To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide an exception to the nine-month duration of marriage requirement for widows and widowers in cases in which the marriage was postponed by legal impediments to the marriage caused by State restrictions on divorce from a prior spouse institutionalized due to mental incompetence or similar incapacity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Social Security, for yielding me this time.

One thing I do agree with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security about is that we should reform the government pension offset. Instead of talking about technicalities or ways that people have figured a way around it, we ought to look at the whole issue. There has been legislation cosponsored by the majority of this House for 3 years, but we have not had a hearing yet on dealing with that. That is what is frustrating.

So instead of dealing with the big issue, they are going to say, okay, for those teachers or firefighters or police officers in Texas or Georgia or whatever other States, they are going to punish those because they found a way under current law to be able to receive their widows' benefits. We are talking about widows benefits. I do not know about the GAO study or whatever they wanted to talk about, but I do know that we are talking about widows' benefits.

Let me give an example. I have a lady in my own district in the Aldine School District; her husband passed away 10 years ago. She has been receiving his Social Security widow's benefits. She teaches school. She is 73 years old now. After decades of teaching math, she is ready to retire; but if she retires, she will have her widow's benefits under Social Security reduced so substantially that there will almost be nothing left, because of her teacher retirement under the State of Texas.

Now, again, I do not know how the request was made for these GAO studies, but I do know that the facts on the ground show something different than what my colleagues say. This teacher will have to wait to retire. She would have to go to work for 5 years at a school that has Social Security. Well, she does not have that choice. We have some districts in Texas who do, some who do not. Very few actually do. So she would have to be 78 years old under the bill to be able to continue receiving her widow's benefits. That is wrong. That has been wrong, and it is affecting so many people. That is why we have an amendment, and I thank the Committee on Rules for giving us an opportunity to strike that section.

We have an opportunity through that amendment that will do it. Let us deal with the whole issue, but let us also support the amendment that will leave this provision in here for people who need it.

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate has been good because it has talked about what the concern is, that we really need to deal with government pension offset.

I know there has been legislation introduced now for a number of years and that there is a commitment to have a hearing on it, but we have a bill right now; the latest legislation, H.R. 594, has at least 50 Republican Members and in a very short time has received almost 200 co-sponsors of it, that would eliminate the controversial government pension offset. And I guess that is what is frustrating because we have so much support to eliminate it or at least, as had been earlier talked about, let us moderate it. Do not punish widows that are public employees, two-thirds. Let us make them only pay one-third. Sure, they only worked a day maybe, but they are not getting it for their work under Social Security.

They are getting it because they were married to their spouse for at least 10 years and, in some cases, 30 and 40 years; and yet, because they were public schoolteachers, they had to take advantage of that loophole because, otherwise if their husband died before they were 62, they did not receive anything. So they found a way under current law to seek redress, and this bill is going to close that loophole, supposedly.

Again, maybe it should be, if my amendment is adopted, I would like the committee to really bring out a reform during this Congress because, again, we have been waiting now for many years. In fact, my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), I remember 3 years ago he and I stood at a press conference with lots of Members talking about we need to reform the government pension offset, and that is what ought to be done, but do not punish the States of Georgia or Texas or whatever other jurisdiction said, well, wait a minute, we know it is wrong, we know it is wrong to penalize a widow who teaches school.

For example, a colleague of mine from Texas has a military base, Fort Hood, with a lot of his constituents now in the Persian Gulf. They said we have a program that is called Troops to Teachers. Our armed services pay Social Security so they retire from the military, and yet they are going to go back to teach and they are going to be penalized for the Social Security they earned in the military if they retire in Texas from the teacher retirement system and they do not work for a school district that has Social Security.

The system is wrong, and my colleagues are making it worse by changing it by this bill; and this is what is so bad. My colleagues can show me all of the studies, but I cannot explain those studies to my constituents who are teachers who said you mean to tell me I have been married 30 years to my husband and everything because we are talking about 80 percent of these people are women, and we know nationally the retirement income for women is so much lower than men. We have teachers who have been married all these years, and sure, they are going to take advantage, but that is because they have been married to someone who paid into Social Security for at least 10 years, in some cases 3 or 4 decades.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of debate already on the general debate, but I rise in opposition to the legislation in support of my amendment, and it is frustrating because there are some good things in this legislation, but I guess what is really frustrating is that why should a section of this bill be addressed to public educators, firefighter and police officers that happen to be in Texas or Georgia, and yet, in another section, we are trying to combat fraud by felons.

I agree, we should combat fraud by felons; and if we have felons who are receiving Social Security, felons who are absconding, I do not mind. In fact, why are we waiting this long to keep them from getting their Social Security? Do not go after widowed teachers, whose spouses paid into Social Security.

Eighty percent are women who receive fewer retirement benefits than men, and it is not just for teachers, firefighters in the same legislation. It just seems like it is wrong to put that issue in the same legislation due to felons receiving Social Security benefits.

In fact, I had a constituent last night say, you mean to tell me all these years I have taught and I am in the same legislation trying to close a loophole for fugitive felons receiving Social Security? I said, I am sorry, ma'am, but that is what it has. The bill has some other good things in it; but we have this amendment, and I appreciate the Committee on Rules providing this.

