[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 166 (Tuesday, November 12, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5920-H5925]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EQUAL TREATMENT OF PUBLIC SERVANTS ACT OF 2023
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5342) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to
replace the windfall elimination provision with a formula equalizing
benefits for certain individuals with noncovered employment, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5342
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 ``Equal Treatment of Public
Servants Act of 2023''.
SEC. 2. REPLACEMENT OF THE WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISION
WITH A FORMULA EQUALIZING BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS WITH NONCOVERED EMPLOYMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 215(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 415(a)) is amended by inserting after paragraph
(7) the following:
``(8)(A) In the case of an individual whose primary
insurance amount would be computed under paragraph (1) of
this subsection--
``(i) who first becomes eligible for an old-age or
disability insurance benefit after 2067,
``(ii) who subsequently becomes entitled to such benefit,
and
``(iii) who has earnings derived from noncovered service
performed in a year after 1977,
the primary insurance amount of such individual shall be the
amount computed or recomputed under this paragraph.
``(B) The primary insurance amount of an individual
described in subparagraph (A), as computed or recomputed
under this paragraph, shall be the product derived by
multiplying--
``(i) the individual's primary insurance amount, as
determined under paragraph (1) of this subsection and
subparagraph (C) of this paragraph, by
``(ii) a fraction--
``(I) the numerator of which is the individual's average
indexed monthly earnings (determined without regard to
subparagraph (C)), and
``(II) the denominator of which is an amount equal to the
individual's average indexed monthly earnings (as determined
under subparagraph (C)),
rounded, if not a multiple of $0.10, to the next lower
multiple of $0.10.
``(C)(i) For purposes of determining an individual's
primary insurance amount pursuant to clauses (i) and (ii)(II)
of subparagraph (B), the individual's average indexed monthly
earnings shall be determined by treating all recorded
noncovered earnings (as defined in clause (ii)(I)) derived by
the individual from noncovered service performed in each year
after 1977 as `wages' (as defined in section 209 for purposes
of this title), which shall be treated as included in the
individual's adjusted total covered earnings (as defined in
clause (ii)(II)) for such calendar year together with amounts
consisting of `wages' (as so defined without regard to this
subparagraph) paid during such calendar year and self-
employment income (as defined in section 211(b)) for taxable
years ending with or during such calendar year.
``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph:
``(I) The term `recorded noncovered earnings' means
earnings derived from noncovered service (other than
noncovered service as a member of a uniformed service (as
defined in section 210(m)) for which satisfactory evidence is
determined by the Commissioner to be available in the records
of the Commissioner.
``(II) The term `adjusted total covered earnings' means, in
connection with an individual for any calendar year, the sum
of the wages paid to the individual during such calendar year
(as adjusted under subsection (b)(3)) plus the self-
employment income derived by the individual during any
taxable year ending with or during such calendar year (as
adjusted under subsection (b)(3)).
``(iii) The Commissioner of Social Security shall provide
by regulation or other public guidance for methods for
determining whether satisfactory evidence is available in the
records of the Commissioner for earnings for noncovered
service (other than noncovered service as a member of a
uniformed service (as defined in section 210(m))) to be
treated as recorded noncovered earnings. Such methods shall
provide for reliance on earnings information which is
provided to the Commissioner by employers and which, as
determined by the Commissioner, constitute a reasonable basis
for treatment of earnings for noncovered service as recorded
noncovered earnings. In making determinations under this
clause, the Commissioner shall also take into account any
documentary or other evidence of earnings derived from
noncovered service by an individual which is provided by the
individual to the Commissioner and which the Commissioner
considers appropriate as a reasonable basis for treatment of
such earnings as recorded noncovered earnings.
