UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

<iongressional Recordd

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 92 CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

VOLUME l18-PART 18

JUNE 27, 19~2 TO JUNE 30, 1972

(PAGES 22507 TO 23914)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1972

1972

IN SUPPORT OF A 20-PERCENTINCREASE IN SOCIAL SECURITYBENEFITSMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

in signing the Social Security Act of 1935,President Franklin D. Roosevelt called it:

A cornerstone in a structure Which is beingbUilt, but is by no means complete-a struc­ture intended to lessen the force of possiblefuture depressions, to act as a protection tofuture administrations of the goverlUnentagainst the necessity of going deeply intodebt to furnish relief to the needy-a law toflatten out the peaks and valleys of deflationand ot inflation-in other words, a law thatwill take care of human needs and at thesame time provide for the United States aneconomic structure ot vastly greater sound­ness.

Well over three decades later this de­scription of the Social Security Act re­mains accurate. The time has come, how­ever, to enhance President Roosevelt'sdescription by strengthening the heart ofthe Social Security Act, title II-FederalOld-Age, Survivors, and Disability In­surance Benefits.

Old-age, survivors, and disability in­surance-more generally known as socialsecurity-is the Nation's basic incomemaintenance program.

It provides protection for workers andtheir families against loss of income dueto retirement, disability, or death of thefamily bread winner. No other programis as effective in helping to assure eco­nomic security, while maintaining dig­nity for workers and their families, as so­cial security.

The social security program envisionedby Franklln Roosevelt has today grown.to a universal system, with more than 27milllon Americans receiving benefits.Approximately 91 percent of the Nation'selderly are getting social security bene­fits or will be eligible for them when theyor their spouses stop working. Ninety­three percent of America's citizens rea-eh-

ORDER OF BUSINESSThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­

ator from West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C.BYRD) is recognized for not to exceed 15minutes.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,in anticipation of a rollcall which willoccur at 9:30 a.m. today, I shall suggesta quorum which will alert the offices ofSenators and also the cloakrooms to thenecessity of our having at least 11 Sena­tors on the floor in order to order the callof the yeas and nays thereon.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence ofa quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to callthe roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

SUMMAllY

The Stockholm Conference made veryreal and important advances. I applaudthose and commend the U.S. delegatiunfor its role in bringing them about. I alsoregret the many missed opportunitiesand urge our country to capture theseopportunities so that they not be lost.The monitoring of environmental deg­radation where no monitoring previ­ously occurred is a step forward. But tocontrol it, to reverse it, and to build a

the use of our streams and lakes to as­similate pollution. As we look to futureinternational conferences on the environ­ment we must aggressively seek oppor­tunities to persuade the internationalcommunity to adopt similar standardson a worldwide basis. This is certainlymore important than claiming "victory"for the U.S. positions after any partIC­ular conference, and I would hope that inthe future we might press for such long­term goals.

LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE

The need to involve pubUc opinion inall its various forms is one of the mostcrucial lessons to carry from the Stock­holm Conference. We have until 1977before another similar conference will beconvened. We will need all of that timeto create better procedures for the in­clusion of pubUc participation in boththe U.S. international negotiatingprocesses and in those of the world­wide community. The nongovernmen­tal organizations-NGO's as they be­came known in Stockholm-had valu­able contributions to make but all toooften-both in the United States andlater in Stockholm-these organizationswere inclUded in a less than satisfactoryway. The Secretary's Advisory Commit­tee was established too late. Its recom­mendations were announced at roughlythe same time that the United Statesadopted its positions on most issues.This meant that the committee had verylittle real involvement in the decisions ofthe Secretary of State. My own expe­rience with public environmental groupsleads me to believe that they can makevery valuable contributions. I would urgethe Secretary of State to assign a highpriority in his department to the crea­tion of real structures and real processesthat will include public participation oninternational environmental issues on acontinuing and ,meaningful basis. I be­lieve this is worthy of a special taskforce assignment by the Secretary ofState so that the mistakes made in thepreparations for the Stockholm Confer­ence will not occur in future environ­mental meetings.

A second lesson, discussed extensivelyin earlier parts of my statement, is thatthe United States has no real choiceother than to take broad and significantleadership in environmental affairs. Wemust be willing to make commitmentsand take leadership positions even whenthey are not uniformly popular. Con­gress can aid the administration in thiseffort. My colleagues should be aware ofthe fact that congressional initiativewill be a necessary feature on interna­tional environmental affairs in the fore­seeable future.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATEbetter human environment is a muchhigher calling and a more daring task.It is this challenge that the United Statesmust accept and urge on the world com­munity.

The issue of familY planning followedthe same scenario. The United St!!-tesdragged its feet on recommendati?nsthat would urge greater familY plan;ungprograms. Norway picked up the 1ssueand successfullY shepherded it into thefinal recommendations adopted by theconference.

The establishment of a new Unite~Na­tions organization to administer envupn­mental programs has been broadly hall~d

as a significant accomplishment. It 1S.But I must point out once again that theposition adopted by th~ administrationwas perhaps more caut10us than neces­sary The new organization would cer­tainiy have more strength if it weretotally independent of other U.N.. bu­reaucracies. Once again, the AdVIsoryCommittee to the Secretary of Staterecommended such a proposal, but theUnited States delegation advocate~ in­stead the establishment of a unit WIthinthe Economic and Social Council of theU.N. ECOSOC has been a weak body inthe U.N. We will not know if it wouldhave been possible to create a strOI~ger

organization; we did not try. This stnkesat the heart of the U.S. posture on in­ternational environmental affairs.

We shOuld avoid the flagrant attemptsat heavY-handed leadership, such asthose displayed on occasion by the Peo­ple's Republic of China, but we shouldnot pass up the role of the concernedleader who offers innovative and respon­sible positions even when they are a fewyears ahead of any international con­sensus. It is this leadership and thisstance that I would advocate in furtherinternational environmental negotia­tions.

If the United States is not willing tooffer the "carrot" of financial assistancein international environmental affairs,we will have difficulty reaching interna­tional agreements on worldwide stand­ards for the control of pollutants andthe preservation of environmental values.The developing nations are extremelysensitive about the conflict they see be­tween industrial development on the onehand and pollution controls on the otherhand. It will tax the ability of interna­tional negotiators to find agreementsthat actually establish requirements toabate pollution and enhance environ­mental quality; without incentives of­fered by the United States, they will beimpossible. The strength of national sov­ereignty is very real and was displayedwith great force in Stockholm. Principle21 of the Declaration of the Human En­Vironment, calling for nations to recog­nize the international effects of their ac­tions holds out the hope that nations willreali~tically assess the environmentalimpact of their actions and that thetheme of "Only One Earth" may overridethe tendencies of nationalism.

The Congress has moved our countryinto a position of leadership on environ­mental affairs. The Clean Air Act of 1970established the principle that publichealth is a higher standard than indus­trial development, and that new plantsmust adopt the best available pollutioncontrol technology in their design. In wa­ter pollution, the House and Senate haveboth passed bills that move us away from

23504

June 30, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 23505ing 65 in 1972 are eligible for benefits.The social security program in the Unitedstates covers 9 out of 10 people in paidemployment and self-employment.Ninety-five percent of the children un­der 18, and their mothers, can count onmonthly benefits if the family earnershould die.

There is no doubt that the social se­curity program has been successfulthroughout the years since 1935, becauseit is a work related and an earned rightprogram. Entitlement to benefits and theamount of benefits are based on pastemployment. Social security is also earn­ings-related, in that the amount of cashbenefits a worker and his family receivesis generally related to his earnings incovered work.

Over a year ago the Advisory Councilon Social Security, a distinguished 13­member panel, recommended that, and Iquote from the report of the 1971 Ad­visory Council on Social Security:

The actuarial cost estimates for the cashbenefits program be based-as the estimatesfor the hospital insurance program now are­on the assumptions that earn1ngs levels willrise, that the contribution and benefit basewlll be Increased as earnings levels rise, andthat benefit payments wlll be Increased asprices rise.

In their 1971 report, the AdvisoryCouncil explained that since 1935, theestimates of the long-range cost of so­cial security have been based on the as­sumption that both earnings and bene­fits will remain level over the valuationperiod. Contrary to the assumption usedin the estimate, as we all well know,earnings levels have risen, and the ad­ditional income from rising earnings issubstantially greater than the benefit li­ability arising from higher earnings.Thus, under present practice, a long­range actuarial surplus is created eachtime earnings rise.