It is called a loophole, but it is really not. There are lots of loopholes in our laws, but it is called laws; and I know on our side of the aisle we have talked about corporate loopholes for a long time. Let us close up the corporate loopholes, but why are we closing up one for the widowed teachers, again, who their only punishment is they worked as a public schoolteacher and was married to someone who paid into Social Security at least 10 years and, again, in some cases, many more years?

When the House first considered this legislation, it failed because of a controversial provision that we have, and the bill ought to pass, but it ought to be passed without this provision, and let us come back, get our Ways and Means subcommittee and the Committee on Ways and Means to deal with the government pension offset as a separate bill.

Last session, this legislation passed out of the House with, I do not think, any dissenting votes. It went to the Senate; and on a technicality, they added this back in, and it was stopped in the House when they tried to pass it on unanimous consent last fall and when most of us were in our districts.

In States where some public employees are not covered by Social Security, such as in Texas, this does reduce the spousal benefits by two-thirds, and in some cases, it can eliminate all of them, all their benefits. It is a problem for many public servants, but it is especially, again, bad for women, and, again, since 80 percent of the Texas schoolteachers and retirees are women. Sixty percent of that group is married, and again, I think it is interesting on the floor of the House because I always heard the statement, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but here we have bills that can enforce marriage, why are people on social services, that encourage them to get married, and here we have teachers who are married for all these years, and yet we are punishing them under the pension government offset.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I realize my colleague from Texas did not have time to yield, but let me just say that these teachers do not make the choice between the teacher retirement systems and Social Security. The choice is made by the local school districts. That is why 50 school districts in Texas pay into both.

We have more than 1,100 school districts in the State of Texas where those local school board members, not those employees, those local school board members make that decision.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment that having the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means calling this ``scamming the system'' is like the pot calling the kettle black. We have provisions in our Tax Code for individuals, one person. We have Tax Code provisions for one company or groups of companies. Yet it is a scam system if we are going to protect public school educators.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my colleague from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) with whom I have gone on trips to see our military, and this issue is also about the military. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who represents Fort Hood pointed out, this will impact them unless we reform the government pension offset.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee.)

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me say they are not receiving the benefits because of that 1 day, they are receiving them because they were married for at least 10 years to someone who paid into Social Security. That is the reason that they are receiving it. It is not hypothetical. We have people who have paid into Social Security for 40 years, and their spouses have received nothing. That is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To my really good friend and neighbor, that is the whole point of the debate. We should reform the government pension offset and not punish those who have found a way to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Dallas, Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I think I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The reason I am offering this amendment is because the underlying bill provides for this section 418. There are a lot of good provisions in the underlying bill, and people can vote for my amendment and still vote for the bill. There are other States with public employees like Texas. It just impacts Texas more than I guess other States, maybe Georgia or somewhere else, that reduces our spousal benefits because we have local governments that do not participate in Social Security. Only 50 of our school districts, the gentleman

from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), participate; but we have over 1,100 school districts, and that is a local decision. My wife as a teacher did not decide she would go to work for someone who paid Social Security. She went to work because she wanted to be a teacher, and that is the frustration because no one thinks about it until they realize later in their careers, wait a minute, I have been married for all these years and I am going to get penalized if my husband passes away?

Marriage is a contract. It is also a contract that says they have worked together for all those years and yet if they happen to be a public school teacher, tough luck for that marriage contract. They do not benefit. They get punished because they worked as a teacher and they did not pay into Social Security, but their spouse did, their husband did. Again, we are talking about 80 percent of the public schoolteachers in Texas and I am sure nation-wide, and I am sure this is a nation-wide problem. It is just that Texas has found a way around it, and yet you are going to punish Texas, and yet Georgia and other States have the same problem. Almost all these people are eligible for Medicare through their husbands, but none of them are eligible for their spousal benefit because of the government pension offset. The GPO is wrong, and I would not be here today if we had a bill come out to deal with the GPO on a fair basis, the government pension offset; but we are not.

I do not want to keep this loophole. I want it to treat fairly all the government employees who are being treated badly, but it affects teachers because they are the most in population. It affects firefighters and police officers also; but after a lifetime of being underpaid and they depend on their husband's Social Security or widow's benefits if they pass away and yet we take it away, and it is just frustrating to see that happen and to punish people. Yes, in Texas we found a way to deal with this wrong and you are punishing teachers because we have dealt with it instead of dealing with it in Congress, and that is what is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of Members thought that last battle was just because of Texas teachers, firefighters, or police officers; and it is, but simply because Texas has found a way to deal with the government pension offset. Another State, Georgia, has tried and is doing the same thing.

We need to reform the government pension offset. A lot of Members have told me, we are going to vote for you, we are going to vote against you, but we need to reform it. This is what this motion to recommit says, to report back. It instructs the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the same back to the House promptly with an amendment addressing the concerns of Federal, State, and local employees about the government pension offset under title II of the Social Security Act.

During the last 3 or 4 years, there have been bills introduced in this House that have been bipartisan. We have had at times 218 cosponsors of legislation to reform the government pension offset and have not had a hearing.

