MANY MORE LIMIT THEIR HOURS TO AVOID THE SOCIAL SECURITY
           EARNINGS TEST AND ITS APPLICATION WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE
           DEDUCTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. A MANUFACTURER FROM
           BELLTON, MISSOURI SAID TO ME, SENIORS WORK UNTIL THEY REACH THE
           INCOME LIMIT, AND THEN THEY TELL THE EMPLOYER I WON'T BE HERE
           NEXT WEEK, I WILL SEE YOU NEXT JANUARY. WELL, WHAT DOES THIS DO
           TO OUR SITUATION WHERE WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH
           CONTINUITY AND WE WANT OUR MANUFACTURERS AND OUR ENTERPRISES TO

           BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SERVICE WITH CONTINUITY?
           WELL, HERE YOU HAVE AN EMPLOYER WHO IS LEFT IN THE LURCH HAVING
           TO ABSORB TRAINING COSTS OR HEAVY OVERTIME COSTS BECAUSE WE
           HAVE SAID TO SENIORS, YOU CAN'T WORK ON A REGULAR BASIS IF THAT
           REGULAR BASIS CARRIES YOU OVER THE INCOME LIMIT. THESE
           DECISIONS OF PEOPLE WORKING FOR QUITE A BIT OF TIME AND THEN
           PRECIPITOUSLY DROPPING OFF OR BEING UNDEREMPLOYED BY NOT

           WORKING VERY MUCH THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE YEAR, THESE DECISIONS
           ARE BASED ON THE ARBITRARY EARNINGS TEST LIMIT OF THE SOCIAL
           SECURITY ADMINISTRATION WHICH SAYS THAT IF YOU PASS A CERTAIN
           LIMIT, WE WILL START DEDUCTING FROM YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK.
           EVEN WHEN SENIORS WORK AROUND THE TEST THEY SUFFER UNEXPECTED
           COSTS. C.D. CLARK FROM FLORISSANT, MISSOURI, EARNED $25,000
           BEFORE TRYING TO LIMIT EARNINGS TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM THE
           TEST. HE PLANNED TO WORK ONLY EIGHT MONTHS SO HIS SOCIAL

           SECURITY BENEFITS WOULD NOT BE CUT. HE WOULD GET HIMSELF DOWN
           UNDER THE LIMIT. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION HOWEVER ASSUMED
           THAT HE WOULD EARN THE SAME AMOUNT, THE $ $25,000 HE EARNED
           PREVIOUSLY AND WITHHELD HIS SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS FROM JANUARY
           THROUGH MARCH OF THIS YEAR. WHEN MR. CLARK COMPLAINED TO THE
           SOCIAL SECURITY THAT HE HAD NOT REACHED THE INCOME LIMIT OF
           $17,000, HE WAS TOLD, "WE LIKE TO GET OUR MONEY UP FRONT." AS

           IF SOCIAL SECURITY WAS THEIR MONEY, AS IF IT WERE NOT A BENEFIT
           FOR WHICH MR. CLARK HAD PAID YEARS AND YEARS OF TAXES. NOT ONLY
           DO WE FIND PEOPLE HARMED FINANCIALLY, BUT SENIORS EXPRESSED TO
           ME OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THEIR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL
           WELL-BEING IS PINED UPON THEIR ABILITY TO KEEP WORKING. IN ST.
           JOSEPH, MISSOURI, WORKING IS A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE. SENIORS WHO
           DON'T WORK OFTEN LOSE THEIR SENSE OF SELF-WORTH SELF-WORTH.

           THIS POINT WAS NOT ONLY MADE TO ME IN ST. JOSEPH BUT ACROSS THE
           STATE. IN JOPLIN, FOR EXAMPLE, I WAS GIVEN THE SAME
           INFORMATION. TO THE EXTENT IT KEEPS 200,000 SENIORS FROM
           WORKING, IT HARMS THE MENTAL WELL-BEING OF THOSE 200,000
           MISSOURI SENIORS WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE ACTIVE. OVER AND OVER
           AGAIN THIS WAS A REFRAIN THAT I HEARD FROM SENIORS, WE WANT TO
           WORK, WE WANT TO BE ACTIVE, AND WE NEED TO BE. THE EARNINGS
           TEST CAN THREATEN LIVES IN OTHER WAYS AS WELL. LOIS MURPHY OF

