[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]