[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 30 (Monday, March 14, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2653-S2654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
        Specter, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dayton, and Mr. Nelson of 
        Florida):
  S. 619. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal 
the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that will repeal two 
provisions of current law that reduce earned Social Security benefits 
for teachers and other government pensioners--the Government Pension 
Offset provision and the Windfall Elimination Provision.
  Under current law, public employees, whose salaries are often lower 
than those in the private sector, find that they are penalized and held 
to a different standard when it comes to retirement benefits. The 
unfair reduction in their benefits makes it more difficult to recruit 
teachers, police officers, and fire fighters; and it does so at a time 
when we should to be doing everything we can to recruit the best and 
brightest to these careers.
  The current Government Pension Offset provision reduces Social 
Security spousal benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the 
spouse's public employment civil service pension. This can have the 
effect of taking away, entirely, a spouse's benefits from Social 
Security. And, as one might guess, this provision disproportionately 
affects women.
  The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social 
Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and also 
receive a government pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund.
  Private sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal 
to 90 percent of their first $627 in average monthly career earnings, 
plus 32 percent of monthly earnings up to $3,152 and 15 percent of 
earnings above $3,152. Government pensioners, however, are only allowed 
to receive 40 percent of the first $627 in career monthly earnings, a 
penalty of over $300 per month.
  To my mind it is simply unfair. My legislation will allow government 
pensioners the chance to earn the same 90 percent to which non-
government pension recipients are entitled.
  I do not understand why we would want to discourage people from 
pursuing careers in public service by essentially saying that if you do 
enter public service; your family will suffer by not being able to 
receive the full retirement benefits they would otherwise be entitled 
to.
  Record enrollments in public schools and the projected retirements of 
thousands of veteran teachers are driving an urgent need for teacher 
recruitment. Critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate 
hiring additional teachers. It is estimated that schools will need to 
hire between 2.2 million and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by 
2009.

  California currently has more than 300,000 teachers, but will need to 
hire an additional 300,000 teachers by 2010 to keep up with 
California's rate of student enrollment, which is three times the 
national average. All in all, California has to hire tens of thousands 
of new teachers every year.
  To combat the growing teacher shortage crisis, forty-five States and 
the District of Columbia now offer ``alternate routes'' for 
certification to teach in the Nation's public schools.
  It is a sad irony that policymakers are encouraging experienced 
people to change careers and enter the teaching profession at the same 
time that we clearly tell them that we will reduce your Social Security 
benefits for making such a change--benefits they worked so hard to 
earn.
  Nearly one million government retirees nationwide are affected by the 
Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination provisions, but 
their impact is greatest in the 12 States that chose to keep their own 
public employee retirement systems, including California.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Pension 
Offset reduces benefits for some 200,000 individuals by more than 
$3,600 a year. And, as I mentioned earlier, the Windfall Elimination 
Provision causes already low-paid public employees outside the Social 
Security system, like teachers, firefighters and police officers, to 
lose up to sixty percent of the Social Security benefits to which they 
are entitled. Sadly, the loss of Social Security benefits may make 
these individuals eligible for more costly assistance, such as food 
stamps.
  I am also very aware that we are facing extraordinary deficits and 
that fixing the problem that we are talking about here today will be 
expensive. I am open to considering all options that move us toward our 
goal of allowing individuals to keep the Social Security benefits they 
are entitled to. The important thing for us to do is to take action 
that moves us in the right direction.
  The reforms that led to the Government Pension Offset provision and 
the Windfall Elimination Provision are almost 20 years old. At the time 
they were enacted, I'm sure they seemed like a good idea. Now that we 
are witnessing the practical effects of those reforms, I hope that 
Congress will pass legislation to address the unfair reduction of 
benefits that make it even more difficult to recruit and retain public 
employees.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security 
Fairness Act. This bill repeals two provisions of current law--the 
windfall elimination provision (WEP) and the government pension offset 
(GPO) that unfairly reduce earned Social Security benefits for many 
public employees when they retire.
  Individuals affected by both the GPO and the WEP are those who are 
eligible for Federal, State or local pensions from work that was not 
covered by Social Security, but who also qualify for Social Security 
benefits based on their own work in covered employment or that of their 
spouses. While the two provisions were intended to equalize Social 
Security's treatment of workers, we are concerned that they unfairly 
penalize individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time 
comes for them to retire.
  These two provisions have enormous financial implications not just 
for Federal employees, but for our teachers, police officers, 
firefighters and other public employees as well. Despite their 
challenging, difficult and sometimes dangerous jobs, these invaluable 
public servants often receive far lower salaries than private sector 
employees. It is therefore doubly unfair to penalize them when it comes 
to their Social Security benefits. These public servants--or their 
spouses--have all paid taxes into the Social Security system. So have 
their employers. Yet, because of these two provisions, they are unable 
to collect all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwise 
would be entitled.
  While the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in 
virtually every State, their impact is most acute in 15 States, 
including Maine. Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and 
education employees, and more than one-fifth of other public employees, 
are affected by the GPO and/or the WEP.
  Almost one million retired government workers across the country have