By following the procedure the Ad­visory Council recommended-basing thecontribution rates for social security onthe assumption that benefits and earn­ings levels will rise-we can now sub­stantially improve the program by im­mediately increasing social security bene­fits by 20 percent without drastically in­creasing both the employee and employercontribution rates and the amount ofB,unual earnings which are counted forbenefits and on which contributions arepaid-the contribution and benefit base.We can enact a 20-percent social securityincrease whlle maintaining the presentcontribution rate of 4.6 percent each foremployees and employers for 1973-76,and "ith a rate of 4.9 percent for 1977­2010 and a contribution and benefit baseof $10,200 in 1972 and $12,000 in 1973.

While Congress has seen fit to raisesocial security benefits during the pastyears, inftation has reducea the pur­chasing power of these higher benefits.Workers who retired in 1950, in terms of1970 dollars, had their average monthlysocial security benefits of $78.10 in 1950raised to $89.50 in 1954 and $90.60 inOctober 1970. A worker who retired in1950 has barely held his own between1954 and 1970.

Measured by 1970 dollars, the averagemonthly social security benefit for re­

CXVIll--1481-Part 18

tired workers in current-payment statusin 1960 was $97.90 and $117.79 in October1970-an improvement of about 20 per­cent in real terms. For a widowed motherwith two children, in 1960, the averagemonthly benefit measured in 1970 dol­lars was $237.60, and in October 1970it was $255.80-an increase of about 8percent in real terms.

The Nation's elderly citizens have lessthan half the income of our youngercitizens. Five million older Americans­over 25 percent of our elderly-haveincomes below the poverty level. In 1970,half of the familles headed by older per­sons had incomes of less than $5,053. Inthe same year the median income forolder citizens living alone or with non­relatives was $1,951.

The time has come to improve the Na­tion's basic income maintenance pro­gram. We can provide a substantial 20­percent increase in social security bene­fits for the Nation's elderly, disabled,widows, and widowers and surviving chil­dren in a way that does not impose anexcessive tax burden on covered work­ers and employers, and in a way that as­sures that social security will continue tobe financed on an actuarially sound basis.

A 20-percent across-the-board boost insocial security benefits will increase theaverage monthly benefits for the typicalretired worker from $133 to $162; from$222 to $269 for the average elderly cou­ple; and from $114 to $153 for the averageaged widow.

As just recently reported by the De­partment of Health, Education, andWelfare, the number of elderly persons onwelfare-those receiving old-age as­sistance~has dropped to a 32-year lowof 2,015,000 people. This decline in thenumber of old-age welfare recipients isdue in large part to past increases insocial security benefits. A 20-percent in­crease in social security benefits wlll fur­ther reduce the cost of old-age assistance.

A 20-percent increase in benefits willlift a total of 1.9 million social securityrecipients out of poverty, inclUding 1.4million aged. As a cosponsor of theamendment by Mr. CHURCH, I therefore,urge the Senate to support an immediate20-percent increase in social securitybenefits.

NEED FOR MORE ADEQUATE SOCIALSECURITY BENEFITS: NO LESSTHAN 20-PERCENT INCREASEMr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I sup­

port amendment No. 1307. This amend­ment is similar to amendment No. 999 toH.R. I, the proposed Social SecurityAmendments of 1971 which was sub­mitted by the Senator from Idaho (Mr.CHURCH), providing a 20-percent in­crease in social security benefits. SenatorCHURCH offered amendment No. 999 lastMarch 7-2 weeks after the distin­guished chairman of the House Waysand Means Committee, the HonorableWILBUR MILLS, also called for a 20-per­cent increase in social security benefits.But because H.R. 1 will not be taken upon the Senate fioor until late this sum­mer, and since there may be delays inseeing it finally enacted, Senator CHURCHhas offered his 20-percent increase in

social security measure as amendmentNo. 1307 to the debt ceiling bill. I ampleased to support him and the other43 Senate cosponsors of the original 20­percent increase provision in their effortsto secure these much needed incomesupplements for America's older citizenswithout further delay.WHAT AMENDMENT NO. 1307 WOULD PROVIDE

In terms of dollars and cents, amend­ment No. 1307 would raise monthly ben­efits for the typical retired couple from$222 to $269, and for the average retiredworker, it would increase his social secu­rity benefits from $133 a month to $162a month.

Mr. President, the following tableshows what these benefits increaseswould mean for a broad range of socialsecurity recipients:

BENEFiTS INCREASE

Increasedbenefits on

20 per- annualPresent cent basis

Retired worker(average)... _...... $133.00 $161.00 $336.00

Retired couple(average). _. __ ..... 223.00 270.00 564.00

Worker with maximumearnings____ ._ ._ ... 216.00 259.00 516.00

Couple withmaximum earnings- 234.00 389.00 780.00

Minimum. __ ... ______ 70.40 84.50 169.00Widow (average,

without provision

to:n~~i~s~~~~~~~ ___ .. 144. 00 137.00 276.00

It is significant to discuss these bene­fits increases in light of recent cost-of­living increases.

From January 1971-the effective dateof the last social security increase-toMay 1972, the consumer price index hasincreased by 4.6 percent. By the effectivedate of the proposed5-percent increasein the House-passed social security bill­and this is the level recommended by theadministration-the elderly are likely todiscover that infiation has totally wipedout this proposed boost in benefits.

Equally significant, many items-­which affect the elderly to a much great­er degree than younger persons-haverisen at a much more accelerated ratethan the overall consumer plice index. Ina number of cases, these items wouldoutstrip the proposed lO-percent raisein the Finance Committee bill. Amongkey examples:

Property taxes have risen by 14.3 per­cent from January 1971 to May 1972­approximately 70 percent of the elderlyown their own home:

Food costs have risen by 5.9 percent-­approximately 27 percent of the elderly'sbudget is spent for food, in contrast to16 percent for the total population;

There has been a 5.7-percent increasefor medical care-for fiscal 1971 theelderly paid almost as much in out-of­pocket payments for medical care­$225-as the year before medicare wentinto effect-$234.

Even with a 20-percent increase, socialsecurity benefits for the typical retiredcouple will still fall short of the Bureauof Labor Statistics intermediate budgetfor a retired couple. A 20-percent in­crease would raise social security benefits

23506 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE JunetJO, 1972

for the average retired couple to $270 amonth, or to $3,240 a year. This wouldrepresent only about 68 percent of theintermediate budget, which is $4,776.

A 20-percent increase would raise so­cial security benefits for the typical re­tired individual to $161 a month, or$1,932 on an annual basis. This wouldrepresent less than 70 percent of the BLSintermediate budget for aged single per­sons, $2,778.

More than 4.7 million persons 65 andolder now live in poverty-the 1970 pov­erty threshold is $1,852 for a single agedperson and $2,328 for a couple.

The median income for persons 65and over living alone or with nonrelativesis only $1,951, or about $37 per week. Foraged women living alone, their medianincome is $1,888 annually, or just slightlyabove the poverty index.

Approximately one out of every fouraged couples have incomes below $3,­OOO-less than $60 a week. The BLS lowerbudget for an urban retired couple is $3,­319.

Nearly nine out of 10 black women liv­ing alone or with nonrelatives-88.3 per­cent-would be considered poor or nearpoor.

Mr. President, I believe these figurestell a stOry bearing on the disgraceful,especially in light of the universality ofthe social security system in our coun­try.

This program touches the lives of prac­tically every family in America. Nearly91 percent of the elderly receive benefitsnow or will be eligible for them whenthey or their spouses stop working, and93 percent of those reaching age 65 in1972 are eligible for benefits. Ninety-fivepercent of the children under 18 andtheir mothers can count on monthly cashbenefits if the family earner should die.More than 27 million men, women, andchildren-one out of every eight Ameri­cans-are now receiving monthly cashbenefits.

Mr. President, I have a chart herewhich was supplied to me by the SocialSecurity Administration and which pro­vides a county by county breakdown ofthe number of social security benefici­aries, as of December 1971 in my Stateof California. I ask unanimous consentthat it be printed in the RECORD at theconclusion of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit UMr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, these

figures give proof of the fact that thetime has come to make significant im­provements in social security, so thatthis-the Nation's basic income main­tenance program-can serve its peoplemore effectively. We have the oppor­tunity to do that today.

HOW THE INCREASE WOULD BE FINANCED

Both Chairman MILLS and SenatorCHURCH have already presented detailedaccounts to the Congress which concludewithout a doubt that a 20-percent In­crease in social security benefits wouldbe possible without endangering thesocial security trust fund and With

only a modest increase in the payrolltax. It is not my intention to reiteratehere this morning their remarks, but inlight of the President's comments lastnight that a 20-percent increase couldjeopardize the integrity of the socialsecurity trust fund, I believe it is in­cumbent upon me to touch on just howthis increase would be financed so thatany concerns the President's remarksmay have raised can be allayed.

