H.R. 5342House118th Congress (2023-2025)Failed

Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act of 2023

AI-Generated Summary

Updated January 20, 2026 at 11:08 AM UTC

The bill changes Social Security benefit calculations for workers with noncovered employment, such as many public servants, by replacing the windfall elimination provision with a new formula that treats noncovered earnings as covered. It adds a temporary extra monthly payment of $100 (or $50 for certain dependents) for those whose benefits were reduced, updates account statements to show noncovered earnings, and orders a study on data sharing with state and local pension systems. The changes take effect for benefits payable on or after January 1 2025, with the extra payments beginning 270 days after enactment.

Key Provisions

Replaces the windfall elimination provision with a new formula that includes noncovered earnings after 1977 in the primary insurance amount calculation
Specifies the formula: multiply the existing primary insurance amount by a fraction of the individual's average indexed monthly earnings over adjusted total covered earnings
Requires the Social Security Commissioner to issue guidance on how to verify and record noncovered earnings for this purpose
Adds a transitional rule allowing affected individuals to receive the higher of the old or new calculation during a set period
Creates an additional monthly payment of $100 (or $50 for certain other beneficiaries) for eligible individuals whose benefits were reduced, starting 270 days after the law’s enactment
Amends Social Security account statements to list earnings from noncovered service after 1977
Mandates a study on partnering with state and local pension systems to improve data collection on noncovered pensions, with a report due within about 4½ years
Allows the Commissioner to request detailed information from states about designated pension distributions that involve noncovered service

Legislative Activity

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

8 earlier actions

HouseFloor Latest Action

On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 175 - 225, 1 Present (Roll no. 457).

View vote Failed

November 12, 2024 • 7:21 PM

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

September 5, 2023

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Ways and Means Committee

September 5, 2023

HouseFloor

Mr. Arrington moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.

November 12, 2024 • 4:02 PM

HouseFloor

Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5920-5925; text: CR H5920-5921)

November 12, 2024 • 4:02 PM

HouseFloor

DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5342.

November 12, 2024 • 4:02 PM

HouseFloor

At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.

November 12, 2024 • 4:45 PM

HouseFloor

Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5947-5948)

November 12, 2024 • 7:13 PM

HouseFloor

Failed of passage/not agreed to in House On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 175 - 225, 1 Present (Roll no. 457).

View vote Failed

November 12, 2024 • 7:21 PM

HouseFloor

On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 175 - 225, 1 Present (Roll no. 457).

View vote Failed

November 12, 2024 • 7:21 PM

Voting History

1 vote recorded • Roll call available

HOUSE

Roll Call Available

November 12, 2024 at 7:19 PM

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Majority required: 2/3 (66.7%)

Failed

175 - 225

Floor Debate

17 members

What members said about H.R. 5342 on the floor

+12

7 Republicans10 Democrats

Rep. Monica De La CruzR-TX-15 · Sep 12, 2023

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows: H.R. 16: Ms. Tokuda, Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Casten, Mr. Casar, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Caraveo, and Mr. Sablan. H.R.…

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows:

H.R. 16: Ms. Tokuda, Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Casten, Mr. Casar,

Mr. Sherman, Ms. Caraveo, and Mr. Sablan.

H.R. 33: Ms. Ross and Ms. Bonamici.

H.R. 34: Ms. Escobar, Mr. Tonko, and Mr. Nadler.

H.R. 56: Ms. Crockett.

H.R. 231: Mr. Cline.

H.R. 253: Ms. McCollum, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and Mr.

Cleaver.

H.R. 303: Mr. Kilmer.

H.R. 459: Ms. Castor of Florida.

H.R. 549: Mr. Gallego, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Mrvan, Ms.

Escobar, Ms. Titus, Mr. Evans, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Espaillat,

Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Ms. Adams, Ms. Balint, Mr.

Owens, and Mrs. Sykes.

H.R. 620: Mrs. Peltola.

