Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to 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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 520, I call up from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House the Social Security Protection Act of 2003, bipartisan legislation that fights fraud and abuse in the Social Security programs.

In April, the House overwhelmingly passed this bipartisan bill by a vote of 396 to 28. In December, the Senate passed an amended version of the Protection Act unanimously. They did this by unanimous consent. Today, we have an opportunity to pass this essential legislation so that it be sent to the President and made law.

Workers, retirees, individuals with disabilities, survivors and their families have paid for and deserve better protection under Social Security and the enhanced vigilance against waste, fraud and abuse this bill provides.

First, this bill protects nearly 7 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, increasing oversight, and imposing stricter penalties on those who would mismanage the benefits entrusted to their care.

Second, this bill denies Social Security benefits to fugitive felons and probation/parole violators.

Third, it provides tools to further safeguard Social Security programs, including new civil monetary penalties for those who withhold information to get benefits and improving collection of overpaid benefits.

Fourth, this legislation closes a loophole in the law that has allowed an isolated group of public employees to receive full Social Security spouse and widow benefits that no other identical working spouse in America receives even when both pay into the Social Security program.

Finally, the bill helps people with disabilities by giving greater access to qualified representatives 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.

And, accompanying all of this, the taxpayers will save $800 million over the next 10 years.

I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus of the Senate Finance Committee who offered to work with the Committee on Ways and Means and, of course, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) as we have done this on a bipartisan basis as they developed their amendments to the House- passed bill.

This amendment made a number of enhancements to the bill.

First, it increased overpayment collection by authorized recovery across Social Security and Supplemental Social Security Income program lines.

It provides for a 5-year nationwide demonstration project providing direct fee withholding for qualified nonattorneys who help individuals through the complex disability application process.

It provides additional time for the Social Security Administration to test initiatives to help individuals with disabilities return to work as well as extended funding for services that help individuals with disabilities return to work and keep working.

It provides for the ability to restart disability benefits based on their parent's work if an individual disabled in childhood tries to work but must later stop.

Lastly, enhancement and simplification of the Supplemental Security Income program, especially for members of the military and their families.

This bipartisan legislation has support of many organizations because it does what is right for the Social Security program, the people who pay into it and the people who benefit. It was developed in cooperation with the Social Security Administration and the Social Security Inspector General. It is also supported by 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, and the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives.

This bill probably will not make the front page of your newspaper on kitchen tables tomorrow morning. That is unfortunate, as Social Security is one of our Nation's most important programs and constitutes our government's largest expense, consuming approximately one-quarter of our Federal budget and growing. It deserves our Nation's attention.

Protecting the most vulnerable beneficiaries and stopping Social Security from hemorrhaging precious dollars through fraud and benefit misuse is important and serves as a shining example of what Members of Congress can achieve for the American people when we work together.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and give workers and beneficiaries the protections that they deserve.

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

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

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

I would like to point out at this time that even under this bill, the offset is only $2 for every $3 of pension received, whereas those of us who are going to depend on Social Security, those that depend on Social Security, the offset is a dollar for dollar. So the teachers that people are talking about and public employees that this might affect, they are still getting a much better deal than people who have paid into Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

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

I tell the gentleman from Texas that I know he feels passionate about this and I can agree with his motivation with regard to this, but the simple fact arises that there is an offset for those where we have a spouse and a worker both paying into Social Security. We simply bring them pretty close down to where some people who are paying into Social Security and work every single day and pay under the Social Security program, and still we give the people he is talking about a better deal than the people who have really labored under Social Security only.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

In just a brief response to the gentleman from Maryland, he correctly described my intentions, but the bill has not yet been prepared. As soon as we get some figures back, I intend to work closely with the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and other members on our Committee on Ways and Means to make this a bipartisan effort on the Government Pension Offset, where it is still very much a work in progress, and we want to be sure that we can get it right. If it can be bipartisan, I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and I have both learned that we can accomplish a lot more by working together than working separately.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would have to correct the previous speaker when she says they do not get any of their survivor benefits and advise her that, yes, under this bill, the teachers that she is referring to get one-third of the survivor benefits, even after the offset, whereas if you have a similar situation where a teacher teaching where there is not this loophole and pays into the Social Security system, generally in that same example they get zero. So I just want to be sure the record is correct on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, in looking at what is right, it is right to protect beneficiaries from representative payees who would misuse these benefits. We all agree on that, whether you are from Texas, Georgia, California, or New York. It is right to deny Social Security benefits to fugitive felons and probation parole violators. We can all agree on that. It is right for this Congress to pass a bill that deters waste, fraud, and abuse. That is in this bill, and that is the right thing to do. It helps individuals with disabilities gain access to representation, and it encourages disabled beneficiaries to return to work. That is the right thing to do.