``(D) Upon the death of an individual whose primary
insurance amount is computed or recomputed under this
paragraph, such primary insurance amount shall be computed or
recomputed under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
``(E) In the case of any individual whose primary insurance
amount would be computed under this paragraph who first
becomes entitled after 1985 to a monthly periodic payment
made by a foreign employer or foreign country that is based
in whole or in part upon noncovered service, the primary
insurance amount of such individual shall be computed or
recomputed under paragraph (7) or paragraph (1), as
applicable, for months beginning with the first month of the
individual's initial entitlement to such monthly periodic
payment.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 215(a)(7)(A) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``after 1985'' and inserting ``after 1985
and before 2068''; and
(B) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii)--
(A) by striking ``after 1985'' each place it appears and
inserting ``after 1985 and before 2068''; and
(B) by adding ``or'' at the end;
(3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) is an individual described in paragraph (8)(E),'';
and
(4) by striking ``hereafter in this paragraph and in
subsection (d)(3)'' and inserting ``in this paragraph,
paragraphs (8) and (9), and subsection (d)(3)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits
payable on or after January 1, 2025.
SEC. 3. BENEFIT CALCULATION DURING TRANSITION PERIOD.
(a) In General.--Section 215(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 415(a)), as amended by section 2, is further
amended by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
``(9) In the case of an individual whose primary insurance
amount would be computed under paragraph (1) of this
subsection--
``(A) who first becomes eligible for an old-age or
disability insurance benefit after 2024 and before 2068,
``(B) who subsequently becomes entitled to such benefit,
and
``(C) who has earnings derived from noncovered service
performed in a year after 1977,
the primary insurance amount of such individual shall be the
higher of the amount computed or recomputed under paragraph
(7) without regard to this paragraph or the amount that would
be computed or recomputed under paragraph (8) if the
individual were an individual described in subparagraph (A)
of such paragraph.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 215(a)(7)(A) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7)(A)), as amended by section 2(b), is
further amended by striking ``shall be computed or
recomputed'' and inserting ``shall, subject to paragraph (9),
be computed or recomputed''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits
payable on or after January 1, 2025.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL MONTHLY PAYMENT FOR INDIVIDUALS WHOSE
BENEFIT AMOUNT IS REDUCED BY THE WINDFALL
ELIMINATION PROVISION.
(a) In General.--Section 215(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
415(a)), as amended by sections 2 and 3, is further amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(10)(A) For any month beginning at least 270 days after
the date of enactment of the Equal Treatment of Public
Servants Act of 2023, the Commissioner of Social Security
shall, subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D), make an
additional monthly payment of $100 to each individual who is
an eligible individual for such month, and an additional
monthly payment of $50 to each individual (other than an
eligible individual) who is entitled to a benefit under
section 202 for such month on the basis of the wages and
self-employment income of such eligible individual.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `eligible
individual' for a month means an individual who--
``(i)(I) first becomes eligible for an old-age or
disability insurance benefit under this title before 2025, or
``(II) is an individual described in paragraph (8)(E), and
``(ii) is entitled to an old-age or disability insurance
benefit under this title for such month based on a primary
insurance amount that was computed or recomputed under
paragraph (7) (and not subsequently recomputed under any
other paragraph of this subsection).
``(C) In any case in which this title provides that no
monthly benefit under section 202 or 223 shall be paid to an
individual for a month, no additional monthly payment shall
be paid to the individual for such month. This subparagraph
shall not apply in the case of an individual whose monthly
benefit under section 202 or 223 is reduced, regardless of
the amount of the reduction, based on the individual's
receipt of other income or benefits for such month or the
application of section 203(a) or due to the adjustment or
recovery of an overpayment under section 204.
``(D)(i) An individual is not entitled to receive more than
one additional monthly payment for a month under this
paragraph.
[[Page H5921]]
``(ii) An eligible individual who is entitled to a benefit
under section 202 on the basis of the wages and self-
employment income of another eligible individual for a month
shall receive an additional monthly payment under this
paragraph in the amount of $100 for such month.
``(E) Except for purposes of adjustment or recovery of an
overpayment under section 204, an additional monthly payment
under this paragraph shall not be subject to any reduction or
deduction under this title.
``(F) Whenever benefit amounts under this title are
increased by any percentage effective with any month as a
result of a determination made under subsection (i), each of
the dollar amounts in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by
the same percentage for months beginning with such month.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits
payable for months beginning at least 270 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. REPORTING OF NONCOVERED EARNINGS ON SOCIAL SECURITY
ACCOUNT STATEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1143(a)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-13(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (E) as
subparagraphs (C) through (F); and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) the amount of earnings derived by the eligible
individual from service performed after 1977 which did not
constitute employment (as defined in section 210), not
including service as a member of a uniformed service (as
defined in section 210(m)), as shown by the records of the
Commissioner at the date of the request;''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to Social Security account
statements issued on or after January 1, 2025.