We have a bill right now, H.R. 594, that has at least 50 Republican cosponsors, and has about 175, and I think it has only been out for a few weeks for cosponsorship, to reform the government pension offset. This is our way to use our rules to be able to say to one of our committees, whether it is my Committee on Energy and Commerce or something else, to say we want to reform the government pension offset. That is why we want to send this bill back. They can reform it and send it back to us. That is what this is about.

If Members want to reform the government pension offset, if they want to take a benefit for not only teachers in Texas but teachers all across the country, Federal employees, military, because the government pension offset affects everyone who is a public employee, then we need to reform it. That is the job of our committee, the Committee on Ways and Means.

I would hope that Members would vote for this motion. That way, we would actually see this vote on the floor of the House that I have not seen until the last few weeks dealing with the government pension offset.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating, because a lot of us have heard from our public employees across the country and in our districts. They are frustrated when they find out they get penalized, even though they did pay into Social Security. Or in the case of teachers in Texas who do not have the option because of their local school district decision, they do not even receive their widow's benefits without such a penalty. That is what is frustrating.

We need to reform the government pension offset. That is what the committee should do, and that is what this motion to instruct would do. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know about a $3 bill, but maybe the Committee on Ways and Means could get one printed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that under our House rules that we are required to use the word ``promptly'' instead of ``forthwith'' because we now have had a budget resolution. I would ask, is that correct?

I withdraw the parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 168, I call up the bill (H.R. 743) to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional safeguards for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries with representative payees, to enhance program protections, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This afternoon I am pleased to present to the House for its consideration the Social Security Protection Act of 2003, which is bipartisan legislation that fights fraud and abuse in Social Security programs.

First, this bill protects nearly 8 million beneficiaries who cannot manage their own affairs and rely on representative payees appointed by the Social Security Administration. It does this by raising payee standards and by imposing stricter penalties on those who mismanage the benefits they are entrusted to administer.

Second, this bill denies Social Security benefits to fugitive felons and probation and parole violators. Third, the Protection Act provides tools to further safeguard Social Security programs including new civil monetary penalties.

Finally, this bill helps people with disabilities by giving greater access to legal representation when applying for benefits by improving work incentive programs and by expanding eligibility for the Work Opportunity Tax Credit to encourage more employers to hire individuals with disabilities.

Despite the fact that a majority of the Members voted to pass this bill last month, the needed two-thirds approval

required under suspension of the rules was not achieved. That is because special interest groups betrayed Social Security and America's seniors to appease the few who believe they could get special treatment and be allowed to exploit an unintended loophole that presently exists in the law. These groups misinformed both public and the Congress by falsely claiming that teachers and other public servants who pay into a public employee pension plan instead of Social Security are being singled out for unfair treatment. According to the General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration, these claims are false.

In fact, government workers who do not pay Social Security taxes receive higher spouse or widow benefits than workers who do, given equal retirement benefits from work. By taking advantage of the loophole, a select group of public employees receives full Social Security spouse and widow benefits that no other working spouse in America receives, including other teachers who pay into Social Security for their entire career.

I want to share this example provided by the Social Security Administration because it shows so well that assertions of targeting public servants for unfair reduction in spousal benefits are just simply incorrect.

As this placard will show, we are comparing two working couples, the Bakers and the Smiths. They have equal retirement benefits from their work. In both cases the husband receives a Social Security work benefit of $1,200 per month, and the wife receives $300 per month based on her work. They are equal in every way except that Mrs. Baker paid Social Security taxes and receives her benefits from Social Security, but Mrs. Smith paid into a public pension plan instead of Social Security and receives her benefits from that plan.

Both Mrs. Baker's and Mrs. Smith's spouse benefits are reduced. Mrs. Baker's spouse benefits of $600, which is one half of her husband's benefit amount, is reduced $1 for every dollar of her Social Security benefit, providing her with a $300 spouse benefit. Mrs. Smith's spouse benefit, also $600, is reduced $2 for $3 by her public pension benefit, providing her with a $400 spouse benefit.

The end result, Mrs. Smith's benefit is $100 higher than Mrs. Baker's, even though Mrs. Baker paid her whole career into Social Security. Clearly, Mrs. Smith is not being discriminated against because she paid into a public pension plan instead of Social Security.

Mrs. Smith has a twin sister, Mrs. Jones, who is also a teacher; but Mrs. Jones was a teacher in Texas who switched to a school cafeteria job on the last day and paid Social Security taxes in for that last day. Mrs. Jones has an advantage over every other working spouse in America. She receives both her worker's benefit and full spousal benefit. As a result her spousal benefit would be $300 higher than Mrs. Baker's and $200 higher than her twin's. Clearly, for someone who worked 1 day under Social Security, that is just plain unfair.

Every Member of Congress deeply appreciates the valuable contribution of teachers and public servants and all workers, whether they be in Texas, Georgia, Florida, or New York. However, no single group of workers should have an unfair advantage over workers in other school districts, in other pension systems, or all across this Nation.

We absolutely need a full discussion of all Social Security provisions affecting public employees, which is why the Subcommittee on Social Security will have a hearing on these issues and legislative opportunities in the coming weeks. While we want to make Social Security fair for all workers, we must take care not to worsen Social Security's already bleak fiscal picture or undermine the principle of Social Security as an earned benefit. It is an earned benefit. That would negatively affect both government workers and all Americans who depend on Social Security.