Now we get to the hard question: Is it right to close a loophole that enables some teachers in Georgia and Texas to contribute just a few dollars to Social Security to receive nearly $100,000 in additional lifetime spousal benefits? I strongly believe this loophole should be closed.

Let me give an example which I think would be very helpful to the Members in deciding how they are going to vote on this issue. Any worker, corporate, executive, otherwise, or school teacher who pays into both Social Security and a retirement plan will receive both benefits based upon their work. However, no worker will receive a full spouse or widower benefit; those benefits are reduced or eliminated dollar for dollar by the earned Social Security benefit. Public employees who contribute to a public employee pension plan instead of Social Security actually face a lower, a lower offset under this bill of their spouse or widow benefits than workers who paid into Social Security their whole career. And that is only $2 for every $3. So these people who did not pay into Social Security are getting a better deal than people who paid into Social Security their whole working lives.

Also, this bill has bipartisan support and the support of key stakeholders, and it does save us money. This same identical bill was passed, almost identical bill, was passed by the House by a vote of 396 to 28. It passed. And then it passed by unanimous consent in the Senate with some minor changes, which is the reason we are back here today.

If we were to look at the arguments that have been made today as to what is fair and what is not fair and apply those same arguments as to spousal benefits, surviving spouse benefits to people who have paid into Social Security all their working life, it would cost the Social Security Administration $1 trillion and would bankrupt the system. This is what we are facing: basic fairness. I say, apply the law as this bill outlines it. It is fair. It is the right thing to do. I urge passage of the bill.

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

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

Today, we have before us the Social Security Protection Act. This legislation was developed over several years in conjunction with the Social Security Administration, its Inspector General, beneficiary representatives and others. The bill reflects a preconference agreement negotiated with the other body on a bipartisan basis and is supported by the Consortium for Seniors With Disabilities, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Association of Administrative Law Judges, the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives and others.

I would like to take a few moments to highlight several items in this bill. The first deals with representative payees. Nearly 8 million Social Security and SSI beneficiaries who are unable to manage their own benefits have representative payees, including children, the mentally impaired and the very frail elderly. Most payees work hard to ensure that the benefits are spent to meet the beneficiary's needs. However, in some instances SSA's screening process for determining who should serve as a payee has failed to prevent the misuse of these benefits. This legislation gives SSA the tools it needs to reissue benefits that are misused. It provides for penalties for those who would take advantage of some of our most vulnerable citizens. It also strengthens Social Security's oversight of these payees.

Second, the bill helps individuals with disabilities gain greater access to legal representation when filing for benefits. Social Security disability insurance beneficiaries already have this access, and the bill extends it to SSI claimants, as well, so they can get the needed help and ensure that their applications are fully considered.

Finally, and very importantly, the bill prohibits paying Social Security benefits to fugitive felons and to those who have violated probation or parole. It is my strong belief that we should not be supporting fugitives who are fleeing the law, and this bill will help bring them to justice.

Now, I would like to mention one provision in the bill that has generated some controversy. This is the provision that would modify an exemption to the government pension offset, or known as GPO, that is being used by some workers but is not available to all. My colleagues from Texas have discussed this specific provision in more detail during the debate on the rule and will discuss it further on this bill, but the larger issue here itself is the GPO. Across the country, people who have worked hard all their lives are unexpectedly faced with the loss of Social Security benefits that they had been counting on because of the GPO. The GPO, which was created in the 1970s and phased in during the 1980s, was designed to provide roughly equal treatment between people who work under Social Security and pay into the system and those who do not. It was designed to end a disparity between couples where in one couple, both members paid into the Social Security system and in another when one spouse paid into the system and the other spouse paid into a State retirement system. Unfortunately, we now know that the GPO often produces unfair results. It is a rough tool that clearly needs adjustments.

Let me illustrate my point. Research shows that a widow needs 80 percent of the income needed to support a couple. Because of the GPO, the couple's income from Social Security can drop to zero when the husband dies. On average, the reduction caused by the GPO is $421 per month, which cuts the average widow's benefit in half, jeopardizing her ability to keep up with fixed costs of housing, health care and others that still exist after the death of her spouse.