SEC. 6. STUDY ON PARTNERING WITH STATE AND LOCAL PENSION
SYSTEMS.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall
study and test the administrative feasibility of partnering
with State and local pension systems, or other governmental
entities, to improve the collection and sharing of
information relating to State and local noncovered pensions.
(2) Coordination with state and local pension systems.--In
conducting the study described in paragraph (1), the
Commissioner shall coordinate with State and local pension
systems that reflect the diversity of systems and individual
experiences to explore the development of automated data
exchange agreements that facilitate reporting of information
relating to noncovered pensions.
(b) Report.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall
conclude the study described in subsection (a) not later than
4 years after the date of enactment of this Act. As soon as
possible after conclusion of the study and not later than
4\1/2\ years after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Commissioner shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance
of the Senate a report on the results of the study. Such
report shall include the following:
(1) A discussion of how the automated data exchange
agreements could be implemented to cover noncovered pensions
nationally, including the range of implementation timelines
across State and local pension systems, or with other
governmental entities.
(2) An analysis of the barriers to developing automated
data exchange agreements and lessons learned that can help
address these barriers.
(3) A description of alternative methods for obtaining
information related to noncovered pensions, and an analysis
of the barriers to obtaining noncovered pension data through
such methods.
(4) An explanation of how coverage information is obtained
by the Social Security Administration when an individual
purchases service credits to apply to a new covered or
noncovered pension after moving from another covered or
noncovered pension within the State or in another State.
(5) An estimate of the total amount, as of the date of the
enactment of this Act, of noncovered pensions not reported to
the Social Security Administration as a result of
noncompliance with voluntary reporting policies.
(c) State and Local Pension Information To Be Requested by
the Commissioner.--Section 202 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 402) is amended by inserting after subsection (l) the
following:
``(m) State and Local Pension Information To Be Requested
by the Commissioner.--
``(1) The Commissioner may partner with States to request
information, including the information specified in paragraph
(2), with respect to any designated distribution (as defined
in section 3405(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)
from an employer deferred compensation plan (as defined in
section 3405(e)(5) of such Code) of the State (or political
subdivision thereof) to a participant of such plan in any
case in which any portion of such participant's earnings for
service under such plan did not constitute `employment' as
defined in section 210 for purposes of this title.
``(2) The information specified in this paragraph is the
following:
``(A) The name and Social Security account number of the
participant receiving the designated distribution.
``(B) The dollar amount of the designated distribution and
the date paid.
``(C) The date on which the participant initially became
eligible for a designated distribution under the plan and, if
different, the date of payment of the initial designated
distribution.
``(D) The dates of each period of service under the plan
that did not constitute `employment' as defined in section
210 for purposes of this title, and the dates of any other
period of service under the plan.''.
(d) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``noncovered pension'' means a pension any
part of which is based on noncovered service (within the
meaning of section 215(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 415(a)(7))); and
(2) the term ``covered pension'' means any other pension.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Arrington) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on this bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have a great injustice that has persisted now for
four decades. Some of our hardest working fellow Americans who are
public servants in certain States where they have non-Social Security
covered employment--or to say it this way, where they have teacher
retirement systems separate from Social Security, or firefighter
retirement systems separate from Social Security--have what is called a
windfall elimination provision in the Social Security law, which has
shortchanged roughly 2 million hardworking public servants.
Some people are still getting a windfall, but the vast majority are
not getting what they earned and what they put into the Social Security
system. So my colleague, Representative John Larson, who I serve with
on the Committee on Ways and Means, and who I consider a dear friend
and someone who I know is very passionate about fixing Social
Security's insolvency, which looms large over the next 10 years, this
is but one element of what is not working in Social Security for our
retirees and Social Security recipients.
To solve this inequity and injustice, some of my colleagues have
decided they would just repeal the windfall elimination provision
altogether. That sounds good, but it is going to cost $192 billion to
do that. We shouldn't be constrained by cost to do the right thing, but
to repeal the windfall elimination provision would go back to pre-1983
when we had a windfall to certain Americans in the same States where
they had independent retirement systems, and we were spending more
money for certain retirees than they put into the Social Security
system.
