respect to whose application for disability insurance benefits JUSTIFICATION The addition page 182, line 21, amends a provision in the bill which permits an application for disability insurance benefits filed prior to the month of enactment to be effective for benefits under the new law if the applicant did not die prior to such month and notice of the final decision on such previous application has not been given. Since the provision is applicable only to applications for disability insurance benefits and periods of disability, the addition is needed to include applications by dependents filed on the earnings record of a disabled worker. Without this addition, there would be cases in which benefits would be payable to a worker based on a previously filed application but not to his wife and children for some months because they do not have effective applications under the new law, even though they may all have filed on the same date. C. QUALIFICATION OF DIVORCED WIFE FOR WIDOW'S BENEFITS TEXT Page 209, line 3, insert before the comma: who was not entitled to wife's insurance benefits on the JUSTIFICATION This change would clarify the provision to assure that in every case. a woman age 62 or over who is entitled to wife's benefits as a divorced wife can become entitled to widow's benefits as a surviving divorced wife. If the change were not made a woman who qualified for wife's benefits and whose wife's benefits did not terminate when she later became divorced (after having been married for 20 years) would have to meet the special support requirements added by section 308 to qualify for widow's benefits. Her wife's benefits would terminate with the death of her former husband and as a result she could not get widow's benefits unless she could show that at the time her husband became entitled to benefits (while she was married to him) or at the time he died she was receiving from him at least half of her support or substantial contributions toward her support or there was a court order for such contributions. D. PROVISION TO AVOID AN INCREASE IN THE FAMILY MAXIMUM FOR SOME FAMILIES SOLELY BECAUSE OF ENTITLEMENT OF A CHILD ATTENDING SCHOOL TEXT On page 167, lines 3 and 15, after "person" insert (other than a person who would not be entitled to such JUSTIFICATION The change on page 167, line 3 and line 15, is needed because without this change a child who applies for benefits under the provisions of section 306 of the bill in the month of enactment could, in cases where the family maximum is applicable, get more in benefits than would be payable if he delayed his application until a later month. This problem arose when the new provisions for a child age 18 or over (sec. 306 of the bill) were made retroactive to January 1965. There was no intent to increase the family maximum applicable in case of families entitled to benefits for the month of enactment or any prior month by including the benefit of a child over 18 who becomes entitled to a benefit for any such month by reason of the new provisions under an application filed in the month of enactment of the bill. A premium should not be put on filing in a particular month. Section 302(a) (2) should apply in the month of enactment, as it does now, for other people on the rolls, but the benefit of a child entitled as a result of section 306 of the bill should be excluded from "the sum of the benefits" which is increased under the bill and applies as the new family maximum. EXAMPLE A widow and one child are on the benefit rolls in January 1965. Their benefits are based on a present law PIA of $102. (The family maximum of $228.80 does not apply with only two people on the rolls.) In January they were paid $76.50 each. In June 1965, H.R. 6675 is enacted and a child, age 20, applies for benefits in that month. the bill is now written, their benefits would be as follows: NEW PIA, $109.20-FAMILY MAXIMUM, $228.80 As A lump sum check for retroactive benefits would be paid to the 20-year-old child (assuming he was entitled as of January 1965).1 The amount would be $379 (family maximum $228.80 minus $153 (two times $76.50) equals $75.80 per month-for 5 months (JanuaryMay) totals $379). For June, this child is entitled without the application of section 202(j) (1) and the benefits for the family for June and future months would be 1 Residual payment to family maximum for retroactive months (sec. 202(j) (1) and sec. 203(a)(2), as amended). If the older child had waited until July to apply for benefits, the family's regular monthly benefits would be is follows: On page 176, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following new paragraph: (7) Effective January 2, 1966, subparagraph (B) of section 102(f) (2) of the Social Security Amendments of 1954 is repealed. JUSTIFICATION The change on page 176 between lines 9 and 10, repeals an old provision in the 1954 amendments (102(f) (2) (B)) for a dropout recomputation based on the acquisition of six quarters of coverage after June 1953. It was intended that this provision be repealed when the reference in section 215(b) (5) of present law was deleted by section 302(a)(3) of the bill, but through oversight the repeal provision was omitted. It would be rare for a person (who would now be over age 75) who has not qualified for a dropout recomputation over the past years to finally acquire his sixth quarter of coverage after 1965 and qualify under this provision. F. ADDITIONAL POINT FOR CONVERSION OF A DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFIT TO AN OLD-AGE INSURANCE BENEFIT TEXT On page 181, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following