We tried to address some of these problems with the GPO during the committee markup last year, but we were rejected on party-line votes. We were also denied the opportunity to address the larger GPO problem in the Rules Committee when the bill came before the House last April. Finally today, my good friend from Texas (Mr. Frost) attempted to bring forward for debate a bill that would fully repeal the GPO, and he was denied that opportunity.

The will to solve the problem with the GPO is clearly an issue of priorities. My Democratic colleagues and I have been prevented from bringing this issue before the Congress over and over again, while my friends on the other side of the aisle have continued to push policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of this important issue.

For example, the GPO affects 400,000 hardworking Americans every year and eliminating it would cost $31 billion over 10 years. Not $800 billion, not $1 trillion, but it would cost $31 billion over 10 years. In contrast, the 200,000 households that make more than $1 million each year will see $90 billion in tax cuts over that same period. That is half as many people being benefited at three times the cost. There are other examples of misplaced priorities. Congress could and should close corporate tax shelters and prevent companies from incorporating offshore. That would save $30 billion over a 10-year period and that amount would actually take care of dealing with the 10-year period of eliminating the GPO completely.

This is an issue that should not go unaddressed any longer, and I hope that the Congress will make it a priority for consideration this year. While I am disappointed that we are not addressing this important issue today, there are many other provisions in this bill that I mentioned that will strengthen the Social Security system, and I intend to support this bill; but it is my hope that we do address the issue of the government pension offset because it is creating a great deal of consternation and damage to many people who obviously lose their spouse. I support the legislation, but I just hope that we can take some action on the GPO in the future.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Maryland (Mr. Cardin), member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make an observation. I would not have so many problems with this were it not for the fact that there are many other loopholes that have actually been passed through this House over the last few years.

For example, if a corporation in the U.S. goes to Bermuda to avoid U.S. taxes, we tried time and time again to close that loophole. But the other side of the aisle, in fact the gentleman who just spoke, denies the ability for us to even bring such a bill to the floor.

I guess that is where the frustration lies, is when we close loopholes, we pick on the people that are firefighters and teachers; but we let large corporations who avoid U.S. taxes go from that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the inexplicable failure of the U.S. Congress to address the inequities of the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). For more than 20 years, the GPO and WEP have created enormous burdens for many public service retirees.

More than half of the Members of this House want change; no fewer than 285 of my colleagues have co-sponsored bipartisan legislation for outright repeal of the GPO and WEP. But the House leadership won't even allow debate on the question.

The legislation before this chamber today will help protect many vulnerable beneficiaries from fraud and contains many other important provisions. However, once again, the House missed a perfect opportunity to repeal both the GPO and WEP.

Both the GPO and WEP unfairly reduce Social Security benefits for retirees who otherwise qualify, simply because they at some point worked in jobs covered by another government pension. In particular, the GPO and WEP penalize those who had short or intermittent careers, or who blended private jobs with stints in public service.

Often, these are people already losing out in their overall earnings because they chose to make a meaningful contribution to society in roles that just don't pay well. Think of those in your community who teach your children, fight your fires and keep your streets safe. Chances are, you're thinking of people who are suffering the impact of the GPO or WEP.

Because most paid Social Security taxes somewhere along the way, these people planned for retirement fully anticipating both pension and Social Security benefits. But when these teachers, police officers, and firefighters retired, they discovered all or much of their expected Social Security benefits wiped out by the WEP or GPO. In the case of the WEP, the Social Security benefit is reduced by up to 60 percent. If the GPO is triggered, it reduces a retiree's spousal benefit by two- thirds.

A Barnstable teacher wrote to me about her circumstances:

I am a recently divorced woman, age 56, who has worked in

the school district for five years. Before taking this job I

was an at-home mother. Although I get very minimal alimony

(which I don't always receive) I face the grim reality of

what I will live on when--and if--I can retire. Having paid

the Social Security system for many years before having

children, the GPO and WEP would not permit me to collect on

what I paid into the system. I also understand that if my ex-

husband were to die, the amount I would be able to collect

from his Social Security would also be cut.

Countless heart-wrenching personal stories dramatically illustrate the impact of these unfair benefit reductions. In my home state of Massachusetts, over 18,000 retirees are being penalized by the WEP. When it comes to the GPO, almost 15,000 are affected--and over a third are widows or widowers.