There was a great discrepancy and inequity between these individuals
in these States and the vast majority of the tens of millions of other
retirees across the country. So you had a teacher or a firefighter in
certain States, like Texas, pre-1983 getting a windfall, large sums of
money, over similarly situated people in other States. Firefighters and
teachers are doing the same work, making roughly the same amount of
money, but getting less benefits.
What we should do is fix the inadequacy of the windfall elimination
provision that was oversimplified and did not use the data that we have
today and make sure that people are paid what they are owed in terms of
their benefits, but not revert back to pre-windfall elimination
provision, where we were spending tens of billions of dollars more than
we needed to according to what people put in it.
Why does that matter? Because we should have a system of fairness for
every public servant in every State, every retiree who fits that
definition. It is also because if we start just throwing money at this
and allowing windfall payments to certain retirees, we are going to
accelerate the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund.
[[Page H5922]]
One outside expert says that we will accelerate that if we go to H.R.
82 and just pull the plug on the windfall elimination provision, as
opposed to fixing it and getting it right. We will accelerate it by 6
months.
We should be responsible in how we do this. We should consider
retirees in every State, and we should also consider future retirees
because what we do and how we solve problems doesn't just impact the
people who have been shortchanged, and we need to deal with that, but
we will impact future retirees, as well.
I am simply asking my colleagues to do the right thing, address this
inequity with WEP and our public servants, but do it the right way so
that we don't compromise the integrity and the fiscal responsibility of
managing the trust fund and put these public servants now once again at
odds with the vast majority of public servants who are retired.
Mr. Speaker, that is a mouthful, by the way. This is a complex issue,
but what is not complicated is people who have been shortchanged need
to get the money that they rightfully are owed by their government. I
can start there and say that Democratic and Republican colleagues alike
agree on that, but my bill will do it in a fiscally responsible way.
I think this H.R. 82 is well-intended, but it is going to accelerate
the bankruptcy of Social Security. That is not good for anybody,
current or future retirees.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I start by acknowledging my good friend and colleague,
and I thank him. I think his heart is in the right place.
Let me say, having worked on this issue for a number of years, to
have a Social Security, and in this case a portion of it, come to the
floor, albeit under suspension and not through regular order, Mr.
Speaker, is a step in the right direction, but the American people have
to be outraged by the fact that it has been over 50 years since
Congress has adjusted Social Security. By that, I mean enhanced Social
Security for its recipients. Imagine that.
Do you think a few things have happened since Richard Nixon was
President of the United States? Do you think a few things have
happened, especially as we live in this post-COVID and now inflationary
period?
It impacts over 70 million of our fellow Americans. This provision
that my colleague and good friend is talking about, WEP, is minuscule
in terms of comparing that to individuals. As well intended as I
believe he is, this doesn't straighten out the problem. In our bill,
the Social Security 2100 Act, we repeal WEP and GPO, and we pay for it.
That is the responsible thing that Congress has to do on behalf of the
American people.
Here are the facts: 70 million Americans rely on Social Security, and
it is the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and
the number one antipoverty program for children. More veterans rely on
Social Security for disability than they do the VA.
Congress has done nothing to help these individuals out. Add to that,
Mr. Speaker, the fact that 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible
for Social Security.
What we need to do today, and in both of these bills that are coming
before us, are steps forward, but we need to come together as a
Congress and vote to fix Social Security in a manner that doesn't hurt
or cut benefits for individuals who haven't seen a benefit enhancement
in more than 50 years. We come here today and say here is a crumb, but
even in the form of this crumb, this proposal will cut benefits for
hardworking, everyday Americans.
I respect my colleague, and I do believe that his heart is in the
right place, but Congress--both sides--have responsibility here, but
perhaps now there is an opportunity for us to act--perhaps the fact
that even under suspension, not regular order with public hearings
where viewers get to see and actually hear from expert witnesses and
get to hear both the fiscal side of what needs to be paid for but also
the benefits side in terms of what has not been done.