           SLTUGS ST. LOUIS IS 65 AND WORKS PART-TIME AS A NURSE IN THE
           OPERATING ROOM. THE HOSPITAL SUFFERS FROM A LABOR SHORTAGE AND
           NEEDS HELP FROM WOMEN LIKE MRS. MURPHY WHO ARE EXPERIENCED AND
           WILLING AND DEDICATED TO WORK. BUT SHE LIMITS HER HOURS BECAUSE
           OF THE EARNINGS LIMIT. TAKING A SKILLED EXPERIENCED AND NEEDED
           WORKER OUT OF THE HOSPITAL, OUT OF THE CAPACITY OF CARING FOR
           OTHERED INDIVIDUALS. MRS. MURPHY WROTE TO ME AND I QUOTE, --
           QUOTE -- "THE $17,000 LIMIT A PERSON CAN EARN PLUS THE SMALL
           SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK IS NOT ENOUGH TO LIVE COMFORTABLY AND

           ENJOY YOUR SENIOR YEARS." MRS. MURPHY NEATLY SUMMARIZED THIS
           ISSUE IN ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE AND I QUOTE, -- QUOTE --" I THINK
           IN A SENIOR AT AGE 65 IS WILLING TO WORK, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE
           TO EARN A LOT MORE OR NOT HAVE A LIMIT." I BELIEVE MRS. MURPHY
           IS RIGHT. SENIORS SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TOO EARN IF THEY
           CHOOSE. THE PROBLEM IS THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. WE MUST SEND
           THE EARNINGS TEST INTO RETIREMENT. WE SHOULD RETIRE THE

           EARNINGS TEST, NOT FORCE THE RETIREMENT OF OUR SENIOR CITIZENS.
           ONE OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS AND OPERATORS THAT I TALKED TO PUT
           
           IT THIS WAY: SENIORS ARE ABLE TO WORK PRETTY AGGRESSIVELY
           THROUGH MOST OF THE YEAR UNTIL THEY GET UP TO THE BRINK OF THE
           CHRISTMAS SEASON WHEN THEY REALLY ARE NEEDED AND THEN WHEN THEY
           ARE REALLY INTENSELY NEEDED, THE EARNINGS TEST KICKS IN AND
           THEY HAVE TO CHECK OUT. MANY SENIORS WHO WANT TO WORK DON'T
           WORK BECAUSE OF THE COSTS IMPOSED BY THE EARNINGS TEST. TAKE

           FOR EXAMPLE RA SENIOR IN THE 28% TAX BRACKET. THE ERX TEST
           KIRKS IN, ONE OUT OF EVERY $3 IS TAKEN AWAY BY SOCIAL SECURITY
           SO THAT'S ANOTHER TAX OF ROUGHLY 33%. THEN IF YOU ADD THE 7.65%
           SOCIAL SECURITY TAX ON TO PEOPLE AND A STATE INCOME TAX OF SAY
           6%, YOU GET UP TO A PLACE OF A 74% TO 80% COMBINED TAX LOAD ON
           A WORKING SENIOR CITIZEN. IF THEY HAVE ANY EXPENSES OF GOING TO
           AND FROM WORK OR WARDROBE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH WORK IT

           COULD WELL BE THE SENIOR CITIZEN LOSES MONEY BECAUSE THE
           GOVERNMENT IS SO AGGRESSIVE IN REDUCING THEIR ABILITY TO EARN
           BY DEDUCTING FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK AS A RESULT OF THIS
           PERNICIOUS DISCRIMINATORY TEST CALLED THE EARNINGS TEST. THIS
           IS SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO ADDRESS AND I AM DELIGHTED THAT THE
           HOUSE HAS DONE SO AND THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SIGNALED HIS
           AGREEMENT WITH WHAT THE HOUSE HAS DONE. I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON
           THIS SINCE I CAME TO THE SENATE IN 1995. I VOTE TODAY
           SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE LIMIT IN 1997. I CALLED FOR THE
           ELIMINATION OF THE TEST AND COONSORED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD

           GET RID OF THE TEST. THIS YEAR I HAVE INTRODUCED LEGISLATION
           THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE TEST. MY BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION HAS 43
           COSPONSORS, INCLUDING THE ENTIRE MAJORITY LEADERSHIP. THERE ARE
           A NUMBER OF OTHERS, ORGANIZATIONS AND ALL, INCLUDING THE GREEN
           THUMB, 60 PLUS, SENIOR COALITION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME
           BUILDERS. TAXPAYERS UNION, U.S. AIR FORCE SERGEANT'S SOKESZE,
           AND A LIST OF OTHERS THAT ENDORSE THIS CONCEPT. THE POINT IS
           THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECOGNIZED THE VALUE OF THIS

           CONCEPT, UNANIMOUSLY VOTE TODAY END THE EARNS LIMIT, THE
           PRESIDENT INDICATED HE WOULD SIGN CLEAN LEGISLATION
           UNENCUMBERED BY EXTRANEOUS AMENDMENTS, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE
           SHOULD KNOLL THE LEAD OF THE HOUSE HERE AND DO WHAT THE
           PRESIDENT IS ASKING US TO DO TO DELIVER THIS MEASURE WHICH
           WOULD ELIMINATE THE EARNINGS TEST. IT IS SOMETHING I HAVE
           WITHIN WORKING ON NOW FOR YEARS. S ---- --I HAVE HAVE BEEN
           WORKING ON THIS NOW FOR YEARS. I BELIEVE WITH THE PRESIDENT