This bipartisan bill does the right thing and has the support of many organizations. It was developed using recommendations from and in cooperation with the Social Security Administration and the Social Security Inspector General. It is also supported by the AARP, Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Conference of State Social Security Administrators, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Association of Administrative Law Judges, the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives, and numerous other national and local law enforcement agencies and organizations.

We should protect senior citizens from unscrupulous representative payees skimming off of the top. We should prevent fugitive felons and probation or parole violators from using Social Security dollars to finance their illegal activity. We should pass H.R. 743 to stop this fraud and abuse in Social Security and in the process save the taxpayers $655 million over the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Very, very briefly, what the gentleman from California said about people receiving bad information from the Social Security Administration is absolutely correct, and we are working on that. This came out at the hearing that we had, and this is something that our committee will be addressing.

Now, the reason that the correction, as far as the unfair benefits being paid out to people who never really paid into Social Security more than one day of their working life, that information did not come out from the General Accounting Office until after we passed our bill last June.

The Democrat-controlled Senate, however, did have the benefit of the General Accounting Office study when they passed their bill, and they passed it by unanimous consent and they attached this provision to it.

This is not a partisan issue. I understand the problems within certain States and those are only two States, by the way, Texas and Georgia. However, for the rest of this country, it is looking at Georgia and Texas as an unfair abuse of the Social Security system because of the inartful drawing of that one provision. This is what we are trying to correct here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) that at this particular time I do not expect to use all of our time on general debate. We have already been through this on suspension. I would invite the gentleman to put a couple of speakers up at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I must say, and be sure that all the Members that are listening to this debate know, this debate has nothing to do with the Government Pension Offset that the last speaker was referring to. That particular provision has a price tag of $9 billion.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, I would like to correct that, or at least go halfway towards correcting that. But part of my job as chairman of this subcommittee is also to protect the integrity of the Social Security program itself. To go off willy-nilly and start throwing dollars out means the demise of the Social Security system. It will come up short well before 2016, which is the day on which the cash coming into the system is not enough to pay the benefits. We have to be concerned about that.

We are going to have hearings on the Government Pension Offset, and try to find ways to pay for it. But we have to pay for it within the system. To do otherwise would be just plain reckless.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the committee.

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the committee.

At this particular time I may close, depending on what I hear from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I place in the Record a large number of letters in support from police groups, fire groups, AARP, and a number of other letters.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a valuable member of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment that I think the gentleman is figuring that all those soldiers are going to come back to Texas. That is nonsense. This has nothing to do with our soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman that if somebody is enjoying a private pension in the private sector, they also paid into Social Security, which is something that the teachers that the gentleman is referring to are not doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, people watching this debate may have noticed that the only speakers in favor of the gentleman from Texas's amendment are Members from the State of Texas. We have seen even Jessica Lynch, an American hero who has just been freed as a prisoner of war, brought into this debate. Jessica is going back to West Virginia to teach, and she is not going to get this loophole. We need to wipe it out. It is unfair, and it is gaming the system.

We have heard about people in the private sector, employees of HMOs, employees of automobile companies and all, they do not have the pension offset. They do not have it because they paid into Social Security. Why should they have an offset if they have paid into Social Security?

We have heard about the soldiers coming home. What type of a desperate argument is this? This has nothing to do with the soldiers anymore than someone right now who is struggling to get through college to go to teach themselves. Ladies and gentlemen, I will tell it to the 48 other States other than Texas and Georgia that you would be giving public employees in two States an advantage that they do not receive in the rest of the country. You will be giving to these teachers and these firefighters something that their teachers and their firefighters will not have. This is basically unfair. We are going to correct it.

We have heard about the pension offset. All of us have been talked about that. Our Federal employees, our retired Federal employees, they have all been into our office talking about the pension offset. That is going to cost us $9 billion if we are able to do something with it, and I would like to address that; and Mr. Matsui and I have agreed to have hearings on it, and we are going to look to ways in order to try to do that, but that has nothing to do with this vote, absolutely nothing to do with it. This has only to do with a handful of public employees who are gaming the system in the State of Texas and even a smaller number in the State of Georgia. Vote ``no'' on the Green amendment. Vote ``yes'' on the bill. It is a good bill, and it is time that we clean this up.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, this is a good bill. I am frankly appalled that we have a situation where we have to fix the question of fugitive felons receiving Federal dollars, and I believe we should fix it. That is the point I rise to make, Mr. Speaker.

Forgive me for talking in a second-level voice, but this could have been a bill that all of us supported. My good friend from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) stood a couple of years ago disagreeing with opposing the government pension offset. What we are trying to do is to fix it to make it work.

We offered, I understand, I am not on the committee but I understand that the gentleman from Connecticut's (Mr. Shays) legislation that could have fixed this question that we are concerned with about teachers and police and firefighters was offered in committee and was rejected along a party line vote.

Mr. Speaker, this is legislation that should be supported by all. We should have a 100 percent vote on the Green amendment, which I am supporting, for these teachers and widows that we are talking about. This is a simple amendment because what it does is this amendment works to correct the problem, and that is in 418.

