S. 2455Senate113th Congress (2013-2015)In Committee

Retirement and Income Security Enhancements (RAISE) Act

Legislative Activity

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

2 earlier actions

SenateIntro Referral Latest Action

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Finance Committee

June 10, 2014

View full timeline

SenateIntro Referral

Introduced in Senate

June 10, 2014

SenateIntro Referral

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3546-3547)

June 10, 2014

SenateIntro Referral

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Finance Committee

June 10, 2014

Floor Debate

5 members

What members said about S. 2455 on the floor

1 Republican4 Democrats

Sen. Benjamin L. CardinD-MD · Jun 10, 2014

Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss the introduction of my latest legislative proposal to better control the harmful and volumes of polluted stormwater that is generated from our…

Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss the introduction of my latest legislative proposal to better control the harmful and volumes of polluted stormwater that is generated from our Nation's Federal aid highways. Highway stormwater is a growing threat to water quality, aquatic ecosystems and the fish and wildlife that depend on the health of these ecosystems. Moreover, the high volumes and rapid flow of stormwater runoff from highways and roads poses a very serious threat to the condition of our Nation's water and transportation infrastructure as well as personal property particularly in urban and suburban communities.

The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that pollution from point-sources have been steadily declining since the enactment of the Clean Water Act. Likewise, we have seen reductions in pollution from certain non-point sources like agriculture which are attributable in part to the success of a wide variety of USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Programs and farming innovations in soil conservation and nutrient pollution management.

One non-point source sector where we are unfortunately seeing an increasing impact on water quality is from impervious surface that create rapidly moving high volumes of untreated polluted stormwater that rush off of road surfaces, erode unnatural channels next to and ultimately underneath roadways comprising the integrity of roadway infrastructure, and increases the stress on storm sewer systems shortening the useful life of this infrastructure and ultimately lead to the discharge of untreated pollution that is carried off roadways and into our lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters.

Impervious surfaces include most buildings and structures, parking lots and of course the nearly 9 million lane miles of roads across our country. The total coverage of impervious surfaces in an area is usually expressed as a percentage of the total land area.

The coverage increases with rising urbanization. In rural areas, impervious cover may only be 1 percent or 2 percent, however road surfaces comprise 80 percent to 90 percent of a rural area's total impervious surfaces. In residential areas, impervious surface coverage ranges between 10 percent in low-density subdivisions to over 50 percent in more densely developed communities, where the composition of the impervious surface area coverage works out to be 50 percent roads. In dense urban areas, the impervious surface area is often over 90 percent of the total land area, with roads comprising 60 percent to 70 percent of that coverage.

According to EPA, urban impervious cover, not just roads, in the lower 48 adds up to 43,000 square miles--an area roughly the size of Ohio. Continuing development adds another quarter of a million acres each year. Typically two-thirds of the cover is pavement, roads and parking lots, and 1/3 is buildings.

According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, impervious surfaces compose roughly 17 percent of all urban and suburban lands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The greatest concentration of impervious surfaces in the Bay watershed is in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Areas of DC, Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia Tidewater area, Philadelphia's western suburbs, and Lancaster, PA, are also regions in the watershed where impervious surfaces are greater than 10 percent of the total land area.

Rainfall on hard surfaces like roads and highways has a very destructive and turbulent affect on nearby waterways and infrastructure. For example, the rain events that occur over a week long period at the end of April brought nearly 8 eight inches of rain to the Baltimore-Washington region. The urban runoff from roads in Baltimore caused an embankment above the CSX railroad track along East 26th Street, between St. Paul and Charles Street, to collapse. Fortunately no one was injured though homes had to be evacuated for more than a month, nearly a dozen parked cars were destroyed and moreover movement of freight along CSX railroad was disrupted for more than a week. This event shows just how destructive and disruptive poorly managed stormwater from transportation infrastructure can be.

Some may chalk this up to a freak storm of unusually large proportion. It's true this storm was unusual, but so were the polar vortexes and all of the snow we had in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast, and last year's 3-mile wide tornado in Alabama, and the California drought and wildfires, and baseball sized hail in Nebraska just last week. ``Unusual'' weather seems to becoming a lot more usual. As extreme weather events triggered by our changing climate become more frequent it is imperative that we incorporate better designs into our infrastructure to be better handle these types of events.

Under the Clean Water Act, stormwater is considered a non-point source and there are no requirements that stormwater be collected or treated. The exception being for localities where in order to meet the standards

set in an MS4, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, permit a region may include its transportation infrastructure in its MS4 permit.

However, in most cases stormwater that falls on roadways washes oil, grease, asbestos brake-dust, nitrogen deposits from tailpipe emissions, trash, road salt and de-icing agents, and sediment into nearby waterways. Highway stormwater runoff is most often not treated or adequately managed.

While these organic and inorganic contaminants are legitimate threats to water quality, the greater concern with roadway runoff is the sheer volume and rapid flow rate in which stormwater leaves these hard surfaces and enters our waterways. Flows and volumes that cause roads to collapse in Baltimore.

Roads are designed for stormwater to flow off of the driving surface quickly, for safety reasons. When stormwater rushes off of road surfaces into storm drains it is usually piped straight into the nearest river or stream without removing contaminants, detaining any of the volume, or slowing down the flow. This creates an enormously destructive set of circumstances for our waterways.

Another example of the destructive force that persistent unmitigated and poorly managed highway runoff can have on the condition and safety of highway infrastructure is in Mobile Alabama along Highway 131 in the Joe's Branch Watershed. The Mobile Bay Estuary Program, part of the National Estuaries Program, in coordination with Alabama Department of Transportation is having to spent millions of dollars to reinforce a highway embankment to keep the highway from slipping down a hill and into the Joe's Branch Creek, restore the hydrology of the river, and help protect private property from the dangerous erosion that's been caused by poorly managed stormwater from Highway 131.