The financing proposal for the 20­percent increase is derived from therecommendations of the Advisory Coun­cil on Social Security. This distinguished13-member panel was made up by law ofrepresentatives of organizations of em­ployers and employees and of the self­employed and the public. The Council'sChairman was Arthur S. Flemming,former Secretary of the Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare, recentchairman of the White House Confer­ence on Aging-Which, I might add,called for a 25-percent boost in socialsecurity benefits-and is presently anadviser to the President on the affairs ofthe elderly. Several members of theCouncil have long, prominent careers infinance. The Council was assisted in itsreview of the financing of the programby .national respected actuaries andeconomists. I mention this, Mr. Presi­dent, so that there can be no doubt as tothe soundness of the recommendationsof the Advisory Council.

Amendment No. 1307 is based upon a"rising wage assumption," as recom­mended by the Social Security AdvisoryCouncil. In essence, of course, thismeans that actuarial projections shouldbe based upon a steady increase in bothwages and prices in future years, ratherthan on the assumption that over thelong run neither benefit nor wage levelswill change.

Amendment No. 1307 is further basedon current cost financing as recom­mended by the National Advisory Coun­cil. In other words, it incorporates a taxschedule calculated to maintain a trustfund balance at least equal to 75 percentof 1 year's worth of benefits, as does theFinance Committee bill.

The increase in the taxable wage baseto $12,000 in 1973, which it proposes,would result in substantially improvedbenefit protection for workers with aboveaverage earnings, and would move in thedirection of covering the proportion ofworkers' earnings that were covered un­der the original Social Security Act. In1938 the $3,000 earnings base covered thefull earnings of 97 percent of all workers.A $12,000 base would cover the full earn­ingS of about 86 percent of all workers in1973. The present maximum taxablewage base of $9,000 fully covers onlyabout 72 percent of all employees work­ing under social security. To achieve thesame proportion of covered earnings aswhen social security went into effect, in­terestingly enough, would require thatthe maximum wage base be raised toabout $18,600.

Raising the taxable wage base, then,woulc provide higher benefits for workers

earning up to that level, and additionally,it would provide revenue to finance thesebadly needed improvements in socialsecurity without imposing burdensometaxes on lower and moderate-incomewage earners.

In this regard, Mr. President, I wouldlike to comment on President Nixon'scomments of last night in which he im­plied that such financing would, in effect,wipe out the reductions granted to mid­dle-income and lower-income workersduring the past several years.

None can deny that it is this group ofAmericans which is most sorely burdenedby the inequitable tax structure we relyon today. And none can deny that thisCongress has a moral obligation to workpromptly to overhaul that structure torelieve this burden from middle- andlower-income workers. I very much re­gretted hearing the President imply thatdoing justice to America's senior citi­zens by passing this 20-percent increasewould be unfair to her middle- and lower­income people, when the issue at handhere is so much more complex. If thePresident is truly interested in relievingthe burdens of these hard-pressed tax­payers, I urge him to work with us inreaching a meaningful and prompt reso­lution of the taxation questions which soplague us today.

The President also suggested that a20-percent increase in benefits might addbillions more to the projected budgetarydeficit for fiscal 1973. I should like torebut that suggestion by quoting from theSocial Security Advisory Council's rec­ommendations which state:

Even though the operations of the socialsecurity trust fund and other trust fundprograms are combined with the general op­erations of the federal government in theunified federal budget, polley decisions affect­ing the social security program should bebased on the objectives of the program ratherthan on any effect that such decisions mighthave on the federal budget. The operations ofthe social security and other federal trustfunds should continue to be identified assuch and separated from the general opera­tions of the government.

Chairman MILLS, in his study of thefinancing of a 20-percent increase, hasassured the Congress that while a 20­percent increase--

Does add to the deficit in 1973 under theunified bUdget concept--it does not meanone additional dollRr of borrowing. (WILBUR

MILLn/6/72 p. 6987 CONGRESSIONAL REC­

oRn)

More important, it will not result inany additional deficit financing.

THE NEED FOR A PASS-ALONG PROVISION

Mr. President, when the distinguishedSenator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) ad­vised me that he would submit thisamendment to the debt ceiling bill, Idiscussed with him the vital need to in­clude a significant "pass-along" provi­sion with his amendment. Pass-alongprovisions have, in the past, been en­acted to correct the situation Wherebyindividuals receiving both social securityand/or railroad retirement benefits as

June 30, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 23507well as public assistance also receive acorresponding reduction in their publicassistance grant whenever social secu­rity cost-of-living increases are enacted.In general, however, the pass-along aJ­lowed has been less than the full socialsecurity· increase, so recipients in thiscategory have not enjoyed the full in­crease intended for them. Further, whenthe pass-along legislation is not includedin the legislation to increase benefits, aswas the case in the most recent socialsecurity increase enacted March of 1971,recipients in this category receive noneof the increase provided other social se­curity beneficiaries.

On March 13 of this year I introducedS. 3328, a biJ;l. providing a permanentmechanism to insure that old age publicassistance recipients do receive the bene­fits of social security increases. The Fi­nance Committee subsequently approved

a $50 pass-along provision to be includedin its omnibus social security measure.

If it were not for the fact that Sena­tor CHURCH advised me that submittingone or the other of these alternatives asa modification to amendment No. 1307would seriously hamper the chances ofits final enactment, I would not hesitateto do so. I will defer from pressing thispoint further this morning, but I dowant to pledge at this time that whenH.R. 1 comes to the Senate fioor, I willwork vigorously for a meaningful pass­along measure which will be retroactiveto cover the increases we will be approv­ing today. I urge my colleagues to joinme in this pledge.

Mr. President, in the event that someSenators may not be aware of S. 3328,I ask unanimous consent that the text ofmy introductory remarks and a copy ofthe bill itself be included in the record

at the conclusion of my remarks thismorning.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 2'>Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, we

have the opportunity to take action toprovide the elderly with a significant in­crease in social security benefits. H.R. 1passed the House of Representatives ayear ago this month. While the FinanceCommittee has completed its considera­tion of the bill, it might be months be­fore it is enacted. By passing this 20-per­cent increase along with the public debtbill, we can insure that the elderly willhave to wait no longer for an increasethat will help them live more comfort­ably-in many cases-that will helpthem meet the bare necessities. I urgeSenators to support amendment No.1307.

EXHIBIT 1

OLD·AGE, SURVIVORS, DISABILITY, AND HEALTH INSURANCE

TABLE II.-NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES WITH MONTHLY CASH BENEFITS IN CURRENT·PAYMENT STATUS AT END OF DECEMBER 1971, BY AGE OF BENEFICIARY AND BYSTATE AND COUNTY OF RESIDENCE

