    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        FIELD HEARING ON SOCIAL SECURITY'S
                     DISSERVICE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS: HOW THE
                       WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISION AND
                       GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET MISTREAT
                               GOVERNMENT WORKERS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

                                     of the

                          COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                   ----------

                                  PART 1 OF 2

                                   ----------

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                               NOVEMBER 20, 2023

                                   ----------

                              Serial No. 118-SS05

                                   ----------

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     FIELD HEARING ON SOCIAL SECURITY'S DISSERVICE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS: HOW
       THE WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISION AND GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET
                              MISTREAT GOVERNMENT

                              WORKERS--PART 1 OF 2

                       FIELD HEARING ON SOCIAL SECURITY'S
                     DISSERVICE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS: HOW THE
                       WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISION AND
                       GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET MISTREAT
                               GOVERNMENT WORKERS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

                                     of the

                          COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                   __________

                                  PART 1 OF 2

                                   __________

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 20, 2023

                                   __________

                              Serial No. 118-SS05

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    54-810                   WASHINGTON : 2024

                          COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                        JASON SMITH, Missouri, Chairman
    VERN BUCHANAN, Florida               RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
    ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska               LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
    MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania             MIKE THOMPSON, California
    DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona            JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
    DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois               EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
    BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio                  BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
    JODEY ARRINGTON, Texas               DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
    DREW FERGUSON, Georgia               LINDA SANCHEZ, California
    RON ESTES, Kansas                    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          TERRI SEWELL, Alabama
    KEVIN HERN, Oklahoma                 SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
    CAROL MILLER, West Virginia          JUDY CHU, California
    GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
    DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee             DAN KILDEE, Michigan
    BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania      DON BEYER, Virginia
    GREG STEUBE, Florida                 DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
    CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota        JIMMY PANETTA, California
    BLAKE MOORE, Utah
    MICHELLE STEEL, California
    BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
    RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
    NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
    MIKE CAREY, Ohio
                           Mark Roman, Staff Director
                     Brandon Casey, Minority Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

                        DREW FERGUSON, Georgia, Chairman
    MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     JOHN LARSON, Connecticut
    DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona            BILL PASCRELL, New Jersey
    RON ESTES, Kansas                    LINDA SANCHEZ, California
    BLAKE MOORE, Utah                    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 DAN KILDEE, Michigan
    GREG STEUBE, Florida
    DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                                     PART 1
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Hon. Mike Carey, Ohio, Chairman..................................     1
    Advisory of November 20, 2023 announcing the hearing.............     V

                                   WITNESSES

    Patrick Yoes, Retired Louisiana Law Enforcement Officer and
      National President, Fraternal Order of Police..................     7
    Ann Dugas, Retired Louisiana State Employee......................    14
    Bernard ``Bernie'' Piro, Retired Louisiana Fire Fighter..........    18
    Paula Porter, Retired Louisiana Educator.........................    25

                        LOCAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Local Submissions................................................    41

                       PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Public Submissions

                                     PART 2
                  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD--CONTINUED

    Public Submissions

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       SOCIAL SECURITY'S DISSERVICE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS: HOW THE WINDFALL
    ELIMINATION PROVISION AND GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET MISTREAT GOVERNMENT
                                    WORKERS

                                  ----------

                           MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2023

                      House of Representatives,
                       Subcommittee on Social Security,
                                   Committee on Ways and Means,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m.
    Central Time, in St. George Fire Protection District, 14100
    Airline Highway, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Hon. Mike Carey
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Chairman CAREY. The committee will come to order.
        Without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana, Garret
    Graves; the gentleman from Louisiana, Troy Carter; the
    gentleman from Louisiana, Clay Higgins; and the gentlelady from
    Louisiana, Julia Letlow, are authorized to participate in the
    hearing and ask questions.
        Good afternoon. I want to welcome everybody to the hearing
    on how Social Security's Windfall Elimination, or WEP, and the
    Government Pension Offset, GPO, affect the benefits of our
    public servants.
        Social Security is very important to a program for
    Ohioans--or for Americans, retired workers. Every hardworking
    American who contributes to Social Security deserves to know
    that they and their loved ones will receive the benefits that
    they have earned. However, for some workers, including millions
    of public servants, that is just not the case because the
    Social Security benefit formula is, in fact, broken.
        Social Security covers about 96 percent of the jobs in
    America. But, as many of those here today and those watching at
    home are aware, many government employees--frequently
    firefighters, law enforcement officers, educators, and other
    dedicated public servants--contribute to public pension
    programs instead of participating in Social Security.
    Nonetheless, these same workers or their spouses may have had
    other employment while they were contributing to Social
    Security.
        The WEP and the GPO were established in the 1980s and the
    1970s to address a flaw in the Social Security benefit formula
    that ignores wages that were earned while contributing to a
    substitute pension instead of contributing to Social Security.
        Both WEP and GPO are flawed formulas that treat public
    servants unfairly. While intended to prevent overly generous
    benefits, these policies sometimes undercorrect but more often
    than not overcorrect. They simply miss the mark.
        Further, these policies make it difficult for affected
    workers and their families to plan for retirement. Far too
    often, people are unaware that they are subject to the WEP or
    the GPO until their spouse retires. Some people return to work.
    Others have to adjust their spending habits or have to
    reevaluate their standards of living.
        Even for those public servants who are aware of these
    policies, the complexities of these formulas make it difficult
    to determine the Social Security benefits that they will
    eventually receive.
        While this is an issue that is especially pronounced here
    in Louisiana, it is not just Louisiana's problem. It affects
    more than 100,000 public servants, like those in my home State
    of Ohio, as well as those in Missouri, Illinois, Massachusetts,
    Texas, Virginia, California, and other States across the
    country. America's hardworking and dedicated public servants
    deserve relief from WEP and the GPO's unfair treatment.
        We are holding this subcommittee hearing at the St. George
    Fire Department in Baton Rouge to hear directly from Americans
    whose Social Security benefits are impacted by these policies.
    This is the first step in this committee's efforts to identify
    meaningful relief for our public servants.
        I want to thank the witnesses for being here, and I look
    forward to hearing their testimony.
        Now I am pleased to recognize the distinguished chairman of
    the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Smith, for an opening
    statement.
        Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
        I first want to thank the St. George Fire Department for
    hosting the Ways and Means Committee and the Ways and Means
    Subcommittee here.
        I also want to thank Garret Graves, the Congressman in this
    district, for the invitation to be here and his advocacy on
    this subject. We are pleased to be--we would not be here if it
    wasn't for Mr. Graves, his advocacy and pushing us.
        The Ways and Means Committee is in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    for our sixth hearing outside of Washington, D.C. to hear
    directly from working families. I would note that this is the
    first subcommittee hearing that this committee has held outside
    of the Halls of Congress in almost a decade.
        We are here today to listen to Americans who have been
    mistreated by flawed provisions within the Social Security
    Program. These provisions have done a disservice to many who
    choose to work for their communities as firefighters, teachers,
    police officers, and other public servants.
        These are the men and women who protect our streets, teach
    our children, collect the trash, repair the power lines, pave
    the roads, and more. They work tirelessly to improve the lives
    of their neighbors and their communities. Like all working
    families, they deserve a secure retirement. Yet we are here in
    Louisiana because that retirement is far from secure.
        Social Security's Windfall Elimination Provision and
    Government Pension Offset have prevented millions of Americans
    from getting the Social Security benefits they deserve, and
    these policies will harm millions more unless Congress acts.
        While not likely known to most Americans, these two parts
    of the Social Security Program have real consequences for
    public employees. It means seniors get smaller checks and can
    struggle to afford their food, medicine, and heat their homes.
        Decades ago, in an effort to keep Social Security from
    overpaying certain retirees, which would be unfair to other
    seniors, Washington stepped in and created new formulas and a
    new process. Unfortunately, those solutions have proven ill-
    equipped to solve the original problem.
        Seniors aren't only harmed by these unfair policies, they
    are often blindsided by them. Most State and local employees do
    not know that they will get a smaller Social Security benefit
    until it is too late to adjust their plans.
        People spend decades working, saving, planning for
    retirement, and find out only at the point of retirement that
    things were not as they thought. And, given the complexity of
    the entire system, trying to work with the Social Security
    Administration to determine what they are owed can be extremely
    difficult and frustrating.
        At the core of this issue is fairness. Congress must find a
    bipartisan way to provide public servants with the fair
    treatment that they deserve.
        Few people in Congress have been more determined to find a
    solution to this problem for seniors than Congressman Graves
    and the Louisiana delegation. Congressman Graves fights hard
    for the folks from Louisiana, and we are glad he is hosting us
    in his district today to discuss the critical issue.
        This hearing is the next step in this committee's efforts
    to provide help in retirement for public servants. I know this
    issue is important to the entire Louisiana delegation, and I
    want to keep working together to find that bipartisan solution.
        We are looking forward to hearing our witnesses share their
    stories as we learn more about how the Windfall Elimination
    Provision and Government Pension Offset have resulted in the
    unfair treatment of public servants and have hurt them and
    their families.
        The committee also wants to hear from everyone here today.
    If you are affected by the Social Security's unfair treatment
    of State and local workers, we want to hear from you. There
    will be notebooks passed out in the audience, right there, for
    everyone to share with us your concerns, your ideas, your
    solutions of how we can fix this problem. We will enter those
    into the official hearing record and take those back with us to
    Washington as we consider how to protect the retirement of
    State and local workers.
        I want to thank each and every witness for taking time away
    from your family and the retirement you have worked so hard to
    earn.
        Chairman CAREY. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
        At this time, I would also like to recognize our gracious
    host, Congressman Graves, for 1 minute.
        Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, just very quickly before I get started, I
    want to note the partnership that we have in this case. And, in
    everything we do, we must work together with our State
    delegation and with our local government officials as well.
        I know we have a number of our representatives from our
    Louisiana Legislature here. Do you mind, if you would stand up,
    and I just want to give these folks the recognition they
    deserve for being incredible advocates and partnering with us.
    [Applause.]
        Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, everything we do, we do in
    lockstep with our legislature, with our local officials.
        Secondly, Mr. Chairman, look, he came in from Ohio. The
    full committee chairman came in from Missouri. Mr. Estes came
    in from Kansas. Clay came in from Lafayette.
        So, seriously, I want to thank our entire Louisiana
    delegation. Everyone has been in lockstep, on a bipartisan
    basis, with this important legislation.
        I can't improve upon what the two chairs said. I just want
    to make note. This has been going on for far too long. This has
    been a problem for over 40 years, and we must fix it. We are
    the third most cosponsored bill in the United States Congress,
    and it is because of the people at this witness table. It is
    because of the people in the audience.
        Now is the time to push the gas even harder. It is
    fantastic that we are here today, that we are having a
    legislative hearing. This is a huge milestone. But, Mr.
    Chairman, we must continue working to actually solve this
    problem. Thanks again for being here.
        I yield back.
        Chairman CAREY. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
        I would like to now introduce our witnesses.
        Patrick Yoes is a retired Louisiana law enforcement
    officer, and he is also currently the national president of the
    Fraternal Order of Police. Ann Dugas is a retired Louisiana
    State employee. Bernard ``Bernie'' Piro is a retired Louisiana
    firefighter. And Paula Porter is a retired Louisiana educator.
        Thank you for joining us today. Now, as we spoke before,
    your written testimony will be made part of the hearing record,
    and you are now each recognized for 5 minutes to deliver your
    remarks.
        Mr. Yoes, we will begin with you when you are ready.