Imagine, my dear friend knows this, 5 million of our fellow
Americans--and they are in Texas and Connecticut--get below poverty-
level checks from their government. So it is great that you have a
proposal for WEP, but 5 million people currently on Social Security get
below poverty-level checks from the wealthiest Nation in the world and
from a country that has had a program in place, but Congress hasn't
acted in over 50 years. Most of the 5 million are women, and most of
them are women of color.
There are more than 33 million who the only benefit that they have,
the only thing that keeps them out of poverty, is Social Security, and
Congress hasn't acted since 1971. These people will be hurt by this
proposal.
Benefit cuts in a time of inflation? Ask your constituents back home,
Mr. Speaker, whether or not they can afford this cut.
{time} 1615
Now, here is the other irony. Here we have one of the great economic
development plans ever instituted by the United States Congress; That
is right, an economic development plan, Social Security. How so?
Every district, on average, has about 143,000 Social Security
recipients. Every district, monthly, receives on average $200 million
in cash coming into their district.
In fact, for my dear friend and colleague here, $222 million comes
into his district on a monthly basis. He has more than 95,000 retirees,
9,000 children who get money from Social Security, 10,000 widows, 4,800
spouses, and 14,000 disabled.
Congress has done nothing. These cuts will take place because
Congress hasn't stepped up and said we need to fund this program, not
cut it. Some say back in 1983 they did do something. Yeah, what they
did is they raised the age, another great proposal on the other side.
For every year you raise the age, that is a 7 percent cut in benefits.
Let's raise the age to age 70, the Republican Study Committee says, and
what does that do? It cuts benefits by 21 percent.
Aren't you glad you worked hard and invested and put your money aside
so that you could find out that, yeah, what we are going to do is raise
the age so you work longer, and as you are living longer, we expect
that you will get less in retirement, not more. It makes no sense
whatsoever.
We need to come together as a Congress and vote to enhance the
Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and for our
children.
I respect the good intentions that people have, but as they say, the
road to hell oftentimes is paved with good intentions. In this case,
though, let's not talk about the parties. There is a lot of blame to go
around here. How about we focus on the people, the American people, who
we take an oath of office and swear to serve.
Staring this Congress in the face is over 50 years of inaction and 70
million people who are impacted by this in what is the Nation's number
one antipoverty program for the elderly and for our children.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My friend mentioned my seniors in west Texas. Let me tell you what
they sent me here to do. They sent me here to be an advocate for them,
to ensure that we have fair and just laws, to fix what is broken about
Social Security but do it in a way that we don't accelerate what will
be an automatic cut in less than 10 years.
By repealing the windfall that existed before 1983, you are saying
you are okay with taxpayers just spending more money than they should,
more money than what has been earned and owed to the seniors, and in a
way that creates a vast and tremendous discrepancy and inequity between
2 million people in several States as opposed to almost 60 million
across the country.
How unfair and how nearsighted and narrow-minded can we be not to
consider the fact that we will have a bankrupt system and that we have
future seniors who can't bank on their retirement because we want to go
back to prewindfall? It doesn't make sense, Mr. Speaker.
The Democrats had control of this place from top to bottom from 2020
to
[[Page H5923]]
2022, and they didn't fix it. Republicans had control when I was a
freshman in 2017. Let me tell the world: They didn't fix it. The only
way we are going to fix it is if we come together. I agree with Mr.
Larson that there are broader provisions to look at and the system as a
whole to address going forward.
You mentioned benefits. That is a great place to do it, but to
suggest that we are going to go back prewindfall elimination provision
and have a $2,500 additional cut in 2033 because we are not doing it
the right way and responsible way and equitable way because we now have
the data, I just think is egregiously irresponsible for all parties
involved, including our children, who don't have much of a say in this,
even though they own the deferred tax on all of these programs that are
bankrupt, including Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5342, the Equal
Treatment of Public Servants Act, which my friend from Texas
introduced, which was modeled or introduced similarly to a bill that
our fellow Texan, Kevin Brady, introduced, because it is a responsible
piece of legislation designed to address a problem head-on.
Here is the problem. Everybody at home watching this needs to
understand the joke. We are playing with house money yet again. We are
playing with funny money. We are pretending and lying to the American
people that the Social Security funds that are extracted from their
checks are sitting in a lockbox, sitting in an account for them. It is
not. That is a lie.