The Mobile Bay Estuary Program described the problem this way: ``In the Joe's Branch watershed, on the property of Westminster Village adjacent and parallel to Highway 131, a head cut stream is eroding at an accelerating rate, an ominous condition as ALDOT prepares to undertake improvements to the highway. Identified as a high priority stabilization area in the D'Olive Creek, Tiawasee Creek and Joe's Branch Watershed Management Plan, MBNEP has submitted a funding request to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management on behalf of its partners in Spanish Fort, Daphne, ALDOT and Westminster Village to undertake restoration of the stream using a cutting-edge technology called Regenerative Step Pool Storm Conveyance.''

The four entities involved are spending large amount money to repair a problem caused by stormwater damage that could have been prevented at a lower cost by incorporating better stormwater mitigation facilities into the design of the highway.

These high-volume/high-speed flows also hasten the deterioration of water infrastructure. A 2001 study on the erosive power of urban stormwater flows examined how excessive stormwater volumes and flow rates off of urban surface infrastructure caused more than $1 million in roadway and water infrastructure damage in the Cincinnati metropolitan areas in Ohio and Kentucky in a single year.

While there are serious water quality concerns with not adequately controlling roadway infrastructure runoff, there are serious infrastructure costs, that are ultimately passed on to taxpayers and ratepayers, that can be avoided if transportation authorities do more to control and manage stormwater runoff with the infrastructure assets they manage and build.

The increased incidence of flash flooding events that occur even during seemingly mild and routine storm events is a direct result of the growing percentage of impervious land cover in urban and suburban communities. Replacement of the ``greenscapes'' that are lost to pavement is essential to restoring hydrological balance to our urban and suburban communities and impaired watersheds.

According to USGS: an inch of rain on one square foot of pavement produces 1.87 gallons of stormwater, Scaled up, 1 inch of rain on one acre would produce 27,150 gallons of stormwater. Using FHWA design standards for interstate highway lane and shoulder widths, 12 feet per lane, 10 foot right shoulder, 4 foot left shoulder, 10 miles of a four lane interstate highway generates nearly 2.5 million gallons of polluted stormwater for every inch of rain. To put that into perspective for the Potomac and Anacostia River Watersheds: The Capital Beltway, not including its 48 interchanges, generates nearly 30 million gallons of polluted stormwater for every inch of rain that falls on the 64 mile 8 to 12 lane interstate highway loop. It is volumes of stormwater like that which cause dangerous streambank erosion.

Gillies Creek is an urban waterway located East of Downtown Richmond. It is a tributary of the James River which flows into the Chesapeake Bay. Gillies Creek is surrounded by industrial and residential development and also receives stormwater from State highway 33, Interstate 64, US 60, and hundreds of city streets including Stony Run Parkway which directly adjacent to the creek for several miles. The banks and bed of this creek have eroded so badly as urban development around the creek has added more impervious surfaces to the watershed that streambed sheering has created cliffs more than ten feet tall at spots along the creek. Trees supporting the bank continually fall into the creek and nearby roadways and other infrastructure as well as homes and business are at risk. Reducing the impacts of the storms by mitigating the flow and volume of stormwater in this watershed will protect against further erosion and save the cost of repair and eventual replacement of the assets located along this endangered creek.

The aim of this legislation is to improve highway designs to better manage stormwater to avoid the costly damage that poorly managed stormwater causes to infrastructure and nearby streams, rivers and coastal waters.

I held a hearing on this issue in the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee on May 13. I heard many ideas from both the minority and majority witnesses that were invited to present testimony at this hearing. I listened to the concerns of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I have incorporated provisions into this bill that should alleviate concerns they may have had with previous attempts to better control highway stormwater.

My bill's approach to highway runoff management is one that I hope my colleagues of both parties can support. First of all it puts states in the driver's seat for developing hydrological analysis and implementation of best management practices to control highway runoff. The objective of the legislation is to control and manage flow and volume of stormwater from highways not to treat runoff in order to meet water quality standards. By taking this sort of approach we avoid EPA's involvement in the process. Lastly, States would only need to apply these procedures to new construction on major reconfiguration projects that significantly increases the amount of impervious surface in the project area.

Title 23 of the U.S. Code states: ``transportation should play a significant role in promoting economic growth, improving the environment, and sustaining the quality of life'' through the use of ``context sensitive solutions.'' In 2008, the Government Accountability Office issued a report examining key issues and challenges that needed to be addressed in the next reauthorization of the transportation bill. That report highlighted the clear link between transportation policy and the environment. With 985,139 miles of Federal aid highways stretching from every corner of the US, polluted highway runoff is no small problem facing our Nation's waters. I would urge my colleagues to join me trying to address this problem facing America's waterways and infrastructure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Sen. Mark Begich D-AK · Jun 10, 2014

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my friend and colleague, Senator Murray, to talk about Social Security. I am going to spend a few moments discussing a bill we are introducing today…

As you know, Social Security is one of the most important programs ever established in this country. After 75 years, Social Security continues to deliver as intended. It is a promise to Americans. The promise is simple. If you work hard all your life and contribute to the system, then Social Security will be there to help make ends meet when you retire or help out the family if a worker dies or is disabled.

Let me be clear. Despite the naysayers, Social Security is not a handout. Social Security benefits are linked directly to the amount that retirees pay into the system through a lifetime of hard work. But times have

changed and we need to make sure the promise of Social Security continues in a meaningful way. That is why Senator Murray and I introduced the Retirement and Income Security Act yesterday, which we like to call the RAISE Act. It is a commonsense bill to update, enhance, and protect Social Security in a fiscally responsible way.

When it comes to fairness, this bill is a small but important step for seniors, for older women, and for the families of deceased or disabled workers. It makes sure that the modest benefits of Social Security will go to everyone who deserves them.

The RAISE Act has three major components.