Under age 60 Age 60 and over

State andCounty Total Total

Underage 18

Age18-21

Age22-59 Total

Age60-61

Age62-64 Total

Age 65 and over

Age65-71

Age 72and over Men Women

1,105,745

58,53825

1,0969,0771,112

89124,380

8812,652

22,8581,3535,2372,6651,132

16,1952,6682,952

844396,790

2,6249,356

5673,1734,596

447155

11,1285.7452,672

67,1124,642

85636,54329,5001,048

38,62276,08757,50916,1277,927

26,86315,10141,64812,7844,654

1992,2336,746

16,88112,4342,0832,034

43810,8851,664

15,8303,8381,810

744,819

36,11~

9937,5781,}~~

16,836837

2,43817,7301,1434,4963,4131,016

13,7982,2782,:~g

238,6392,4425,~~~2,8604,119

402155

8,0224,5222,310

39,5723,748

77328,50721,103

83828,38751,67239,43114,4776,264

16,2439,934

26,3598,8884,118

1932,0644,730

12,6359,7531,707I,m9,6271,592

10,8313,3421,858

905,003 ------48,869

17873

7,648922765

19,030692

2,00419,2931,1624,3172,419

90012,3582,2372,311

720321,962

2,2547,604

4842,6513,819

397108

9,1565,3932,154

53,6003,629

69129,75223,542

93431,56760,62850,98314,5356,445

21,41412,73333,89511,2653,489

1451,9485,228

13,99310,5651,7821,671

3429,0881,352

12,3483,3861,525

690,625

34,07218

8296,345

915588

15,712732

2,14115,114

9883,8722,629

87812,1881,8662,484

631231,021

1,958,5,396

4562,3913,455

326142

7,1883,5481,999

39,1683,396

65425,77819,363

70925,76848,88635,31611,5775,582

15,8949,215

24,8467,7703,584

1801,7184,457

11,3638,2401,3851,517

3947,9921,341

10,4422,7381,470

1,595,628

82,94135

1,70213,9931,8371,353

34,7421,4244,145

34,4072,1508,1895,0481,778

24,5464,1034,7951,351

552,9834,212

13,000940

5,0427,274

723250

16,3448,9414,153

92,7687,0251,345

55,53042,9051,643

57,344109,51486,29926,11212,02737,30821,94858,74119,0357,073

3253,6669,685

25,35618,8053,1673,188

73617,0802,693

22,7906,1242,995

220,807

10,0667

3442,317

347171

5,547249830

5,331303

1,323899318

4,606715925258

70,779722

1,749160861

1,24110755

2,4451,154

73912,2781,201

2528,4366,599

2128,350

16,4239,1523,8641,9055,0482,7448,0532,3521,385

57562

1,5533,6292,884

538522157

2,911492

3,332897568

34,129

1,64~

433453524

92745

11585043

221131

5284112810733

11,667132237

19130200

195

36117290

1,638164

321,0841,099

311,3152,0921,489

628259750343

1,213285224

1069

238468498

857525

52171

539159105

1,850,564

94,65344

2,08916,6552,2191,548

41,2161,7185,090

40,5882,4969,7336,0782,148

29,9934,9465,8271,642

635,4295,066

14,9861,1196,0338,715

849310

19,15010,2674,982

106,6848,3901.629

65,05050,6031,886

67,009127,84996,94030,60414,19143,10625,03568,00721,6728,682

3924,297

11,47629.51622,1873,7903,785

91820,5123,256

26,6617,1803,668

199,301

9,4932

1581,699

176176

5,027267537

5,479248

1,2561,027

2264,836

782492190

69,110718

1,24467

6951,319

10525

2,3211,018

36710,8781,021

1605,6826,556

1677,3931,2368,0153,5191,4844,1862,1518.2051,4951,212

28415

1,4222,6852,745

468382100

3,335276

3,671800554

56,367

3,0823

244503954

1,76247

1041,620

6231332446

1,0292046144

17,69617056520

180386268

762272102

3,58124060

1,1672,194

541,6423,6802,3581,016

3671,620

8473,016

53628215

1294517506471358919

70366

876254118

283,905

13,8665

2432,027

248252

7,626376756

8,265354

1,8042,052

3147,0291,262

393282

92,5941,0592,112

94920

2,12211847

3,8081,006

49818,2611,172

2817,999

10,018285

10,92517,4148,7994,8411,6576,0353,517

13,1362,1471,693

38572

2,1953,4723,738

715594177

4,706362

5,6661,185

773

539,573

26,44110

4254,176

463482

14,415690

1,39715,364

6643,3733,403

58612,8942,248

946516

179,4001,9473,921

1811,7953,827

24980

6,8912,296

96732,7202,433

50114,84818,768

50619,96032,33019,1729,3763,508

11,8416,515

24,3574,1783,187

811,1164,0686,0977,1301,3181,065

2968,744

70410,2132,2391,445

2.390,137

121,09454

2,51420,8312,6822,030

55,6312,4086,487

55,9523,160

13,1069,4812,734

42,8877,1946,7732, 158

814,8297,013

18,9071,3007,828

12,5421,098

39026,04112,5635,949

139,40410,8232,130

79,89869,3712,392

86,969160,179116,11239,98017,69954,94731,55092,36425,85011,869

4735,413

15,54436,42329,3175,1084,8501,214

29,2563,900

36,8749,4195,113

Caitlornia•••_

Alameda_••••••••••Alpina- _Amador. _.Bulle .Calaveras .Colusa •••••••••••••Contra Costa••••••••Del Norte•••••••••••Eldorado•••••••••••Fresno•••••••••••••Glenn _.Humboldt. •••••••••ImperiaL .Inyo .Kern .Kings .Lake _.Lassen '"''''''Los Angeles .Madera .Marin .Mariposa .Mendocino .Merced .Modoc _ .Mono .Monterey .Napa .Nevada .Orange .Placer .Plumas .Riverside•••••••••••Sacramento .San Benito .San Bernardino .San Diego ..San Francisco .San Joaquin. __ .San Luis Obispo .San Mateo_ __Santa BErbara- .Santa Clara ••. __ .Santa Cruz .Shasta .Sierra .Siskiyou ..Solano ..Sonoma ..Stanislaus.. __." ..Sutter. .Tehama._ .Trinity ..Tulare .Tuolumne ..Ventura .yolo ..Yuba..__ ..

23508 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE June 90, 1972EXHIBIT 2

AUTOMATIC INCREASE IN STANDARDS OF NEEDUNDER PuBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

By Mr. CRANSTON (for himself andMr. TuNNEY) :

S. 3328. A blll to amend the Social SecurityAct to assure that whenever there is a gen­eral Increase In social security benefits therew1ll be a corresponding increase in the stand­ard of need used to determine eliglblllty foraid or assistance under State plans approvedunder title I, X, XIV, or XVI of such Act.Referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I introducetoday, along with my colleague (SenatorTuNNEY), legislation to enable those needyindividuals who are recipients of grants forthe aged, blind, and disabled to receive auto­matic increases In this assistance commen­surate with Increases In social security bene­fits. This would be achieved by requiringStates to Increase, by a rate corresponding tothe rate of any further social security in­crease, the standard of need used to deter­mine ellgib1l1ty for assistance under theseprograms.

This concept, in a somewhat different form,was recommended In 1970 by the SenateFinance Committee In its consideration ofH.R. 17550, the proposed Social SecurityAmendments of 1970. The committee report(No. 91-1431, page 43) said:PASS-ALONG OF SOCIAL SECURITY INCREASES TO

WELFARE RECIPIENTS"Under other provisions of the blll, social

security benefits would be increased by 10percent, with the minimum basic social se­curity benefit increased to $100 from Its pres­ent $64 level. If no modification were madein present welfare law, however, many needyaged, blind, and disabled persons would getno benefit from these substantial Increasesin social security since offsetting reductionswould be made in their welfare grants. Toassure that such individuals would enjoy atleast some benefit from the social securityincreases, the committee bl1l requires Statesto raise their standards of need for those inthe aged, blind, and disabled categories by$10 per month for a single individual and$15 per month for a couple. As a result of thisprovision, recipients of aid to the aged, blind,or disabled, who are also social securtty bene­ficiaries, would enjoy an increase in totalmonthly income of at least $10 ($15 In thecase of a couple)."

The method I am proposing to assurethat the aged, blind, or disabled enjoybenefits from social security Increases elim­inates the discriminatory effect of the so­called pass-along provision, which results inthe granting of cost-of-living increases onlyto those publlc assistance recipients who arealso beneficiaries of BOcial security or rall­road retirement benefits.

The original pass-along provisions, In­cluded In the 1965 and 1967 social securityamendments, permitted States, In determin­ing an Individual's need for publlc assistancepayments, to exclUde $5 and $7.50 per month,respectively, from any source although theseprovisions were designed with the 1965 and1967 BOcial security increases in mind. Laterpass-along provisions, however, have appliedexclusively to the Income received from BO­clal security and railroad retirement benefits,and thereby have not helped those public as­sistance recipients who receive no additionalincome or who receive income other thanthat afforded by social security or raliroadretirement benefits. My btll would rectify thissituation by substituting the "Increase Instandard-of-need" concept for the "pass­along" concept.

In addition, my b1ll would eliminate thenecessity of repeatedly legislating to af­ford public assistance recipients the benefitsof social security cost-of-living increases byprOViding for automatic increases In thestandard of need. To lllustrate the need for

such a pennanent, automatic mechanism, letme trace brlefiy the history of the pass-alongprovisions since their inceptton 6 years ago:

The Social Security Amendments of 1965(Public Law 89-97) Included a provision thatpermitted States, in determining an Indivd­ual's need for public assistance payments,to exclude up to $5 of income per monthfrom any source.

The Social Security Amendments of 1967(Public Law 90-248) amended the pass-alongprovision enacted In 1965 to increase the in­come exclusion from $5 to $7.50 per month.

The Tax Reform Act of 1969 (Public Law91-172) Included in section 1006 a require­ment that, In determining the need of itspublic assistance recipients, States must dis­regard the retroactive payment of the socialsecurity Increase received April 1970. Section1007 of the Tax Reform Act required Statesto exclude up to $-1 per month of social secu­rity benefits In determining the amount ofpubUc assistance payments. This provisionwas appUcable through JUly 1970.