The money is taken out of your check now, and that money is then
given to those people who are retiring now, those who have retired.
That is the truth. It is a tax.
What happened here was we messed up because we are government. We
mess up almost every single second. Government messed up, and now we
are trying to fix the mess up.
In this case, my friend from Texas has introduced a bill that
responsibly fixes the mess up. It actually tries to go in and say if
you are a firefighter, if you are a cop, if you are a teacher and you
have got the situation where you have got another job and that Social
Security was taken out of your check but you are not getting the
benefit of that because you have a pension, this proportional model,
which is $25 billion, according to the Social Security Administration,
would responsibly address it.
Now, I wish it was paid for. We don't pay for anything in this town.
$25 billion at least addresses it responsibly.
What has happened, this legislation that we are voting on--the
gentleman is correct--under suspension of the rules, without going to
the Rules Committee, I disagree with that. It should not be being done
under suspension. The reason it is being done under suspension is
because a majority of people in this body discharged another bill, H.R.
82, which would spend $200 billion over 10 years to reinstate the
windfall, to basically take money away from Social Security and make it
be bankrupt 6 months earlier. That is what this town does.
My friend from Texas is trying to prevent that. We had to engage in
political rulemaking warfare on the floor of the House, which we
addressed today to try to fix it and put the genie back in the bottle,
to guarantee that we would at least get a vote on this good bill
instead of the disaster that is a $200 billion hole in the deficit that
will bankrupt Social Security at least 6 months earlier, according to
the Social Security Administration.
I thank my friend from Texas. I rise in support of it. We should not
have to do this. This should have gone through the Rules Committee. We
should have amended the bill. We should have a debate about it. We
should pay for it. Instead, we are doing the same crap we always do. I
support this bill.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, this will be budget neutral over 75 years
for the trust fund, according to the actuaries, and I thank Mr. Roy for
his comments.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. I have to say I do agree with Mr. Roy's last statement
that what we needed to do was go through regular order and what we need
is to pay for it. That is the responsible thing to do, is to pay for
it.
We have a plan to not only repeal WEP and GPO but pay for it. Yes, I
heard people refer to the Brady-Neal proposal, but Ranking Member Neal
has a plan also to deal with WEP that is fair and makes sense and is
something that we should be embracing and including and is paid for.
That is the big issue today. It is not that people's hearts aren't in
the right place, and I think the gentleman from Texas understands this.
All of us are Americans. The President of the United States, Mr.
Biden, has made a proposal. The incoming President, Mr. Trump, has made
a proposal also. He has made a proposal to cut taxes for people on
Social Security. We have that proposal in our bill, except we pay for
it. That is the responsible thing to do.
What has been irresponsible is Congress not debating this in regular
order and bringing it to the floor. How about doing something
incredible here, actually have a vote on the Nation's number one
antipoverty program for the elderly and number one antipoverty program
for our children until the child tax credit is fully adopted, and is
the program that more veterans rely on for disability than the VA.
This program is so admired and respected by the American people that
overwhelmingly Independents, Republicans, and Democrats, all believe
that it should be supported, expanded, because it hasn't been in over
50 years, and paid for.
We have a plan. We are anxiously waiting for the debate and for the
discussion and the dialogue to take place here in regular order and
have a vote on a plan that is comprehensive and paid for and lifts the
5 million Americans who get below-poverty-level checks from the
government above the poverty level and provides people with the
opportunity in every single one of our communities to get the benefits
they richly deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my colleague and friend.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, the windfall elimination
provision, or WEP as it is more commonly known, was put in place more
than four decades ago to prevent workers with earnings that were exempt
from Social Security payroll taxes from getting more generous treatment
from Social Security than workers who spent their whole careers
contributing to Social Security.
Unfortunately, WEP still results in overly generous payments for some
while unfairly penalizing others.
H.R. 5342, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act, provides
current beneficiaries affected by the WEP with an additional $100 per
month and replaces the current-law WEP for future beneficiaries with a
new formula that bases benefits on a worker's total career earnings.
