LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO ADDRESS THE "NOTCH" ISSUE
A Statement Prepared for The Commission on the Social Security "Notch" Issue
by David Koitz
Specialist in Social Legislation, Congressional Research Service
Mr. Chairman and members of the Notch Commission, I was asked to provide you with a summary of proposals that have been offered over the years to address the notch issue.
In my 15 years with the Congressional Research Service, I have seen few social security and medicare issues that rival the notch in generating congressional requests to us for assistance. For 10 years, it has caused a persistent and sometimes very heavy workload. Perhaps the heaviest was during the 102nd Congress (i.e., 1991-92), when, from my perspective, the interest of Members of Congress to do something was at its peak. During that Congress, H.R. 917, a bill introduced by Rep. Edward Roybal to alter the benefit rules for people born from 1917 to 1926, attracted 289 cosponsors. Its companion bill in the Senate, introduced by Sen. Terry Sanford, had 44 cosponsors. Although other notch bills dating back to the 97th Congress also had large numbers of cosponsors, none attracted as many as these two. Even virtually identical bills introduced in the current 103rd Congress, H.R. 1883 by Rep. Peter DeFazio and S. 173 by Sen. Dennis DeConcini, have gained notably less support.
Since 1981, At least 113 Notch-Related Bills Have Been Introduced. None Has Achieved Congressional Approval
In a computer search of the 8 Congresses since passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1977-the legislation from which the notch issue arose-we identified 113 notch-related bills. Ten of them attracted more than 50 cosponsors. We also found that no fewer than 16 hearings were held on the issue from 1979 to 1992--12 of them by the now defunct House Select Committee on Aging. However, the large number of bills, cosponsors, and hearings should not be read as an indication of broad scale support for change or the remedies that have been proposed. Discharge petitions--to move pending bills from the Ways and Means Committee to the House floor for a vote--were filed for the most heavily cosponsored notch bills in the 99th through 102nd Congresses. None was successful, and even in the 102nd Congress, when H.R. 917 picked up 2/3s of the House as cosponsors, less than 100 members, and possibly as few as 50, were reported to have sought to discharge the bill. About the only clear thing these large numbers suggest is that the notch issue has not suffered from a lack of congressional interest and debate.
In 1977, There was Little Recognition That Benefit Disparities Would Arise
At the time that the 1977 Amendments were taken up, the social security system was facing severe financial problems. The primary purpose of the amendments was to resolve them, largely through changes in how benefits were computed. There was a wide consensus then that the existing benefit rules were greatly flawed and needed changing. At the time of enactment, I was a social security analyst in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and I followed the legislation fairly closely. In my recollection of the development of the changes, I know of no consideration given to the possibility that large benefit disparities would arise. I know that Bob Myers, a member of your panel, had testified at hearings in 1977 that people becoming eligible before and after the effective date of the changes could be treated differently, but I know of nothing, nor found any record, to indicate that members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees had any discussion of the subject before to enactment of the legislation.
Proposals in the 96th and 97th Congresses--Most Sought Options From the Secretary of Health and Human Services
In our computer search we found no bills dealing with the notch issue in the first Congress following enactment of the changes--i.e., the 96th Congress. This is not to suggest that there was no awareness of the problem. I do recall that early in 1978, just a few months after enactment, staff of the Social Security Administration (SSA) discussed the possibility of benefit disparities with Departmental staff. And in a March, 1978 Social Security Bulletin, the then chief actuary of SSA published figures showing that people retiring at age 65 in 1982 (i.e., who were born in 1917) could get smaller benefits than people retiring at age 65 in 1981 (i.e., who were born in 1916). Mr. Myers, himself, may have published a piece or two on the issue, and by 1979 there was some awareness of the potential disparities emerging on the Hill.
The Ways and Means Committee took up the issue in a hearing in September 1979, at which time testimony was given by Larry Thompson, who now is the Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, and by Bob Myers, who at the time was retired as SSA's chief actuary and was consulting privately. Speaking for the Carter Administration, Mr. Thompson took the position that while disparities would arise from the new benefit rules and that there were at least theoretical ways to deal with them, no changes should be made. Mr. Myers, on the other hand, offered what I believe was the first proposal to deal with the issue--i.e., the first to be presented publicly. Simply speaking, he would have restrained benefits in certain cases for people grandfathered under the old rules. In contrast to most subsequent proposals introduced in later Congresses, he would have deliberalized the rules for some people born in 1916 and earlier who continued to work after becoming eligible. No one would have had his or her benefits reduced, but the future benefits of those affected would not have risen as much as under current law. He projected cumulative savings for the 1980-89 period of $8 billion in benefits alone, not counting the additional interest that would have accrued to the social security trust funds. He expressed the view that "the change would not be a deliberalization, but rather a correction of inconsistent, over-generous treatment of one category of persons." His idea was never introduced in bill form.