The 1970 social security amendments tothe act to continue the suspension of dutieson manganese ore (Public Law 91-306) ex­tended the pass-along provided in section1007 of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 throughOctober 1970.

The January 1971 amendments to the So­cial Security Act (Publlc Law 91-669) ex­tended the pass-along prOVided In section1007 of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 throughDecember 1971.

The March 1971 social security amend­ments to the act to Increase the public debt(Public Law 92-5) made It optional for statesto disregard retroactive social security bene­fits In determining public assistance fromJanuary through Aprll 1971.

The December 1971 amendments to theSocial Security Act-Public Law 92-223­extended the passalong provided in section1007 of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 throughDecember 1972. My colleague and principalcosponsor of this legislation (Mr. TUNNEY)was responsible for the enactment of this, themost recent temporary passalong provision,which affects the benefits provided by ,theAprll 1970 cost-of-livlng increases.

However, Mr. President, at no time hasthere been a passalong of any portion of thesocial security benefit Increase enacted InMarch and effective January 1, 1971. Thus,recipients of aid to the aged, bllnd, or dis­abled who are also social security or rallroadretirement beneficiaries have not yet rea,llzedthe benefits Congress intended for them bythis legislation. Only they can tell of thehardships they have suffered from this situa­tion.

Passalong provIsions, then, have, at times,been enacted to correct the situation wherebyIndividuals receiving both social securityand/or rallroad retirement benefits as wellas public assistance also receive a correspond­Ing reduction In their public assistance-grantwhenever social security cost-or-lIvlng In­crease are enacted. In general, however, thepassalong allowed has been less than the fullsocial securtty increase, so recipients In thiscategory have not enjoyed the full cost-of­living Increase Intended for them. Further,when the passalong legislation is not In­cluded In the legislation to increase benefitsas was the case in the most recent sociaisecurity Increase enacted last March 1971recipients In this category receive none of thecost-of-lIving increase provided other socialsecurity beneficiaries.

A permanent, automatic mechanism to in­crease the standard of need, Mr. President,would eliminate not only the necessity of re­peatedly legislatIng this kind of provision, butaiso, the blll I am IntroducIng today wouldhave the following benefits as well:

First, It would require that all States con­form to the mechanism, rather than makingit optional for States to pass on benefits, asmost pass-along provisions have to date; and

Second, It would provide every aged, blind,and disabled publlc assistance recipient Withthe guarantee that he will receIve grant in­creases whenever there is a correspondingBOclal security Increase, and thus provide asystematic way of Improving assistance bene­fits under those programs in equal propor­tion to improvements Congress makes in BO­clal security benefits. For example, in addi­tion to those in my State who receive BOclalsecurity as well as old age assistance, thislegislation would benefit the 159,000 Cal­ifornians on old-age assistance who receiveno other source of income. This legislationwould benefit a total of 521,000 older personsIn California. Enactment of such a manda­tory provision would seem particularly ap­propriate 11: the Senate accepts the automaticsocial securtty increase provision in H.R. 1.

Throughout last spring and summer, Mr.President, I received countless letters fromelderly persons-persons who rely on old ageassIstance grants and social security for theirvery existence-relating their despair uponreceiving from the California State Depart­ment of Publlc Social Services the notice thattheir publlc assistance check would be re­duced by the amount of the social securitycost-of-living increase enacted in March.This was a cruel blow to deal to so manyof the more than 2 mlll10n recipients of oldage assistance in the United States, 60 per­cent of whom are also recipients of socialsecurity benefits. Approximately 362,000 ofCalifornia's aid to the aged, blind, and dis­abled recipients also receive social securitybenefits and thus were n:ot benefited at allby the 1971 social security increase. I believeit is past time to Insure that this unfortu­nate situation is not continued in the future.

I am today writing to Chairman LoNG ofthe Senate Finance Committee, urging thathe consider the concept embodied in thislegislatIon In conjunction With his commit­tee's consideration of H.a. I, the Soc1al Se­curity Amendments of 1971. To facl11tate hiswork, I am redrafting my btll to propose it aswell as an amendment to that omnibus socialsecurIty measure.

As I related to ChaIrman LONG, last week,on the 3d and 4th of March, as rankingmajority member of Senator TOM: EAGLETON'SSubcommittee on Aging of the Labor andPUblic Welfare Committee, I was priVilegedto chair hearings on legislation affecting ourNation's more than 20 mll110n older Ameri­cans. I discussed the legislation I am intro­ducing today With many of the witnessespresent, and Without a dissent, each testi­fied to the Vital need for such a measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consentthat the text of my bill be printed at thispoint in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was or­dered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

S. 3328Be it enacted by the Senate and House 01

Representatives 01 the United States 01America in Oongress assembled, That titleXI of the Social Security Act is amended byadding at the end thereof the following newsection:"AUT014ATIC INCREASE IN STANDARDS OF NEED

UNDER PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS"SEC. 1122. (a) (1) In addition to the re­

qUirements imposed by other provisions oflaw as a condition of approval of a Stateplan of any State (other than the Common­wealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, or the VirginIsland) to provide aid or assistance to in­dividuals under title I, X, XIV, or XVI, thereIs hereby Imposed the requirement (and theplan shall be deemed to require) that thestandard of need (as defined in paragraph(2» applicable under any such plan shallbe increased by the amounts certified in thecertifications of the Secretary made pursu­ant to subsection (b).

"(2) For purposes of this section, theterm 'standard of need', when used in con­nection with any approval plan referred to

June 30, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 23509in paragraph (1), means the income amount(not otherWise disregarded under the plan)used to determine (in the case of each cate­gory of applicants for and recipients of aidor assistance under the plan) eliglblllty ofsuch applicants and recipients for aid or as­sistance under such plan.

"(b) (1) Whenever there Is enacted anyprovision of law providing II general Increasein monthly benefits payable to individualsunder title II, the Secretary shall (at theearllest practicable date after the enactmentof such provision) determine the average rateof such increase and shall certl!y to eachState agency administering or supervising theadministration of any State plan approvedunder title I, X, XIV, or XVI, the average sodetermined.

"(2) Any such certification shall be effec­tive, In the case of the standard of needapplicable under any approved state planreferred to In subsection (a), for months be­ginning more than 30 days after such cer­tification Is made to the State agency ad­ministering or supervising the administrationof such State plan, or, If the general increase(referred to in paragraph (1», on the basisof which such certification is made, will notbe effective by such date, then it shall beeffective on the first month for which suchgeneral Increase will be effective."

SEC. 2. (a) SUbject to subsection (b), theamendment made by the first section of thisAot shall be effective in the case of generalincreases in monthly benefits payable to in­dividuals under title II of the Social SecurityAct resulting from the enactment of prOVi­sions of law enacted after January 1971.

(b) For purposes of section 1122 of the So­cial Security Act (as added by the first sec­tion of this Act), any certification under sub­section (b) of such section on account ofany general increase in monthly benefits pay­able to individuals under title II of the SocialSecurity Act reSUlting from the enactment,prior to the enactment of this Act but afterJanuary 1971, shall be made at the earliestpracticable date after the enactment of thisAct and shall be effective with respect tomonths beginning 2 months after themonth of enactment of this Act.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, theplight ·of the elderly is of concern toevery American. America is great todaybecause of what our senior citizens havegiven our country. To the task of mak­ing America great, they have broughttheir intelligence, the sweat of theirbrows and the fruits of their imagina­tions.

They have given America its tradi­tional standards, its traditional values,and its traditional precepts.

In return for this, our senior citizenshave the right to ask that the Americandream be fulfilled for them as well asfor other generations. They have theright to decent housing, adequate medi­cal care and incomes above the povertylevel.

"In our constant preoccupation withyouth we sometimes forget our obliga­tion to our senior citizens and to brushaside their needs and requirements fora life of dignity and purposes. We can­not afford to let our elderly becomeAmerica's forgotten generation.

It is for these reasons that I supportthe amendment to the debt ceiling lim­itation legislation (H.R. 15390) now be­fore the Senate providing a 20-percentacross-the-board increase in social secu­rity benefits.

The necessity of this action is strong­ly compelling.

Of the more than 20 million Amer-

icans over the age of 65, almost 5 mil­lion live below the official poverty line.

An estimated 6 million live in sub­standard housing.

Only 17 percent are employed.And the likelihood of the elderly being

poor is about twice as great as for therest of our people. Approximately 20percent of all persons 65 or older-invivid contrast to 11 percent of our young­er people--now live in poverty.