This amendment is important to have. The legislation does nothing to remedy the GPO to make it fair to public servants. This amendment strips this one hidden offensive provision in this otherwise noncontroversial bill that deals with prohibiting a widow to be eligible for a pension based upon State, local, or Federal jobs, that is ridiculous, or requiring them to work an extra 5 years.

Now why, Mr. Speaker, we could not work together to ensure that we had a bipartisan bill. My voice is weak, it is broken, but I could not miss talking about this inequity.

Why are we here fighting about a bill that has some very good elements? Why are we here fighting over the Green amendment? It should be under unanimous consent, because it makes sense for people not just in Texas but in New York. And I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to say here we go again, dividing unnecessarily along party lines on what is good for America. And frankly, I think we got a whole lot of work to do with our troops in Iraq in terms of benefits that they need and veterans benefits that they need and tax changes that they need. We could do this in a bipartisan way.

So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will find a way to unanimously support this Green amendment that will strike this language that puts elderly people back to work, and I hope we will find a way to correct this legislation so we have a bill that will have the support of all Members.

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to have come to the floor today to speak out yet against H.R. 743. The Social Security Protection Act of 2003. This bill was broken last time it came up on the floor. Many public servants in our districts noticed that. We noticed it was broken and voted the bill down. But, here it is again--and it still has not been fixed. There is much good in this bill. If the Majority Leadership would take out the small error that will hurt our teachers and firefighters and police, this bill could be in front of the President soon. That would be a great service.

Social Security represents a covenant between the U.S. Federal Government and the American people. It is a promise that if a person works hard, and contributes into this investment program, that when it comes time for them to retire--their government will ensure that a fair benefit is there for them. It seems that too often, criminals take advantage of the trust between the Social Security Administration and the seniors and disabled Americans it serves. They misuse Social Security benefits. Such activity is worse than just stealing, because it threatens the confidence that the American people have in the government. That confidence is the foundation of our democracy.

So last Congress, I joined with every voting Member of this House in support of The Social Security Act of 2002. It was an excellent piece of bipartisan legislation, which would have made great strides towards cutting down on the abuse of the Social Security system. Most of the major provisions of that bill are reflected in the bill before us today, and I still support them. The bills would both protect Social Security recipients by mandating reissue of funds when their payments are misused. Representative payees who misuse a person's benefits would be forced to reimburse those funds, plus would be subject to fines of up to $5000 if they knowingly provided false or misleading information.

For further protection, representative payees for over 15 individuals would be required to be licensed and bonded, and would be subject to periodic reviews. The bills would allow the Commissioner to withhold benefits from fugitive felons, and persons fleeing prosecution. The bills also provide for numerous improvements to the present system, which would reduce fraud and abuse of the program.

The bill passed unanimously in the House last Congress, and similar legislation cleared the Senate. But unfortunately this important legislation got hung up at the end of last year. With such support and progress, this should have been an easy piece of work to get through this year, and a score for the American taxpayers. Instead, a wrench has been thrown into the works, through the addition of a small section that has provoked a deluge of phone calls into my office from, it seems like, every schoolteacher in my district.

The Texas branch of the American Federation of Teachers describes Section 418 as ``poison for Texas school employees.'' That section relates to the Government Pension Offset. At present, if an individual receives a government pension based on work that was not covered by Social Security, his or her Social Security spousal or survivor benefit is reduced by an amount equal to two-thirds the government pension. This provision of current law is called the Government Pension Offset (GPO). However, under the ``last day rule,'' an individual is exempt from the GPO if he or she works in a job covered by Social Security on the last day of employment.

Many school disticts offer teachers non-Social Security government pensions, so till now many teachers have been forced to take advantage of the ``last day'' loophole. Just before they retire, they get a job in a business with a Social Security pension for a day, in order to receive their deserved benefits. This is a ridiculous system, and the appropriate way to fix it would have been to repeal the GPO. In fact, I have co-sponsored H.R. 594 with my colleague from California, Buck McKeon, and 132 others to do just that.

Instead, the bill before us today closes the loophole. I am usually all for getting rid of loopholes, but now is no time to be ``sticking- it'' to teachers--just as we are trying to leave no child behind, just as we have a shortage of qualified teachers in many areas. This could drive many people away from careers in teaching.

For example, last month I received a call from one woman in my District who was a teacher earlier in her life. Her husband recently passed away and she has been contemplating going back into teaching. But she has been warned that she could actually jeopardize her financial future by going to work. As a widow, she will be entitled to her husband's social security benefits. However, if she starts to teach in a school district with a government non-Social Security pension, she could lose $360 per month in retirement benefits--over $4000 per year.

Why should she risk it? If H.R. 743 passed today, it won't be only she that loses. It will be our Nation's children who lose--an experienced, intelligent teacher.

The GPO issue needs to be addressed, but not today. Right now, we are giving money to criminals who are beating our system and undermining confidence in the future of Social Security and the government as a whole. We need to protect Social Security, and we need to do it soon. But I will wait until we can do it without attacking our teachers, and penalizing our children.