     STATEMENT OF PATRICK YOES, RETIRED LOUISIANA LAW ENFORCEMENT
       OFFICER AND NATIONAL PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE

        Mr. YOES. Well, thank you. And good morning, Chairman
    Smith, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished members of this
    Ways and Means Committee. I want to thank you for having this
    hearing.
        My name is Patrick Yoes, the national president of
    Fraternal Order of Police, and I represent 373,000 rank-and-
    file police officers. The Fraternal Order of Police is the
    Nation's largest and oldest law enforcement labor organization.
        Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that you are holding this
    hearing to examine the impact of the Windfall Elimination
    Provision and Government Pension Offset on hardworking
    Americans who chose a career in public service.
        Approximately 1.9 million beneficiaries, or 4 percent of
    the eligible population, are impacted by Windfall Elimination.
    It is estimated, however, that 60 percent of all of America's
    law enforcement officers are affected by this provision.
        Between 2000 and 2008, the House and the Senate had a
    combined seven hearings on Windfall Elimination and Government
    Pension Offset. Apart from this committee's markup last year,
    which was done solely to block a vote after we reached 305
    cosponsors, there has been no action or consideration since
    2008.
        So, while I welcome the opportunity to be here today to
    talk about Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset
    and how they hurt this Nation's retired law enforcement
    officers, I also am here to express our deep frustration of my
    members.
        Simply put, law enforcement officers who served in an
    agency outside of the Social Security system may lose up to 60
    percent of their Social Security benefit of which they are
    entitled, by virtue of secondary or postretirement employment.
    We were required to pay the same amount into the Social
    Security system as every other American, and yet we are not
    guaranteed the same benefits, all because we answered the call
    of public service.
        The Fraternal Order of Police contends that this provision
    has a disproportionate impact on law enforcement officers. An
    early study suggests that 75 percent of those impacted are law
    enforcement officers or other public safety employees.
        Law enforcement officers are likely to retire earlier than
    other public employees because of the extreme physical and
    mental demands of police work. After a full career in law
    enforcement, officers who retire, will retire, may begin a
    second career and pay into the Social Security system. And this
    creates an unjust situation for many of our members. We were
    entitled to the pensions that we earned and paid into our
    entire career, but we also worked in jobs that paid into Social
    Security and fully paid into that system as well, just like
    every other American.
        While GPO impacts fewer people, its effect sometimes can
    even be more profound. According to the Social Security
    Administration, of those directly affected by GPO, 52 percent
    were spouses, 48 percent were widows and widowers.
        An astonishing 70 percent of all affected by Government
    Pension Offset had their benefits completely eliminated. That
    means that we paid into a system that won't go to our
    survivors, like every other American, but it will stay within
    the system to pay for someone else's benefits. Do we not see
    how outrageously unfair that is to public employees and their
    spouses?
        Additionally, the profession of law enforcement is facing
    an existential crisis in recruiting the next generation of law
    enforcement officers, and the very existence of Windfall
    Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset discourages
    anyone from choosing a career in public service.
        When a prospective candidate learns that any Social
    Security credit or benefits that they have earned, even in the
    private sector, or will earn in the future could be reduced, it
    makes the career of law enforcement a lot less attractive.
        For 40 years, Congress has avoided addressing the long-term
    viability of Social Security and used it as justification not
    to repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision or Government
    Pension Offset. Instead, Congress has knowingly embraced these
    unfair provisions by ignoring the victimization of the very
    people in our society who work so hard for fairness.
        Public employees did not create the destabilization of the
    Social Security system, yet we are the only class of employees
    that Congress is forcing to give up our earned benefits. How is
    it fair to make a public employee pay the same rate into the
    Social Security system as every other American and then
    legislate the same benefits away that are afforded to him? We
    are not asking for special treatment or anything more than we
    have already fairly earned. We are just simply asking for fair
    treatment.
        The Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension
    Offset are wrong, unfair, and, frankly, it is dishonest. If
    this scheme was being run by a pension board or private money
    management group instead of the Social Security Administration,
    we wouldn't call it an elimination windfall or an offset. We
    would call it by the criminal statutes of which Congress has
    passed to protect hardworking Americans. One entity enriching
    itself by denying the benefits earned by an individual is
    criminal, and that is exactly what the Windfall Elimination
    Provision and Government Pension Offset does.
        Ultimately, this is about fairness for the men and women
    who have sworn to serve and protect our communities across
    America. And, instead, we are treated like second-class
    citizens and subject to arbitrary formulas that reduce benefits
    for which we have been fully taxed and which we are entitled.
        Both provisions should be repealed immediately, and I
    encourage all of you to go back to Washington and please let's
    pass H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act.
        Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be here today. It has been 15
    years and waiting for my members to be able to talk about
    something that has been so devastating to them. I get calls
    every single week of members trying to figure out how they are
    going to pay their bills. And they are not asking for handouts.
    They are asking for what they earned.
        And I think this is a great first step. Let's fix the
    Social Security system and let's fix this inequity. Let's take
    40 years of treating public employees unfairly and let's
    straighten the system out. I am willing to work together with
    you to do that. I thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Yoes follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman CAREY. Thank you.
        Ms. Dugas, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