Consider this letter I received from a widow in Hull, MA:

I am being punished because I worked for the Town for the

past 23 years. My husband passed away after only receiving

Social Security disability for six months. He worked 40 years

toward his Social Security. Many people do not know about

this penalty and find out when they go to collect their

Social Security that they cannot receive what they totally

deserve . . .

From a Marshfield, MA teacher:

If my husband should pre-decease me, I am not eligible for

his Social Security and would suffer a serious financial

burden. I stayed at home to raise four children, while my

husband worked six days a week and long hours and contributed

the maximum to Social Security. I reentered the workforce

late in life (to help pay for college tuitions) and made the

mistake of getting employment with our local municipality.

From a 10-year employee of the town of Duxbury, MA:

As I have been a part-time employee, my pension will be

quite small, about $300 a month. I worked many years under

Social Security with full and part-time jobs. As my Social

Security would be reduced from $600 to $400 it does not leave

much to live on, never mind paying for medical insurance.

From a Sagamore Beach widow:

I recently had two more friends die after waiting since

1983 to receive help on the Government Pension Offset issue.

If Congress waits much longer, they won't have many of us

left to help.

It is particularly heartbreaking that retired women comprise over 70 percent of those penalized by the GPO reduction of spousal benefits. Many sacrificed to stay home and raise children in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s--then went to work later in life. In retirement, they are hit especially hard. Not only did they face the challenges of a workplace that paid them far less than their male counterparts; now they face similarly diminished opportunities to enjoy their senior years. Many are widows with meager pensions, who now face drastically reduced financial support with the death of a spouse--and must also contend with reduced spousal Social Security benefits.

During this 108th Congress, we had strong support for bills that would have modified or repealed the WEP and GPO. We had significant bipartisan endorsement and literally hundreds of senior organizations calling for action.

In May of last year, we heard compelling testimony about the impact of these provisions in the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee hearing. Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police described why police officers in particular are penalized by the WEP:

Owing to the physical demands of the job, a law enforcement

officer is likely to retire between the ages of 45 and 60.

After 20 or 25 years on the job, many law enforcement

officers are likely to begin second careers and hold jobs

that do pay into the Social Security system. Even more

officers are likely to ``moonlight,'' that is, hold second or

even third jobs throughout their law enforcement career in

order to augment their income. This creates an unjust

situation that too many of our members find themselves in:

they are entitled to a State or local retirement benefit

because they worked 20 or more years keeping their streets

and neighborhoods safe, and also working at a job or jobs in

which they paid into Social Security, entitling them to that

benefit as well. However, because of the WEP, if their second

career resulted in less than twenty (20) years of substantial

earnings, upon reaching the age they are eligible to collect

Social Security, they will discover that they lose sixty

percent (60%) of the benefit for which they were taxed!

Actuarially speaking, I doubt many officers will live long

enough to ``break even''--that is collect the money they paid

into the system, let alone receive any ``windfall.''

Even if the personal circumstances of today's public sector retirees fail to move you, consider the fact that it gets harder every day to recruit and retain people for public service jobs. Compared with the private sector, public services jobs offer significantly less pay and benefits. Personal satisfaction, while a powerful motivator, begins to fade when you realize you won't be able to put food on the table during retirement. We'll never attract the best possible candidates to public service unless we remove the stark disincentives characterized by the WEP and GPO.

Today this Congress failed to address the needs of almost one million former government employees who have already lost retirement dollars due to the GPO and WEP. Millions more face losses in the future. These are people we need, in every community, doing jobs that often keep us safe and secure in an era of unparalleled uncertainty.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my fellow Texas Democrats have joined me here today on an issue of fairness. Will this House be fair to those who stand to lose a Social Security pension that has been fairly paid into and is fairly deserved, or will they vote to drive valuable public servants out of a system that desperately needs them?

Some Members believe that the Texas teachers and other public employees want some sort of special treatment. They do not. Their spouse correctly and completely paid into the Social Security system. And if they were just not teachers, policemen or firefighters, then they would receive their spousal benefit. Is this the message that we want to send, that the Social Security system will treat everyone honestly except those who are most valuable to our society?

Every Member here today supports the underlying bill, the Social Security Protection Act. Its main provisions would deny Supplemental Security Income, SSI, to fugitive felons, make it easier for seniors to get a lawyer for the complicated disability process, and reform the representative payee program so that seniors are not defrauded.