           PREPARED TO SIGN IT THE SENATE NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD AND
           ELIMINATE THIS OUT-OF-DATE AND COSTLY IMPEDIMENT, THIS
           DISCRIMINATION, THIS VERY, VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR OUR
           SENIORS, WHICH ALSO RESULTS IN OUR CULTURE NOT HAVING THE
           BENEFIT AND VALUE OF THE BEST EFFORT OF MANY OF OUR VERY BEST
           WORKERS. WITH THAT IN MIND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DEBATE LATER
           TODAY, AND I AM PLEASED TO HAVE HAD THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS

           THIS ISSUE. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. MR. LEAHY: MR.
           PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM VERMONT.
           

           MR. LEAHY: MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT IS THE PARLIAMENTARY SITUATION?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATE IS NOW IN A PERIOD OF MORNING
           BUSINESS.
           

           MR. LEAHY: MR. PRESIDENT, I WILL SPEAK ON A MATTER INVOLVING
           THE JUVENILE JUSTICE CONFERENCE --
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED.
           

           MR. LEAHY: I WILL SPEAK ON A MATTER OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
           CONFERENCE OR PERHAPS MORE ACCURATELY I SHOULD SAY THE LACK OF
           A CONFERENCE ON THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BILL. IT IS A MATTER THAT
           CONCERNS ME GREATLY BECAUSE I WAS A FLOOR LEADER ON THIS SIDE,
           THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM UTAH THE FLOOR LEADER ON THE

           OTHER SIDE, WHEN WE HAD OVER A WEEK OF DEBATE ON THE JUVENILE
           JUSTICE BILL. WE HAD THE DEBATE, A VERY SOLID DEBATE. WE THEN
           PASSED A BILL WITH 73 VOTES HERE IN THE SENATE. IT WENT TO
           CONFERENCE AND IT IS LIKE GOING INTO THE BETTER MU DA TRIANGLE.
           WE VICE PRESIDENT -- FIKEZE INTO THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE. WE
           HAVEN'T SEEN IT SINCE. WE HAVE KEPT THE COUNTRY WAITING TOO

           LONG ON THIS LEGISLATION AND WAITING TOO LONG ON GUN SAFETY
           LAWS. WE ARE FAST APPROACHING THE FIRST YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE
           SHOOTING AT COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL IN LITTLETON, COLORADO. IT
           HAS BEEN 11 MONTHS SINCE 14 STUDENTS AND A TEACHER LOST THEIR
           LIVES IN THAT TRAGEDY ON APRIL 20, 1999. APRIL 20 OF 1999. IT
           HAS BEEN TEN MONTHS SINCE THE SENATE PASSED THE HATCH-
           HATCH-LEAHY JUVENILE JUST BILL. AS I SAID BEFORE IT WAS AN

           OVERWHELMING VOTE, 73-25. OUR BIPARTISAN BILL INCLUDES MODEST,
           BUT I BELIEVE EFFECTIVE GUN PROVISIONS. IT HAS BEEN NINE MONTHS
           SINCE THE HOUSE PASSED ITS OWN JUVENILE CRIME BILL ON JUNE 17,
           1999. THEN LEADERSHIP IN THE CONGRESS DELAYED ACTION ON CALLING
           A CONFERENCE ALL SUMMER. IT HAS BEEN EIGHT MONTHS SINCE THE
           HOUSE AND SENATE JUVENILE JUSTICE CONFERENCE MET FOR THE FIRST
           AND ONLY TIME. REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN THE CONGRESS CONVENED THE

           CONFERENCE ON AUGUST 5, 1999. THEY DID THAT LESS THAN 24 HOURS
           BEFORE THE CONGRESS ADJOURNED FOR A MONTH'S VACATION. NOW YOU
           DON'T HAVE TO BE A CYNIC TO RECOGNIZE THIS FOR WHAT IT WAS. IT
           WAS A TRANSPARENT EMPLOY TO DEFLECT CRITICISM FOR ----
           --TRANSPARENT PLOY TO TEA E. DEFREQUENT CRITICISM. BUT IT ALSO
           KEPT THEM FROM HAVING JUVENILE JUSTICE LEGISLATION TO SEND TO
           THE PRESIDENT BEFORE SCHOOL BEGAN IN SEPTEMBER. BUT WE DID HAVE
           TIME FOR THE SCHOOL TO DO IT BEFORE THE SCHOOL WENT BACK IN