        STATEMENT OF ANN DUGAS, RETIRED LOUISIANA STATE EMPLOYEE

        Ms. DUGAS. Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of Congress
    that are represented here this afternoon. It is an honor to be
    here, and it is an opportunity to share the story that I have
    lived with for so many years. And, hopefully, something can be
    resolved regarding this unfair law.
        Presently, I am a retired government employee, and I
    received Social Security survivor benefits before retirement
    under the Government Pension Offset. My husband died on his way
    to work in a tragic automobile accident on December 15, 1980,
    at the age of 42 years old. He had worked for many years and
    contributed to Social Security for many of his years of
    employment.
        His death left me to be a widow at the age of 34 with two
    daughters, ages 10 and 5, to rear as a single mother. His death
    has been tremendously shocking for my family and has left an
    impact on our life. Following his death, I did resign from my
    employment of several years at Dow Chemical in Plaquemine,
    Louisiana as a stenographer in order to devote my full
    attention to the care of my daughters.
        In October 1996, I was offered employment with the
    Louisiana Attorney General's Office as a receptionist. After
    working a short while as a receptionist, I decided to enroll in
    the LSU Paralegal Studies Program seeking certification as a
    paralegal.
        In June 2000, I received my paralegal certification from
    LSU. The Louisiana Attorney General's Office then hired me as a
    paralegal, and I was employed there until the date of my
    retirement, May 3rd of this year, 2023.
        Until my retirement, I had been receiving Social Security
    survivor benefits in the amount of $1,698 after taxes were
    taken out, along with my annual earned income of approximately
    $50,000. These combined incomes enabled me to live with
    independence and a sense of security.
        After retirement, the Social Security survivor benefit has
    been completely eliminated, and my monthly retirement income
    from the State is $2,589. I have earned my necessary quarters
    with Social Security to receive benefits. However, this benefit
    will be reduced by the Windfall Elimination Provision.
        With certainty, I cannot say that the impact of the
    Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination
    Provision was told to me at the time that I was employed. I
    feel that it would have been quite beneficial to have known the
    drastic impact that these provisions would have on my
    retirement when I was hired.
        Quite a while after I was employed, I do remember
    discussions between employees in our office of these provisions
    and the impact or the consequences that these provisions would
    make upon retirement.
        One employee that I distinctly remember had worked for many
    years as an attorney in the private sector, and he would often
    discuss the impact of the Windfall Elimination Provision on his
    retirement. And this employee worked full time until the age of
    72 and then was employed part time until his recent death.
        The decision to retire was not an easy one for me to make.
    Approaching the age of 77 with 25 years of employment with the
    State, I faced the reality that I would not be able to work
    much longer, and I felt that I needed to begin to look into my
    options for retirement.
        Financially, without the Social Security benefit that I was
    receiving, it was not wise for me to make this decision. So I
    had to consider other options, and one option that I am
    considering is a part-time job.
        But, in order to retire, I came to the realization that
    living in the home that I currently owned was not going to be
    an option. In order to retire, I felt that I had to downsize my
    home and find a smaller one that was easier to maintain and
    provided me with fewer expenses. Fortunately, I was able to
    sell the larger home. It had close to 2,500 square feet of
    living area, and I purchased a smaller home with about 2,000
    square feet of living area, and it is much more practical for
    me.
        In closing, I humbly ask that you please repeal the
    Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision.
    The importance of this to our future is overwhelming. Thank
    you.
        [The statement of Ms. Dugas follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman CAREY. Thank you.
        Mr. Piro, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

        STATEMENT OF BERNARD PIRO, RETIRED LOUISIANA FIREFIGHTER

        Mr. PIRO. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    allowing me to serve on this panel, as well as all the
    Congressmen and Congresswomen up here on the stage.
        My name is Bernie Piro. I am a retired firefighter. And I
    spell my last name with an ``I,'' so I put them out. I do not
    spell it with a ``Y,'' just to clarify that.
        I would like to voice my concerns in the hardship of how
    the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension
    Offset, also known as WEP and GPO, affect myself and my wife as
    well as many State, municipality, and parish eligible retirees
    and their spouses concerning a government pension.
        I retired as a Shreveport firefighter at the age of 59
    years of age, just shy of 35 years of service. I personally
    chose to take the option to leave my wife retirement at the
    time of my death. This option cost me $835.83 each and every
    month, and during the DROP period, that ended up totaling
    $30,089.88.
        As of December of 2023, the total cost, in each month it
    increases by $835.83 for me to choose that option to leave her
    my pension. We are currently up to $112,837.05 and, of course,
    will increase each and every month until my death.
        I have not applied for Social Security benefits as I
    recently met my full retirement age. My Social Security
    benefits I found out will be cut approximately 60 percent of
    what the earnings that I provided working prior to the fire
    department and also my second jobs.
        Many of you know that public servant jobs are not the
    highest paying jobs, but it is a calling that many of us feel.
    So, therefore, we have to have part-time jobs to supplement our
    income. Also, because of the lower pay, your retirement can be
    much lower than what it would be maybe working for a
    corporation or something with a retirement at a higher rate of
    salary.
        To make matters worse, the Government Pension Offset
    affects the spouse, reducing their Social Security benefits.
    Like I said, if you choose to take the option on your
    government pension to leave your spouse, you accept a reduction
    on monthly pension benefits. And, in my case, that was an
    $835.83 reduction in a retirement check each and every month.
        In my wife's case, working since age 17 and contributing to
    her Social Security and plans on working until the age of 70,
    but, according to the GPO calculator that I recently went to
    online on the Social Security website, she will receive zero in
    Social Security benefits after working all those years since
    age 17 through age 70 because I left her my pension benefit.
        According to the Social Security Publication No. 5-10700
    stating, ``A current or former spouse, widow or widower, the
    GPO may reduce or eliminate your Social Security benefit
    altogether''--and, in the case of my wife, it did so. If the
    GPO applies, your Social Security benefits will be reduced by
    an amount equal to two-thirds of your government pension and
    could be reduced to zero. And, again, that was the Publication
    No. 5-10700.
        I thought I was being a reliable husband taking care of my
    wife, only to find out GPO was eliminating her Social Security
    benefits that she worked hard her whole life to receive. I am a
    cancer patient with a dreary prognosis, so I am concerned about
    the finances for my wife once I am gone.
        I think all retirees that receive a State, municipality,
    and parish government retirement have been betrayed. And I
    appreciate that this group of the Ways and Means Committee is
    looking at this, and there has been introduction to try to
    correct this injustice.
        This injustice must be corrected now. It hurts many of us
    in being able to provide for our families and grandchildren. As
    a grandparent, you want to be able to do things for your
    grandchildren. And my wife's salary, you know, when she retires
    would be cut, and now she is going to get zero for her Social
    Security benefits. And this is going to be an extreme hardship
    trying to live on my retirement to provide for her and my
    family and grandkids.
        I want to thank all of you for your service and your
    attendance today and appreciate your concerns and allowing us
    to address you all. I very much appreciate you all. Thank you
    so much.
        [The statement of Mr. Piro follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman CAREY. Thank you.
        Ms. Porter, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