Today, the median income for singleaged individuals is only $1,951 a year.Moreover, nearly 70 percent of all elderlywomen who live alone or with nonrela­tives exist on less than $50 a week.

The retirement income of "the aged isbeing squeezed and stretched. They needhelp. Adding a few dollars to to theirsmall monthly social security checks isnot enough to provide the compassionand help required in these inflationarytimes.

What is needed now is a signiflcantincrease in social security benefits tomake a difference for our senior citi­zens. The 20-percent increase which Ihope this body will approve today willgo a long way to providing the decentincome for which they have waited solong.

In concrete terms, this amendmentwould raise monthly benefits for a typi­cal retired couple from an estimated $223to $268 a month. The average retiredworker's benefits would rise from an es­timated $133 a month to about $160.

One of the great advantages of thisapproach is that it would allow largenumbers of older Americans to escapefrom grinding poverty without the nec­essity of resorting to welfare. And itwould allow many senior citizens tomove up a rung or two on the economicladder.

Mr. President, I have had a continuingcommitment to the improvement of theliving conditions of America's seniorcitizens since I voted for the originalSocial Security and Railroad RetirementActs.

It was for these reasons, Mr. Presi­dent, that I cosponsored the originalamendment to H.R. 1 to raise social se­curity benefits by 20 percent.

Frankly, I would have preferred thatmethod of enacting this increase ratherthan the one at hand. The pending leg­islation to raise the debt limit is hardlythe appropriate vehicle for tIlis amend­ment.

But I am persuaded that there Is apressing need for a significant increasein social security benefits to make a sub­stantial improvement in the well-beingof America's senior citizens and, there­fore, I will vote for this legislation.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, more than550,000 people in the State of Tennesseerely heaVily, if not entirely, on benefitsprOVided by the Social Security Admin­istration. A recent survey by the WhiteHouse Conference on Aging revealed thatat least half of these citizens are livingat a bare subsistence level, some in seri­ous poverty. These are statistics that Ido not want to read again. It is an in­tolerable situation and one within thepower of this Congress to correct.

It is for this reason that I have can-

celed a long-scheduled appointment InChattanooga to remain in Washington tovote for a 20-percent increase 1n socialsecurity benefits today.

The needs of our elder citizens cannotand must not be ignored. I voted for a13-percent increase in these benefits in1967, a 15-percent increase in 1969, anda lO-percent increase in 1970. I will votetoday for an additional 20-percent in­crease. I am hopefUl that the sum ofthese increases will give these deservingcitizens the necessary ways and means tolive in full dignity.

One of the principal reasons for theneed for these periodic increases in bene­fits is the steady rise 1n the cost of living,which occurs even in times of economicstability. Inflation taxes cruelly thosewho live on fixed incomes. I have longadvocated a provision that would allowautomatic increases in social securitypayments to offset increases in the costof living. Such a provision makes eminentgood sense to me and might make it pos­sible for the Congress to avoid occasionalbattles over the amount of a proposedincrease. But in the absence of such anautomatic provision, increases are neces­sary, and I wholeheartedly support thisnew 20-percent increase in benefits. It isin the finest traditions of our country.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I am pleasedto join with Senator CHURCH in sponsor­ing this amendment to provide a sub­stantial and long overdue increase insocial security benefits to our country's20 million elderly.

The desperate economic situation ofolder Americans has been documentedto the Senate Special Committee onAging on many occasions. Time andtime again we have heard from seniorswho entered the ranks of the impov­erished only after they elected to retire.

We have heard of the necessity ofmaking choices in what to buy. Thesechoices were not between buying a newdress or a pair of shoes but betweenbuying a quart of milk and taking abus ride to see a relative or a friend.

We have heard from those who fre­quently walked great distances to savea few nickels on their groceries. Nickelsand pennies are important to seniorsfor whom shopp1ng for bargains hasbecome a way of life.

The grim hard facts are that morethan 5 million out of our 20 millionelderly have incomes placing them be­low the poverty line. The number ofelderly poor has actually been Increas­ing with 200,000 more seniors belowthe line than in 1968.

Throughout the United States theelderly are twice as likely to be pooras :rounger persons. While 1 out of 4senior adults is poor only 1 out of 9younger and middle-aged persons fallsinto this category.

The majority of our elderly have onlytheir social security checks to rely uponand thousands try to live on less than$100 a month. In fact, the average socialsecurity payment for a retired workeris only $166 a month or about $1,596 ayear. As we have noted many timesthis is almost $400 below the povertythreshhold ($1,980); Social security ben­efits for widows average only about

23510 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE June 30,1972

$1,368 a year which is more than $600below the poverty standard.

Retired couples on the average re­ceived $223 in benefits last year or $2,676a year. This compares with the $4,776that the Department of Labor indicatesis necessary for a retired couple to main­tain a moderate standard of living.

By any standard these are desperatestatistics and one has to wonder howour seniors can manage on such meagerincome. Here again the hearings of theSenate Committee on Aging provide ananswer. When asked this question oneelderly woman reSpOnded: "I do not. 1do not entertain, 1 do not go out withfriends, 1 do not eat in restaurants, 1do not go to movies. 1 do not buy clothes,1 do not repair the house. 1 do not ridethe subways or buses. 1 do not eat a lotand 1 do not take care of my health as 1should."

For my part 1 am pleased that somany Members in the Congress havebegun to recognize the dilemma of in­adequate income that confronts olderAmericans. I am glad that the pre­vailing attitude of the Senate is nolonger that we have satisfied our re­sponsibility to our elders with socialsecurity and medicare. The innadequacyof social security should be most ap­parent to all of us who have voted stop­gap increases in social security benefitsthese past few years.

We have understood all along thatthese increases really just brought theelderly only enough to equal the rise inthe cost of living. Many of us have recog­nized the necessity to do more but havebeen constrained to accept these mini­mal increases in the name of fiscal re­sponsibility. It is time now for a majorincrease in social security benefits tolift thousands of our elderly from theranks of the impoverished. A 20-per­cent increase in benefits is fiscally re­sponsible and will not result in anyadditional deficit spending.

Under this proposal the average bene­fit would increase from $133 to $161 andthe average benefit check for a retiredcouple would be raised from $223 to$270. I believe this is most desirableand 1 hope the Senate will agree to ex­tend these benefits immediately.

Later this year the Congress mustface up to its responsibility for medi­care and welfare reform. These measuresare extremely important and should begiven full debate. However, 1 do not be­lieve that the elderly should have towait for the Congress to resolve theseissues before receiving a long overdueand badly needed increase in social se­curity benefits.

Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, 1 supportwholeheartedly the 20-percent increasein social security. Our retirees haveawaited this action for too long a time.These added social security dollars willdo much to make their economic lifemore bearable. . _

1 just wish the raise had come lastyear when I introduced by amendmentto pass both social security increases andmedicare reform, separate from H.R. I,the welfare reform bill.

In the last several days, there has beenmuch debate about the need for attach-

ing social security improvements legisla­tion to the debt ceiling increase. Indeed,as the distinguished Senator from Idaho(Mr. CHURCH) said on the fioor yester­day, in explanation of why such legisla­tion had to be attached to the debt ceil­ing increase, it is important to get onwith social security improvements asrapidly as possible. 1 agree 100 percent.His position has been echoed by manyothers in this body.

1 find the whole subject most interest­ing because, as Senators might recall,during the last session of Congress, Iof­fered an amendment to the tax bill toprovide for social security benefit in­creases and for improvements in medi­care payments. My amendments last yearwas tabled, tabled with the support ofsome of the very same Senators who arenow most vocal in their urgings for im­mediate action to attach social securityimprovements to the debt ceiling bill.

When 1 introduced my amendment lastyear, 1 warned this Chamber that some­thing had to be done immediately to pro­vide relief to the older American. 1 statedat that time that the Congress could notcontinue to hold improvement to thesocial security system hostage to abasically unpopular welfare reform plan.The response that was given to me atthat time by some of my colleagues wasthat, very clearly this year, social securitylegislation would be reported out of com­mittee as part of H.R. 1 and our seniorcitizens would get the increases theydeserve.

That, of .course, has not happened.What has happened is what 1 cautionedagainst last year; namely, that social se­curity benefit increases upon which wecan all agree are still bottled up, still heldhostage to whatever final welfare re­form plan is approved by Congress.

In November, when we were consider­ing the tax bill, to which I attempted toadd my amendment, the distinguishedmajority leader (Mr. MANSFIELD) said,and I quote-from proceedings, Novem­ber 17, 1971:

If you bring In the socia.! securLty Issuesand welfare Issues as amendments to thisblll, which now has :the highest priority andwhich affects all the population of this Na­tion-the social security recipients and thepoor, as well as many others-you endangerthe possiblllty of getting out a blll and re­storing the economy within a reasonableperiod of time.

