HOUSE PASSES SENIOR CITIZENS FREEDOM TO WORK
ACT
On March 1, the House of Representatives passed
H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. I voted for
it. This bill eliminates the earnings limit for Social
Security beneficiaries between the ages of 65 and 69. The
earning limit originated in the 1930s and it remains, despite
the vast changes in the economy and the lives of senior
citizens that have taken place over the last 60 years.
Under current law, seniors who claim Social
Security benefits before they reach 69 are subject to a
reduction in benefits if they continue to work. For seniors 65
to 69, benefits are reduced by $1 for every $3 that their
earnings exceed the limit - $17,000 in 2000, rising to $30,000
in 2002 and indexed after that. HR 5 would repeal this limit
entirely, effective immediately.
The Senior Citizens Freedom to Work act would
help the 8,545 senior citizens in Colorado who are being
penalized for working. It makes no sense to penalize senior
citizens for participating in the workforce. People remain
healthy and vigorous longer than they did in the 1930's and it
makes sense to repeal this obsolete and punitive limit.
With this vote we have taken an important
step towards strengthening retirement security for all
seniors.
I hope other representatives - who showed
such passion when talking about removing the earnings limit -
will show the same kind of passion over the next few months
when we debate the proper use of the surplus. We must use the
budget surplus to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
SOCIAL SECURITY ‘MARRIAGE
PENALTY’?
In my last newsletter, I reported on the
House’s approval of a bill to end the tax-law "marriage
penalty" provisions under which some married people pay more
than they would if they were single.
A number of constituents have pointed out something similar
in Social Security – if two Social Security beneficiaries
marry, their total benefits can be less than if they had not
married – and wondered whether Congress was considering
changing that. It’s a good question. So, I wrote to Rep. Clay
Shaw, Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, suggesting
that the matter be reviewed and consideration given to
possible changes in this aspect of Social Security.
While I recognize that the two "marriage penalty"
situations are not identical, it seems to me that it might be
appropriate for the Subcommittee to review this matter to see
whether some changes in these parts of the Social Security
laws might be desirable.
LETTER TO PRESIDENT ON CAFE STANDARDS
I have
signed on to a letter to the President him to work with
Congress to implement the Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) law. The program is critical to reducing U.S.
dependence on foreign oil, cutting air and carbon dioxide
pollution, and saving consumers money at the gas pump.
Since 1995, the CAFE-freeze rider has been inserted in the
House version of the Transportation Appropriations bills and
the Senate has agreed to this language in conference. The
rider prohibits the Department of Transportation from
examining the need to raise CAFE standards. Current CAFE
standards have stagnated for nearly a decade. While the
standard for a car is 27.5 miles per gallon, the standard for
heavily polluting sport utility vehicles (SUV’s) and other
light trucks lags behind at 20.7 miles per gallon.
Because of the increasing number of light trucks, the
average fuel economy of all new passenger vehicles is now at
its lowest point since 1980, while fuel consumption is at its
highest. The freeze rider denies the purchasers of SUV’s and
other light trucks the benefits of existing fuel saving
technologies.
The current standards save more than three million barrels
of oil a day, and save the owner of an average new car $3,000
at the pump. However, we still use about 17 million barrels a
day, contributing about $50 billion to our merchandise trade
deficit. Improved standards will reduce oil consumption,
benefiting the economy and our nation’s energy security.
Higher standards also will translate into additional dollar
savings for consumers. A substantial increase in CAFE
standards would result in a net increase of 244,000 jobs
nationwide, with 47,000 of these in the auto industry,
according to a study by the American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy.
Finally, improved standards will reduce pollution,
including cancer-causing hydrocarbons. America’s cars and
light trucks are responsible for 20 percent of U.S. carbon
dioxide pollution, which causes global warming.
Compared to an average 27.5 mile per gallon car, whose
tailpipe emits 38 tons of carbon dioxide over its lifetime, a
14-mile per gallon sport utility vehicle will emit 70 tons of
carbon monoxide. Now that sport utility vehicles command such
a huge market share and contribute a disproportionate amount
of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, we could dramatically
reduce these emissions by raising CAFE standards.
I am hopeful the President and his administration will work
with Congress to ensure that the American people can benefit
from improved CAFE standards.
UDALL URGES PRESIDENT TO DELAY DECISION TO DEPLOY
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM
On February 29, I sent
a letter to President Clinton urging him to delay his decision
to deploy a national missile defense system. This action came
as a result of recent missile test failures and in response to
the President’s declared intention to make a decision by this
summer.
As so many have said, the intercept technology is clearly
not ready for operational application, and I am convinced it
would be irresponsible—as well as strategically
disadvantageous—for us to make a unilateral move toward an
inadequately tested defensive system. It seems to me that a
decision based on politics and on an artificial deadline,
rather than on technological and diplomatic considerations,
cannot possibly yield the best outcome.
Last year, Congress passed and the President signed H.R. 4,
declaring it to be the policy of the U.S. to deploy a national
missile defense (NMD) system as soon as is technologically
possible. The vote on the bill closely followed the release of
last year’s report by a bipartisan panel, chaired by former
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, which concluded that
countries such as North Korea or Iran could have long-range
missiles within five years of deciding to develop such
systems. Much of the debate on H.R. 4 revolved around this
rogue-nation threat. However, recent testing failures have
placed into question the technological feasibility of an NMD
system, the main condition the law set on a deployment
policy.
Only two of the necessary 19 intercepts for full system
deployment have taken place. Of the two that have taken place,
the test last October was widely criticized as being
‘carefully choreographed’ to ensure success, while the second
test in January of this year failed to destroy its target.
Also in February, the Pentagon’s senior weapons inspector
stated that "…pressure has been placed in the program to meet
an artificial decision point in the development process."
In my letter, I also expressed concerns about costs and
diplomatic concerns associated with deployment of an NMD
system. The costs of a 100-interceptor system would exceed the
$10.6 billion the Administration sought for 20 interceptors.
Furthermore, European allies such as France and Germany are
not supportive of NMD deployment, and Russia has intimated
that deployment of the system could undermine the entire arms
control process.
President Putin has indicated some interest in pushing
forward ratification of START II. It seems clear that
deploying a system that would defend against a few dozen
warheads is less of a priority than implementation of START
II, which would eliminate thousands of warheads capable of
destroying the United States.
Instead of relying solely on a faulty and expensive missile
defense system, we should also bring diplomatic, arms control
and non-proliferation tools to bear. Moreover, we must avoid
having our priorities distorted by domestic political
considerations.
The town hall in Arvada is scheduled for April 1 from 10:30
a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the Arvada City Council Chambers, 8101
Ralston Road.
The Westminster town hall is scheduled for April 8 from
10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the Westminster City Council
Chambers, 4800 W. 92nd Ave.
I will give attendants a congressional update and take
questions from the audience. Please join me at either one of
these meetings to share your thoughts on issues of importance
to you.