new subsection: (e) So much of section 215(a) (4) of such Act as precedes "the amount in column IV" is amended to read as follows: "(4) In the case of an individual who was entitled to a disability insurance benefit for the month before the month in which he died, became entitled to old-age insurance benefits, or attained age 65,". On page 181, line 18, strike out "(e)" and insert in lieu thereof "(f)". On page 183, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following new paragraph: (5) The amendment made by subsection (e) shall apply in On page 188, strike out lines 7 and 8, insert in lieu thereof: JUSTIFICATION The new paragraph (e) inserted between lines 17 and 18 on page 181 to change section 215 (a) (4) of the act is needed because of the new definition of disability that would be provided by section 303 of the bill. Without the change in section 215, there would be no way to convert the benefit of a woman who meets the new definition immediately upon enactment of the bill. The change is essential in subparagraph (A) of section 215(a) (4); since a similar change in subparagraph (B) is appropriate and would make the 2 subparagraphs the same, they are combined into one paragraph. The change on page 181, line 18, is a conforming change. The change on page 183, between lines 20 and 21, provides the effective date for the change on page 181. The change on page 188, lines 7 and 8, is needed in order to eliminate a reference to "clause (B)" which, as explained above in connection with the change on page 181, has been eliminated. EXAMPLE A woman reaches age 62 in January 1965 and applies for an OAIB (old-age insurance benefit). Nine years are used in the computation of the PIA (primary insurance amount on which the OAIB is based). H.R. 6675 is enacted in June 1965. She meets the new definition of disability (sec. 303 of the bill), files for DIB (disability insurance benefits) in July 1965, and her disability is established as of June 1963. Her waiting period begins January 1964, when she is deemed to be age Her DIB computation can be based on 7 years (out of the period 1951 to 1963, inclusive) with earnings in the disability period excluded, or on 8 years out of the period 1951-64 inclusive. Her DIB is based on the 8-year computation using 1964 since this is better for her. She attains age 65 in January 1968-ending her period of disability. Under section 215(a) (4), her DIB is converted to an OAIB when she "became entitled to an OAIB." Since she was previously entitled to an OAIB, her PIA for this benefit must be based on (a) the 9 years used originally or (b) the 7-year computation (out of the period 1951–63). Either of these periods gives a lower PIA than the 8-year computation on which her DIB is based. There is no way under present law to use the 8 years-converting the DIB to an OAIB. If a third computation point-attainment of age 65—were provided, this problem would Hence, the change on page 181. not occur. G. PROVISION TO AUTHORIZE PROCEDURES WHEREBY THE SURVIVING PAYEE OF A COMBINED SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT CHECK COULD BE PAID THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECK ISSUED FOR THE MONTH IN WHICH THE OTHER PAYEE DIED, ON THE CONDITION THAT ANY RESULTING OVERPAYMENT WOULD BE RECOVERED TEXT On page 266, between lines 22 and 23 (but after the new section 328, relating to applications, and the new section 329, relating to overpayments and underpayments), insert the following new section: PAYMENTS TO TWO OR MORE INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME FAMILY SEC. 330. Section 205(n) of the Social Security Act is amended to read as follows: "(n) The Secretary may, in his discretion, certify to the Managing Trustee any two or more individuals of the same family for joint payment of the total benefits payable to such individuals for any month, and if one of such individuals dies before a check representing such joint payment is negotiated, payment of the amount of such unnegotiated check to the surving individual or individuals may be authorized in accordance with regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury; except that appropriate adjustment or recovery shall be made under section 204(a) with respect to so much of the amount of such check as exceeds the amount to which such surviving individual or individuals are entitled under this title for such month." JUSTIFICATION Present procedures require that when one payee of a combined social security benefit check dies, the check issued for the month in which death occurs shall be returned to the Treasury Department for cancellation, and that another check shall be issued to the surviving beneficiary in payment of the particular benefit to which that beneficiary is entitled for the month. The delay involved in this procedure frequently results in hardship for the survivor. This hardship might be avoided if procedures were worked out whereby the surviving beneficiary could be authorized to cash the combined check, on the condition that any resulting overpayment would be recovered. Since the Social Security Act does not contain any authority for making overpayments-and the combined check for the month of death would (unlike checks for previous months) represent an overpayment— legislative authority is needed for making such temporary over payments. The proposal would authorize the Secretary to make a temporary overpayment so as to permit the surviving spouse to cash the combined check for the month in which the other spouse died. The overpayment resulting from the cashing of the combined check would be |