43, I-2) to 6 (R-6, D-0).481

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

91

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

During the 117th Congress, no legislation was enacted to amend the Social Security program or
directly alter its financing provisions.

Congressional Research Service

92

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

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

Author Information

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

Congressional Research Service

93

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

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

Congressional Research Service
RL30920 · VERSION 32 · UPDATED
94

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jun. 22, 2023

HTML · PDF

1% changed

Jan. 23, 2023

HTML · PDF

<1% changed

Feb. 19, 2021

HTML · PDF

23% changed