From my own experience as staff detailed to the Ways and Means Committee during the 96th Congress, I know of no serious consideration given then to the notch issue. The concerns that dominated the Committee's social security agenda largely revolved around the disability program and financial problems that appeared to be looming again for the overall system. I do recall that in 1981 Mr. Myers, who at the time was back at SSA as Deputy Commissioner, developed an updated version of his 1979 proposal. SSA's actuaries estimated benefit savings of $2 billion from it over the 1982-87 period. It was shown to us in draft form, but again no action was taken. I do not recall exactly why it wasn't acted on, but I do remember that the notch was considered an extremely complicated matter and that there were concerns about "opening up" the 1977 legislation.
While the 1981 Myers' proposal never found its way into bill form, there were bills introduced in the 97th Congress to deal with the issue. Early on, the most prevalent type called for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Commissioner of Social Security to develop options for the Congress to consider. This approach was taken in 5 of 7 notch bills sponsored in that Congress, the first of which--perhaps the very first notch bill--was introduced by Rep. Clarence Long of Maryland. The first bill to call for changes in the benefit rules directly, H.R. 5469, was introduced by Rep. Jack Brinkley of Georgia on Feb. 8, 1982. It attempted to set a floor so that benefit levels resulting from the new rules would not cause replacement rates--i.e., "first-year" benefits expressed as a percent of final year's earnings--to fall more than 5 percent from those of people retiring in 1979 under the old rules. This had been the expressed intent of the 1997 changes as they applied to workers who always earned average earnings. However, H.R. 5469 was complicated and would not have been administrable in the form it was introduced. It couldn't even be priced out. It picked up 30 cosponsors that year, and was reintroduced in 4 separate bills in the 98th Congress. Another bill, H.R. 6637, introduced by Rep. Dan Mica, would have raised benefits to "old law" levels for recipients who received less under the new rules. None of these bills was acted upon.
Proposals in the 98th Congress--Specific, But Very Costly, Bills Emerged
The issue took off in the 98th Congress, boosted by a "Dear Abby" column in September 1983 and a persistent concern about the notch in the House Select Committee on Aging. Between March and October, 1984, that Committee held 4 days of hearings on the issue. Following introduction of a number of bills calling again for the Secretary to develop options, Rep. Barney Frank introduced two bills, one of which, H.R. 1965, might be considered the first attempt to compromise on the issue. It called for a 4 percent a year benefit increase for 3 years (i.e., up to a 12 percent increase) for people born after 1916 who delayed receiving benefits when they reached age 62. Its benefit costs were estimated to be $27 billion for the 1984-90 period.
Later, Mr. Roybal, who had become Chairman of the House Aging Committee, and Mr. Frank introduced H.R. 4093, and by the end of the 98th Congress, that bill had gained 62 cosponsors. Like H.R. 1965, it would have liberalized benefits for people born after 1916. However, it took a more refined approach. It attempted to "phase in" the 1977 rules more gradually than current law, and in so doing, it set the stage for the most prominent notch bills to follow over the next 10 years.
Basically, current law provides that for people born during the 5-year period, 1917 to 1921, benefits are computed using either the new rules or the old ones with some limits. The recipient then gets the higher of the two. Rep. Roybal proposed that the old rules be opened up to everyone born in 1917 or later if they had 27 "quarters of coverage" before 1979, and that the limits on the old rules be loosened. In using the old rules, a person cannot get credit for earnings obtained at age 62 or later nor for benefit increases before that age. Mr. Roybal proposed that up to 3 years of "age 62 to 64" earnings be used (not to exceed $29,700 per year), and that all benefit increases after 1978 be counted whether occurring before or after age 62. He also shortened the period over which earnings were to be averaged. SSA's actuaries estimated that the bill would increase benefit payments by $93 billion over the 1983-90 period, including retroactive payments back to 1979. No estimates were given for the amount of interest the trust funds would lose. They also projected that the bill would have a long-run average cost of 0.4 percent of payroll, or about $11 billion per year in terms of today's taxable payroll.