This past year, the Ways and Means Committee has held more hearings
on WEP than in any other Congress in the past 20 years and identified
that the WEP formula could be replaced with a formula that provides all
beneficiaries with a fair benefit based on their actual earnings using
data that wasn't available when the WEP was put in place 40 years ago.
{time} 1630
The bill before us today, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act,
replaces the WEP with a new formula based on this now-available
earnings data to more accurately adjust benefits.
While I have concerns with this bill's short-term costs, I commend my
colleagues and the chairman of the Budget Committee, Congressman Jodey
Arrington, for his dedication to finding a pragmatic solution that
ultimately improves the financial health of the Social Security
programs over the long term.
It is vital that any solution to WEP protects the Social Security
trust funds that all beneficiaries rely on. I know a very similar
proposal to permanently replace the WEP used to share bipartisan
support of members of the Ways and Means Committee, but, unfortunately,
my Democrat colleagues abandoned this approach several years back.
[[Page H5924]]
I share the goals of this legislation and encourage my colleagues to
work with myself and Chairman Arrington to develop a permanent,
bipartisan solution that permanently fixes the Windfall Elimination
Provision, and the related government pension offset, while also
protecting the Social Security benefits of all retirees, which could
actually pass the United States Senate and become law.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his comments. I don't
know that I could add anything more to what he said. We are trying to
fix this inequity that exists with this subset of the retirement or
Social Security beneficiary population.
I agree with Mr. Larson that we need a broader debate on Social
Security, and we had better hurry up because it will be insolvent in
less than 10 years, so we need to talk about the solvency and
sustainability, the entirety of the program, the pay-fors, programmatic
reforms, and the benefits. All of it should be on the table.
That is why as budget chair, I passed a bipartisan fiscal commission
that would look at that and also at Medicare, which is another
important safety net for seniors. However, we are talking about one
specific subset.
I love the gentleman's passion, and I hope that we can get thoughtful
Members on both sides of the aisle, like my friend, to sit at the table
and do the right, the responsible, and the mature thing and actually
work on a compromise solution like Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did,
and I will bet the gentleman agrees with that.
However, we are not talking about the entirety of Social Security. We
are talking about this subset, this subset of people affected by WEP.
It is about 2 million people. I want to fix that for them. I want them
to get the money they have earned, because the windfall elimination
provision wasn't adequate. It didn't use good information. We still
have people who are shortchanged.
We still have people getting a windfall, albeit less, when we have
the ability, the wherewithal, the tools, and the data to actually fix
it without just eliminating WEP and going back to where the inequity is
greater than what it is today.
That is because if the public servants of my State and the
gentleman's State would get more than they put into Social Security,
then we accelerate the insolvency. Then we add to the cuts that will be
automatic on seniors that would be $2,500 in 2033, and we give almost
no peace of mind and hope for future seniors and our children and
grandchildren that this important antipoverty safety net program for
seniors will still be there when they need it.
Mr. Speaker, it is too easy just to throw money at every problem up
here when you are borrowing from China, and you have a $2 trillion
deficit that will double in 10 years. We have higher levels of
indebtedness than we had when we were fighting Imperial Japan and Nazi
Germany.
This country is going to go into the fiscal ditch never to come out,
never to prosper, never to be offered the American promise, and never
to lead the free world because we are going to bankrupt it because we
don't know how to address these problems like every American does in
their own household, in their businesses, and at the State and local
level, and that is conducting their business within their means and not
like there is a money tree at the Treasury Department where they can
borrow ad infinitum. That is not reality. That is not reality.
Let's fix it. Let's do it the right way. Let's not add to the debt.
Let's not add to the inequity. Let's not accelerate the trust fund
insolvency.
Then let's do what the gentleman said. I agree with the gentleman.
Let's be men and women who love this country and are more concerned
with solving these big problems than staying up here and being called
Congressman and chairman. Let's do the people's business. I am ready. I
am ready.
This is a very finite subset, and we have the solution. It is not
perfect, but it balances the things that need to be balanced like these
folks up there would at their homes and like my parents have to do back
home in Plainview, Texas.
Taxpayers deserve a voice as much as seniors, and my children deserve
a voice as much as taxpayers. That is what we are trying to do here.
