[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 124 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Page S10748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Biden, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 1799. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
provide that the 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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today 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. I am reintroducing a bill to modify a cruel rule of government 
that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits 
of their hard work during retirement. My bill has bipartisan support 
and had 29 cosponsors last year. With this strong bipartisan support, I 
hope that we can correct this cruel rule of government this year.
  Under current law, a Social Security spousal benefit is reduced or 
entirely eliminated if 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 is known as the Government Pension Offset.
  This is how the current law works. Consider a surviving spouse who 
retires from government service and receives a government pension of 
$600 a month. She also qualifies for a Social Security spousal benefit 
of $645 a month. Because of the Pension Offset law, which reduces her 
Social Security benefit by 2/3 of her government pension, her spousal 
benefit is reduced to $245 a month. So instead of $1,245, she will 
receive only $845 a month. That is $400 a month less to pay the rent, 
purchase a prescription medication, or buy groceries. I think that is 
wrong.
  My bill does not repeal the government pension offset entirely, but 
it will allow retirees to keep more of what they deserve. It guarantees 
that those subject to the offset can keep at least $1,200 a month in 
combined retirement income. With my modification, the 2/3 offset would 
apply only to the combined benefit that exceeds $1,200 a month. So, in 
the example above, the surviving spouse would face only a $30 offset, 
allowing her to keep $1,215 in monthly income.
  Unfortunately, the current law disproportionately affects women. 
Women are more likely to receive Social Security spousal benefits and 
to have worked in low-paying or short-term government positions while 
they were raising families. It is also true that women receive smaller 
government pensions because of their lower earnings, and rely on Social 
Security benefits to a greater degree. My modification will allow these 
women who have contributed years of important government service and 
family service to rely on a larger amount of retirement income.
  Why do we punish people who have committed a significant portion of 
their lives to government service? We are talking about workers who 
provide some of the most important services to our community--teachers, 
firefighters, and many others. Some have already retired. Others are 
currently working and looking forward to a deserved retirement. These 
individuals deserve better than the reduced monthly benefits that the 
Pension Offset currently requires.
  Government employees work hard in service to our Nation, and I work 
hard for them. I do not want to see them penalized simply because they 
have chosen to work in the public sector, rather than for a private 
employer, and often at lower salaries and sometimes fewer benefits. If 
a retired worker in the private sector received a pension, and also 
received a spousal Social Security benefit, they would not be subject 
to the Offset. I think we should be looking for ways to reward 
government service, not the other way around. I believe that people who 
work hard and play by the rules should not be penalized by arcane, 
legislative technicalities.
  Frankly, I would like to repeal the offset altogether. But, I realize 
that budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope 
we can agree that retirees who have worked hard all their lives should 
not have this offset applied until their combined monthly benefit, both 
government pension and Social Security spousal benefit, exceeds $1,200.
  I also strongly believe that we should ensure that retirees buying 
power keeps up with the cost of living. That's why I have also included 
a provision in this legislation to index the $1,200 amount to inflation 
so retirees will see their minimum benefits increase along with the 
cost of living.
  The Social Security Administration recently estimated that enacting 
the provisions contained in my bill will have a minimal long-term 
impact on the Social Security Trust Fund--about 0.01 percent of taxable 
payroll.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and support my 
legislation to modify the Government Pension Offset. I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1799

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Government Pension Offset 
     Reform Act''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON REDUCTIONS IN BENEFITS FOR SPOUSES AND 
                   SURVIVING SPOUSES RECEIVING GOVERNMENT 
                   PENSIONS.

       (a) Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(k)(5)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)(5)(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 
     paragraph (6) for such month,'' before ``if ''.
       (b) Amount Described.--Section 202(k) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(6) The amount described in this paragraph is, for months 
     in each 12-month period beginning in December of 2005, and 
     each succeeding calendar year, the greater of--
       ``(A) $1,200; or
       ``(B) the amount applicable for months in the preceding 12-
     month period, increased by the cost-of-living adjustment for 
     such period determined for an annuity under section 8340 of 
     title 5, United States Code (without regard to any other 
     provision of law).''.
       (c) Limitations on Reductions in Benefits.--Section 202(k) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)), as amended by 
     subsection (b), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7) For any month after December 2005, in no event shall 
     an individual receive a reduction in a benefit under 
     paragraph (5)(A) for the month that is more than the 
     reduction in such benefit that would have applied for such 
     month under such paragraph as in effect on December 1, 
     2005.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall apply with respect 
     to monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the 
     Social Security Act for months after December 2005.
                                 ______