         STATEMENT OF PAULA PORTER, RETIRED LOUISIANA EDUCATOR

        Ms. PORTER. I too offer my thanks very sincerely.
        My name is Paula Porter. I am a retired schoolteacher from
    Terrebonne Parish. I taught 38 years. All but four of those
    years were in Terrebonne Parish.
        My husband died from cancer at the age of 61. He had
    contributed into Social Security as a teenager. His mom and dad
    had a mom-and-pop drugstore. He never collected one dollar of
    his Social Security.
        I was 42 years old when he died. I had five children, ages
    10 through 15. Teaching school at the time, I immediately
    started finding second jobs in the school system. I worked
    Homework Hotline, Saturday School, LEAP Remediation, all the
    programs just about that they offered after school.
        I had 26 years at the age of 56 that I was eligible to
    retire, and I thought I would go on and retire and work some
    little odd second jobs, but that did not work out for me. And I
    had five children. I had tried to send them to college. They
    did go to college. I found that I needed to return back to the
    classroom, and I immediately did return back to the classroom.
    I worked another 12 years, continuing to work some after-school
    jobs.
        I finally retired from the classroom at the age of 68 with
    38 years. There are a lot of things that come up out of the
    budget. Cars, new cars are needed. The house insurance in south
    Louisiana is through the ceiling, as I know many of you know.
    And there are just so many extra expenses.
        So, I worked some more. I did testing for the Ability-to-
    Benefit testing program, which they no longer do, but I worked
    with them until it ended. And I worked in an Education Shop
    until the owner closed the business down. By that time, I was
    almost 75 years old. I did not look for another job.
        I am 80 years old now. I feel like it was very unfair,
    because I chose to teach school, that I am denied my husband's
    benefits. It would have made life much easier. I had no family.
    I had family, but none close. So I had the problem of working,
    teaching, doing lesson plans, caring for the family, for
    children. Whatever household problems came up, they were mine.
    And I can assure you some extra money would have really come
    up.
        I am fortunate my health held up, and I am grateful for
    that. And I also think my being here today, hopefully, that
    this is going to be corrected. There are many people like me
    who have similar circumstances, as we have all pointed out
    today.
        And, also, I think the people to come after us, many people
    are going to not consider going into fields like teaching,
    firefighting, law enforcement, all these State jobs, all these
    State jobs and all these people that will be denied benefits.
        I thank you for giving me this opportunity.
        [The statement of Ms. Porter follows:]