H.R. 666: Mr. Bowman.

H.R. 679: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 681: Ms. Wild, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Ms.

Balint, Ms.Crockett, and Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick.

H.R. 700: Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Latta, Mr. Kelly of

Mississippi, Mr. Kim of New Jersey, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer, Mr.

Harder of California, and Mrs. Steel.

H.R. 722: Mr. Barr.

H.R. 770: Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 795: Mr. Crow.

H.R. 807: Mr. Miller of Ohio, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Bucshon,

and Mr. Soto.

H.R. 809: Mr. Posey and Mr. Huizenga.

H.R. 866: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 873: Mr. Nehls.

H.R. 906: Mr. Steube and Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 972: Ms. Kelly of Illinois.

H.R. 1073: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1088: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 1118: Ms. Balint.

H.R. 1138: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1139: Mr. Newhouse, Mr. DesJarlais, and Ms. Craig.

H.R. 1150: Ms. Jayapal and Mr. Moylan.

H.R. 1191: Mr. Swalwell, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr.

Jackson of Illinois, and Ms. Crockett.

H.R. 1200: Ms. Van Duyne and Mr. McCormick.

H.R. 1235: Mr. Sherman.

H.R. 1250: Mr. Costa.

H.R. 1259: Mr. Lieu.

H.R. 1277: Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Green of Texas, Ms.

Porter, Ms. Leger Fernandez, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Casten, Mrs.

Cherfilus-McCormick, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. DesJarlais, Ms. Norton,

Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Craig, Mr. Castro of Texas, Mrs. Dingell,

Mr. Morelle, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Wasserman Schultz,

Mr. Espaillat, Ms. Barragan, and Mr. Huffman.

H.R. 1278: Mr. Moulton.

H.R. 1290: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 1295: Mr. Schiff.

H.R. 1318: Ms. Titus and Ms. Craig.

H.R. 1385: Ms. Pingree and Mr. LaHood.

H.R. 1432: Mr. Davis of Illinois.

H.R. 1437: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 1447: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 1483: Mr. Raskin.

H.R. 1488: Mr. Tonko and Mr. Horsford.

H.R. 1503: Mr. Tonko.

H.R. 1517: Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 1535: Mr. Davis of North Carolina and Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 1555: Mr. Cardenas.

H.R. 1572: Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Harder

of California, Mr. Raskin, Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Posey,

and Mr. Owens.

H.R. 1614: Mr. Costa.

H.R. 1623: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 1637: Mr. Ciscomani, Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia, and Mr.

Ryan.

H.R. 1638: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 1643: Mr. Gomez.

H.R. 1679: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1721: Ms. Crockett and Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 1728: Ms. Mace.

H.R. 1740: Mr. Allred.

H.R. 1758: Mr. Donalds.

H.R. 1763: Mr. Harder of California and Mr. Moskowitz.

H.R. 1770: Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia.

H.R. 1777: Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Grothman, Mr.

Fleischmann, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 1788: Mr. Phillips, Ms. Scholten, Ms. Spanberger, Ms.

McCollum, and Mr. Beyer.

H.R. 1831: Mr. Burgess and Mr. Grijalva.

H.R. 1841: Mr. Rouzer.

H.R. 1842: Mr. Gallego.

H.R. 2365: Mr. Levin, Mr. Balderson, Ms. Caraveo, Ms.

Salinas, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Trone,

Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Brownley, Ms. Leger Fernandez, and Mr.

Veasey.

H.R. 2367: Ms. Lee of Nevada, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania,

Mr. Guest, Mr. Pappas, and Mrs. Houchin.

H.R. 2370: Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 2389: Mr. Moulton, Mr. Trone, Ms. Sherrill, Mr.

Horsford, Ms. Ross, Mrs. McBath, Mr. Mrvan, Ms. McCollum, and

Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas.

H.R. 2406: Mr. Barr, Mrs. Harshbarger, and Mrs. Lesko.