It will, first, improve Social Security benefits for divorced spouses. Under current law, the divorced spouse only gets benefits from a former spouse's earnings if they were married for at least 10 years. Under our bill, eligibility rules would be phased in beginning at 5 years of marriage. The spouse would be entitled to 60 percent of the benefits after 6 years of marriage, 70 percent after 7 years, and so on.

Second, our bill will enhance benefits for widows and widowers. It establishes a new enhanced benefit for widows and widowers where both spouses have retired. An alternative calculation in the bill will use both spouses' benefits--deceased and surviving--rather than just the survivor's benefit. The surviving spouse will receive either their current benefit or the new alternative, whichever is greater.

The third component of the RAISE Act extends eligibility for children of retired, disabled or deceased workers. This provision would apply if the child is still in high school, college or vocational or career school. Under current law, minors and high school students under the age of 19 can get Social Security benefits if their parent is a retired, disabled or deceased worker. Beginning in 2016, this provision extends benefits for full-time students up to the age of 23.

Even though Social Security continues to fully pay for itself and has never added a dime to the deficit, I know some of our colleagues will complain that we cannot afford these small enhancements. That is why our bill asks those Americans who can most afford it to pay their fair share towards the strengthening of the Social Security trust fund.

Beginning in 2015, the RAISE Act would apply a 2-percent payroll tax on annual earnings over $400,000. This means that, for future generations, Social Security will continue to be fully funded. In future years, that threshold will increase under an indexing formula built into the bill.

I am a proud sponsor of this bill with Senator Murray. It was an easy decision for me, since my commitment to bolstering Social Security started from day one in the Senate. I have already introduced two other bills on Social Security, and I want to just mention them briefly before I turn it over to Senator Murray.

The first bill is my Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act. It would extend the solvency of Social Security by lifting the cap on high-income contributions, which this year is $117,000. Not everyone knows this, but once your annual income hits that threshold, you no longer have to contribute to Social Security for the rest of the calendar year. This seems unfair to me. My bill would lift the cap and phase out what effectively has become a tax loophole. Higher income Americans would pay into Social Security all year long--just like everyone else. This provision would add generations of financial certainty to Social Security.

The bill would also improve benefits for seniors and others by establishing new cost-of-living adjustments based on reality. The formula would better reflect seniors' financial needs by basing the adjustments on items such as prescription drugs and housing, which seniors pay for, instead of electronics and new cars.

My second bill is the Social Security Fairness Act. It would repeal unfair reductions to Social Security benefits for people who have worked part of their career in noncovered jobs--often State or local government or other civil service jobs.

Congress passed the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset in the 1980s because of fears workers who retire under other pensions would be double covered and Social Security could not afford it. But in effect those old laws are punishing people by reducing benefits they rightfully have earned.

Today, these provisions affect more than 2 million people nationwide, and the number is growing. It is not just about getting back what you paid into the system. Removing these penalties would also encourage people willing to work in public service as a second career--such as police officers or teachers. If you are considering such a move today but know your Social Security benefit would be reduced or penalized because you had stepped forward and worked in public service, why would you do it?

Let's remember one thing about all of these bills--the two I introduced earlier and the RAISE Act we are discussing today. Social Security benefits are vitally important but also are very modest. Nationally, they average $13,500 a year for recipients. It is very important to my State. More than 71,000 people in my State of Alaska rely on Social Security. That is roughly 1 out of 10 Alaskans. Social Security lifts tens of thousands of Alaskans out of poverty--the elderly and especially elderly women--and it pumps more than $1 billion into our economy every single year.

No one is getting rich off of Social Security, but it does provide an important foundation, and it does so in a truly American way: You work, you contribute, and you get something back. As long as I am in Congress, I will fight to make sure Social Security is solvent and there for not only this generation but for generations to come.

Senator Murray has been a longtime champion for Social Security, and I am proud to stand with her on the floor today. Our RAISE Act is another modest improvement. I hope our colleagues will join us in standing up for this critically important program.

Our Social Security system reflects the best of America: hard work, personal responsibility, human dignity, and caring for our parents, our children, our spouses, and our neighbors and ourselves.

Let's come together in this Chamber and do all we can to make sure Social Security is working for all Americans.

With that, I yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Murray.

Sen. Mark Begich D-AK · Jun 10, 2014

The RAISE Act has three major components.

Our Social Security system reflects the best of America: hard work, personal responsibility, human dignity, and caring for our parents, our children, our spouses, and our neighbors and ourselves.

Let's come together in this Chamber and do all we can to make sure Social Security is working for all Americans.

With that, I yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Murray.

Sen. Patty MurrayD-WA · Jun 10, 2014

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Begich, for coming and joining me today because I know he is deeply committed to strengthening and protecting Social Security for current and…

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Begich, for coming and joining me today because I know he is deeply committed to strengthening and protecting Social Security for current and future seniors. So I was very pleased to join him today in introducing the RAISE Act, which will be a very critical step forward in this effort.

Over the last several decades, middle class families have been increasingly squeezed by rising prices for everything from college tuition to health care. Wages have stayed flat--or even declined for some people--and fewer companies today are offering the kinds of generous pension plans that used to help so many workers stay financially secure.

With all that in mind, it is not surprising that, as families have struggled to stretch their dollars further and further in order to get the bills paid and raise their children, it has become harder and harder to save for retirement.

In fact, a recent study showed that more than a third of today's workers have been unable to save even a dollar for retirement, and even those who do have savings do not have very much. The same study found that 60 percent of respondents had less than $25,000 in total assets and investments, excluding their home.

The numbers are even more pronounced when you look at women in the workforce. Because women, on average, earn less than men, they accumulate less in savings, they receive smaller pensions, and nearly 3 in 10 women over 65 depend only on Social Security for income in their later years.

It is clear that now more than ever Social Security is a lifeline for millions of seniors. So it is especially important for us to make sure this critical system is meeting the needs of today's beneficiaries.