[[Page S2654]]

already been adversely affected by these provisions. Millions more 
stand to be affected by them in the future. Moreover, at a time when we 
should be doing all that we can to attract qualified people to public 
service, this reduction in Social Security benefits makes it even more 
difficult for our Federal, State and local governments to recruit and 
retain the teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public 
servants who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our 
families.
  The Social Security windfall elimination provision reduces Social 
Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and who 
receive a government pension from work not covered under Social 
Security, such pensions from the Maine State Retirement Fund. While 
private sector retirees receive Social Security checks based on 90 
percent of their first $612 average monthly career earnings, government 
pensioners checks are based on 40 percent a harsh penalty of more than 
$300 per month.
  The government pension offset reduces an individual's survivor 
benefit under Social Security by two-thirds of the amount of his or her 
public pension. It is estimated that nine out of ten public employees 
affected by the GPO lose their entire spousal benefit, even though 
their deceased spouses paid Social Security taxes for many years.
  What is most troubling is that this offset is most harsh for those 
who can least afford the loss--lower-income women. In fact, of those 
affected by the GPO, 73 percent are women. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 
200,000 of these individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that 
can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.

  Our teachers and other public employees face difficult enough 
challenges in their day-to-day work. Individuals who have devoted their 
lives to public service should not have the added burden of worrying 
about their retirement. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked 
with me about this issue. They love their jobs and the children they 
teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial 
security in retirement.
  I hear a lot about this issue in my constituent mail, as well. 
Patricia Dupont, for example, of Orland, ME, wrote that, because she 
taught for 15 years under Social Security in New Hampshire, she is 
living on a retirement income of less than $13,000 after 45 years in 
education. Since she also lost survivors' benefits from her husband's 
Social Security, she calculates that a repeal of the WEP and the GPO 
would double her current retirement income.
  These provisions also penalize private sector employees who leave 
their jobs to become public school teachers. Ruth Wilson, a teacher 
from Otisfield, Maine, wrote:
  ``I entered the teaching profession two years ago, partly in response 
to the nationwide pleas for educators. As the current pool of educators 
near retirement in the next few years, our schools face a crisis. Low 
wages and long hard hours are not great selling points to young 
students when selecting a career.
  ``I love teaching and only regretted my decision when I found out 
about the penalties I will unfairly suffer. In my former life as a 
well-paid systems manager at State Street Bank in Boston, I contributed 
the maximum to Social Security each year. When I decided to become an 
educator, I figured that because of my many years of maximum Social 
Security contributions, I would still have a livable retirement `wage.' 
I was unaware that I would be penalized as an educator in your State.''
  In September of 2003, I chaired a Governmental Affairs Committee 
hearing to examine the effect that the GPO and the WEP have had on 
public employees and retirees. We heard compelling testimony from 73-
year old Julia Worcester of Columbia, ME, who told us about her work in 
both Social Security-covered employment and as a Maine teacher, and 
about the effect that the GPO and WEP have had on her income in 
retirement. Mrs. Worcester worked for more than 20 years as a waitress 
and in factory jobs before deciding, at the age of 49, to go back to 
school to pursue her life-long dream of becoming a teacher. She began 
teaching at the age of 52 and taught full-time for 15 years before 
retiring at the age of 68. Since she was only in the Maine State 
Retirement System for 15 years, Mrs. Worcester does not receive a full 
State pension. Yet she is still subject to the full penalties under the 
GPO and WEP. As a consequence, she receives just $107 a month in Social 
Security benefits, even though she worked hard and paid into the Social 
Security system for more than 20 years. After paying for her health 
insurance, she receives less than $500 a month in pension income.
  After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, is still substitute 
teaching at 75, just to make ends meet. This simply is not fair. I am 
therefore pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this 
legislation to repeal these two unfair provisions, and I urge my 
colleagues to join us a cosponsors.
                                 ______