An identical bill was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Roger Jepsen. Another bill by Sen. Mattingly, S. Con. Res. 62, again calling for the development of options by the Secretary, gathered 32 cosponsors. Despite the large number of cosponsors for the Roybal and Mattingly bills, none of the 21 notch bills introduced in the 98th Congress was acted on.
Proposals in the 99th Congress--Support For Expensive Remedies Grows; Senate Bill Calls for a Study
Mr. Roybal re-introduced his proposal in the 99th Congress--this time as H.R. 1917-- and again it was the most popular notch-remedy bill. It attracted 174 cosponsors. An identical bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. D'Amato, S. 1060, attracted 8 cosponsors. Revised estimates done early in 1987 put the benefit costs of the two bills at $243 billion through 1995 and $473 billion through the year 2000. Another popular bill, again calling for a study, was introduced by Rep. Chris Smith. It picked up 93 cosponsors. No action was taken on any of these bills, nor on the 17 others that had been introduced, and a discharge petition filed by Rep. Austin Murphy, to move H.R. 1917 out of the Ways and Means Committee, was unsuccessful. However, there was action in the Senate where Sen. Grassley gained approval of the Finance Committee to add a measure calling for a notch study to the Committee's 1985 budget reconciliation recommendations. The measure passed the Senate as part of H.R.3128, but was dropped later by House-Senate conferees.
Proposals in the 100th Congress--Less Costly, But Still Expensive, Options Are Pursued. Sponsors Include Two Members of The Ways and Means Committee
In the 100th Congress, Mr. Roybal introduced a less costly version of H.R. 1917. Instead of opening up the old rules to everyone born after 1916, the new bill limited the liberalizations to those born from 1917 to 1926. It further would have allowed all earnings obtained at age 62 and later and benefit increases prior to age 62 to be counted. However, the amount so computed was then to be reduced on a sliding scale basis, starting with a 6 percent reduction for those born in 1917, up to a maximum of 33 percent for those born in 1926. Simply put, the later you became eligible during the new transition, the less generous the bill would be. Like previous versions of H.R. 1917, the new bill would have been retroactive to 1979. In contrast to the previous version, its estimated benefit cost was $86 billion, 1987 to 1996, instead of $280 billion. It also had a much smaller long-range cost of 0.08 percent of payroll (i.e., $2 billion per year in terms of today's payroll), in contrast to the previous version's 0.35 to 0.40 percent. By the close of the Congress, the new version of H.R. 1917 picked up 161 cosponsors. The old version was kept alive by Senator D'Amato, who introduced it in a slightly expanded form as S. 225. It picked up 14 Senate cosponsors. Its estimated benefit cost was $303 billion, 1988 to 1996.
A similar, but less costly version of the new H.R. 1917, was introduced in October 1987 by Senator Sanford; S 1830. It would have extended the old rules to more people than the new H.R. 1917--i.e., those born through 1929 instead of 1926. However, it would have allowed only 4 additional years of earnings to be counted, and only up to $29,700 per year. It also would have applied a sliding scale reduction factor, similar to that used in the new H.R. 1917 to reduce the generosity of its new rules, but its reduction rate was based not only on when people were born but when they began receiving benefits. Simply stated, the later they became eligible and the later they sought benefits, the larger the reduction. It further limited retroactive payments to $1,000, and, unlike any other notch bill, it precluded benefit recomputations for people who worked past age 70 if they became eligible before 1979. Its estimated benefit cost was $68 billion, 1988 to 1996, and 0.07 percent of payroll in the long run. It picked up 17 Senate cosponsors.
Also notable in this Congress was that for the first time, two members of the Ways and Means Committee became advocates for a remedy. On the Democratic side, Rep. Harold Ford introduced H.R. 3788, a bill identical to Sen. Sanford's. He picked up 60 cosponsors. On the Republican side, Rep. Daub, perceiving that the high cost of other bills kept them from being considered, took a much less expensive approach in H.R. 1721. As with current law, he would have confined use of the old rules to people born from 1917-21, but would have allowed them to count 3 additional years of earnings. He then would have used a sliding scale reduction factor to reduce the generosity of his new rules. No retroactive benefits would have been provided. He picked up 45 cosponsors, and Sen. John Heinz introduced an identical bill in the Senate, S. 1917. The estimated benefit cost of this approach was $24 billion, 1988 to 1996, and 0.02 percent of payroll in the long run.