For 75 years our Social Security system has offered millions of seniors and

their families a foundation of financial security. But a lot has changed in those 75 years. Today, most families have two earners. Because Social Security was actually designed for single-earner families, surviving spouses in families where both adults worked may receive less in benefits than they deserve.

Social Security also supports children whose parents retired, became disabled or passed away--but those benefits end at the age 18 or 19. That is right. When young adults should be thinking about continuing their education--a necessity in today's economy--they are worried about having nowhere to go.

At a time when Social Security is an increasingly critical source of support for so many, the RAISE Act would make some commonsense updates to ensure our Social Security system is doing everything possible to help today's seniors and their families.

As the Senator from Alaska described, the RAISE Act would establish a new alternative benefit to make sure widows and widowers from two- earner families do not receive less in survivor benefits than those from single-earner families.

The RAISE Act would enable spouses who were married for less than 10 years to receive spousal and survivor benefits. It would extend benefits for young adults under 23 who are enrolled in school full time.

Crucially, to help ensure Social Security is there for future generations, the RAISE Act would shore up the Social Security trust fund in a fiscally responsible way that protects middle-class families. I believe strengthening and protecting Social Security benefits through the RAISE Act would do an enormous amount of help to our workers and families and their ability to stay financially secure.

But I also want to note there is a much broader challenge. There is not just one solution. We should absolutely make these critical changes to help make sure our Social Security system is meeting the needs of today's workers and families, but we also have to look at ways for workers to save for retirement and encourage companies to offer higher retirement plans.

That is not all. We need to make sure women get equal pay for equal work so they will have the same shot at a secure retirement as their male coworkers.

We do need to invest in education and training and get college costs down so our workers are prepared to compete for high-wage, high-skilled jobs.

We need to continue to fight to strengthen and protect programs such as Medicare which senior women and men rely on.

Democrats care deeply about taking these steps and many others to make sure our workers have the secure, dignified retirement they deserve. There is absolutely no reason why, after working hard all of her life, a retiree should have to worry about how she and her family will make ends meet.

I believe we can do better. I know Senator Begich does as well. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a close look at our RAISE Act. I hope we can pass it to offer seniors and their families some additional relief. Then I hope we can build on this with other policies to create more opportunity and more financial security for our workers.

Sen. Patty MurrayD-WA · Jun 10, 2014

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Begich, for coming and joining me today because I know he is deeply committed to strengthening and protecting Social Security for current and…

For 75 years our Social Security system has offered millions of seniors and

That is not all. We need to make sure women get equal pay for equal work so they will have the same shot at a secure retirement as their male coworkers.

We do need to invest in education and training and get college costs down so our workers are prepared to compete for high-wage, high-skilled jobs.

We need to continue to fight to strengthen and protect programs such as Medicare which senior women and men rely on.

Show 3 more

Sen. Patrick J. LeahyD-VT · Jun 10, 2014

Mr. President, I join today with Senator Grassley to introduce legislation to reauthorize for another 5 years expiring provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, STELA. This law provides satellite television carriers with the necessary rights to retransmit distant broadcast television programming to households that are otherwise unable to receive local signal over- the-air. If Congress does not act by the end of the year to reauthorize the distant signal license, approximately 1.5 million consumers will lose access to the broadcast television programming that they are currently receiving.

The compulsory copyright license system for satellite television has been successful in promoting competition in the video marketplace. Consumers across the country benefit from having nationwide competitors to cable. Rural consumers, including many in Vermont, rely on a healthy satellite industry that is able to provide service to customers where cable is unable to reach. Congress has helped to facilitate the growth of the satellite industry by providing it with a mechanism to clear the rights to broadcast television content, which remains among the most popular.

Senator Grassley and I are continuing what has always been a bipartisan partnership on satellite television legislation. I worked with Senator Hatch in 1999 to establish a permanent license allowing satellite carriers to retransmit local television content to consumers. That license has had an important impact on competition in the video market. In 2010, I worked with Senator Sessions on STELA. Satellite television legislation should never be partisan--it should be an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together and demonstrate to the American people that we can act responsibly and prevent serious disruption to consumers.

The bill we are introducing today is a narrow approach. We are extending the current system for another 5 years, while also making some minor technical corrections to the existing statutes. This bill may not please all stakeholders. Some would like Congress to use this legislation as a vehicle to enact significant changes to the current system that governs the relationship between broadcast television stations and distributors. Others would prefer that Congress not act at all and simply allow this license to expire. My focus is on the consumers who stand to lose access to broadcast television content in the event that Congress is unable to pass a bill by the end of the year. This bill will ensure that they are not left in the dark come December 31.

Our legislation is one half of what the Senate will have to do in order to ensure that 1.5 million consumers are able to maintain the broadcast television signals that they are currently receiving. I look forward to working with Chairman Rockefeller as we work to fit the necessary Copyright and Communications Act provisions of this bill together. I also look forward to working with our counterparts in the House in order to protect the consumers relying on this license.

I urge the Senate to support extending STELA for another 5 years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Sen. James M. InhofeR-OK · Jun 10, 2014

Mr. President, with 20 kids and grandkids, I understand the importance and value of quality education. For many years my wife dedicated her life to teaching and mentoring young students, never…

Mr. President, with 20 kids and grandkids, I understand the importance and value of quality education. For many years my wife dedicated her life to teaching and mentoring young students, never knowing that in the years to come, two of our children would follow in their mother's footsteps, building classrooms of their own and impacting the lives of so many young people.

Through my family's unique educational experiences, and my time in State and local government, I have learned that with teaching comes the great responsibility of not only working with students, but also parents, employers and many in the local community to ensure our children are well equipped for the road ahead.

Nationwide, 96 percent of local school board members are elected, making those members accountable to the many students, parents and taxpayers they represent. But in recent years, the voice of this local authority is being eroded through inhibitive policies and requirements established by Federal agencies, like the Department of Education.

Education has historically been a State and local issue. By strengthening the process for meaningful input by impacted stakeholders, our local communities can remain active in the education policy decision-making process.

