H.R. 82House110th Congress (2007-2009)In Committee

Social Security Fairness Act of 2007

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

2 earlier actions

HouseCommittee Latest Action

Referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Social Security Subcommittee

January 11, 2007

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

January 4, 2007

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Ways and Means Committee

January 4, 2007

HouseCommittee

Referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Social Security Subcommittee

January 11, 2007

Floor Debate

1 member

What members said about H.R. 82 on the floor

1 Democrat

Rep. Bill DelahuntD-MA-10 · May 1, 2008

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about an extremely important issue facing many retirees in Massachusetts. Throughout my career in the Congress, I have heard from thousands of my constituents who have been penalized by the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP).

Both of these laws currently require that a modified formula be used to calculate the amount of Social Security benefits a retired or disabled worker and/or the worker's family will receive if the worker also receives a pension from local, State or Federal employment not covered by Social Security. This has resulted in some unintended and unfair consequences.

Millions of public service workers in 15 States are allowed to opt out of the Social Security system and my home State of Massachusetts is one of them. Most of these workers are teachers, town and State employees, nurses, police officers and firefighters who are not required or allowed to pay into the Social Security program. Therefore, they do not collect Social Security benefits upon retirement.

However, the GPO and WEP also prevent public servants from receiving Social Security benefits that they earned through other, non-public service employment. Under these provisions, a widow or widower is denied a spousal benefit because their husband or wife was a public service employee. This is unfair and unacceptable.

Every year those who unselfishly give of themselves by serving others in their communities, find their retirement savings slashed by the GPO and WEP, simply because they left the private sector to serve the public. In Massachusetts alone, nearly 18,700 retirees are affected by the GPO, with more than a third of them being widows or widowers. As many as 32,000 individuals are affected by the WEP.

These provisions are unfairly penalizing the men and women who contribute the vital services that sustain and improve our communities.

With the retirement population continuing to grow, this issue is of increasing importance to millions of Americans and is not going to go away. I have been contacted by thousands, representing every segment of our community, and I am continually saddened and angered by the stories that I hear. Those who are affected by the GPO and WEP are hardworking Americans that do not deserve to be denied the benefits of a Social Security system that they have already contributed to.

A widow relayed the story of how she and her husband planned their retirement believing that each would be able to take care of their bills should one of them pass. She was stunned to find out when she became widowed that she would not be allowed to collect her husband's full survivor benefits because she collects a small pension from her job as an elementary school teacher in Marshfield. Sadly, she was forced to sell the home where she had raised her family because she could no longer afford it.

A single mother of three on Cape Cod with two full-time jobs as a nurse and teacher wrote me of her dilemma. She has made many sacrifices to independently support her children. She consistently paid into her teacher's retirement fund and Social Security for decades hoping to be able to eventually retire without worry in her later years. She recently found out she will not be allowed to collect both of the full retirement benefits she earned and was counting on.

I have heard from a 63-year-old widow who works for the City of Quincy. She would like to retire before her 70th birthday but cannot afford to do so. Because of her participation in the City retirement program, her Social Security benefits will be immediately and drastically reduced.

A municipal retiree in Plymouth wrote me about his concerns with the rising price of gas and medical expenses. He supports a repeal of the GPO and WEP so that he may supplement his already meager retirement income with his Social Security benefits.

I have heard from police officers and firefighters from all over my district who put their lives on the line each and every day. These brave men and women will not be allowed to collect their full Social Security benefits upon retirement.

These stories are very real, and are just a small sample of the thousands of letters that I have received on this issue.

This is not just about senior citizens who worked all their lives believing they were responsibly planning ahead for retirement. This is not just about retirees finding themselves unable to make ends meet, concerned that they may not be able to afford to heat their homes this winter or buy the medications they need.

It's about retired and widowed public servants, who are denied access to their deceased spouse's Social Security benefits because they chose public service as a career.

It's about penalizing honest, hard-working people who dedicated their careers to public service. At a time when our Nation is searching for talented and dedicated teachers, nurses and other public servants--this penalty discourages the best and the brightest from serving in our community. Madam Speaker, the time is long overdue for Congress to resolve this issue.

I want to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act which would repeal both the GPO and WEP. In addition, I'd like to urge you to support H.R. 2772, the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act, which would eliminate the WEP and establish a more equitable formula for calculating Social Security benefits.

Support for these two pieces of legislation has grown significantly each year and it is imperative that they see long-awaited debate in committee and on the floor of Congress.

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in HouseIssued January 4, 2007

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 82

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 2007

Mr. Berman (for himself, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Allen, Mr. Baca, Ms. Berkley, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Bishop of New York, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Boyd of Florida, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cardoza, Ms. Carson, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Clay, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Engel, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Farr, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Graves, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Holden, Mr. Honda, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lewis of California, Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Manzullo, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Michaud, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Olver, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Paul, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Reyes, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Ruppersberger, Ms. Linda T. Sánchez of California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Saxton, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Sires, Ms. Solis, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Terry, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Wolf, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Ms. Waters, and Mr. Mollohan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Social Security Fairness Act of 2007.

Repeal of government pension offset provision

Section 202(k) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by striking paragraph (5).

Repeal of windfall elimination provisions

(a)

In general

Section 215 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7);

(2)

in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); and

(3)

in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9).

(b)

Conforming amendments

Subsections (e)(2) and (f)(2) of section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are each amended by striking section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), or 215(f)(9)(B) in subparagraphs (C) and (D)(i) and inserting paragraph (5) or (6) of section 215(f).

Effective date

The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social Security Act for months after December 2007. Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take into account the amendments made by section 3.