Again, despite the large number of cosponsors of these bills, no action was taken on any notch bill in the 100th Congress. A discharge petition on the new version of H.R. 1917, filed again by Rep. Austin Murphy, failed to get the requisite 218 supporters.
Proposals in the 101st Congress--the Costs of the Most Popular Bills Are Reduced Again. A Measure Reaches the Senate Floor
In the 101st Congress, Rep. Roybal again sponsored what was to become the most popular notch bill, H.R. 917. He again modified the proposal to reduce its cost, largely by eliminating retroactive payments. He also increased the sliding scale reduction factors to be used in determining the new benefits. The estimated benefit cost of this bill was $54 billion, 1990 to 1998, in contrast to the $86 billion cost, 1988 to 1996, of his previous bill.
This new version picked up 158 cosponsors.
Sen. Sanford again sponsored the most popular notch bill in the Senate, S. 1212. He also modified it to reduce its cost. Like H.R. 917, it was to apply to those born from 1917 to 1926 (instead of 1929 as he previously proposed), and his adjustment factors for age and delaying retirement were altered to make the new benefits less generous. The estimated benefit cost was $48 billion, 1990 to 1998. The bill picked 19 cosponsors, and a companion bill, H.R. 2707, introduced in the House by Rep. Bill Hefner, picked up 34 cosponsors.
A discharge petition on H.R. 917, filed this time by Rep. Barney Barney, again failed to get enough signatures. However, for the first time, Senate proponents got a measure to the Senate floor. On October 10, 1990, an amendment offered by Senators Harkin and Sanford attempted to attach Sen. Sanford's bill to a major social security tax proposal, S. 3167, sponsored by Sen. Moynihan. It failed when the Senate declined to set aside an objection raised by Sen. Stevens that the Moynihan measure itself violated the budget act.
Proposals in the 102nd Congress--2/3s of the House Cosponsored a Notch-Remedy Bill, But Change is Resisted. Congress Sets Up Notch Study Commission
In the 102nd Congress, Rep. Roybal and Sen. Sanford introduced identical bills, H.R. 917 and S. 567, which again represented scaled down versions of their previous bills. By the close of the Congress, H.R. 917 had picked up 289 cosponsors and S. 567, 44 cosponsors. These bills resembled the Sanford bill of the previous Congress but with no retroactive benefits and larger adjustment factors to reduce their generosity. The estimated benefit cost was $46 billion, 1992 to 2001. However, for the first time, the social security actuaries attempted to show the full future cost of the bills. They estimated that the cost through the year 2020, including interest lost to the trust funds, would be $300 billion. This approach took into account the remaining lifetimes of almost everyone benefiting from the bill (people born in 1926, the last age cohort to benefit, would be 94 in 2020). In 1992 dollars the cost was projected to be $100 billion. On an actuarial basis, it was 0.04 percent of payroll, or about $1.2 billion per year in terms of today's payroll.
As in previous Congresses, a discharge petition on H.R. 917, this time filed by Rep. Tom Lewis, failed again. In testimony before the Ways and Means Committee in July 1992, Rep. Lewis stated that only 42 members had signed the petition.
However, there was action in the Senate. Sen. Reid offered an amendment to the FY 1992 budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 121) to add outlays in the resolution to make room for later enactment of a notch bill. The measure passed by voice vote on Apr. 25, 1991. However, another amendment was passed later in the debate nullifying the Reid amendment by precluding changes that would reduce any social security surpluses during the period in which the budget resolution would be in effect. While the Reid amendment remained part of the language of the Senate-passed resolution, no outlays were added to the budget resolution totals when the conference committee reached its final agreement.
Another attempt to bring up legislation was made by Sen. Sanford on Sept. 10, 1992, when he offered an amendment to attach his notch-remedy bill, S. 567, to the FY 1993 Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations Act H.R. 5488. Senator Bentsen objected, arguing that the measure violated the social security "firewall" rules enacted as part of the 1990 budget agreement. Under those rules, as they apply to the Senate, any measure that would increase social security spending must be accompanied by counter measures to offset the increase with spending reductions or new taxes. When the objection was raised, 60 votes were needed to set the rules aside. The objection was sustained by a 49 to 49 vote, and the Sanford amendment failed. Later in the debate, however, the Senate adopted an amendment to set up a Notch Study Commission. In the subsequent conference with the House, an agreement was reached to establish a 12-member bipartisan commission with the President, the leadership of the Senate, and the leadership of the House, each appointing 4 members (the President was to designate the chairperson). The measure was signed into law by President Bush as P.L. 102-393.