           JANUARY. BUT WE DIDN'T DO THAT. NOW I WONDER IF WE WILL EVER DO
           IT. HOUSE AND SENATE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR MONTHS TO
           RECONVENE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE CONFERENCE. WE HAVE TOLD THE
           REPUBLICANS WE WOULD MEET WITH THEM ON A MINUTE'S NOTICE. WE
           WANT TO WORK WITH THE REPUBLICANS TO CRAFT AND EFFECTIVE
           JUVENILE JUSTICE CONFERENCE REPORT THAT INCLUDES REASONABLE GUN
           SAFETY PROVISIONS. BUT, EVEN THOUGH THE UNITED STATES SENATE
           PASSED THIS LEGISLATION BY A THREE-ONE MAJORITY, NO CONFERENCE.

           THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP HAS DECIDED NOT TO ACT. I THINK THIS
           IS PARTICULARLY SHAMEFUL BECAUSE THE CONGRESS HAS SPENT MORE
           TIME IN RECESS THAN IN SESSION DURING THE LAST MEETING OF THIS
           CONFERENCE. THINK ABOUT THIS. WE HAVE BEEN OFF ON VACATION MORE
           TIME THAN WE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN HERE WORKING SINCE WE HAD THAT
           LAST CONFERENCE. TAKE A COUPLE DAYS OFF ONE OF THESE RECESSES
           AND HAVE A CONFERENCE. TWO WEEKS AGO THE PRESIDENT INVITED
           HOUSE AND SENATE MEMBERS OF THE CONFERENCE TO THE WHITE HOUSE,

           BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. HE URGED US TO PROCEED TO THE
           CONFERENCE AND TO HAVE FINAL ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION BEFORE
           THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE COLUMBINE TRAGEDY. UNFORTUNATELY, THE
           REPUBLICAN MAJORITY HAS REJECTED THE PRESIDENT PLEAS FOR
           ACTION. BUT I THINK MORE THAN REJECTING THE PRESIDENT'S PLEA
           FOR ACTION, THEY HAVE REJECTED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S PLEEP. ON
           APRIL 22, LAST YEAR, BARELY TWO DAYS AFTER THE TRAGIC KILLINGS

           AT COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL, I CAME TO THE SENATE TO URGE ACTION.
           I PRAISED THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER, I PRAISED SENATOR KENNEDY AND
           OTHERS FOR THEIR THOUGHTFUL SPEECHES ON THIS MATTER AND
           REACHING OUT TO THE FAMILIES THAT WEEK. I URGED THE SENATE A
           YEAR AGO TO DEDICATE ITSELF TO ASSISTING PARENTS, TEACHER,
           POLICE AND OTHERS TO STEM SCHOOL VIOLENCE. AND I SUGGESTED THAT
           S. 9 THE SAFE SCHOOLS SAFE STREETS AND SAFE BORDERS ACT OF 1999

           PROVIDE A GOOD PLACE TO START. RESPONDING TO OUR EFFORTS TO
           TURN THE SENATE'S ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEMS OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE,
           ON APRIL 27 THE REPUBLICAN LEADER CAME TO THE FLOOR AND SAID
           THAT IF WE WITHHELD FOR TWO WEEKS HE COULD PROVIDE A
           LEGISLATIVE VEHICLE THAT -- QUOTE -- "WE COULD TAKE UP, THE
           SENATE WEDNESDAY E. WOULD THEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DEBATE,
           HAVE AMENDMENTS, AND HAVE VOTES." THEN SENATOR LOTT RETURNED TO
           THE FLOOR THE FOLLOWINDAY TO REPEAT HIS COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE
           THE SENATE WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEBATE AND VOTE ON THOSE

           ISSUES DEALING WITH SCHOOL VIOLENCE. AND TO SENATOR LOTT'S
           CREDIT, HE PROCEED TODAY S. 254 THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BILL,
           WHICH WAS THEN PENDING ON THE SENATE CALENDAR, AND HE DID THAT
           ON MAY 11. WE THEN HAD TWO WEEKS OF A REAL DEBATE. ONE OF THE
           FEW WE HAVE HAD RECENTLY. AND THE SENATE WORKED ITS WAY THROUGH
           THIS BILL. THE HATCH-LEAHY JUVENILE JUSTICE LEGISLATION THAT
           PASSED THE SENATE ON MAY 20, PASSED WITH A STRONG BIPARTISAN

           MAJORITY, AND 73 VOTES, BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS VOTED
           FOR IT. NOW, NO ONE SHOULD FORGET THAT IT WAS A REPUBLICAN
           MAJORITY THAT DECIDED TO MAKE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE LEGISLATION
           THE VEHICLE FOR THE
{END: 2000/03/21 TIME: 10-30 , Tue.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}