[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 7663-7664]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    CALLING ON CONGRESS TO REPEAL THE GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET AND 
                     WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 1, 2008

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about an extremely 
important issue facing many retirees in Massachusetts. Throughout my 
career in the Congress, I have heard from thousands of my constituents 
who have been penalized by the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and 
Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP).
  Both of these laws currently require that a modified formula be used 
to calculate the amount of Social Security benefits a retired or 
disabled worker and/or the worker's family will receive if the worker 
also receives a pension from local, State or Federal employment not 
covered by Social Security. This has resulted in some unintended and 
unfair consequences.
  Millions of public service workers in 15 States are allowed to opt 
out of the Social Security system and my home State of Massachusetts is 
one of them. Most of these workers are teachers, town and State 
employees, nurses, police officers and firefighters who are not 
required or allowed to pay into the Social Security program. Therefore, 
they do not collect Social Security benefits upon retirement.
  However, the GPO and WEP also prevent public servants from receiving 
Social Security benefits that they earned through other, non-public 
service employment. Under these provisions, a widow or widower is 
denied a spousal benefit because their husband or wife was a public 
service employee. This is unfair and unacceptable.
  Every year those who unselfishly give of themselves by serving others 
in their communities, find their retirement savings slashed by the GPO 
and WEP, simply because they left the private sector to serve the 
public. In Massachusetts alone, nearly 18,700 retirees are affected by 
the GPO, with more than a third of them being widows or widowers. As 
many as 32,000 individuals are affected by the WEP. These provisions 
are unfairly penalizing the men and women who contribute the vital 
services that sustain and improve our communities.
  With the retirement population continuing to grow, this issue is of 
increasing importance to millions of Americans and is not going to go 
away. I have been contacted by thousands, representing every segment of 
our community, and I am continually saddened and angered by the stories 
that I hear. Those who are affected by the GPO and WEP are hardworking 
Americans that do not deserve to be denied the benefits of a Social 
Security system that they have already contributed to.
  A widow relayed the story of how she and her husband planned their 
retirement believing that each would be able to take care of their 
bills should one of them pass. She was stunned to find out when she 
became widowed that she would not be allowed to collect her husband's 
full survivor benefits because she collects a small pension from her 
job as an elementary school teacher in Marshfield. Sadly, she was 
forced to sell the home where she had raised her family because she 
could no longer afford it.
  A single mother of three on Cape Cod with two full-time jobs as a 
nurse and teacher wrote me of her dilemma. She has made many sacrifices 
to independently support her children. She consistently paid into her 
teacher's retirement fund and Social Security for decades hoping to be 
able to eventually retire without worry in her later years. She 
recently found out she will not be allowed to collect both of the full 
retirement benefits she earned and was counting on.
  I have heard from a 63-year-old widow who works for the City of 
Quincy. She would like to retire before her 70th birthday but cannot 
afford to do so. Because of her participation in the City retirement 
program, her Social Security benefits will be immediately and 
drastically reduced.
  A municipal retiree in Plymouth wrote me about his concerns with the 
rising price of gas and medical expenses. He supports a repeal of the 
GPO and WEP so that he may supplement his already meager retirement 
income with his Social Security benefits.
  I have heard from police officers and firefighters from all over my 
district who put their lives on the line each and every day. These 
brave men and women will not be allowed to collect their full Social 
Security benefits upon retirement.
  These stories are very real, and are just a small sample of the 
thousands of letters that I have received on this issue.
  This is not just about senior citizens who worked all their lives 
believing they were responsibly planning ahead for retirement. This is 
not just about retirees finding themselves unable to make ends meet, 
concerned that they may not be able to afford to heat their homes this 
winter or buy the medications they need.
  It's about retired and widowed public servants, who are denied access 
to their deceased spouse's Social Security benefits because they chose 
public service as a career.
  It's about penalizing honest, hard-working people who dedicated their 
careers to public service. At a time when our Nation is searching for 
talented and dedicated teachers, nurses and other public servants--this 
penalty

[[Page 7664]]

discourages the best and the brightest from serving in our community. 
Madam Speaker, the time is long overdue for Congress to resolve this 
issue.
  I want to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 82, the 
Social Security Fairness Act which would repeal both the GPO and WEP. 
In addition, I'd like to urge you to support H.R. 2772, the Public 
Servant Retirement Protection Act, which would eliminate the WEP and 
establish a more equitable formula for calculating Social Security 
benefits.
  Support for these two pieces of legislation has grown significantly 
each year and it is imperative that they see long-awaited debate in 
committee and on the floor of Congress.

                          ____________________