Proposals in the 103rd Congress--New Sponsors, Same Bills, Still Significant But Less Support
Rep. Roybal and Sen. Sanford did not return to the 103rd Congress. However, almost identical bills to the Roybal/Sanford measures were introduced in the 103rd by Rep. DeFazio and Sen. DeConcini--H.R. 1883 and S. 173. Neither has yet seen action, and a discharge petition has not been filed. As of June 16, 1994, H.R. 1883 had gathered 120 cosponsors and S. 173 had 17.
This wraps up my summary. I'll be glad to respond to any questions you may have.
Major Notch Bills and Their Projected Costs--97th to 103rd Congress
|Proposal||Cost or Savings(Benefits in billions)||People Affected(by year of birth)|
1979 Myer's proposal
H.R. 546 (Brinkley)
- $8 (1980-87)
1916 & earlier
1917 & later
1981 Myer's proposal
H.R. 1965 (Frank)
H.R. 4093 (Roybal)
- $2 (1982-87)
+ $27 (1984-90)
+ $93 (1983-90)
1916 & earlier
1917 & later
1917 & later
H.R. 1917 and S. 1060
|same bill as H.R. 4093
of 98th Congress
H. R. 1917 (Roybal)
S. 225 (D'Amato)
S. 1830/H.R. 3788 (Sanford/Ford)
H.R. 1721, S. 1917 (Daub/Heinz)
1917 & later
H.R. 917 (Roybal)
S. 1212 and H.R. 2707 (Sanford/Hefner)
H.R. 917/S. 567 (Roybal/Sanford)
+$300 (1992-2020)* *including lost interest
H.R. 1883/S. 173 (DeFazio/DeConcini)
|+$43 (1994-2003)||same bills as H.R. 917/S. 567 of 102nd Congress|
Bills To Address the Social Security Notch Problem 97th to 103rd Congress
|Bill ------------------------- Introduced -------------------------------------- Notes|
H. Con. Res. 192 ---- 9/25/81 Rep. Long, C. (8 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con. Res. 222 ---- 11/17/81 Rep. Brinkley (65 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con. Res. 223 ---- 11/18/81 Rep. Nichols (1 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con. Res. 365 ---- 6/17/82 Rep. Mica, D. ---- requires options to be developed
H.R. 5469 ---- 2/8/82 Rep. Brinkley (30 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 6637 ---- 6/17/82 Rep. Mica, D. ---- alters benefit rules
S. Con. Res. 61 ---- 2/3/82 Sen. Mattingly (3 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con. Res. ---- 9 1/3/83 Rep. Long, C. (20 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con Res. 105 ---- 4/11/83 Rep. Lent (22 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con Res. 152 ---- 7/28/83 Rep. Moakley (7 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con. Res. 185 ---- 10/5/83 Rep. Burton, D. (3 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con Res. 279 ---- 3/27/84 Rep. Franklin (1 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. J. Res. 385 ---- 10/6/83 Rep. Smith, C. (18 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H.R. 1964 ---- 3/8/83 Rep. Frank, B. (2 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1965 ---- 3/8/83 Rep. Frank, B. (7 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 2454 ---- 4/11/83 Rep. Lent (22 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 3013 ---- 5/12/83 Rep. St. Germain (2 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 3859 ---- 9/12/83 Rep. Daniel, D. ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 3893 ---- 9/14/83 Rep. Quillen ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 3925 ---- 9/19/83 Rep. Perkins (1 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 3947 ---- 9/21/83 Rep. Fuqua (1 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 4093 ---- 10/5/83 Rep. Roybal (62 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 4351 ---- 11/10/83 Rep. Bilirakis (2 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 5005 ---- 3/1/84 Rep. Harrison ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 5106 ---- 3/13/84 Rep. Boner ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 5595 ---- 5/3/84 Rep. Morrison (4 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
S. Con. Res. 62 ---- 8/4/83 Sen. Mattingly (32 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
S. 2644 ---- 5/8/84 Sen. Jepsen (2 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H. Con. Res. 18 ---- 1/3/85 Rep. Moakley (4 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con. Res. 41 ---- 1/30/85 Rep. Lent (31 cosp) ---- requires options to tee developed
H. CON. Res. 42 ---- 1/30/85 Rep. Lloyd ---- requires options to be developed
H. CON. Res. 96 ---- 3/21/85 Rep. Mrazek (8 cosp) ---- sense of Congress res. to preserve COLAs for people born before 1917
H.R. 65 ---- 1/3/85 Rep. Bilirakis (13 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 401 ---- 1/3/85 Rep. Quillen ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 732 ---- 11/24/85 Rep. Wortley (8 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 920 ---- 2/4/85 Rep. Frank, B. ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 921 ---- 2/4/85 Rep. Frank, B. ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1118 ---- 2/19/85 Rep. Fuqua ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1744 ---- 3/26/85 Rep. Shelby ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1916 ---- 4/2/85 Rep. Smith, C. (93 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H.R. 1917 ---- 4/2/85 Rep. Roybal (174 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules. Discharge petition filed by Rep. Murphy, A.
