[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11687-S11689]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. MIKULSKI:
  S. 1365. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
provide that the

[[Page S11688]]

reductions in social security benefits which are required in the case 
of spouses and surviving spouses who are also receiving certain 
Government pensions shall be equal to the amount by which two-thirds of 
the total amount of the combined monthly benefit (before reduction) and 
monthly pension exceeds $1,200, adjusted for inflation; to the 
Committee on Finance.


         the government pension offset modification act of 1997

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that is 
very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland, 
and very important to government workers and retirees across the 
Nation.
  Today, I am introducing a bill to modify a harsh and heartless rule 
of government that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying 
the benefits of their hard work in their retirement. I want the middle 
class of this Nation to know that if you worked hard to become middle 
class you should stay middle class when you retire.
  Under current law, there is something called the pension offset law. 
This is a harsh and unfair policy. Let me tell you why.
  If you are a retired government worker, and you qualify for a spousal 
Social Security benefit based on your spouse's employment record, you 
may not receive what you qualify for. Because the pension offset law 
reduces or entirely eliminates a Social Security spousal benefit when 
the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, state, or 
federal government job that was not covered by Social Security.
  This policy only applies to government workers, not private sector 
workers. Let me give you an example of two women, Helen and her sister 
Phyllis.
  Helen is a retired Social Security benefits counselor who lives in 
Woodlawn, MD. Helen currently earns $600 a month from her Federal 
Government pension. She's also entitled to a $645 a month spousal 
benefit from Social Security based on her deceased husband's hard work 
as an auto mechanic. That's a combined monthly benefit of $1,245.
  Phyllis is a retired bank teller also in Woodlawn, MD. She currently 
earns a pension of $600 a month from the bank. Like Helen, Phyllis is 
also entitled to a $645 a month spousal benefit from Social Security 
based on her husband's employment. He was an auto mechanic, too. In 
fact, he worked at the same shop as Helen's husband.
  So, Phyllis is entitled to a total of $1,245 a month, the same as 
Helen. But, because of the pension offset law, Helen's spousal benefit 
is reduced by two-thirds of her government pension, or $400. So instead 
of $1,245 per month, she will only receive $845 per month.
  This reduction in benefits only happens to Helen because she worked 
for the government. Phyllis will receive her full benefits because her 
pension is a private sector pension. I don't think that's right, and 
that's why I'm introducing this legislation.
  The crucial thing about the Mikulski modification is that it 
guarantees a minimum benefit of $1,200. So, with the Mikulski 
modification to the pension offset, Helen is guaranteed at least $1,200 
per month.
  Let me tell you how it works. Helen's spousal benefit will be reduced 
only by two-thirds of the amount her combined monthly benefit exceeds 
$1,200. In her case, the amount of the offset would be two thirds of 
$45, or $30. That's a big difference from $400, and I think people like 
our Federal workers, teachers, and our firefighters deserve that big 
difference.
  Why should earning a government pension penalize the surviving 
spouse? If a deceased spouse had a job covered by Social Security and 
paid into the Social Security system. That spouse expected his earned 
Social Security benefits would be there for his surviving spouse.
  Most working men believe this and many working women are counting on 
their spousal benefits. But because of this harsh and heartless policy 
the spousal benefits will not be there, your spouse will not benefit 
from your hard work, and, chances are, you won't find out about it 
until your loved one is gone and you really need the money.
  The Mikulski modification guarantees that the spouse will at least 
receive $1,200 in combined benefits. That Helen will receive the same 
amount as Phyllis.
  I'm introducing this legislation, because these survivors deserve 
better than the reduced monthly benefits that the pension offset 
currently allows. They deserve to be rewarded for their hard work, not 
penalized for it.
  Many workers affected by this offset policy are women, or clerical 
workers and bus drivers who are currently working and looking forward 
to a deserved retirement. These are people who worked hard as Federal 
employees, school teachers, or firefighters.
  Frankly, I would repeal this policy all together. But, I realize that 
budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we 
can agree that retirees who work hard should not have this offset 
applied until their combined monthly benefit exceeds $1,200.
  In the few cases where retirees might have their benefits reduced by 
this policy change, my legislation will calculate their pension offset 
by the current method. I also have a provision in this legislation to 
index the minimum amount of $1,200 to inflation so retirees will see 
their minimum benefits increase as the cost of living increases.
  I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not 
be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities. That's why I'm 
introducing this bill today.
  Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana has introduced similar 
legislation in the House. I look forward to working with him to modify 
the harsh pension offset rule.
  If the Federal Government is going to force government workers and 
retirees in Maryland and across the country to give up a portion of 
their spousal benefits, the retirees should at least receive a fair 
portion of their benefits.
  I want to urge my Senate colleagues to join me in this effort and 
support my legislation to modify the Government pension offset.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1365

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON REDUCTIONS IN BENEFITS FOR SPOUSES 
                   AND SURVIVING SPOUSES RECEIVING GOVERNMENT 
                   PENSIONS.

       (a) Wife's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(b)(4)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(4)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of 
     such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and'' 
     after ``two-thirds''; and
       (2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in 
     subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if''.
       (b) Husband's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(c)(2)(A) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of 
     such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and'' 
     after ``two-thirds of''; and
       (2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in 
     subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if''.
       (c) Widow's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(e)(7)(A) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(7)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of 
     such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and'' 
     after ``two-thirds of''; and
       (2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in 
     subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if''.
       (d) Widower's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(f)(2)(A) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of 
     such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and'' 
     after ``two-thirds of''; and
       (2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in 
     subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if''.
       (e) Mother's and Father's Insurance Benefits.--Section 
     202(g)(4)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(g)(4)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of 
     such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and'' 
     after ``two-thirds of''; and
       (2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in 
     subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if''.
       (f) Amount Described.--Section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(z) The amount described in this subsection is, for 
     months in each 12-month period beginning in December of 1997, 
     and each succeeding calendar year, the greater of--
       ``(1) $1200; or
       ``(2) the amount applicable for months in the preceding 12-
     month period, increased by the cost-of-living adjustment for 
     such period

[[Page S11689]]

     determined for an annuity under section 8340 of title 5, 
     United States Code (without regard to any other provision of 
     law).''.
       (g) Limitations on Reductions in Benefits.--Section 202 of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 402), as amended by subsection (f), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(aa) For any month after December 1997, in no event shall 
     an individual receive a reduction in a benefit under 
     subsection (b)(4)(A), (c)(2)(A), (e)(7)(A), (f)(2)(A), or 
     (g)(4)(A) for the month that is more than the reduction in 
     such benefit that would have applied for such month under 
     such subsections as in effect on December 1, 1997.''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with respect 
     to monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the 
     Social Security Act for months after December 1997.
                                 ______