I hope we can get my friend's support. I feel like that is about as
compelling a pitch I can make. I think John Larson ought to come over
and fix this the right way with me, then let's get that fiscal
commission going, get our President to lean into this and do the
Reagan-Tip O'Neill grand bargain so we can actually solve the bigger
and broader issues that plague Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers,
and I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
I think you gave a very impassioned plea, but I think we have to
dispense with we are throwing money at the problem. This is money that
people have paid weekly, biweekly, and monthly out of their paychecks.
We are not talking about just 2 million people with regard to WEP. We
are talking about 70 million Americans. They understand this program.
Frankly, it doesn't need to be studied. It needs to be voted on.
Where is the plan on your side?
We have a plan, and God only knows that plan should be subject to
debate and discussion, but the plan is to enhance Social Security, not
to cut it, so that people who are currently struggling, people now,
today, not waiting for a study, but as we speak are getting below
poverty-level checks.
You stand there and tell me we are throwing money at them?
They didn't think it was throwing money when we were paying the money
out of their paycheck and they put their trust and confidence in the
United States of America to return to them a benefit that has been the
number one antipoverty program for the country.
I don't care what party you are in or who you are, you understand
what Social Security has meant to you. Social Security is the safety
net for capitalism. It is what allows entrepreneurialism to succeed,
for people to take risks, and if they fail unintentionally or
otherwise, people are disadvantaged or out of work, they are protected.
We learned that lesson after the Great Depression.
If you think it can't happen again, it can. In 2008 and 2009, people
saw their 401(k) become a 101(k), and during that time, that trust fund
never missed a payment, not a pension payment, not a disability
payment, and not a spousal or child payment.
What it needs is Congress to act and Congress to vote. Congress is
going to go one of two ways. They are either going to enhance the
benefit and say: Hey, do you know what? This hasn't been adjusted in
over 53 years, and we recognize we have the responsibility to do that,
but we haven't acted, and we haven't voted.
Both sides haven't acted.
However, now is the time for us to act and to vote and put a plan in
front of people so that they get the opportunity to choose.
Have you got a better plan?
We have got one. We have got one that expands benefits and is paid
for. We actually have the temerity to ask people who pay nothing to
actually contribute to Social Security just like they do to this great
military that we have in this Nation. People don't go out and buy their
own tanks and their own F-35s. It is long overdue that people in this
country all contribute their fair share to the process. This is the
safety net for capitalism and entrepreneurialism in order for us to
survive. Every single district--every district--is benefited by it. It
is an economic development plan.
How do you explain it to people?
How can you look them in the eye and say: I am sorry we couldn't do
anything for you, even though your districts all receive over $200
million, and yet we haven't done anything to enhance that?
These were suggestions that they take less while they are living
longer?
Where do they spend that money?
They spend that money right back in your district at the local
pharmacy, at the grocery store, paying their rent and mortgages, and at
the dry cleaners. It all goes back to the American people and allows
our economy to flourish.
The brilliance of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is still with us today.
It is
[[Page H5925]]
obstinate of Congress to not vote to enhance people's benefits in more
than 50 years.
Ask anyone in your district: Have things changed for them since 1971?
Could they use a little help from their Congress?
How many do you think even understand there is a cap on Social
Security?
Are we proposing that we lift the cap on people making over $400,000
and that they actually would have to pay the same thing as someone who
is making $30, $50, and $100,000?
They all pay.
Isn't that the fair thing to do in the country so that all of your
constituents and mine and all 435 Members of this body can make sure
that we are taking care of the people whom we are sworn to serve,
especially those who are already retired, those who are there now?
While I respect the intention of the gentleman, 14 million people's
benefits get cut under your proposal--14 million. That is not
acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their
comments to the Chair.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington, D.C., and,
unfortunately--I respect my Democrat colleague and many of my Democrat
colleagues--only from the Democrat side of the aisle could I hear that
paying above and beyond what we defined as an earned benefit and has
now become a windfall for 2 million people at the expense of 60 million
people who don't receive the same benefit so that we can give people
equal treatment and not accelerate the insolvency, only in this town
could I hear that as a solution. That is not a solution. It is a bad
plan. Let's have the broader debate about Social Security, which is
what the gentleman is suggesting, but let's fix this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1645
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5342.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________