I will vote ``no'' on H.R. 743 unless the offending provision is taken out, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, because I support teachers, firefighters, police, and the United States military, I rise in support of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Protection Act of 2003 was broken last time it came up on the floor. Many public servants in our districts noticed that and called and emailed and faxed us. We in Congress realized indeed it was broken and voted the bill down. But, here it is again--and it still has not been fixed. There is much good in this bill. If the Majority Leadership would take out the small error that will hurt our teachers and firefighters and police, this bill could be in front of the President soon. That would be a great service.

I commend my colleague and neighbor from Houston for his work in addressing the needs of our teachers--who are some of the hardest hit-- in Texas. The Green Substitute will preserve all the good in the Social Security Protection Act, that so many of us have worked together in bipartisan fashion, to create. It will simply remove a single offensive provision, that was added in at the eleventh hour, and hits hard a group of people that I can't imagine anyone wanting to hit right now-- when we are trying to improve our schools, when we are trying to bolster our first response capabilities, and when economic uncertainty abounds.

The Government Pension Offset (GPO) reduces or eliminates a Social Security widow's benefit if the widow is eligible for a pension based on a state, local or federal job that was not covered by Social Security. The GPO affects many individuals, but is especially harmful for teachers, police officers, and firefighters, and is particularly burdensome for lower income workers and women. A provision in current law, however, allows some state and local government employees to escape the application of the GPO if they switch jobs at the end of their government careers.

It is sad that we make dedicated employees jump through such hoops to get the benefits they deserve. I would like to totally revisit the GPO, but know that today is not the day to do it. Today, the best we can do is to keep this small loophole open and allow good people to continue to go into public service. I usually appreciate closing loopholes, but this one is too valuable to our schools and first responders.

As it stands, H.R. 743 modifies the last-day-exemption clause by requiring public servants to work an additional five years in order to receive a full spousal benefit. This legislation does nothing to remedy the GPO to make it fairer for public servants. There are many people who are interested in going into public service as a second career, but may not be able to work and then switch employment for five years. These people may not then be able to afford to serve. This is ridiculous at a time when needs are so great in our society.

The Green amendment strips this one, hidden, offensive provision in this otherwise non-controversial bill. I urge my colleagues to support teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public servants by supporting the Green amendment.

For example, last month I received a call from one woman in my District who was a teacher earlier in life. Her husband recently passed away and she has been contemplating going back into teaching. But she has been warned that she could actually jeopardize her financial future by going to work. As a widow, she will be entitled to her husband's social security benefits. However, if she starts to teach in a school district with a government non-Social Security pension, she could lose $360 per month in retirement benefits--over $4000 per year.

Why should she risk it? If H.R. 743 passes today as is, it won't be only she that loses. It will be our nation's children who lose--an experienced, intelligent teacher. The Green Substitute will allow her to help leave no child behind.

I will support the Green Substitute to H.R. 743, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from the State of Florida (Mr. Shaw), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means. We entered into a bipartisan discussion, and we have a bipartisan bill at this time.

The gentleman mentioned the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration. The Social Security Administration and the beneficiary community all came together last year to put this piece of legislation together. It was essentially the same bill that passed last year, and just 2 weeks ago it came again before the House Committee on Ways and Means and passed on a 35 in favor of to two against vote count. So this is a good bill. I hope we have final passage in favor of this piece of legislation.

I might just very briefly go over the points of the legislation. One, it deals with representative payees; and basically what this means is that when we have a person who is perhaps mentally disabled, a minor, or somebody who is a frail elderly, they may not be able to collect the benefits themselves or know how to handle their benefit, Social Security benefits, that is. So we have a representative payee that will take the money and make sure that proper accounting of the money is taken care of. Essentially in some cases we have had representative payees where they have actually absconded with the money. This would tighten up the laws on representative payees and, secondly, would make sure that beneficiaries are held harmless and receive the full benefits even when the representative payee takes the money from them. It also would provide a greater legal representation for SSDI recipients, those people that are seeking disability benefits under Social Security, by providing for greater legal representation by changing some of the requirements for lawyers under the Social Security Administration Act.

Lastly, it would deny benefits to fugitive felons. Right now under the law, through the quirk in the law, unfortunately, fugitive felons are able to receive Social Security benefits, and this would deny those benefits to fugitive felons.

There are a number of other technical provisions in the legislation. One area I might just spend a few moments on is the one that my colleague from Florida talked about, and that is the government pension offset issue. As the Members know, this legislation was passed in 1976. It did not take place until the mid-1980s. It was not fully put in place until the 1980s. It was basically to take care of the disparity where one of the spouses has two employments over a period of their lifetime of work, one in the local or State government and one in the private sector. So one would then be eligible for both Social Security benefits and also eligible at the same time for a government pension.

Under the law that currently is in place, a surviving widow or widower in this circumstance would have a reduction in their benefit level, depending upon the size of their pension. It was a law to try to correct an inequity. Unfortunately, the government pension offset has in some cases been fair but in many case has been unfair. One, many of the recipients do not know until actually their spouse dies that they are subject to that rule, in which case all of a sudden their lives have become totally disruptive. In fact, we

have calculated, and studies have shown this, that when one spouse dies, it still requires 80 percent of the former income that the couple had in order to live comfortably, and this in many cases drops that income level down to 30 or 40 percent of what they received when they were both alive. So there is a problem with this piece of legislation.