This is why I have introduced the Local School Board Governance and Flexibility Act. With this legislation, the goal is to bring control of our education policy back to where it belongs--with our local communities--giving State and local school boards the necessary flexibility to achieve their educational goals. S. 2451 would wrestle away control from the Department of Education by prohibiting the agency from issuing any regulations, rules, guidance materials, or grant conditions that would result in a conflict of authority with any State or local educational agencies.

This bill would also streamline reporting requirements and would require the Department to provide Congress with an annual report on how the agency's policies impact local school districts. As we have seen, many of the overreaching education policy changes declared by Washington bureaucrats have resulted in negative effects on local schools, not only in terms of policy, but also financially. This bill requires the Department of Education to seek input on costs and assistance needs from State and local school agencies before issuing or implementing regulations, rules, guidance materials, or grant conditions.

The Local School Board Governance and Flexibility Act will give State and local school boards a voice in how the Federal Government issues regulations and guidelines for education. It is time for the Department of Education to be accountable to the parents, teachers, and local elected officials who work first-hand with our Nation's children. Education needs are unique to each community, and in order to give the next generation of Americans a better future and wealth of opportunities, my legislation will give State and local school boards the authority they need to carry out the education goals that are best suited for their children.

Sen. Patty MurrayD-WA · Jun 10, 2014

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, be recognized. I yield the floor.

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in SenateIssued June 10, 2014

113th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2455

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 10, 2014

Mr. Begich (for himself and Mrs. Murray) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To enhance Social Security benefits for children, divorced spouses, and widows and widowers, and for other purposes.

Short title; table of contents

(a)

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Retirement and Income Security Enhancements (RAISE) Act.

(b)

Table of contents

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Improving benefits for divorced spouses, widows, widowers, and surviving divorced spouses.

Sec. 3. Extended benefit eligibility for children who are full-time students.

Sec. 4. Establishment of payroll surtax for high-income individuals.

Sec. 5. Inclusion of surplus earnings in social security benefit formula.

Improving benefits for divorced spouses, widows, widowers, and surviving divorced spouses

(a)

Expansion of benefits for divorced spouses

(1)

Wife's insurance benefits

Section 202(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)) is amended—

(A)

in paragraph (1)(G), by striking 10 years and inserting 5 years; and

(B)

by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:

(2)

(A)

Except as provided in subsections (k)(5) and (q), a wife's insurance benefit for each month shall be equal to—

(i)

in the case of a wife (as defined in section 216(b)), one-half of the primary insurance amount of her husband for such month; or

(ii)

in the case of a divorced wife (as defined in section 216(d)), the applicable percentage (as determined under subparagraph (B)) of one-half of the primary insurance amount of her former husband for such month.

(B)

For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), the applicable percentage shall be equal to 100 percent reduced by 10 percentage points for each year in the period immediately before the date the divorce became effective in which the divorced wife was married to her former husband that is less than 10 years.

(2)

Husband's insurance benefits

Section 202(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)) is amended—

(A)

in paragraph (1)(G), by striking 10 years and inserting 5 years; and

(B)

by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:

(2)

(A)

Except as provided in subsections (k)(5) and (q), a husband's insurance benefit for each month shall be equal to—

(i)

in the case of a husband (as defined in section 216(f)), one-half of the primary insurance amount of his wife for such month; or

(ii)

in the case of a divorced husband (as defined in section 216(d)), the applicable percentage (as determined under subparagraph (B)) of one-half of the primary insurance amount of his former wife for such month.

(B)

For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), the applicable percentage shall be equal to 100 percent reduced by 10 percentage points for each year in the period immediately before the date the divorce became effective in which the divorced husband was married to his former wife that is less than 10 years.

(b)

Improving social security benefits for widows and widowers in two-Income households

(1)

Widows

Section 202(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)) is amended—

(A)

in paragraph (1)—

(i)

in subparagraph (B), by inserting and at the end;

(ii)

in subparagraph (C)(iii), by striking and at the end;

(iii)

by striking subparagraph (D);

(iv)

by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and

(v)

in the flush matter following subparagraph (E)(ii), as so redesignated, by striking becomes entitled to an old-age insurance benefit and all that follows through such deceased individual,;

(B)

by striking subparagraph (A) in paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

(2)

(A)

Except as provided in subsection (k)(5), subsection (q), and subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, such widow's insurance benefit for each month shall be equal to the greater of—

(i)

subject to paragraph (9), the primary insurance amount (as determined for purposes of this subsection after application of subparagraphs (B) and (C)) of such deceased individual; or

(ii)

subject to paragraphs (9) and (10), in the case of a fully-insured widow or surviving divorced wife, 75 percent of the sum of any old-age or disability insurance benefit for which the widow or the surviving divorced wife is entitled for such month and the primary insurance amount (as determined for purposes of this subsection after application of subparagraphs (B) and (C)) of such deceased individual.

;

(C)

in paragraph (5)—

(i)

in subparagraph (A), by striking paragraph (1)(F) and inserting paragraph (1)(E); and

(ii)

in subparagraph (B), by striking paragraph (1)(F)(i) and inserting paragraph (1)(E)(i); and

(D)

by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

(9)

For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(A), in the case of a surviving divorced wife, the amount determined under either such clause (and, for purposes of clause (ii) of paragraph (2)(A), as determined after application of paragraph (10)) shall be equal to the applicable percentage (as determined under section 202(b)(2)(B)) of such amount (as determined before application of this paragraph but after application of subsection (k)(3)).

(10)

For purposes of paragraph (2)(A)(ii), the amount determined under such paragraph shall not exceed the primary insurance amount for such month of a hypothetical individual—

(A)

who became entitled to old-age insurance benefits upon attaining early retirement age during the month in which the deceased individual referred to in paragraph (1) became entitled to old-age or disability insurance benefits, or died (before becoming entitled to such benefits); and

(B)

to whom wages and self-employment income were credited in each of such hypothetical individual’s elapsed years (within the meaning of section 215(b)(2)(B)(iii)) in an amount equal to the national average wage index (as described in section 209(k)(1)) for each such year.

