[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]