H.R. 2407: Mr. Burgess, Ms. Hoyle of Oregon, Mr. Mooney,

Mrs. Fletcher, Mr. Morelle, Mr. Nickel, and Mr. Castro of

Texas.

H.R. 2410: Mr. Nickel.

H.R. 2412: Mr. Harder of California, Mr. Landsman, and Mr.

Cleaver.

H.R. 2431: Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer and Ms. Lee of Nevada.

H.R. 2510: Mr. Harder of California and Ms. Salinas.

H.R. 2550: Ms. Leger Fernandez.

H.R. 2583: Mr. Doggett, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Sewell,

and Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 2630: Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. Steube, Mr. Fitzpatrick,

and Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia.

H.R. 2667: Mrs. Miller of West Virginia and Mr. Aderholt.

H.R. 2697: Mr. Vargas and Ms. Tlaib.

H.R. 2700: Mr. McCormick.

H.R. 2718: Ms. Blunt Rochester.

H.R. 2720: Mr. Carbajal, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Blumenauer, and

Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 2723: Mr. Moulton and Mr. Ryan.

H.R. 2736: Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 2739: Mrs. Kim of California.

H.R. 2743: Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. C. Scott

Franklin of Florida, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Newhouse.

H.R. 2814: Mr. Moore of Utah.

H.R. 2855: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 2869: Mr. Mfume.

H.R. 2871: Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 2891: Mr. Tonko.

H.R. 2929: Mr. Pappas.

H.R. 2955: Mr. Burgess, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Raskin, and Mr.

Goldman of New York.

H.R. 2957: Mr. Morelle and Mr. Allred.

H.R. 2987: Ms. Bush.

H.R. 3007: Mr. McGarvey.

H.R. 3029: Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania and Mrs. Miller of

West Virginia.

H.R. 3074: Mr. Carter of Louisiana and Ms. Scanlon.

H.R. 3108: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3137: Mr. Newhouse.

H.R. 3139: Mr. Ryan and Ms. Foxx.

H.R. 3145: Ms. Omar.

H.R. 3152: Mr. Simpson, Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mr. C.

Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. Cline, Mr. Santos, Mr. Golden

of Maine, Mrs. Foushee, and Mr. Rouzer.

H.R. 3170: Mr. Pallone and Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 3184: Mr. Norcross.

H.R. 3192: Ms. Slotkin.

H.R. 3206: Mr. Gooden of Texas.

H.R. 3235: Mr. Huffman.

H.R. 3251: Mr. McGovern.

H.R. 3272: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 3378: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 3380: Ms. Kuster and Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 3381: Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Norman, Mr. Babin, Ms.

Malliotakis, Mr. Soto, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Trone, Ms.

Manning, Mr. Ciscomani, Ms. Caraveo, Mr. Carey, and Ms.

Salazar.

H.R. 3394: Mr. Pallone, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Scanlon, Ms.

Brownley, Ms. Ross, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Deluzio, Ms. Tlaib, and

Mr. Trone.

H.R. 3410: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 3413: Ms. Chu, Ms. Greene of Georgia, and Ms. Ross.

H.R. 3424: Mr. Tonko and Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 3425: Mr. Tiffany and Ms. Manning.

H.R. 3448: Ms. Spanberger.

H.R. 3464: Mrs. Houchin.

H.R. 3468: Mr. Schiff, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Salinas, and Mr.

Goldman of New York.

H.R. 3473: Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

H.R. 3488: Mr. Grijalva and Ms. Velazquez.

H.R. 3492: Mr. C. Scott Franklin of Florida.

H.R. 3503: Mr. Lieu and Mr. Pocan.

H.R. 3518: Ms. Norton.

H.R. 3519: Mr. Gomez.

H.R. 3530: Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Ms. DelBene, Mr. Swalwell,

Mr. Lieu, Ms. Ross, Mr. Neguse, and Mr. Schneider.