         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman CAREY. I want to thank all of you for your
    excellent testimony, but also just the true life stories that
    you are telling to all of us here today.
        We are now going to proceed to the question-and-answer
    period. I am going to begin by recognizing myself.
        As I noted in my opening statement, the WEP and the GPO
    affect Social Security benefits of public servants across the
    country, which includes, as we talked about, my State of Ohio.
    I frequently hear from the constituents who are surprised to
    learn that their or their spouse's benefits--just like you
    said, Ms. Porter--would be reduced by these policies or never
    received. As a result, they had to alter their retirement
    plans, as you said, reevaluate their future, their financial
    futures, Mr. Piro, as you said.
        My question is going to be for all the witnesses. I am
    going to start with you, Mr. Yoes. It will be the same question
    for all of you. And, if you could keep your answer brief, that
    way we have time to get to all the other people here.
        When you found out just how much of the WEP or the GPO
    would affect you and your family, how did you respond, first,
    is the first part of the question. Did your retirement planning
    change or the member's, your member's retirement planning
    change? Were you forced to adjust your spending habits or your
    member's spending habits, rethink or delay your retirement or
    question your standard of living? If you could just start from
    a generality from your member's perspective.
        Mr. YOES. Mr. Carey, thank you, thank you for the question.
    To, you know, full disclosure, I have not started collecting
    Social Security. I know that I will be impacted by it when I
    do. However, I can speak on behalf of my members.
        I can tell you that there is not a day goes by or at least
    five, six times a week that I don't get a phone call from one
    of our members struggling, trying to figure out how they are
    going to pay their bills and trying to reconcile just how the
    inequities of these provisions and wanting to know when we are
    going to fix it.
        So, all I can do is speak in generalities of my members
    that feel that they have been betrayed simply because they
    chose a profession of public service and looking for some type
    of relief. And I am grateful for being here today, that maybe
    we can move in that direction.
        Chairman CAREY. Thank you.
        Ms. Dugas.
        Ms. DUGAS. Yes, sir. I visited the retirement office for
    the State, and that is when, you know, they told me that they
    could give me an estimate of my retirement benefit, but then I
    would need to go to Social Security.
        So, the day that I went to the retirement office, I had
    quite a bit of time, so I went to the Social Security office
    also. And I was given an estimate of how, you know, this would
    affect my Social Security.
        And, at that time, when I was told that it would more than
    likely be completely eliminated, that is when I made the
    decision I am just not going to retire. And so, you know, I
    kept that mindset for quite a while. And then, you know, this
    year, I determined I couldn't continue to work. I was really--
    you know, the years were catching up with me. And so I decided
    to retire.
        And it was disappointing when I found out, you know, about
    the benefit being eliminated and somewhat angry also because I
    felt, you know, this benefit had been earned by my late
    husband.
        Chairman CAREY. I want to thank you for that.
        Mr. Piro, I know you touched upon a lot of this in your
    testimony, but if you could just really, I mean, just
    reevaluate, if you could speak to how you are reevaluating--I
    know you are a cancer survivor, and congratulations on that--
    how this has affected as you plan in the future for your
    family.
        Mr. PIRO. First of all, I wish I had been more aware, it
    had been made aware to me concerning the Windfall Elimination
    and exactly how much was going to be cut. Many years ago, I
    would hear from some of the older firefighters that some of the
    younger generation was going to be cut due to the Windfall
    Elimination tax. I don't recall anything being discussed about
    the Government Pension Offset during that timeframe.
        Many of the older firefighters were exempt from that
    strictly because they were already vested in the retirement
    plan. There was a provision for that. But the generations that
    came to work in the early seventies, we are not exempt, anyone
    that came into effect at that point.
        It has been a tremendous hardship. We have adjusted our
    spending already, trying to prepare for this, things that we
    have terminated, such as internet at the house. My children are
    grown. We live in a rural area and had satellite internet, and
    we were paying a premium price in support. That was considered
    a luxury. We have done away with our landline and use cell
    phones for our service.
        So, we are constantly trying to make cuts to prepare for
    this. But I just don't know that we can prepare for the
    Government Pension Offset that I was unaware of until recently
    when my wife started talking about retiring at age 70 and
    started doing some research on both the Windfall Elimination
    tax--and, of course, in doing so, the Government Pension Offset
    pops up along with it, and didn't realize the extent of what it
    was going to cover until I did the research on it.
        And my wife and her employers to date, according to the
    publication on the Social Security website, have contributed
    $175,866 into Social Security, and she has got 2 and a half
    more years that she plans on working due to a commitment to her
    employer. And, with the amount that I paid to leave her my
    pension currently at the $112,837.05, which will increase on a
    monthly basis, I mean, this continues to grow until our deaths.
        And I just would like someone to try to explain to me how
    this is fair to contribute. When you go to a store and you pay
    them money, you walk out with products that you purchased. In
    this case, you have paid into Social Security, and she is going
    to get zero. And that was at the tune of $175,866 to date, and
    she has got 2 and a half more years to work, going to
    contribute to the Social Security system.
        This is not fair. And, if anybody can explain to me how it
    is fair, I would like to hear how they do that. But many of us
    are suffering. She has taken a reduced income when she does
    retire from what she would draw from Social Security. And to
    find out that she is going to receive zero is devastating to
    both her and myself.
        And I just would appreciate all of you all. I do appreciate
    every one of you being here, and hope that this can for once be
    corrected.
        Chairman CAREY. Thank you.
        Ms. Porter, I know you pretty much outlined everything that
    I was asking in this question. I guess maybe you could just
    talk--you said you had five kids when your husband passed away,
    and the youngest was how old?
        Ms. PORTER. Ten.
        Chairman CAREY. Ten at the time. Ten to 15.
        So can you just talk about the fact that you were not able
    to receive and how that affected them as they reached college
    age.
        Ms. PORTER. Well, they all got jobs when they got old
    enough. I never could give them spending money. If they spent
    anything, it was what they earned. And they did Pell grant,
    some Pell grant help, but it did not completely cover
    everything.
        And that was one of my main motivations to continue
    working, because Social Security, of course, stopped when they
    got 18. Those years really became in some ways even harder to
    try to keep them in school, even though, like I said, they did
    work for spending money, but they couldn't pay for everything.
        So, I mean, we lived a simple life. I still live a simple
    life. I don't travel. I don't go to movies. My entertainment is
    the television, which I like. But you lead just a very, very
    simple life.
        And I found out about the Social Security--the first time I
    retired thinking, as I told you, that I was going to do some
    odd jobs. And I went back. One of my children had some
    financial problems that I was trying to help with.
        And, when I went back, I thought I would go back a year or
    two. And one of the other teachers whose husband had died, she
    said, ``Paula, you know you are not going to be able to collect
    your husband's Social Security.''
        So, instead of working 1 or 2 years, I worked 12. And then
    I found the part-time jobs after I retired, which I wouldn't
    have had to do if I would have had his Social Security.
        Chairman CAREY. Thank you. I want to thank you.
        Now I would like to recognize Chairman Smith for any
    questions he may have.
        Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I want to thank each and every
    one of the witnesses for your testimony.
        Ms. Porter, I am sure that you were an amazing teacher for
    how long you have taught. But I would have thought you were 29.
    So I really appreciate your testimony. It is extremely moving
    and exactly what we need to hear.
        Ms. PORTER. Thank you.
        Chairman SMITH. As I mentioned in my opening statement,
    this challenge facing our community of retired public servants
    is an issue that is often unknown until one retires and can be
    equally challenging to address after the fact. Several of you
    have made notes of when you found out about these two
    provisions.
        On that point, I would like to give each of you the
    opportunity to just answer a few questions. And my first
    question is, when did you learn about these two provisions
    within the Social Security benefits program and the impact that
    they had on your retirement? Mr. Yoes?
        Mr. YOES. Well, I think I am probably like most people that
    find themselves in a situation, that, when these provisions
    were enacted, there was a grandfather clause for people that
    were affected. So those that were immediately affected didn't
    see the concern with it.
        I think those that are in my category just didn't quite
    grasp what we were looking at and the impact that it would
    eventually have on me. So, it wasn't until later on in my
    career I realized that Windfall Elimination Provision and
    Government Pension Offset was going to be something that was
    going to drastically impact, you know, my retirement and----
        Chairman SMITH. Do you know about how long into your
    career?
        Mr. YOES. It wasn't until the last part of my career. I did
    36 years. I would say that I probably became more aware of it
    only because of my position in the Fraternal Order of Police,
    because I was hearing from so many members. It took me, you
    know--I had, you know, a little self-reflection of how it was
    going to affect me as well.
        And I think most of us had the disbelief, that government
    would not do that to us. Government protects us since the whole
    system was built on fairness, and there is nothing fair about
    this at all.
        Chairman SMITH. So, Ms. Dugas, when did you learn about
    these provisions?
        Ms. DUGAS. I learned about the provisions after I was
    employed. It was mostly word of mouth, people in the office
    speaking about it.
        As I mentioned in my testimony, one of the attorneys in our