(2)

Widowers

Section 202(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)) is amended—

(A)

in paragraph (1)—

(i)

in subparagraph (B), by inserting and at the end;

(ii)

in subparagraph (C)(iii), by striking and at the end;

(iii)

by striking subparagraph (D);

(iv)

by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and

(v)

in the flush matter following subparagraph (E)(ii), as so redesignated, by striking becomes entitled to an old-age insurance benefit and all that follows through such deceased individual,;

(B)

by striking subparagraph (A) in paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

(2)

(A)

Except as provided in subsection (k)(5), subsection (q), and subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, such widower's insurance benefit for each month shall be equal to the greater of—

(i)

subject to paragraph (9), the primary insurance amount (as determined for purposes of this subsection after application of subparagraphs (B) and (C)) of such deceased individual; or

(ii)

subject to paragraphs (9) and (10), in the case of a fully-insured widower or surviving divorced husband, 75 percent of the sum of any old-age or disability insurance benefit for which the widower or the surviving divorced husband is entitled for such month and the primary insurance amount (as determined for purposes of this subsection after application of subparagraphs (B) and (C)) of such deceased individual.

;

(C)

in paragraph (5)—

(i)

in subparagraph (A), by striking paragraph (1)(F) and inserting paragraph (1)(E); and

(ii)

in subparagraph (B), by striking paragraph (1)(F)(i) and inserting paragraph (1)(E)(i); and

(D)

by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

(9)

For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(A), in the case of a surviving divorced husband, the amount determined under either such clause (and, for purposes of clause (ii) of paragraph (2)(A), as determined after application of paragraph (10)) shall be equal to the applicable percentage (as determined under section 202(c)(2)(B)) of such amount (as determined before application of this paragraph but after application of subsection (k)(3)).

(10)

For purposes of paragraph (2)(A)(ii), the amount determined under such paragraph shall not exceed the primary insurance amount for such month of a hypothetical individual—

(A)

(B)

(3)

Reduction of benefit for individuals entitled to simultaneous benefits

Section 202(k)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)(3)) is amended—

(A)

in subparagraph (A), by striking If an individual and inserting Except as provided in subparagraph (C), if an individual; and

(B)

by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

(C)

If an individual is entitled for any month to a widow's or widower's insurance benefit and is also entitled to an old-age or disability insurance benefit for such month that is greater than such widow's or widower's insurance benefit, the reduction described in subparagraph (A), with respect to such widow's or widower's insurance benefit, shall be carried out by substituting an amount equal to the primary insurance amount of the deceased individual referred to in subsection (e)(1) or (f)(1) (as determined for purposes of subsection (e)(2)(A)(i) or (f)(2)(A)(i)) for the amount equal to the old-age or disability insurance benefit of the individual entitled to the widow's or widower's insurance benefit.

(c)

Conforming amendments

Section 216(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(d)) is amended—

(1)

in paragraph (1), by striking 10 years and inserting 5 years;

(2)

in paragraph (2), by striking 10 years and inserting 5 years;

(3)

in paragraph (4), by striking 10 years and inserting 5 years; and

(4)

in paragraph (5), by striking 10 years and inserting 5 years.

(d)

Effective date

The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to wife’s insurance benefits, husband’s insurance benefits, widow's insurance benefits, and widower's insurance benefits that are payable for months beginning after December 31, 2014.

Extended benefit eligibility for children who are full-time students

(a)

In general

(1)

Extension of benefits

Section 202(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d)) is amended—

(A)

in paragraphs (1)(B), (1)(E), (1)(F)(i), (1)(G)(ii), (6)(A), (6)(D), (6)(E)(i), (7)(A), (7)(B), and (7)(D), by striking full-time elementary or secondary school student each place it appears and inserting full-time student;

(B)

in paragraphs (1)(B), (1)(F)(ii), (1)(G)(iii), (6)(A), (6)(D), (6)(E)(ii), and (7)(D), by striking 19 each place it appears and inserting 23;

(C)

in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of paragraph (7), by striking elementary or secondary school each place it appears and inserting educational institution;

(D)

in paragraph (7)(A), by striking schools involved and inserting institutions involved;

(E)

in paragraph (7), by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:

(C)

For purposes of this subsection, the term educational institution means—

(i)

a school which provides elementary or secondary education as determined under the law of the State or other jurisdiction in which it is located; and

(ii)

an institution described in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002).

; and

(F)

in paragraph (7)(D), by striking diploma or equivalent certificate from a secondary school (as defined in subparagraph (C)(i)) and inserting diploma, degree, or equivalent certificate from an institution described in subparagraph (C)(ii).

(2)

Effective date

The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to child's insurance benefits that are payable for months beginning after December 31, 2014.

(b)

Temporary exclusion from determination of maximum family benefits

Section 203(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(a)) is amended—

(1)

in paragraph (3)—

(A)

by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); and

(B)

by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph:

(D)

During the period that begins on January 1, 2015, and ends on December 31, 2019, when any of such individuals has attained age 19 and is entitled to monthly benefits as a child who is a full-time student under section 202(d)(1)(B)(i) for any month, the benefit to which he or she is entitled on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of such insured individual for such month shall be determined without regard to this subsection, and the benefits of all other individuals who are entitled for such month to monthly benefits under section 202 on the wages and self-employment income of such insured individual shall be determined as if no such child were entitled to benefits for such month.

; and

(2)

in paragraph (6), by inserting (3)(E), after (3)(D),.