H.R. 3539: Mr. Crow and Mr. Molinaro.

H.R. 3549: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 3576: Mr. Smith of Washington and Mr. Vargas.

H.R. 3585: Ms. Mace.

H.R. 3589: Ms. Tokuda.

H.R. 3600: Mr. Larsen of Washington and Mr. Harder of

California.

H.R. 3601: Mr. Vargas, Mr. Moulton, and Ms. Sherrill.

H.R. 3608: Mr. Ruiz.

H.R. 3618: Mr. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Wilson of Florida.

H.R. 3662: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 3679: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 3681: Mr. Levin.

H.R. 3730: Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 3755: Mr. Smucker.

H.R. 3774: Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Soto, Mr.

Sherman, Ms.

Craig, and Mr. Bilirakis.

H.R. 3782: Mr. Fry and Mr. Phillips.

H.R. 3792: Mr. Lieu, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Tony

Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Sherman, and

Mr. Robert Garcia of California.

H.R. 3838: Mr. Cohen.

H.R. 3843: Mr. Pocan and Ms. Tlaib.

H.R. 3851: Ms. Van Duyne and Ms. Sherrill.

H.R. 3859: Ms. Lofgren, Ms. McCollum, and Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3867: Mr. LaLota.

H.R. 3875: Mr. Quigley and Mr. Mullin.

H.R. 3876: Mr. Crow.

H.R. 3879: Ms. Craig.

H.R. 3882: Mr. Deluzio and Mr. Joyce of Ohio.

H.R. 3916: Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Bice, Ms.

McClellan, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, and Ms. Sherrill.

H.R. 3923: Mr. McGarvey.

H.R. 3949: Mr. Fry and Mr. Latta.

H.R. 3965: Mr. Robert Garcia of California.

H.R. 3988: Mr. Good of Virginia.

H.R. 3990: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 4007: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 4024: Ms. Matsui.

H.R. 4034: Ms. DelBene.

H.R. 4035: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 4040: Ms. DeGette.

H.R. 4059: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 4061: Mr. Kildee.

H.R. 4076: Mr. Peters.

H.R. 4118: Ms. Crockett, Ms. Norton, Mr. Carson, and Ms.

Jackson Lee.

H.R. 4144: Mr. Yakym.

H.R. 4149: Mr. Carson.

H.R. 4157: Mr. Moskowitz, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Flood, and

Ms. Wild.

H.R. 4170: Ms. Ross and Ms. Balint.

H.R. 4174: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 4175: Mr. Hill.

H.R. 4183: Ms. Castor of Florida.

H.R. 4198: Mr. Hill.

H.R. 4202: Mr. Gottheimer, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Ms.

Spanberger, Ms. Scanlon, Ms. Crockett, Mr. Torres of New

York, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Trone, Mr.

Garcia of Illinois, and Mr. Lynch.

H.R. 4238: Mr. Timmons.

H.R. 4241: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 4249: Ms. Craig.

H.R. 4259: Mrs. Houchin.

H.R. 4262: Ms. Mace.

H.R. 4273: Mr. Phillips.

H.R. 4274: Mr. McGovern.

H.R. 4295: Mr. Carter of Louisiana and Mr. Mullin.

H.R. 4314: Ms. DeGette.

H.R. 4328: Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia.

H.R. 4334: Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bergman.

H.R. 4384: Ms. Manning.

H.R. 4395: Mr. Baird.

H.R. 4432: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 4438: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 4466: Mr. McGarvey and Ms. Wilson of Florida.

H.R. 4475: Mrs. Watson Coleman.

H.R. 4478: Mr. Mills.

H.R. 4514: Ms. Greene of Georgia.

H.R. 4534: Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Mr. Connolly, Ms.

Clarke of New York, and Ms. Wild.

H.R. 4561: Mr. McGovern and Ms. DeGette.

H.R. 4562: Mr. Moulton and Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 4563: Mr. McCormick.