    office was affected by Windfall, and he really educated us on
    it. And my opinion at the time was, well, this, you know, can't
    be that harsh, but then later I found out exactly how harsh it
    is, yes.
        Chairman SMITH. Mr. Piro.
        Mr. PIRO. Yes. I can't recall exactly when I knew. Much
    like Patrick, until you get closer to the retirement age. I
    have been retired. I retired at the age of 59 and received my
    retirement. And because I was not eligible for Social Security,
    I did not immediately look into it. I made my mind up that I
    was not going to retire and draw Social Security at 62. And,
    for me, I believe for full retirement age it was 66 years and 4
    months, and so that was my goal.
        And the closer you get to that timeframe is when you start
    looking and wanting to see, well, I wonder how much I will
    receive. What is, you know, this Windfall Elimination? What is
    the penalty? Here recently, me and my wife discussed. And, like
    I said, she will be retiring at age 70, and that was an
    agreement with her and her boss. She still enjoys working.
        So, she said, ``I want to see what we are going to--what my
    Social Security is going to be when I retire, because that is
    going to be a reduction from me being in the workforce.'' And
    so, at that point, we started looking into it. And, of course,
    she and I had already looked into the fact that, when you put
    off retiring with Social Security benefits, you benefit 8
    percent a year increase.
        And so, between her and her boss, they came up with an
    agreement that he will probably be retiring when she is 70
    years of age, and that was the agreement that they had reached.
        So here recently, in preparing for this and I wanted to
    see, and I found on the website, Social Security website, a GPO
    calculator. And so I put in what my benefit is and what she
    would be able to draw if she was to retire from Social Security
    and hit the ``calculate'' mark, and it comes up zero.
        She would be eligible for zero Social Security benefits
    when she starts drawing my pension. And I just do not in any
    way see like this is fair and equitable, especially after the
    amount of money that has been put into Social Security on her
    behalf from employers and herself.
        For the life of me, I can't understand the reasoning. I
    don't understand how it passed to begin with, but I appreciate
    all of each and every one of you all that are trying to correct
    this wrong because this is an injustice and hurting many, many
    of the public servants in retirement. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman SMITH. Ms. Porter, when did you learn of these two
    provisions?
        Ms. PORTER. I actually learned from a teacher who was a
    widow, and she mentioned it to me. I had gone back in, thought
    I would work a couple more years, when she told me that. But it
    was from another teacher whose husband had died and when she
    went to check on it.
        And I thought she didn't know what she was talking about. I
    went to the Social Security office and found out. There was no
    calculating. I knew they would just tell me it was going to be
    a big--you know, I couldn't draw anything.
        Chairman SMITH. So you went to the Social Security office
    to get a better understanding?
        Ms. PORTER. Well, to verify because, you know, sometimes
    people tell you things and it is not just right, but this was.
        Chairman SMITH. I kind of know that, yeah. I serve in
    Congress, you know, so yes.
        Did any of the rest of you contact the Social Security
    office to try to get more information on the policies whenever
    you heard it? I am just curious if Social Security was at all
    helpful.
        Mr. PIRO. If I may.
        Chairman SMITH. I think that answers it. Go ahead.
        Mr. PIRO. I would like to talk on behalf of when I got this
    information. And I had one of my retirees that we were
    discussing it, and I knew that he had gone to work many years
    prior to me, and he is drawing his Social Security benefit. And
    he was telling me that it was cut two-thirds because of the
    Windfall Elimination Provision.
        And I told him, I said, ``I don't think that--I think you
    are exempt.'' And so he did go to the Social Security office.
    In his first visit, she said, ``We are waiting on the outcome
    from Congress.''
        And I don't believe that she understands that he was exempt
    because he was eligible for retirement at the time he retired.
    And he has been retired over 10 years, and he has been taking a
    cut in his Social Security benefits when he was actually
    exempted.
        So, I don't know that--and I am sure he is not the only one
    that this has happened to. We actually--he had talked to
    another firefighter, and initially he was also given that
    information, but they did contact him a week or so later and
    say, ``No, you are correct; you are exempt.'' So there is a lot
    that needs to be corrected.
        Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Carey.
        Chairman CAREY. I now recognize Mr. Estes for 5 minutes.
        Mr. ESTES. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
    having this field hearing outside of Washington, D.C. It is
    refreshing for our committee to hold field hearings away from
    the Nation's Capital so that we can hear directly from
    Americans that are impacted by our policy decisions or policy
    decisions that were made years ago.
        And I want to thank again the St. George Fire Department
    for allowing us to meet here today. And, also, I want to thank
    all you witnesses. I am grateful for having such incredible
    public servants here to talk about the issues that affect them
    in their daily lives.
        I will try to keep my remarks brief because I want to allow
    time for questions. And our discussion here is really to talk
    about the large, unwieldy D.C. bureaucracies that far too often
    don't help people with the intended help that they are supposed
    to have.
        And, for me, far too often Mary and John at the Social
    Security Administration prioritize making it easier for them to
    pass paper between their cubicles instead of focusing on how to
    help the teachers and firefighters and police officers prepare
    for retirement.
        The complexity of the Windfall Elimination Provision and
    the Government Pension Offset and the lack of clear
    communication early in the careers of public servants means
    there are many Kansans and Americans who are unprepared for a
    lower Social Security payment when they retire.
        Mr. Piro, I visited a number of firehouses and spoke with
    firefighters in my district. I know that, before you enter a
    fire scene, you have the tools and the training and the
    preparation needed. You wouldn't know all the specific
    challenges you face, but you are prepared to address whatever
    you come against.
        I think of retirement in the same way. I don't know what--
    we don't know what challenges we will face, how long we will
    live, what our health conditions will be, how we will spend our
    time no longer working, but we do know that we want to spend--
    that, during our working years, we spend time to prepare for
    our retirement.
        Do you feel the Social Security Administration provided you
    with the tools to be prepared for retiring, regarding WEP and
    GPO?
        Mr. PIRO. No, sir, I don't. I don't feel like we were
    informed. And they shouldn't--they need to share that
    responsibility with the retirement system as well as the
    employer, the fire department, school boards, State agencies,
    law enforcement.
        If you are not made aware of the impact, it can be a
    detriment on how you select your retirement and what benefits
    you are going to leave your spouse, being better prepared for
    it.
        Had you known and had my health been good enough, it would
    have been quite a bit better for me to take out a large life
    insurance policy and have kept the $835.83 and paid for the
    policy with it. And she would not be penalized because she
    received a life insurance policy versus a retirement pension.
        And had that been expressed better to me, that would have
    been an option had my health--if my health allowed it at that
    time and I was not diagnosed with cancer at the time of my
    retirement, then that would have been a much better option for
    me and would have better protected my wife had I known about
    it. And I think those three components that they dropped the
    ball.
        Mr. ESTES. Right, right. Well, thank you.
        Mr. PIRO. I appreciate you.
        Mr. ESTES. Thank you.
        Ms. Porter, I mean, there is a special place in my heart
    for teachers. My wife taught for several years. Several of my
    staff members, both in D.C. and in Kansas, either are former
    teachers or married to teachers. I know that being a teacher is
    not another job; it is a calling. And you probably didn't join
    the profession for the paycheck but because you wanted to help
    inspire young minds.
        Did you know about WEP and GPO when you first looked to
    being a teacher, and how did it change your outlook on the
    choice of your career as a teacher?
        Ms. PORTER. I did not know. But I am not sure the exact
    year that it went into effect in the eighties. So, when I
    started teaching--because I stayed out about 5 years. I had had
    five children in 5 years, so I stayed out after the fifth one
    for a while.
        But, at the time I went into teaching, that law was not
    into effect. It was not in effect. Some of the older teachers
    may have been able to draw both, but, as I said before, when I
    found out about it I just prolonged--stayed back in the
    classroom longer.
        And I found out through a fellow teacher. No one ever had
    mentioned that at school before. And I think, to this day,
    there are still a lot of people that do not know about that.
        Another thing I think we are facing--and I am just speaking
    from the teaching standpoint--Louisiana is severely short of
    teachers now. Now, once they find out more about this and more
    aware, we are going to even have fewer of them going in or we
    are going to have some of them that are going to leave and go
    somewhere else.
        Mr. ESTES. That is right. And we already have a shortage of
    teachers and firefighters and law enforcement.
        Ms. PORTER. Yes.
        Mr. ESTES. Mr. Chairman, I know so many laws that come out
    of Washington. You know, WEP and GPO were designed to solve a
    problem. Unfortunately, it has made it tougher in a lot of
    cases. And we need to make sure that we focus on policies that
    help make it better beneficial for American citizens.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman CAREY. Thank you.
        I now recognize Mr. Graves for 5 minutes.
        Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, I want to thank you-all for holding this hearing.
        And I think Mr. Estes said something that was really
    important, just in regard to the committee wanting to go out to
    real America and spending time with real people, not stuck in
    this bubble of Washington.
        And this is a real penalty that is affecting real people
    all across--all across this country.
        Mr. Yoes touched on I think a really important component of
    what it is that we are facing right now. You have all heard of
    the awful activities of people like Bernie Madoff and one of