What the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I have attempted to do was strengthen the potential loopholes that some call it loopholes and some say it is only a way to make sure their benefits are collected properly.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has indicated that he intends to hold hearings on the government pension offset issue, and we really appreciate that because I believe that some action should be taken in this Congress on that issue.

Obviously, we cannot reinstate full benefits, but perhaps there is some way we can at least help these recipients that are subject to this rule so that they will be able to continue on when one of the spouses passes away.

It is, however, a situation now where some of my colleagues feel that they have a problem with this particular provision. This provision was not in the bill last year to close this provision on the government pension offset; it was added to the bill in this Congress, and many of my colleagues have questions about it.

It would have been my hope that we would have dealt with this issue and the larger issue of trying to deal with the government pension offset, because in this situation it would put pressure on all of us to try to deal with this comprehensively. But we do have it before us at this time, and as many of us know, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) will have an amendment in which he will move to strike that one provision out of this legislation.

I intend to support his motion to strike this by way of an amendment but, at the same time I would hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support the final passage of this legislation, because it is a good bill and certainly we do believe that the other provisions of this legislation must move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just make a couple of observations, if I may. I appreciate the Chair of the subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, his discussion.

I just want to point out, the President had said during the campaign of 2000 that he wanted to reform Social Security. He came up in 2001, December of 2001, with a commission report and three recommendations all dealing with privatization of Social Security. The gentleman himself has come up with a privatization plan. We still have not seen Social Security reform in the committee, nor have we seen it on the floor of the House.

Initially, I was hoping to take care of the GPO under Social Security reform. Obviously, we cannot do it because there is no intention of bringing Social Security reform to the House floor until after the 2004 election, after the President presumably is reelected. So it is unfortunate we have to deal with this issue now.

I also want to say that with respect to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), he was trying to deal through the whole issue of corporate shelters with things like the Bermuda inversion issue, in which companies in the United States went offshore in order to avoid U.S. taxes, thereby increasing taxes for individual citizens. These are the things that he has been working on.

Lastly, this is about the government pension offset, to a large extent; it is not about loopholes. The reason I say this, just 3 weeks ago the gentleman voted, the gentleman who just spoke voted in committee on a piece of legislation actually in which we were going to try to give benefits to our young men and women overseas, in the Persian Gulf at this time, by adding little provisions like eliminating taxation on foreigners who actually bet on U.S. gaming and horse races.

These are the kinds of things that are real loopholes. These are the things that are loopholes. These are ordinary citizens who are just trying to deal with their own livelihood when one of their spouses dies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

If the Speaker may inquire whether the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has any further speakers?

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This is a good bill. I want to commend the gentleman from the State of Florida, the Chair of the subcommittee. We put together a bipartisan bill. Obviously with the Social Security Administration, with the beneficiary groups and certainly with the Inspector General's office, and certainly this is a good piece of legislation.

I hope that each of my colleagues, as I, will vote for final passage of this legislation. Obviously, we do have one controversy here, and it is the government pension offset issue; and the gentleman from Florida has indicated he

will address this issue through a hearing of the subcommittee sometime in the near future, I believe after the April recess; and so I look forward to working with him with the idea of perhaps given the time constraints and other problems that we might have that we can really address this issue in a comprehensive way.

I do hope that there will be some way that we can vote in favor of the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Green) amendment when it is offered in about 40, 45 minutes because I think that will keep the pressure on the institution, both bodies and the executive branch of government, to address this issue.

There is no question that many people are caught unaware when one spouse dies that they did not know about the government pension offset. It results in a reduction of their level of income by 40, 50, even in many cases 60 percent, and secondly, we do have to deal with the inequalities of the proposal. There is no question that in some cases it does actually help and it creates inequality in terms of people that have multiple jobs.

On the other hand, it does create some inequality, and as a result of that, we really need to address this issue in a comprehensive way; and given the fact we probably will not deal with Social Security reform in this Congress, it is incumbent on us at least to address this issue and perhaps a few other issues, as well, as long as they are not extremely costly.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on final passage, a ``yes'' vote when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) offers his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. Let me address my remarks toward the teacher loophole portion of this, because this is what we are discussing the most.

I admire teachers. They are hardworking and incredibly dedicated, as we all know. They are my friends, my sister-in-law, and my next-door neighbor, literally. But keeping open the Texas teacher loophole is terribly unfair.

The loophole practice was first reported to the fraud hotline of Social Security a few years ago. A subsequent investigation by the General Accounting Office followed and, upon their finding that millions of dollars were being siphoned from Social Security, the recommendation was made to Congress to close it. The Senate voted 99 to 0 to close it. But that is why we are here today in the House, to preserve the integrity of Social Security.

This is how the loophole works in Texas, in my State. Teachers in the State retirement system do not pay into Social Security. They have opted out. They pay instead into a substitute retirement plan, the teacher retirement system of Texas. As they near retirement, a Texas teacher resigns from her school district. She pays then another school district that is in Social Security; she pays them between $200 and $500 to work for them 1 day, in the cafeteria, doing maintenance, or as a clerical aid. Typically, for that 1 day of work, the teacher contributes $3 into Social Security and thanks to the loophole, collects nearly $100,000 in Social Security benefits over her retirement. That is $3 into Social Security, $100,000 taken from Social Security. This is terribly unfair. It is unfair to all of the teachers in other States who have no loophole. It is unfair to all the working families in Texas, in America, who have no loophole, including our soldiers overseas; and it is certainly unfair to our elderly who, even if we close the loophole today, will see $450 million drained from their Social Security Trust Fund.