(c)

Railroad Retirement Act

(1)

Section 2(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 232(2)(d)) is amended—

(A)

in clause (iii) of paragraph (1), by striking will be less than nineteen years of age and a full-time elementary or secondary school student and inserting will be less than 23 years of age and a full-time student at an educational institution (as defined in section 202(d)(7) of the Social Security Act); and

(B)

in paragraph (4)—

(i)

by striking elementary or secondary school each place it appears and inserting educational institution;

(ii)

by striking nineteen and inserting 23; and

(iii)

by striking a diploma or equivalent certificate from a secondary school (as defined in section 202(d)(7)(c)(i) of the Social Security Act) and inserting a diploma, degree, or equivalent certificate from an institution described in section 202(d)(7)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act.

(2)

Section 5(c)(7) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 235(c)(7)) is amended—

(A)

by striking elementary or secondary school and inserting educational institution; and

(B)

by striking 19 and inserting 23.

Establishment of payroll surtax for high-income individuals

(a)

Self-Employment income surtax

Section 1401 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—

(1)

by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d), and

(2)

by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

(c)

Additional tax for old-Age, survivors, and disability insurance

(1)

In general

In addition to the taxes imposed by the preceding subsections, there is hereby imposed on every individual for each taxable year beginning after December 31, 2014, a tax equal to 4 percent of additional self-employment income for such taxable year.

(2)

Additional self-employment income

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term additional self-employment income means, for any taxable year, the amount (not less than zero) equal to the excess of—

(A)

the sum of self-employment income (determined without regard to section 1402(b)(1)) for the taxable year and wages (as defined in section 3121(a), determined without regard to paragraph (1) thereof) paid to such individual during such taxable year, over

(B)

the sum of the additional wages (as defined in section 3101(c)(2)) paid to such individual for the taxable year and the amount determined under paragraph (3) for the taxable year.

Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (A) of the second sentence of section 1402(b) shall apply for purposes of determining wages under clause (i).

(3)

Exemption amount

The amount determined under this paragraph is an amount equal to—

(A)

in the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2014, and before January 1, 2016, $400,000, and

(B)

in the case of any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2015, the product of—

(i)

$400,000, and

(ii)

the quotient obtained by dividing—

(I)

the national average wage index (as defined in section 209(k)(1)) for the calendar year which is 2 years before the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, by

(II)

the national average wage index for calendar year 2013.

(b)

Employee wage surtax

Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—

(1)

by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d), and

(2)

by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

(c)

Additional tax for old-Age, survivors, and disability insurance

(1)

In general

In addition to the taxes imposed by the preceding subsections, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 2 percent of additional wages (as defined in paragraph (2)) which are received with respect to employment during any calendar year beginning after December 31, 2014.

(2)

Additional wages

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term additional wages has the same meaning given the term wages under section 3121(a) (determined without regard to paragraph (1) thereof), except that such term shall not include that amount of remuneration that is less than—

(A)

for calendar year 2015, $400,000, and

(B)

for any calendar year after 2015, the product of—

(i)

$400,000, and

(ii)

the quotient obtained by dividing—

(I)

the national average wage index (as defined in section 209(k)(1)) for the second preceding calendar year, by

(II)

the national average wage index for calendar year 2013.

(c)

Employer wage surtax

Section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

(f)

Additional tax for old-Age, survivors, and disability insurance

(1)

In general

In addition to the taxes imposed by subsections (a) and (b), there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 2 percent of additional wages (as defined in paragraph (2)) paid by the employer with respect to employment during any calendar year beginning after December 31, 2014.

(2)

Additional wages

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term additional wages has the same meaning given such term under section 3101(c).

(d)

Railroad Retirement Tax Act

(1)

Railroad employees

Section 3201 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—

(A)

by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d), and

(B)

by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

(c)

Additional tier 1 tax

(1)

In general

In addition to the taxes imposed by the preceding subsections, there is hereby imposed on the income of each employee a tax equal to 2 percent of additional compensation (as defined in paragraph (2)) received by such employee during any calendar year beginning after December 31, 2014, for services rendered by such employee.

(2)

Additional compensation

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term additional compensation has the same meaning given the term compensation under section 3231(e) (determined without regard to paragraph (2) thereof), except that such term shall not include that amount of remuneration that is less than—

(A)

for calendar year 2015, $400,000, and

(B)

for any calendar year after 2015, the product of—

(i)

$400,000, and

(ii)

the quotient obtained by dividing—

(I)

the national average wage index (as defined in section 209(k)(1)) for the second preceding calendar year, by

(II)

the national average wage index for calendar year 2013.

(2)

Railroad employee representatives

Section 3211 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—

(A)

by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d), and

(B)

by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

(c)

Additional tier 1 tax

In addition to the taxes imposed by the preceding subsections, there is hereby imposed on the income of each employee representative a tax equal to 4 percent of additional compensation (as defined under section 3201(c)) received by such employee representative during any calendar year beginning after December 31, 2014, for services rendered by such employee representative.

(3)

Railroad employers

Section 3221 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

(e)

Additional tier 1 tax

In addition to the taxes imposed by subsections (a) and (b), there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 2 percent of additional compensation (as defined under section 3201(c)) paid by such employer during any calendar year beginning after December 31, 2014, for services rendered to such employer.

(4)

Social Security Equivalent Benefit Account

Section 15A(b)(1)(A) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231n–1(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking sections 3201(a), 3211(a)(1), and 3221(a) of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act and inserting subsections (a) and (c) of section 3201, subsections (a) and (c) of section 3211, and subsections (a) and (e) of section 3221 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

(e)

Amendments to the Social Security Act

(1)

Transfer of amounts to Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund

Section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) is amended—

(A)

in subsection (b)(3)—

(i)

by inserting and additional wages (as defined in section 1402(c) of such Code) after section 3121 of such Code),

(ii)

by inserting and additional wages after such wages,

(iii)

by inserting and additional wages after which wages, and

(iv)

by inserting and additional wages after records of wages,

(B)

in subsection (b)(4)—

(i)

by inserting and additional self-employment income (as defined in section 3101(c) of such Code) after section 1402 of such Code),

(ii)

by inserting and additional self-employment income after such self-employment income,

(iii)

by inserting and additional self-employment income after which self-employment income, and

(iv)

by inserting and additional self-employment income after records of self-employment income,

(C)

in subsection (c)(1)(R)—

(i)

by inserting and additional wages (as so defined) after wages (as so defined),

(ii)

by inserting and additional wages after which wages, and

(iii)

by inserting and additional wages after records of wages, and

(D)

in subsection (c)(2)(R)—

(i)

by inserting and additional self-employment income (as so defined) after self-employment income (as so defined),

(ii)

by inserting and additional self-employment income after which self-employment income, and

(iii)

by inserting and additional self-employment income after records of self-employment income.