    the awful investor groups here in Louisiana that impact many
    folks, the Stanford Group. They charged people money or took
    money under the auspices of doing something and then diverted
    it to another cause.
        In the real world, that is called embezzling, and people go
    to jail for it. And, in this case, it appears that Congress is
    calling it budgeting and acting like it is okay.
        I understand the intention of Congress in the late
    seventies and early eighties when they were trying to help
    rightsize this, I guess. But let's be clear. They got it wrong.
    They got it wrong.
        I understand, and all of us up here, Republicans and
    Democrats, everyone wants to ensure the sustainability of the
    Social Security trust fund so it is there for generations to
    come. And I understand that anything that you do that causes
    faster expenditures, causes that insolvency rate or causes the
    Social Security trust fund to go in the red faster, I get it.
        But I want to come back to the point. Mr. Yoes, you joined
    the St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office to ensure justice, to
    ensure that people were being held accountable for doing what
    is right, doing what is wrong. I guess held accountable for
    doing what is wrong.
        In this case, watching your own government, your own
    government step in and charge fees, and I think of Ms. Porter,
    your husband didn't--paid for decades and didn't receive a
    penny.
        How does that make you feel that your own government is
    doing this?
        Mr. YOES. Well, first, Mr. Graves, thank you. You are a
    strong advocate for--I have worked very closely with your
    office, and thank you for the work that you do for WEP and
    government. You give us hope. So thank you and the entire
    committee.
        So, I think when you look at this, I don't--I don't envy
    the position at all of you in. You have a very difficult
    position of trying to find a system and keep it solvent. I
    understand that. That is a challenge.
        I can somewhat understand how you could argue, saying,
    okay, if you are already receiving a government pension, then
    somehow you are going to get a second government pension, and
    you are going to have a windfall.
        But let's just look at the reality of it. We paid for our
    pension. We paid into it just like someone in the private
    sector would pay into their 401(k) or any other retirement plan
    they do.
        What I don't understand yet is why has it taken 40 years to
    recognize, yes, they did get it wrong. Maybe it was trying to
    find a way to shore up a system. But, at some point, when did
    we recognize that what we are doing is an injustice to the very
    people who are working in public safety or public employees,
    but we are not doing anything to fix it? And we have got an
    opportunity now to do it.
        Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Yoes.
        And an important point. So, for over 40 years, people have
    been charged, you know. So folks that are worried about the
    insolvency of the trust fund--these people have been charged a
    fee or a tax that has actually helped to prop up the Social
    Security trust fund.
        And so now when folks are asking for that payment----
        Ms. YOES. So.
        Mr. GRAVES. I think that you have more than made your
    appropriate payment.
        Ms. Porter, let me ask you a question. 38 years, you
    taught. I am married to a teacher, and I think one of the most
    important professions--I want to make note my wife would not be
    affected by this legislation--but one of the most important
    professions.
        Thinking about our investment in the next generation,
    knowing what you know now, would you have become a teacher?
        Ms. PORTER. I don't think so, especially if I had known
    what my future held. When my husband died, I remember my daddy
    saying, if we had only known, I would have encouraged--I was
    very fortunate. My father paid for me to go to college. I
    didn't have to work my way through college. But he said we
    would, should have found something else.
        I really--I don't think so.
        Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, some of the most important
    professions in our community--teachers, firefighters, police
    officers, public employees--some of the most important
    professions, we are doing everything I can in Congress to
    incentivize people to take up these professions. Yet all we are
    doing is shooting ourselves in the foot.
        Again, I want to thank all of our delegation Members that
    have been early and strong supporters of this legislation. I
    want to thank the committee again for coming down the
    Louisiana. I want to thank the chief and St. George for hosting
    us today. We want to take these trucks back to D.C. if that
    works.
        So I yield back.
        Chairman CAREY. Thank you.
        I would now like to recognize Mr. Carter for 5 minutes.
        Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and thanks--
    thank you to my colleagues here in Louisiana and for
    demonstrating the ability to face the music and face it in a
    way that we recognize that to fix this issue that affects
    everyone in your position that a bipartisan solution is the
    answer.
        And so, I applaud the chairman for being here. I applaud
    those Members that have traveled from their homes, particularly
    during this holiday time, to be with us here in Louisiana.
    Thank you all so very much for coming today and highlighting
    this important issue.
        I would like to also give a special thank you to Mr. Yoes,
    Ms. Dugas, Mr. Piro, and Ms. Porter for sharing your personal
    stories.
        Your testimony has demonstrated the fundamental unfairness
    of the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government
    Pension Offset. For far too long, people who serve our
    communities--police, police officers, teachers, firefighters,
    and so many others, have suffered under these provisions in an
    attempt to retire after public service, providing the resources
    and time away from your families, challenging to give your
    value and to be undervalued as significant public servants.
        We are here for you. We hear you loud and clear. And as the
    chairman and every member that has spoken thus far has said, we
    are going to work tirelessly to correct this massive, massive
    error, one that has devalued the great work that you have done
    for our country.
        Imagine after a lifetime of serving your community, someone
    who has lost their spouse, retires only to find that they will
    not be entitled to their Social Security survivors benefits--
    often lose their homes and are forced to move into jobs to make
    ends meet.
        The stories that you have all said, the stories that
    resonate, Ms. Porter, I listened to your story. And it has
    almost brought me to tears because it is so unique to my own
    personal story. My mother raised six children on a school
    teacher salary. After 45-plus years in the classroom as a
    teacher, she, too, found herself having to take second jobs to
    tutor and to work with students to make ends meet.
        I am the youngest of six. My mother raised us all and made
    sure that we all had good educations, but it was very
    difficult. So I applaud you for your incredible work, your
    tenacity, your shining example of a public servant and a
    mother. So, thank you.
        Mr. Yoes, your officers put their lives on the line to
    protect our communities. How does it affect them knowing that,
    if the worst happens, their spouse will not receive survivor
    benefits?
        Mr. YOES. Well, I think it is a little bit of a slap in the
    face to recognize that any other class of employees, any other
    American would be entitled to those benefits. But these are
    eliminated because of the public pension.
        I think it is--I do think it is ironic, and I think most of
    our members do, that we are actually recognizing our
    contribution into a pension system and considering it a
    windfall but not recognizing our contribution into the Social
    Security system. Somehow that is not a win. You know, that is
    viewed different. So we earn both of these benefits, but we
    are--they are being taken from us.
        So, I think most of our, you know, our members are looking
    at this as an inequity that just--that is something that
    probably did not hit their radar because, when they first got
    in this profession, Social Security was something that was so
    far down the road that they didn't know how it was going to
    impact them.
        It is not until it is time for you to start making plans
    for retirement that you realize that the gate has been opened.
        Mr. CARTER. Thank you.
        Mr. Piro, after 35 years of protecting our community, how
    does this impact your recruitment and opportunity, the ability
    to recruit and retain future firefighters?
        Mr. PIRO. I think it is going to hamper the ability to
    recruit young firefighters. Already our--the pay is not the
    most optimum of pay in the fire service, in the starting fire
    service, especially the Louisiana.
        And our recruitment tools and the number of people that are
    applying to take the Civil Service examination has drastically
    been reduced. Between the low pay and then adding the fact,
    once the word has gotten out about the windfall elimination and
    the GPO--because all firefighters have second jobs. They are
    carpenters, electricians, you know. They do work on the side.
    And that is to make ends meet.
        And, of course, they are paying into Social Security and
    then to not be able to draw but a fraction of their Social
    Security and, if they leave their pension, their spouse could
    end up losing all of her Social Security or his, depending. We
    have female firefighters. So we can't leave them out.
        And I think it is going to hamper the situation and be
    detrimental to all the citizens.
        Mr. CARTER. Thank you very much.
        And my time is over.
        Can I just ask? Very briefly, my time has elapsed. But I
    want to make another comment, as I did to Ms. Porter.
        Ms. Dugas, my mother, similar to your situation and Ms.
    Porter's, my mother went back to school, as you did,
    recognizing that she needed to earn more. So she went back and
    got a master's degree in order to get a few more dollars as a
    school teacher.
        So, I applaud both of you, all of you as great examples of
    civil servants and public servants who have done the right
    thing.
        And, to all of you in the audience, know that we hear you,
    we care, and we are going to continue to work on making it
    better.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman CAREY. Thank you.
        I now recognize Mr. Higgins for 5 minutes.
        Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate the fact that my colleagues have waived me
    onto this committee field hearing. This is a topic that is very
    near and dear to my heart.
        Mr. Yoes, Ms. Dugas, Mr. Piro, Ms. Porter, ladies and
    gentlemen, we are going to fix this travesty, and we are going
    to fix it in this Congress. It is going to be because of
    colleagues like I see seated next to me at this table. We are
    dedicated to fixing this. It is wrong, and we are going to
    address that quite aggressively in this Congress.
        My colleagues up here and I, we are tired of hearing about
    excuses from previous Congresses. We are tired of politics. We