H.R. 2426 ---- 5/8/85 Rep. Boner ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 3128 ---- 7/31/85 Rep. Rostenkowski ---- 1985 Budget Reconciliation Act (as passed by Senate, included provision to study notch. Later dropped by conferees)
H.R. 3254 ---- 9/10/85 Rep. Gray, K. ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 3359 ---- 10/11/85 Rep. Tauke (29 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H.R. 3503 ---- 10/3/85 Rep. Morrison ---- alters benefit rules
S. Con. Res. 24 ---- 3/5/85 Sen. Mattingly (17 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
S. 1060 ---- 5/2/85 Sen. D'Amato (8 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
S. 1473 ---- 7/18/85 Sen. Grassley (1 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H. Con. Res.11 ---- 1/6/87 Rep. Moakley (4 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con. Res. 15 ---- 1/6/87 Rep. Lent (66 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con. Res. 72 ---- 3/11/87 Rep. de La Garza ---- requires options to be developed
H.R. 121 ---- 1/6/87 Rep. Daub (16 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 227 ---- 1/6/87 Rep. Quillen ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 416 ---- 1/6/87 Rep. Roe (2 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1026 ---- 2/5/87 Rep. Bilirakis (6 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1027 ---- 2/5/87 Rep. Boner ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1057 ---- 2/9/87 Rep. Gray, K. (1 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1264 ---- 2/25/87 Rep. Morrison ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1357 ---- 3/3/87 Rep. Frank ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1359 ---- 3/3/87 Rep. Frank ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1721 ---- 3/19/87 Rep. Daub (45 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1917 ---- 4/2/87 Rep. Roybal (161 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules Discharge petition filed by Rep. Murphy, A.
H.R. 2107 ---- 4/21/87 Rep. Wortley (5 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 3788 ---- 12/17/87 Rep. Ford, H. (60 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 4057 ---- 3/2/88 Rep. Erdreich ---- requires options to be developed
H.R. 5159 ---- 8/4/88 Rep. Clement (2 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
S. 225 ---- 1/6/87 Sen. D'Amato (14 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
S. 1830 ---- 10/29/87 Sen. Sanford (17 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
S. 1917 ---- 12/3/87 Sen. Heinz ---- alters benefit rules
H. Con. Res. 7 ---- 1/3/89 Rep. Lent (9 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con. Res. 8 ---- 1/3/89 Rep. Moakley (1 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con. Res. 20 ---- 1/3/89 Rep. de la Garza (1 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H.R. 164 ---- 1/3/89 Rep. Emerson (1 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 181 ---- 1/3/89 Rep. Grandy (35 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 269 ---- 1/3/89 Rep. Lloyd (1 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 319 ---- 1/3/89 Rep. Quillen ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 350 ---- 1/3/89 Rep. Roe (3 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 917 ---- 2/7/89 Rep. Roybal (158 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules Discharge petition filed by Rep. Frank, B.