H.R. 4566: Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 4577: Ms. Sherrill and Mr. Guest.

H.R. 4581: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 4587: Ms. Salazar and Ms. Lee of Florida.

H.R. 4598: Mr. Lieu.

H.R. 4602: Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 4612: Mr. Duarte and Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 4624: Mr. Carson, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Grijalva, and Ms.

Jackson Lee.

H.R. 4663: Mrs. Lesko.

H.R. 4702: Mr. Lieu.

H.R. 4728: Ms. Schakowsky.

H.R. 4729: Ms. De La Cruz and Mr. Fry.

H.R. 4733: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 4745: Mrs. Kim of California.

H.R. 4750: Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 4758: Ms. Wexton, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Smucker, and Ms.

Barragan.

H.R. 4769: Ms. Scholten, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Garbarino, Mr.

Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Lawler, Mr. Goldman of New York, Mr.

LaLota, and Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

H.R. 4779: Mr. Doggett, Mr. Payne, and Mr. McGovern.

H.R. 4782: Mr. Blumenauer.

H.R. 4817: Mr. Robert Garcia of California.

H.R. 4844: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 4886: Mr. Kildee.

H.R. 4895: Mr. Connolly, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Escobar, Mr.

Larsen of Washington, and Ms. Porter.

H.R. 4904: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 4914: Ms. Barragan.

H.R. 4919: Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, and

Mr. Frost.

H.R. 4921: Mrs. Miller of Illinois.

H.R. 4965: Ms. Garcia of Texas, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Ocasio-

Cortez, and Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 4970: Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer.

H.R. 5006: Ms. Stefanik.

H.R. 5008: Ms. Kamlager-Dove and Ms. Balint.

H.R. 5012: Ms. Clarke of New York, Ms. Williams of Georgia,

and Ms. Craig.

H.R. 5013: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 5041: Mr. Ruiz.

H.R. 5094: Mr. Langworthy.

H.R. 5106: Mr. Womack.

H.R. 5107: Mr. Grothman.

H.R. 5110: Mrs. McClain, Ms. Foxx, Ms. Perez, Mr. Walberg,

Mrs. Houchin, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Bost, Mr. Williams of New

York, Mr. DesJarlais, and Mr. LaHood.

H.R. 5113: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 5130: Mr. Graves of Missouri.

H.R. 5136: Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 5145: Mr. Bowman.

H.R. 5159: Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. LaHood, Mr.

Fitzpatrick, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Larson of

Connecticut, Mr. Comer, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Mr. Boyle of

Pennsylvania, Mr. Gottheimer, and Mr. Phillips.

H.R. 5169: Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Thompson of

California, and Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 5171: Mr. Swalwell.

H.R. 5175: Ms. Norton, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr.

Moskowitz.

H.R. 5182: Mr. Fry and Mr. Owens.

H.R. 5184: Mr. Fallon, Mr. Crenshaw, and Mr. Meuser.

H.R. 5203: Mr. Mooney.

H.R. 5221: Ms. Eshoo.

H.R. 5233: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 5239: Ms. Lee of Florida.

H.R. 5242: Ms. Bonamici and Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 5245: Mr. Issa and Ms. Stefanik.

H.R. 5247: Mr. Sablan.

H.R. 5249: Mr. Moulton, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Carson, Ms.

Tokuda, Mr. Davis of North Carolina, and Mr. Case.

H.R. 5250: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 5252: Ms. Sherrill, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Blumenauer.

H.R. 5265: Mr. Stauber.

H.R. 5283: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

H.R. 5290: Mr. Tonko and Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5291: Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5292: Mr. Tonko, Ms. Bush, Ms. Chu, and Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 5293: Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5294: Ms. Bush and Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 5295: Mr. Tonko and Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5302: Mr. Waltz.

H.R. 5308: Mr. Costa and Mr. Ryan.

H.R. 5318: Mr. Davis of North Carolina.

H.R. 5323: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 5329: Mr. Takano.