(2)

Definition of additional wages

Section 209 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 409) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

(l)

Additional wages

For purposes of this title, the term additional wages has the same meaning given the term wages (determined without regard to subsection (a)(1)), except that such term shall not include that amount of remuneration that is less than—

(1)

for calendar year 2015, $400,000, and

(2)

for any calendar year after 2015, the product of—

(A)

$400,000, and

(B)

the quotient obtained by dividing—

(i)

the national average wage index (as defined in section 209(k)(1)) for the second preceding calendar year, by

(ii)

the national average wage index for calendar year 2013.

(3)

Definition of additional self-employment income

Section 211 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 411) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

(m)

Additional Self-Employment Income

(1)

For purposes of this title, the term additional self-employment income means, for any taxable year, the amount equal to the excess (if any) of—

(A)

the sum of self-employment income (determined without regard to subsection (b)(1)) for the taxable year and wages (as defined in section 209(a), determined without regard to paragraph (1) thereof) paid to such individual during such taxable year, over

(B)

the sum of the additional wages paid to such individual for the taxable year and the amount determined under paragraph (2) for the taxable year.

(2)

The amount determined under this paragraph is an amount equal to—

(A)

in the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2014, and before January 1, 2016, $400,000, and

(B)

in the case of any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2015, the product of—

(i)

$400,000, and

(ii)

the quotient obtained by dividing—

(I)

the national average wage index (as defined in section 209(k)(1)) for the calendar year which is 2 years before the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, by

(II)

the national average wage index for calendar year 2013.

Inclusion of surplus earnings in social security benefit formula

(a)

Inclusion of surplus average indexed monthly earnings in determination of primary insurance amounts

Section 215(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(1)(A)) is amended—

(1)

in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), by inserting basic before average indexed monthly earnings each place it appears;

(2)

in clause (ii), by striking and at the end;

(3)

in clause (iii), by inserting and at the end; and

(4)

by inserting after clause (iii) the following new clause:

(iv)

2 percent of the individual’s surplus average indexed monthly earnings,

(b)

Basic AIME and surplus AIME

(1)

Basic AIME

Section 215(b)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(b)(1)) is amended—

(A)

in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting basic before average; and

(B)

in subparagraph (A), by striking paragraph (3) and inserting paragraph (3)(A) and by inserting before the comma the following: to the extent such total does not exceed the contribution and benefit base for the applicable year.

(2)

Surplus AIME

(A)

In general

Section 215(b)(1) of such Act (as amended by paragraph (1)) is amended—

(i)

by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively;

(ii)

by inserting (A) after (b)(1); and

(iii)

by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

(B)

(i)

An individual’s surplus average indexed monthly earnings shall be equal to the quotient obtained by dividing—

(I)

the total (after adjustment under paragraph (3)(B)) of such individual’s surplus earnings (determined under clause (ii)) for such individual’s benefit computation years (determined under paragraph (2)), by

(II)

the number of months in those years.

(ii)

For purposes of clause (i) and paragraph (3)(B), an individual’s surplus earnings for a benefit computation year are the total of such individual’s additional wages (as defined in section 209(l)) paid in and additional self-employment income (as defined in section 209(m)) credited to such benefit computation year, to the extent such total does not exceed the amount determined for such year under clause (iii).

(iii)

For purposes of clause (ii), the amount determined under this clause is—

(I)

in the case of a benefit computation year beginning after December 31, 2014, and before January 1, 2016, $500,000; and

(II)

in the case of any benefit computation year beginning on or after January 1, 2016, the product of $500,000 and the quotient obtained by dividing—

(aa)

the national average wage index (as defined in section 209(k)(1)) for the calendar year which is 2 years before the calendar year in which the benefit computation year begins, by

(bb)

the national average wage index for calendar year 2013.

(B)

Conforming amendment

The heading for section 215(b) of such Act is amended by striking Average Indexed Monthly Earnings and inserting Basic Average Indexed Monthly Earnings; Surplus Average Indexed Monthly Earnings.

(3)

Adjustment of surplus earnings for purposes of determining surplus AIME

Section 215(b)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(b)(3)) is amended—

(A)

in subparagraph (A), by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting subparagraph (C) and by inserting and determination of basic average indexed monthly income after paragraph (2);

(B)

by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); and

(C)

by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph:

(B)

For purposes of determining under paragraph (1)(B) an individual’s surplus average indexed monthly earnings, the individual’s surplus earnings (described in paragraph (1)(B)(ii)) for a benefit computation year shall be deemed to be equal to the product of—

(i)

the individual’s surplus earnings for such year (as determined without regard to this subparagraph), and

(ii)

the quotient described in subparagraph (A)(ii).

(c)

Railroad Retirement Act

Section 1(h)(5) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231(h)(5)) is amended—

(1)

by striking and at the end of clause (ii);

(2)

by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ; and; and

(3)

by adding at the end the following new clause:

(iv)

for each such calendar month after 2014, the amount which is creditable as such individual's additional wages under section 209(l) of the Social Security Act.

(d)

Effective date

The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to individuals who initially become eligible (within the meaning of section 215(a)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(3)(B))) for old-age or disability insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act, or who die (before becoming eligible for such benefits), in any calendar year after 2014.