[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 25, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2486-S2487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mr. Menendez):
  S. 484. 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 to introduce legislation 
that will help protect the retirement benefits earned by our Nation's 
public service workers.
  I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Maine, Senator 
Collins, as well as Senators Durbin, Kerry, Brown, Cardin, Boxer, 
Lincoln, Whitehouse, Nelson of Florida, and Menendez.
  This bill will repeal two provisions of the Social Security Act--the 
Government pension offset and the windfall elimination provision--that 
unfairly reduce retirement benefits for teachers, police officers, and 
firefighters.
  These two provisions were originally designed--the Government pension 
offset in 1977 and the windfall elimiantion provision in 1983--to 
prevent public employees from being unduly enriched.
  But, the practical effect is that those providing critical public 
services are unjustly penalized.
  Approximately 1\1/2\ million Federal, State, and municipal workers, 
as well as teachers and other school district employees, are held to a 
different standard when it comes to retirement benefits.
  In California, the problem affects about 200,000 workers.
  The Government pension offset reduces a public employee's Social 
Security spousal or survivor benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds 
of the individual's public pension.
  In most cases, the Government pension offset eliminates the spousal 
benefit for which an individual qualifies. Three quarters of employees 
affected by the Government pension offset lose their entire spousal 
benefit, even though their spouse paid Social Security taxes for many 
years.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the Government 
pension offset provision alone reduces the retirement benefits earned 
by nearly 500,000 Americans each year by an average of $500 per month.
  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 State teacher retirement 
fund.
  Private-sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal 
to 90 percent of their first $744 in average monthly career earnings, 
plus 32 percent of monthly earnings up to $4,483 and 15 percent of 
earnings above $4,483.
  Under the windfall elimination provision, retired public employees, 
however, are only allowed to receive 40 percent of the first $744 in 
career monthly earnings, a penalty of over $350 per month.
  Our legislation will allow government pensioners the chance to earn 
the same 90 percent to which nongovernment pension recipients are 
entitled.
  For those living on fixed incomes, in some cases this represents the 
difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.
  Americans are hurting as our economy continues to contract.
  More than $4 trillion in retirement savings were lost last year as 
markets destabilized and investments soured.
  Retirees on fixed incomes have been especially impacted by this 
recession. Every dollar matters to a retiree struggling to pay bills 
and meet mortgage obligations.
  In California, more than 837,000 foreclosures were filed last year. 
The roughly $500 lost by beneficiaries to the Government pension offset 
each month may mean the difference between foreclosure and keeping 
one's home.
  This is also critical for seniors residing in assisted living 
facilities or retirement communities concerned about paying the 
increasingly high cost of care.
  Our Nation's unemployment rate stands at 7.6 percent. And, in my 
State, over 1.7 million people are out of work. For those close to 
retirement who have lost their jobs, reductions in Social Security 
benefits compound an already challenging situation.
  We must also eliminate the barriers which discourage many Americans 
from pursuing careers in public service.
  This is more difficult now than ever, as states face mounting 
deficits and painful budget cuts. Communities must be able to retain 
their most qualified teachers, police officers, and firefighters.
  Unfortunately, the Government pension offset and windfall elimination 
provision only contribute to this problem at a time when we should be 
doing everything we possibly can to bring the best and brightest to 
these careers.

[[Page S2487]]

  It is estimated that schools will need to hire between 1.7 million 
and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by the end of this year because 
of record enrollments in public schools.
  The projected retirements of thousands of veteran teachers and 
critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate hiring 
additional teachers.
  California currently has roughly 310,000 teachers but will need to 
double this number over the next decade, to 600,000 teachers, in order 
to keep up with student enrollment levels.
  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 told that their 
retirement benefits will be significantly reduced.
  I certainly recognize that our Federal budget deficit and national 
debt make repealing the Government pension offset and windfall 
elimination provision difficult.
  And, I remain open to considering any alternatives that will allow 
hard working employees to keep the Social Security benefits to which 
they are entitled.
  But the bottom line is that we should respect, not penalize, our 
public service employees.
  In the 110th Congress, 38 Senators joined me in cosponsoring this 
legislation. In the House of Representatives, 351 Members of Congress 
supported Representative Howard Berman's companion bill. Our bill 
enjoys the support of more than three quarters of the entire House of 
Representatives.
  The reason for this support is because public servants across the 
country are calling on Congress to act.
  It is long overdue that we resolve this inequity, and it is time that 
this body protects retirement benefits for public employees and 
formulates a more cohesive approach to promoting public sector 
employment.
  So I hope that my colleagues will join me in protecting the 
retirement benefits of our Nation's hard working public servants. We 
value their contributions and must ensure that all Americans receive 
the retirement benefits they have earned and deserve.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the text of the legislation 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. 484

       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 2009''.

     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 ``subsection (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 ``subsection (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 2009. 
     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 be joining my colleague 
from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security 
Fairness Act, which repeals both the windfall elimination provision, 
WEP, and the Government pension offset, GPO. We believe that these two 
provisions in the Social Security Act unfairly penalize individuals for 
holding jobs in public service when the time comes for them to retire.
  These two provisions have enormous financial implications for many of 
our teachers, police officers, firefighters, postal workers and other 
public employees. Given their important responsibilities, it is simply 
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. They have 
worked long enough to earn their Social Security benefits. Yet because 
of the GPO and WEP, they are unable to receive all of the Social 
Security benefits to which they otherwise would be entitled.
  The impact of these two provisions is most acute in 15 States, 
including Maine, which have State retirement plans that lack a Social 
Security component. However, it is important to point out that the GPO 
and WEP affect public employees and retirees in every State, and in 
particular our emergency responders, our postal workers and our other 
Federal employees. 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 1 million retired public employees across the country have 
already been harmed by these provisions. Many more stand to be harmed 
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 
retirement benefits makes it even more difficult for our Federal, State 
and local governments to recruit and retain the public servants who are 
so critical to the safety and well-being of our families.
  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, over 70 percent are women. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 
200,000 individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make 
the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.
  Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked with me about the 
impact of these provisions on their retirement security. They love 
their jobs and the children they teach, but they worry about the future 
and about their financial security.
  In September of 2003, I chaired an oversight 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 had 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, even though she worked hard and paid into the Social 
Security system for more than 20 years, she receives less than $800 a 
month in total pension income.
  After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, who turns 78 next 
month, is still substitute teaching just to make ends meet. She cannot 
afford to stop working. This simply is not right.
  It is time for us to take action, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
join us in cosponsoring the Social Security Fairness Act to eliminate 
these two unfair provisions.
                                 ______