    are tired of hearing about how much this is going to cost
    because here is a real simple fact, Mr. Chairman: I don't care
    how much it costs. It is not our money. This money belongs to
    the people that have earned it. It has been set aside for their
    entire life. They deserve every penny of it.
        And I am, Mr. Chairman, I am just so uplifted that we are
    here, because this is a signal that you gentlemen are getting
    this thing done. And you will have--you will have my full
    support and passionate support to get the Social Security
    Fairness Act passed and signed into law in the 118th Congress.
    That is going to happen.
        I would like to mention the St. George Fire Department. I
    don't know about you, ladies and gentlemen, but this is the
    nicest fire department I have ever seen. This is definitely a
    different neighborhood from where I grew up.
        I believe my first cousin, Boyd Petty (ph), is here. Boyd,
    if you are here, raise your hand in the back. There he is
    there, my first cousin, Boyd Petty (ph), retired firefighter,
    literally my first cousin. So he has stories about me that he
    is not allowed to tell.
        Mr. Chairman, Mr. Piro asked, how is it fair? It is not
    fair. It is absolutely not fair. And, if a law in our beautiful
    Nation is ultimately, even a well-intentioned law, if it is
    determined to be unrighteous, if by any reasonable measure it
    becomes clear that a Federal law is injurious to the citizenry
    that it is intended to serve, if it falls outside the
    parameters of any measure of what is right, you don't change--
    you don't change the definition of ``righteousness.'' You don't
    eliminate the rights of the citizenry. You eliminate the law,
    and that is what we are going to do.
        And it couldn't happen soon enough to me. But I am telling
    you, ladies and gentlemen, this is a significant hearing. You
    are witnessing history because we are going to get this thing
    done. We have got 300 cosponsors or so. We are pushing it very
    hard this Congress.
        Mr. Yoes and Mr. Piro, we have had trouble in first
    responding for recruitment. Like our backgrounds, it becomes
    increasingly difficult to fill the ranks. If this Congress will
    pass the Social Security Fairness Act and repeal WEP and GPO,
    Mr. Yoes, Mr. Piro, how do you think that will positively
    impact recruitment for first responding departments across the
    country?
        Mr. Yoes.
        Mr. YOES. Well, I think if you look at people that are--and
    traditionally we are struggling trying to recruit the next wave
    of law enforcement, not at a level we can sustain the numbers
    that are leaving. So, we are at an existential crisis right
    now.
        One of the problems that we have is, is I think we need to
    look at it a little differently in our recruiting. But,
    unfortunately, with Windfall Elimination Provision and
    Government Pension Offset, what we don't have is a pool of
    people who are already in the workforce that would be willing
    to give up the benefit in order to come into a field of public
    service.
        Mr. HIGGINS. That is a good point. So, to leave their
    career and shift their career, if we do not pass the Social
    Security Fairness Act, very true. So, we don't want to lose
    some of our top guys out there, the most experienced men and
    women are the ones that have the greatest options, ladies and
    gentlemen, to leave that career in law enforcement or
    firefighting or teacher.
        Mr. Piro, you feel the same way?
        Mr. PIRO. Yes, sir, I do. I feel like, although there is a
    certain passion to be in law enforcement or firefighting, to do
    that, the bottom line is you have got to be able to provide for
    your family. And, when there are obstacles, such as the
    Windfall Elimination and the GPO, because many--both law
    enforcement and firefighters all have second jobs, and I
    think--and I think this is deterring recruiting into both law
    enforcement and firefighting when they know that all their work
    on the side, and they pay into Social Security, they are not
    going to reap a benefit, as well as their spouse.
        Mr. HIGGINS. So I concur, Mr. Chairman.
        My time has expired.
        But let me just state that I, again, I am so encouraged by
    the direction this Congress is taking from a bipartisan
    perspective to push forward, quite righteously, the Social
    Security Fairness Act to eliminate WEP and GPO.
        And I feel blessed to be a small part of that for the
    citizenry that we have sworn to serve. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
    for allowing me to be here today.
        And I yield.
        Chairman CAREY. Thank you.
        I now recognize Ms. Letlow for 5 minutes.
        Ms. LETLOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to Chairman Smith for coming to the best
    State in the country. We are excited to have you here but,
    seriously, to hear from the hearts and minds of all of the
    people that are adversely affected by this terrible provision.
        And thank you to Congressman Garrett Graves for leading
    H.R. 82. We are encouraged that we are going to get that across
    the finish line this Congress.
        And I have to tell you, while my time in Congress has been
    brief, a little over 3 years now, this is the number one
    concern that I hear from my constituents about thousands of
    calls, countless letters. It is the--I was just followed around
    every single aisle of Target last week, trying to buy presents,
    listening to the concerns from my constituents, because it is
    absolutely unfair, and it is--it must be righted.
        And I just want to thank our witnesses today. I want to
    especially thank Ms. Dugas and Ms. Porter. Unfortunately, I
    have also felt your pain in also being a widow myself. And I
    know that the minute that you lose your husband, the first
    thing that goes through your mind is, how am I going to support
    my family? And the last thing that you need to be worried about
    through every single point in the rest of your careers is, how
    am I going to support my family? And then to be hit with GPO
    later on is absolutely abhorrent, and I am sorry that you had
    to go through that.
        And so, being in Congress and being a teacher myself, once
    I realized what was happening with WEP and GPO, I wanted to go
    on this research hunt, per se, and find out what is this? Why
    is it happening? Who can explain it to me? And so, I probably
    did what many of you did. I went to the Social Security
    Administration.
        I said, ``Can you explain what this funding formula is?
    What is happening here? Tell me more about it.''
        I left more confused than when I went into that office. And
    then so I went to the Congressional Research Service. And I
    said, ``Hey, can you guys explain to me what is happening with
    this and what is happening with the funding formula?''
        And they said, ``Well, all we can tell you is that it is
    flawed.''
        And I said, ``Okay. It is flawed. So how do we fix it?''
        And they said, ``Oh, no, that is your job to fix it.''
        I said, ``Okay. So how do we fix it?''
        So, I want you to know that with every single breath that I
    have, this is the number one issue that I want to work on in
    Congress. It is the number one issue I hear about from my
    constituents. It is the number one issue I am trying to wrap my
    head around and fully understand, which leads me to my next--to
    the witnesses.
        Can any of you explain to me the funding formula and what
    is wrong with it? Anyone want to take a stab at it?
        I am confused, too, Mr. Chairman. I am trying earnestly in
    all seriousness to find out what is the answer to that question
    because no one can really explain it to me. And I think that is
    where we have to really drill down and really get to the heart
    of the matter. Where is it wrong?
        Do you want to take a stab at it?
        Mr. YOES. I cannot tell you I understand the formula. I
    can't tell you there is any logic to it. But what I can tell
    you is how we can fix it.
        Ms. LETLOW. Okay.
        Mr. YOES. We know that it is broken.
        Ms. LETLOW. Right.
        Mr. YOES. We know that we are taking money from people with
    an expectation they are going to receive a benefit just like
    every other American.
        Ms. LETLOW. Right.
        Mr. YOES. We know it is flawed, but we are not taking any
    steps to correct it. The simple thing to do is just repeal it.
    Let's give everybody what they paid into the system. It is not
    a matter of where does the money come from. I can tell you
    exactly where it came from. It came out of every one of our
    paychecks.
        Ms. LETLOW. Uh-huh.
        Mr. YOES. We paid into the system----
        Ms. LETLOW. That is right.
        Mr. YOES [continuing]. Just like every other American.
        Ms. LETLOW. That is right.
        Mr. YOES. And because we picked public service, we should
    be treated like every other American.
        Ms. LETLOW. Absolutely.
        You know, it is incredibly frustrating for me to, again, in
    3 years watch trillions of dollars go out the door in other
    government programs. And yet what message are we saying to the
    hardworking American people who are public servants, who didn't
    go into teaching for 38 years for the money or for the
    paycheck? It is because you felt called to serve. What are we
    saying to those people when we are robbing them of what is
    rightfully theirs, what you paid in, Mr. Piro?
        It is astounding to me that we are having this
    conversation, but I am hopeful. I truly am hopeful that we have
    a chairman who is willing to come all the way to the great
    State of Louisiana to hear your voices and hear your stories.
        And, again, as long as I have breath, I am going to
    continue sharing them. Please continue sharing them with me
    because the louder we can make our voices, I know change can
    occur.
        So, thank you all so much for being with us today. I truly
    value your time and your stories. Thank you.
        Chairman CAREY. I would like to thank all of our witnesses
    for appearing before us today and sharing your very personal
    stories.
        I would also like to recognize Mrs. Reba Brock Harrington,
    who was unable to be with us today but who was a great help in
    pulling this hearing together.
        As the chairman mentioned earlier today, that this is the
    first time this subcommittee has met in a field hearing status
    in over 10 years.
        And, with that, I would also like to thank all of our
    staff, our committee staff that are present in the room.
        If you would, raise your hands.
        Some of them may be in the back, getting everything else
    ready, but we do appreciate all their efforts in getting this
    done.
        Please be advised that the members have 2 weeks to submit
    written questions to be answered later in writing. Those
    questions and your answers will be made part of the formal
    record for the hearing.
        With that, the committee now stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:24 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                        LOCAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    =======================================================================

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    =======================================================================

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]