On the Web site for the Texas Federation of Teachers, their President, John Cole, describes the loophole as a trick and proudly proclaims the gimmick is perfectly legal. The gimmick is perfectly legal.

Well, the gimmick may be legal, but is it right? Virtually no other worker in Texas or America can take a job in a school cafeteria for a day, contribute $3 into Social Security, and walk away with nearly $100,000 more than their next-door neighbor. How do we justify this? We would not allow someone to spend 1 day as a substitute teacher and take home $100,000 in teacher retirement, so why would we allow a teacher to work 1 day in Social Security and take home $100,000 they did not earn?

Alarmingly, this 25-year-old obscure loophole just recently discovered is now being institutionalized. In Texas, in my home State, teachers groups regularly hold retirement seminars to instruct their members on how to take advantage of the loophole. Some school districts make as much as $280,000 a year. That is a quarter of a million dollars a year, charging fees to teachers to work for them for just a day. During the General Accounting Office investigation, they even discovered one Texas university has gone so far as to regularly schedule 5 days per year where university professors can work their last day as a janitor under Social Security, contribute $3, and receive an extra $100,000. That is $100,000 that university professors in other States cannot earn, because they do not have a loophole. And it is $100,000 the janitor they worked alongside of cannot earn either, because they do not have a loophole.

We are not going to create two classes of citizens in America, those who have loopholes and those who do not. Congress has a clear choice. We can keep open this lucrative loophole for a few that is draining $450 million from everyone else's Social Security, or we can stand up for our seniors, stand up for our elderly, stand up for the 99 percent of America's workers who are playing by the fair rules.

If we insist on keeping this loophole open, Congress, I think, has forfeited any future credibility to claiming to protect Social Security for our seniors. We will rightly be labeled hypocrites.

What can we do to help our teachers, but still be fair to America? The question has been raised today, and it is a fair one. I am convinced the answer lies in repeal or at least modification of the windfall elimination provision, which docks workers who have earned both the Social Security retirement and the government pension. I think the principle we should be applying is this: if you have earned two pensions, you should receive two pensions.

I have asked the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), to hold hearings on the windfall provision; and he has agreed. I appreciate his willingness to promptly study the impact and fairness of the windfall provision as it relates to today's retirees.

I think we will find when we do study it, and I am in total agreement with

our teachers on this, that the windfall makes it much more difficult to recruit into teaching the professionals who have had other careers. I think it penalizes educators who held a second job in order to make ends meet. Teachers tell me this would go a long way towards helping them. And best of all, it is not a gimmick. It is fair for them, and it is fair to the rest of America.

I urge the House to pass H.R. 743 without amendment. We must not allow our precious Social Security to be drained away; and most importantly, we cannot create two classes of citizens in America, those who have loopholes and those who do not.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of misinformation being spoken today. This has nothing to do with our soldiers overseas, because they do not have a loophole; or our firefighters or police officers, because they do not have a loophole. This does have a lot to do with the widows in America who do not have a loophole and are losing $450 million of their Social Security because one group has a loophole that no one else in America has.

Let us look at the average family in Texas because we have heard a lot of these examples. This is where the husband has made $1,000 a year as his retirement and the wife's retirement is $700. When he passes away, what happens? For almost everyone in America where both people work in Social Security, that benefit is $1,000. For other families that work and have a government pension, like our firefighters and policeman, or Federal workers, for example, who paid into their own private plan, they keep more, $1,233. They get more than most families in America.

But look at our Texas teacher. Because we have a loophole where they can go to work 1 day in Social Security and contribute $3 and collect over $100,000 more, they pull down $1,700 a month for widow's benefits that no one else in America can achieve. Not other teachers in other States, not the elderly in other States, no one in America. And because of this, this is draining not just $450 million now, but if we keep this loophole open, we will do more and more damage to everyone else in America who pays into Social Security.

Let me make a final point about this. Everyone's Social Security is offset. Members have what is called a dual-entitlement offset. That is 100 percent. Government workers is less, only 66 percent, two-thirds. Texas teachers, no offset whatsoever, so they receive many more benefits than the next-door neighbor who works hard, than Texas nurses, store clerks, the woman who takes care of our elderly in nursing homes, they do not have a loophole.

We are not going to have an America where there are two classes of citizens, those who have loopholes in Social Security and those who do not. This is about protecting the integrity of our Social Security system for every generation. If we do not close this loophole, we have lost all claim to protecting Social Security for the future.

Mr. Speaker, others may not like the facts either. My younger brother has been deployed as an Army medic in the 67th Brigade. He will be watching out for the 4th Infantry Division in the Persian Gulf, his second tour of duty. He does not have a loophole. He cannot work 1 day and collect $100,000. Yes, he has an offset like the rest of America has an offset. When we hear this said no one else has an offset, it is absolutely untrue. What we are trying to defend here is some of America that has a loophole and all the rest of us, firefighters, widows, the elderly have no loophole. We are protecting the security of Social Security.