H.R. 1060 ---- 2/22/89 Rep. Ford, H. (25 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1152 ---- 2/28/89 Rep. Erdreich ---- requires options to be developed
H.R. 1298 ---- 3/8/89 Rep. Clement ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1806 ---- 4/12/89 Rep. Bilirakis (3 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 2368 ---- 5/16/89 Rep. Morrison, B. ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 2707 ---- 6/21/89 Rep. Hefner (34 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
S. 184 ---- 1/25/89 Sen. D'Amato (4 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
S. 1212 ---- 6/21/89 Sen. Sanford (19 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
S. 1917 ---- 11/17/89 Sen. Heinz ---- alters benefit rules
S. 2975 ---- 8/3/90 Sen. Reid ---- alters benefit rules
S. 3167 ---- 10/5/90 Sen. Moynihan ---- Social Security tax bill. An amendment by Sen. Harkin, Sanford, et al. to adopt measures similar to S. 1212 (Sanford's notch-remedy bill), fails when objections sets entire bill aside.
H. Con. Res. 4 ---- 1/3/91 Rep. Moakley (1 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con. Res. 30 ---- 1/11/91 Rep. Lent (3 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H. Con. Res. 121 ---- 4/12/91 Rep. Panetta ---- FY 1992 Budget Resolution. Amendent by Sen. Reid, to make room in budget resolution for later enactment of notch remedy, passes. It is effectively nullified
H. Con. Res. 274 ---- 2/5/92 Rep. Machtley (23 cosp) ---- sense of Congress resolution that tax bill should include provision to correct notch
H.R. 85 ---- 1/3/91 Rep. Emerson (5 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 207 ---- 1/3/91 Rep. Roe (3 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 403 ---- 1/3/91 Rep. Quillen ---- after benefit rules
H.R. 917 ---- 2/6/91 Rep. Roybal (289 cosp) ----alters benefit rules Discharge petition filed by Rep. Tom Lewis
H.R. 1127 ---- 2/27/91 Rep. Clement ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1371 ---- 3/12/91 Rep. Bilirakis (4 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1433 ---- 3/13/91 Rep. Erdreich (3 cosp) ---- requires options to be developed
H.R. 3825 ---- 11/20/91 Rep. Hutto (23 cosp) ---- establishes notch study commission (see H.R. 5488)
H .R. 5488 ---- 6/25/92 Rep. Roybal ---- ENACTED (P.L. 102-393)--FY Appropriations (includes provision added by Senate establishing notch study commission). Amendment by Sen. Sanford, et. al., to attach S. 567 to bill fails.
S. 567 ---- 3/6/91 Sen. Sanford (44 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
S. 964 ---- 4/25/91 Sen. McCain (8 cosp) ---- establishes notch study commission (see H.R. 5488)
S. 1815 ---- 10/8/91 Sen. Reid (1 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 181 ---- 1/5/93 Rep. Emerson (3 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 316 ---- 1/5/93 Rep. Quillen ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1447 ---- 3/24/93 Rep. Clement (1 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 1883 ---- 4/28/93 Rep. DeFazio (120 cosp) ---- alters benefit rules
H.R. 2518 ---- 6/24/93 Rep. Natcher ---- ENACTED (P.L. 103-112)--FY 1994 Labor/HHS Appropriations (provided appropriation for notch commission)
H.R. 2403 ---- 6/14/93 Rep. Hoyer ---- ENACTED (P.L. 103-123)--FY 1994 Treasury/Postal Service Appropriations (extended reporting date of commission's report)
S. 173 ---- 1/21/93 Sen. DeConcini ---- alters benefit rules
Hearings Held on the Social Security Notch, 1979-1992
House Select Committee on Aging. The Social Security Notch Problem. August 13, 1982
House Select Committee on Aging. Reductions in Social Security Benefit Levels: The Notch.
Vol. I: August 28, 1984
Vol. II: September 24, 1984
Vol. III: October 31, 1984
House Select Committee on Aging. Reductions Social Security Benefit Levels: The Notch.
Vol. IV: April 22, 1985
House Select Committee on Aging. Reductions in Social Security Benefits: The Notch.
Vol. V: October 15, 1985
House Select Committee on Aging. Reductions in Social Security Benefit Levels: The Notch.
Vol. VI: May 15, 1986
Vol. VII: June 16, 1986
Vol. VII: April 24, 1987
Senate Special Committee on Aging. Social Security Notch: Justice or Injustice? February 22, 1988
House Subcommittee on Social Security (Committee on Ways and Means). Social Security ANotch@ Issue. July 23 and 28, 1992