In fact, the House considered all of these reforms during the 107th Congress in a bill that passed the House unanimously. Unfortunately, that bill, H.R. 4070, was not conferenced before the end of the Congress, and it has returned in this much more controversial form.

I support all the reforms in this bill, Mr. Speaker; and if the bill consisted of just these provisions, we would again pass this bill unanimously. But the same bill that helps protect our seniors from Social Security fraud hurts our teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public servants around the country, including in my home State of Texas. Specifically, section 418 of this bill would prevent those hard-working public servants from protecting their retirement benefits from the harsh impact of the Government Pension Offset.

Mr. Speaker, this issue may appear complicated to some, but it is very clear to the thousands and thousands of dedicated teachers and other public servants who are affected by it. So clear, that both the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers are opposed to this bill.

Many teachers in this country have pension plans that are not covered under Social Security, but they have spouses who are working in jobs that do pay into Social Security. Under normal circumstances, a surviving spouse, such as a teacher, would be eligible for spousal or survivor's benefits if their spouse, who paid into Social Security, dies. But under current law, the Government Pension Offset reduces or eliminates the spousal or survivor's benefits for teachers and others who pay into pension plans that are not covered by Social Security.

Fortunately, there is a provision in the law right now that helps some people in this situation. It allows you to protect your retirement by switching jobs at the end of your career. This ``last day exemption,'' as it is called, has helped many teachers in Texas and other States protect the Social Security benefits they deserve and that they now need to retire. However, section 418 of the underlying bill would eliminate this exemption. Instead, it would force teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public servants to work 5 additional years before receiving full spousal benefits.

Mr. Speaker, that is no way to treat hard-working people who have dedicated their entire lives to serving their communities and this Nation. It hurts real people, especially women and lower-income individuals. That is why I will ask Members to defeat the previous question on this bill today. If we do, then I will do something that 285 of our colleagues have asked this Congress to do, and that is to eliminate the Government Pension Offset.

Our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), has a bill, H.R. 594, which 285 of us have cosponsored, which calls for the elimination of the GPO. If we defeat the previous question, then I will attach that bill to H.R. 743 without section 418 and then

bring the measure before the House for its immediate passage so that teachers and other public servants can continue to protect their retirement benefits.

Mr. Speaker, there should not be a Texas Member in this House who does not vote to defeat the previous question. I would hope others would join us. I urge my colleagues to support Social Security fairness for teachers, firefighters, and police officers by voting to defeat the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he has any other speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense to me to reduce the Social Security of a retiree simply because the spouse of that person happens to be a teacher or firefighter or police officer. These jobs are not high- paying jobs. Those who chose this path have done so because they

want to make life better for all of us. And what do we do? We deprive them of a significant portion of their hard-earned retirement benefits just because one spouse works for a government entity instead of a private company. That is just wrong.

I urge a no vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will do two things.

First, it will strike Section 418, the portion of the bill that prevents certain public employees from receiving the full amount of their deceased spouse's Social Security survivor benefits, benefits to which they are otherwise entitled.

It will also add to the base bill, H.R. 743, the text of H.R. 594, the Social Security Fairness Act which will once and for all eliminate the pension offsets that so unfairly diminish all the retirement benefits of our valued public employees.

I want to point out that H.R. 594 is a broadly bipartisan bill and has the support of 285 co-sponsors, nearly two-thirds of the membership on the House.

Vote no on the previous question so we can help all of those who were unfairly penalized in their pension benefits simply because their spouse is a government employee and one works for the private sector.

Let us support those who go into the public service. Let us support our teachers, our policemen and our firemen, not penalize them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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

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 rise on behalf of the 99 percent of the seniors in America who do not have a special loophole. I rise on behalf of the 99 percent of the widows in America who do not have a special loophole.

What we are discussing today is a situation where a very select few in America, sort of a second class, a higher class of citizens in America, get to keep a lot of Social Security, where their next-door neighbor who has paid into Social Security all their life get to keep much less.

What we are talking about here is a special loophole. The way it works today is that most of us pay into Social Security. My wife pays into Social Security. The husband pays into Social Security. But there are some who work for local governments or who are teachers like in Texas where they do not contribute to Social Security at work. They have a substitute, in this case a teacher retirement system. That is where their payroll taxes go. And very few of them have found a loophole in the law from 25 years ago that allows them to escape the formula that everyone else in America is applied to and receive much more in benefits than we will ever dream of receiving.