To quote again:So I would hope that those who are offering

social security amendments would keep inmind that they are just hindering passageof this blll; ;they are tending to tear apartH.R. I, which should remain as a package.

Moreover, in no uncertain terms, Iwas told that if my amendment was nottabled, it would be amended to death.

I am greatly encouraged that the Sen­ate has now come around to my thinking,and at long last is separating social secu­rity from welfare.

Social security benefit increases ofany amount are needed and needed im­mediately. This is true today-it wastrue back last year when I offered myamendment to the tax bill.

There is no one in this Chamber whocan deny the plight of the elderly Amer-

ican who has been left to his own meagerresources, ofttimes shut off from themainstream of life. Senior citizens havebeen denied an adequate existence andhave been the principal victims of infla­tion. The time to correct this situationhas long since passed. Neglect for seniorcitizens has resulted from a continueduse of social security legislation as a po­litical football. Time and time again,provisions designed to improve and up­grade social security coverage and medi­care coverage has been attached to un­popular bills in the hopes that these ur­gently needed and necessary reformswould serve as a savior to the less popu­lar causes. And time and time again, so­cial security improvements have beendelayed so that they might coincide withthe right set of partisan political circum­stances. By passing the automatic bene­fit increases based on cost-of-living fac­tors included in the amendffients we canput a stop to such tactics.

I submit to the Senate that the timehas come to end this shabby treatment ofthose people who work so hard to makethis country the greatest Nation onearth.

I would hope that the passage of socialsecurity improvements today will be thelast time that such improvements are de­layed far past the point of need for po­litical reasons. I therefore urge adoptionof these amendments.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,at the request of the distinguished Sena­tor from Georgia, I ask unanimous con­sent that a statement by him relative tothe Church amendment be printed inthe RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR GAMBaELL

I am particularly pleased that the SenateLs proceeding today to the consideration ofthe 20 percent across-the-board socia.! se­curity Increase. I a-m a cosponsor of thisamendment which prOVides a well-deservedincrease in benefits to our senior citizens.ThLs Is an especially meritorIous proposalin light of assurances from the AdvisoryCouncil on SocIal SecurIty and from the dLs­tingulshed Chairman of the House Ways andMeans Committee, Mr. Mllls, that the meas­ure can be financed by an Increase in thepayroll tax rate less than that already sched­uled under present law.

On April 11 of thIs year, I spoke on theSenate floor of the problems facing thesenior citizens of our Nation and of mysupport for the much needed reform of oursocIal security system. Prior to that I hadsupported contInued funding for a nutritionprogram for the elderly, and on March 2,responding to the HousIng needs of oursenior citizens, I introduced S.3233, theOlder Americans Housing Act of 1972.

We have had conferences, we have hadproposals, we have had promises. And whUethese efforts are sIncere, the time for actionhas come. The problems facing the elderlyare immediate-they are having di1licultymaintaining :the basIc necessities of life.

Of our Nation's 20 million senior citizens,half are living at or near the poverty level,and that number is Increasing. Those living .on a fixed income are hit hardest by infla­tion. Citizens who have worked and contrib­uted to assure that our Nation Is great arenow having dllficulty stretchIng theIr retire­ment savings to meet rising Pr!ces, increasedtaxes and medical expenses.

June 30, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 23511

PackwoodPastorePearsonPellPercyProxm1reRandolphRlblccffSchwelkerSmithSparkmanSpongStaffordStevensStevensonSymingtonTalmadgeThurmondTunneyWelckerWllllamsYoung

HruskaJordan, IdahoRothScottStennisTaftTower

AllottBellmonBrockBuckleyByrd,

Harry F., Jr.Cotton

that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.ANDERSON) , the Senator from Idaho (Mr.CHURCH), the Senator from Georgia(Mr. GAMBRELL), the Senator from Alas­ka (Mr. GRAVEL), and the Senator fromMinnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY) are neces­sarily absent.

I further announce that the Senatorfrom Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER) and theSenator from North Carolina (Mr. JOR­DAN) are absent on official business.

I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Georgia.(Mr. GAMBRELL) would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Alaska.(Mr. GRAVEL) is paired with the Sen­ator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER).

If present and voting, the Senatorfrom Alaska would vote "nay" and theSenator from Iowa would vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from Min­nesota (Mr. HUMPHREY) is paired withthe Senator from Colorado (Mr. DOM­INICK).

If present and voting, the Senatorfrom Minnesota would vote "nay" andthe Senator from Colorado would vote"yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Colorado (Mr. DOMINICK),the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLD­WATER) , the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.HANSEN), the Senator from Iowa (Mr.MILLER), and the Senator from Ohio(Mr. SAXBE) are necessarily absent.

The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.MUNDT) is absent because of illness.

On this vote, the Senator from Colo­rado (Mr. DOMINICK) is paired with theSenator from Minnesota (Mr. HUM­PHREY) . If present and voting, the Sena­tor from Colorado would vote "yea" andthe Senator from Minnesota would vote"nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Iowa(Mr. MILLER) is paired with the Sen­ator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL). If pres­ent and voting, the Senator from Iowa.would vote "yea" and the Senator fromAlaska would vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 20,nays 66, as follows:

[No. 267 Leg.)YEA6-20

CurtisDoleErvinFanninFlongGrlfllnGurney

NAY8-66Aiken HartkeAllen HatfieldBaker HolllngsBa~'h HughesBeall InouyeBentsen JacksonBible JavltsBoggs KennedyBrooke LongBurdick MagnusonByrd. Robert C. MansfieldCannon MathiasCase McClellanChiles McGeeCook McGovernCooper McIntyreCranston MetcalfEagleton MondaleEastland MontoyaFulbright MossHarris MuskleHart Nelson

period. Inflation and other aspects of theeconomy are being stabilized, and it isimportant· not to take actions that willupset this trend. The Church amendmentwill increase the national debt by $2.1billion over the President's proposal forthe flscal year of 1973, and couId well addnew fuel to the inflation which has al­ready had so cruel an effect on those whomust live on fixed incomes.

Finally, I wish to call attention to thefact that the Senate Finance Committeehas reported out legislation which we willbe considering after the recess. It is legis­lation which wlll, first, enact a 10-percentacross-the-board increase to compensatefor the rise in the cost of living; second,provide additional increases to relieve thehardships experienced in certain cate­gories of beneficiaries; and third, pro­Vide for automatic adjustments in bene­fits to reflect changes in the cost of living.

To my mind, this approach meets theneeds of the elderly in a manner far moreequitable to all elements of the popula­tion than the one contained in theChurch amendment.

YEAS AND NAYS ON DENNETT AMENDMENT

Mr. President, I suggest the absence ofa quorum on my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to callthe roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that it be inorder to order the yeas and nays on theamendment by Mr. BENNETT.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? The Chair hears no objection,and it is so ordered.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask for the yeas and nays on the Ben­nett amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I suggest the absence of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will call the roll.The legislative clerk proceeded to call

the roll.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The hour of 9:30 having arrived, theSenate will now proceed to vote on theamendment offered by the Senator fromUtah (Mr. BENNETT). The yeas and nayshave been ordered, and the clerk will callthe roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to callthe roll.

Mr. BENNETT (when his name wascalled). On this vote I have a pair withthe senior Senator from Idaho (Mr.CHURCH). If he were present and voting,he would vote "nay." If I were permittedto vote, I would vote ·'yea." I thereforewithhold my vote.

The rollcall was conclUded.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

As a generous Nation we have respondedto those in need throughout the world. It isnow time to turn our attention to those athome. This proposed increase would raise themonthly benefits for a typical retired couplefrom $229 to $269 and the income of theaverage retired single person from $133 to$162. It is my understanding that, If thisamendment is successful and If this increaseis signed into law by the President prior toJuly 10, new benefits would be reflected inOctober social security checks. That is nonetoo soon.

On April 20, I Introduced my Workingman'sElll of Rlghts--10 basic common sense provi­sions which express the rights of all Ameri­cans who support and defend the Americansystem. One of these--the right ,to llve andwork In dlgnlty---can best be fulfilled forelderly Americans by assuring that they cancontinue to contribute and to enjoy life withassurance of a mln1ma1 Income. After all,these are citizens not only wI,th valuable ex­perience and talents, but also with moretime to contribute their service. I describedthe provisions of my Workingman's Elll ofRights as themes upon which our Nationwas built and with which we must rebuildfor the future. And It Is with rebUilding inmind-In remedying our previous neglect ofour senior cltizens--that I support this In­crease in social security benefits. I am hope­ful for the immediate and favorable enact­ment of this amendment.

Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, theprinciple upon which social security isbased is that of an earned right to oldage benefits. This principle implies obli­gations both to those currently receiv­ing benefits and to those who are payingsocial security taxes.

Individuals now receiving social secu­rity benefits made payments into the sys­tem with the understanding that thosedonated funds would support them intheir later years. The Congress has anobligation to insure that inflation doesnot erode the value of social securitybenefits. It is for this reason that benefitshave already been increased flrst by 10percent and then by 15 percent sincePresident Nixon assumed office.

Since the last of these increases wasenacted a year ago, there has been a fur­ther increase in the cost of living of 5.8percent, which is why I voted in favor ofthe 10-percent increase in social secu­rity benefits proposed by Senator BEN­NETT. The Church amendment, however,provides an increase of more than threetimes the amount needed to overcomethe effects of inflation.

The funding for this increase will beprovided by the 97 million individUalswho pay social security taxes, with thelargest burden borne by the middle-in­come workers, who already pay 10.4 per­cent of their pay checks in old age, sur­vivors, disability, and hospital insur­ance-OASDHI-taxes. To finance ear­lier increases in benefits, those earning$10,800 a year had their social securitytaxes raised from $374 to $594 in 1971.

Furthermore, the Pay Board guidelinesplace a 5.5 percent limit on wage in­creases for American workers. It is clear­ly unfair to ask these people to simul­taneously finance an across-the-boardincrease of 20 percent in social securitybenefits.

Economically, the Nation is at a critical

23512 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE June 1972PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAm, AS

PREVIOUSLY RECORDED-lBennett, for.

NOT VOTING-13Anderson Goldwater MUlerChurch Gravel MundtDominick Hansen SaxbeEllender HumphreyGambrell Jordan. N.C.

SO Mr. BENNETT'S amendment was re­jected.

ORDER OF BUSINESSThe PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

HARRY F. BYRD. JR.). Under the previousorder, the senate will now proceed im­mediately to vote on the amendment ofthe Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH).

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askfor the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­

ate is not in order. The Senate will notproceed until order is restored.

The question is on agreeing to theamendment of the Senator from Idaho(Mr. CHURCH) . On this question, the yeasand nays have been ordered, and theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. BENNETT (when his name was

called) . Mr. President, on this vote I havea pair with the senior Senator fromIdaho (Mr. CHURCH). If he were presentand voting, he would vote "yea." If Iwere at liberty to vote, I would vote"nay." Therefore. I withhold my vote.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announcethat the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.ANDERSON) , the Senator from Idaho (Mr.CHURCH) , the Senator from Georgia (Mr.GAMBRELL) ,the Senator from Alaska(Mr. GRAVEL), and the Senator fromMinnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), are neces­sarily absent.

I further announce that the Senatorfrom North Carolina (Mr. JORDAN) andthe Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLEN­DER) are absent on official business.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Alaska (Mr.GRAVEL), the Senator from Minnesota(Mr. HUMPHREY), and the Senator fromGeorgia (Mr. GAMBRELL) would eachvote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Colorado (Mr. DOMINICK),the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLD­WATER) , the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.HANSEN). the Senator from Iowa (Mr.MILLER), and the Senator from Ohio(Mr. SAXBE) are necessarily absent.

The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.MUNDT) is absent because of illness.

If present and voting, the Senatorfrom Iowa (Mr. MILLER) would vote"nay."

The result was announced-yeas 82,nays 4, as follows:

INo. 268 Leg.]YEAS-82

AMENDMENT NO. 1313

have order in the Senate? I cannot hear.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

HARRY F. BYRD, JR.). The Senate willplease be in order. The Senate will notproceed until the Senate is in order.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, if I maymake a comment, it is simple courtesyto comply when the Presiding Officerasks for order. It shows disrespect to theChair for Senators to keep on talking.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator's point is well taken. The Senatorfrom Oklahoma will not proceed untilthe Senate is in order. The longer theSenate is delayed, the longer the Senatewill be in session this evening.

The Senate will not proceed until theSenate is in order. Those standing willplease take their seats.

The Senator from Oklahoma may pro­ceed.

Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I shalldelay the Senate only briefly. The dis­tinguished Senator from West Virginia(Mr. RANDOLPH) has an amendment tomy amendment which he wishes to offerat this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.HARRY F. BYRD, JR,). The Senate willplease be in order. Senators will pleasedesist from talking. The Senate will notproceed until Members take their seats,and until attaches take their seats. Wewill stay here all night, if necessary, untilthe Senate is in order. Those Senatorsand attaches who wish to keep talking,please leave the Chamber. Those nowstanding will please take their seats.

The Senator from Oklahoma may pro­ceed.

Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I yieldto the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.RANDOLPH).

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President. I sendto the desk an amendment in the formof a substitute and ask that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theamendment will be stated.

The assistant legislative clerk read theamendment as follows:

At the end of the bill. add the following:PROHIBITION AGAINST THE IMPOUNDMENT OF

FUNDS FROM THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

WHICH HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED ANDAPPROPRIATED

SEC. -. The extension prOVided in sec­tion 1 of this Act shall not take effect unlessall sums authorized to be apportioned bythe provisions of section 104 of title 23.United States Code. which have been au­thorized to be appropriated by the provisionsof Public Law 89-574, Public Law 90-495,and Public Law 91-605. for expenditureshall be released for obligation forthe purposes and projects as prOVided inthat title, by any officer or employee of anydepartment. agency. or instrumentality ofthe executive branch of the Federal Gov­ernment. except such specific sums as may bedetermined by the Secretary of the Treasury.after consultation with the Secretary ofTransportation. are necessary to be withheldfrom obligation for specific periods of time toassure that sufficient amounts will be avail­able In the highway trust fund to defraythe expenditures which will be reqUired tobe made from such fund.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will theSenator from West Virginia (Mr. RAN­DOLPH) please indicate whether this is asubstitute for the amendment of theSenator from Oklahoma.

Jordan, Idaho

ScottSmithSparkmanSpongStaffordStennisStevensStevensonSymingtonTaftTalmadgeThurmondTowerTunneyWelckerWilliamsYoung

Fannin

McGovernMcIntyreMetcalfMandaleMontoyaMossMuskleNelsonPackwoodPastorePearsonPellPercyProxmireRandolphRiblcoffRothSchwelker

NAY8-4

So Mr.agreed to.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote by which theamendment was agreed to.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I move to laythat motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair recognizes the Senator from Okla­homa.

AndersonChurchDominickEllenderGambrell

BuckleyCUrtis

PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAm,AS PREVIOUSLY RECORDED-I

Bennett. against.NOT VOTING-13

Goldwater MillerGravel MundtHansen SaxbeHumphreyJordan. N.C.

CHURCH'S amendment was

Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I call UPmy amendment at the desk and ask thatit be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theamendment will be stated.

The assistant legislative clerk read theamendment, as follows:

At the end of the Act, add the following:PROHIBITION AGAINST THE IMPOUNDMENT OF

FUNDS FROM THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND­WHICH HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED AND APPRO­PRIATED

SEC. -. No part of any sums authorized tobe apportioned by the provisions of section104 of title 23. United States Code, whichhave been appropriated by Congress for ex­penditure shall be Impounded or Withheldfrom obligation. for the purposes and proJ­ects lIS provided In that title. by an officer oremployee of any department. agency. or in­strumentality of the executive branch of theFederal Government. except such specificsums as may be detennlned by the Secretaryof the Treasury. after consultation with theSecretary of Transportation. are necessary tobe withheld from obligation for specific pe­riods of time to assure that sufficientamounts will be available in the highwaytrust fund to defray the expenditures whichwill be reqUired to be made from such fund.

Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, theframers of our Constitution wisely di­vided our Government into three sepa­rate and supposedly coequal depart­ments: executive, jUdicial, and legislative.To the legislative was entrusted thepower to make laws and, in theory atleast, neither of the other branches canpass any law, no matter how necessary,nor repeal a law no matter how trouble­some.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, may we

GurneyHarrisHartHartkeHatfieldHollingsHruskaHughesInouyeJacksonJavltsKennedyLongMagnusonMansfieldMathiasMcClellanMcGee

Brock CooperBrooke CottonBurdick CranstonByrd. Dole

Harry F., Jr. EagletonByrd, Robert C. EastlandCannon ErvinCase FangChiles FUlbrightCook Griffin

AikenAllenAllottBakerBayhBeallBellmonBentsenBibleBoggs