[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 9, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S283-S285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lautenberg, and 
        Ms. Snowe):
  S. 206. 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, 
Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that protects the retirement 
benefits earned by public employees and eliminates barriers which 
discourage many Americans from pursuing careers in public service. This 
bill will repeal two provisions of the Social Security Act--the 
Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision--which 
unfairly reduce the retirement benefits earned by public employees such 
as teachers, police officers, and firefighters.
  The Government Pension Offset reduces a public employee's Social 
Security spousal or survivor benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds 
of his or her public pension.
  Take the case of a widowed, retired police officer who receives a 
public pension of $600 per month. His job in the local police 
department was not covered by Social Security, yet his wife's private-
sector employment was. An amount equal to two-thirds of his public 
pension, or $400 each month, would be cut from his Social Security 
survivor benefits. If this individual is eligible for $500 in survivor 
benefits, the Government Pension Offset provision would reduce his 
monthly benefits to $100.
  In most cases, the Government Pension Offset eliminates the spousal 
benefit for which an individual qualifies. In fact, 9 out of 10 public 
employees affected by the Government Pension Offset lose their entire 
spousal benefit, even though their spouse paid Social Security taxes 
for many years.
  The Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social Security benefits 
by up to 50 percent for retirees who have paid into Social Security and 
also receive a public pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund.
  While the reforms that led to the creation of the Government Pension 
Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision were meant to prevent public 
employees from being unduly enriched, the

[[Page S284]]

practical effect is that those providing critical public services are 
unjustly penalized.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Pension 
Offset provision alone reduces earned benefits for more than 300,000 
Americans each year, by upwards of $3,600. In some cases, for those 
living on fixed incomes, this represents the difference between a 
comfortable retirement and poverty.
  Nearly one million Federal, State, and municipal workers, as well as 
teachers and other school district employees, are unfairly held to a 
different standard when it comes to retirement benefits.

  Private-sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal 
to 90 percent of their first $656 in average monthly career earnings. 
However, under the Windfall Elimination Provision, retired public 
employees are only allowed to receive 40 percent of the first $656 in 
career monthly earnings, a penalty of over $300 per month.
  This unfair reduction in retirement benefits is inequitable. The 
Social Security Fairness Act will allow government pensioners the 
chance to receive the same 90 percent of their benefits to which 
nongovernment pension recipients are entitled.
  We must do more to encourage people to pursue careers in public 
service. Unfortunately, the Government Pension Offset and Windfall 
Elimination Provision make it more difficult to recruit teachers, 
police officers, and fire fighters; and, it does so at a time when we 
should be doing everything we can to recruit the best and brightest to 
these careers.
  California's police force needs to add more than 10,000 new officers 
by 2014--a growth of nearly 15 percent--while hiring more than 15,000 
additional officers to replace those who leave the force.
  It is estimated that public schools will need to hire between 2.2 
million and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by 2009 because of 
record enrollments. The projected retirements of thousands of veteran 
teachers and critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate 
hiring additional teachers.
  California currently has more than 300,000 teachers but will need to 
double this number by 2010, to 600,000 teachers, in order to keep up 
with student enrollment levels.
  Most importantly, the Government Pension Offset and Windfall 
Elimination Provision hinder efforts to recruit new math and science 
teachers from the private sector. As our world becomes increasingly 
interconnected, it is imperative that our school children receive the 
finest math and science education to ensure our Nation's future 
competitiveness in the global economy.
  It is counterintuitive that on the one-hand, policymakers seek to 
encourage people to change careers and enter the teaching profession, 
while on the other hand, those wishing to do so are discouraged because 
they are clearly told that their Social Security retirement benefits 
will be significantly reduced.
  Now that we are witnessing the practical effects of these 20 year old 
provisions, I hope that Congress will pass legislation to address the 
unfair reduction of benefits that essentially sends the message that if 
you do enter public service, your family will suffer and will be unable 
to receive the full retirement benefits to which they would otherwise 
be entitled.
  I understand that we are facing deficits and repealing the Government 
Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision will be costly.
  I am open to considering all options that move us toward our goal of 
removing this inequity by allowing individuals to keep the Social 
Security benefits to which they are entitled while promoting public 
sector employment.
  We should respect, not penalize, our public service employees. I hope 
that my colleagues will join me in sending this long overdue message to 
our Nation's public servants, that we value their contributions and 
support giving all Americans the retirement benefits they have earned 
and deserve.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 206

       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 ``Social Security Fairness Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET PROVISION.

       (a) In General.--Section 202(k) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by striking paragraph (5).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``subsections (k)(5) and 
     (q)'' and inserting ``subsection (q)''.
       (2) Section 202(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(2)) is 
     amended by striking ``subsections (k)(5) and (q)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (q)''.
       (3) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``subsections (k)(5), 
     subsection (q),'' and inserting ``subsection (q)''.
       (4) Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``subsections (k)(5), 
     subsection (q)'' and inserting ``subsection (q)''.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 215 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 415) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7);
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); and
       (3) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsections (e)(2) and (f)(2) 
     of section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are each amended 
     by striking ``section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), or 215(f)(9)(B)'' 
     in subparagraphs (C) and (D)(i) and inserting ``paragraph (5) 
     or (6) of section 215(f)''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the 
     Social Security Act for months after December 2007. 
     Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Security Act, 
     the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust primary 
     insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take into 
     account the amendments made by section 3.

  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. Given their important 
responsibilities, it is 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 otherwis'e 
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 
already been adversely affected by these provisions. Many 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.

[[Page S285]]

  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 as pensions from the Maine State Retirement Fund. While 
private sector retirees receive Social Security checks based on 90 
percent of their first $656 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 9 out of 10 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, ME, 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 Julia 
Worcester of Columbia, ME--who was then 73. Mrs. Worcester told the 
Committee 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 
$171 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 
total pension income.
  After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, is still substitute 
teaching 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 as cosponsors.
                                 ______