Here is the way the loophole works. In Texas, a teacher works their whole life, but they do not contribute to Social Security. Under this loophole, if they will take their last day and go to another school district and pay that school district to work for them, think about it, they pay $500 so they can work one day at minimum wage for a school district. And, in return for working that one day at minimum wage, contributing about $3 into Social Security, they receive on average $93,000 of Social Security retirement that no one else in America gets, literally no one else in America gets, the teacher in New York does not get, the nurse in Iowa does not get. The cleaning lady in our offices up here does not get this.

Let us compare how it works in real life so we can all see how it affects us and just what this loophole means. Take a look at the average Social Security recipient in America. The husband is getting about $1,000 a month for Social Security; the wife's monthly retirement is $700. For most of us, almost everyone who pays into Social Security, when that husband dies and the widow has her benefits, for 99 percent of America her benefits are going to be $1,000 a month, using this example, which, by the way, is exactly the average for Americans. For those who are in government pensions, the ones who do not pay into Social Security, they receive more. Those widows receive $1,233 more. They keep more of Social Security, having not paid into it, than those who have paid their whole life into it. That is the way the formula works.

But under the loophole we are closing today, it is even more outrageous. If we leave this loophole open, the teacher who only worked one day in Social Security will receive $1,700 in monthly benefits, far greater than the widow who worked her whole life in Social Security. Amazingly, the loophole permits a spouse who only contributed to Social Security for one day to receive so much more than the widow who worked her whole life in Social Security, her whole life, and who receives a pittance of what this loophole provides for \1/100\ of 1 percent of all Americans.

We cannot have two classes of families in America, those who have loopholes for Social Security and those who do not. This loophole is unfair to working families. It drains hundreds of millions of dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is why senior groups say close this loophole now. And it deserves to be closed.

Let me make a final point here. Under this loophole in Texas today, we have great teachers. We have wonderful teachers. My sister-in-law is one. We are here because of our teachers. But teachers are inherently fair, I think, like the rest of Americans; and if we look at loophole today, this college professor who worked one day in Social Security receives a ton of the money, but the cleaning lady in our offices receives a small fraction of it. If we leave the loophole open, the school superintendent who makes $200,000 a year keeps a ton of Social Security. The checkout lady at the grocery store who has worked her whole life and still working now, she gets a pittance of it. The teacher in Texas gets a ton of money. The teacher in Iowa and Ohio and New York and California gets a pittance.

Those who want to keep this loophole open want to create two classes in America. It is inherently unfair to do that. It is right to close this loophole. It is wrong to have two classes of families in America. It is time to make Social Security fair.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

The husband.

Yes.

No.

Mr. Speaker, because in America when both spouses pay into Social Security, the formula, the way it works, is that if their husband passes away, which normally happens first, she keeps all of her Social Security. Then she keeps all of his minus hers. That is the formula. For those in government pensions, like teachers, it is almost the exact same formula. They keep their retirement plus their husband's minus only \2/3\.

So I appreciate this is an issue dear to the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Lampson) heart, but under the formula today, that teacher, that government worker already keeps more of their spouse's Social Security than the rest of America. And if we keep the loophole open, they gain nearly twice as much as the family that worked exactly the same hours, paid exactly the same money in, and whose husband died exactly at the same time. We are creating those two classes of families in America, and that is what we are trying to stop.

Mr. Speaker, the husband paid in in one; the husband and wife paid in in both; and the husband and wife, the widow who paid her whole life, she gets less. Two classes of citizens in America. And nowhere do I know in America can one work one day, contribute $3, and take home $93,000 in their pocketbook that the widow next door who worked her whole life will never, ever see. It is time to close this loophole.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points. This bill does not address firefighters or police officers or teachers, and not even all the teachers in Texas. It applies to \1/100\ of 1 percent of all Americans who have a special loophole.

The point my good friend from Houston was making is absolutely wrong. They do not receive less money because they do not pay into Social Security; they actually get more money than the widows and the families who have spent their whole life paying into Social Security. They already get this. Under this loophole, they would get, for $3 of work, 1 day, they receive $93,000 on average in retirement; and our widows in hospitals and widows that clean our offices and widows, like my mom, will never see that money.

This is about not creating two classes of citizens in America, those with a special loophole and those without.