H.R. 5342: Mr. Williams of Texas, Mr. Gooden of Texas, and

Ms. De La Cruz.

H.R. 5349: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 5351: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Veasey.

H.R. 5361: Mrs. Foushee.

H.R. 5368: Mr. Fry, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Van Drew, Mr.

Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. Bost, and Mr. Mills.

H.R. 5369: Ms. Barragan.

H.R. 5377: Mr. Davis of North Carolina.

H.R. 5379: Mr. Norman.

H.J. Res. 88: Mr. Babin, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mrs. Miller-

Meeks, Mrs. Houchin, Mr. Yakym, and Ms. Hageman.

H. Con. Res. 31: Mr. Huffman.

H. Con. Res. 44: Mr. Casar.

H. Con. Res. 59: Ms. Sanchez.

H. Con. Res. 61: Ms. Waters, Mr. Moulton, Ms. DeGette, Mr.

Casten, Mr. Levin, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Ms. Clarke of New

York, Ms. McClellan, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Casar, Ms. Balint,

Ms. Salinas, and Mr. Pocan.

H. Res. 50: Mr. Mooney, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cloud, and Ms.

Van Duyne.

H. Res. 77: Mr. Lynch.

H. Res. 100: Mr. Walberg.

H. Res. 108: Mr. Mike Garcia of California.

H. Res. 154: Mr. Khanna.

H. Res. 198: Mrs. Fletcher.

H. Res. 339: Mr. Donalds.

H. Res. 345: Mr. Nadler.

H. Res. 374: Mr. Frost.

H. Res. 451: Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mrs. Miller of

Illinois, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer, Ms. Budzinski, Mr. Davis of

North Carolina, Mr. Bost, and Mr. Sorensen.

H. Res. 492: Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Vasquez, Ms.

Stevens, Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas,

Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Allred.

H. Res. 509: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H. Res. 585: Mrs. Torres of California, Ms. Lee of

California, and Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania.

H. Res. 615: Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

H. Res. 616: Mr. Peters, Mr. Keating, and Ms. Ross.

H. Res. 623: Mr. Moskowitz and Mr. Trone.

H. Res. 625: Mrs. Trahan, Mr. Costa, and Mr. Torres of New

York.

H. Res. 627: Mr. Ruppersberger, Mrs. Miller of Illinois,

Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Schiff, and Ms. Craig.

H. Res. 634: Ms. Schakowsky.

H. Res. 651: Mr. DesJarlais.

H. Res. 674: Mr. Moylan, Ms. Crockett, Ms. Norton, Mr.

Posey, Mrs. Peltola, Mr. Nunn of Iowa, Mr. Van Drew, Mr.

Donalds, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, and Mr.

Crenshaw.

Rep. Jodey C. ArringtonR-TX-19 · Nov 12, 2024

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5342) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to replace the windfall elimination provision with a formula equalizing benefits…

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5342) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to replace the windfall elimination provision with a formula equalizing benefits for certain individuals with noncovered employment, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a great injustice that has persisted now for four decades. Some of our hardest working fellow Americans who are public servants in certain States where they have non-Social Security covered employment--or to say it this way, where they have teacher retirement systems separate from Social Security, or firefighter retirement systems separate from Social Security--have what is called a windfall elimination provision in the Social Security law, which has shortchanged roughly 2 million hardworking public servants.

Some people are still getting a windfall, but the vast majority are not getting what they earned and what they put into the Social Security system. So my colleague, Representative John Larson, who I serve with on the Committee on Ways and Means, and who I consider a dear friend and someone who I know is very passionate about fixing Social Security's insolvency, which looms large over the next 10 years, this is but one element of what is not working in Social Security for our retirees and Social Security recipients.

To solve this inequity and injustice, some of my colleagues have decided they would just repeal the windfall elimination provision altogether. That sounds good, but it is going to cost $192 billion to do that. We shouldn't be constrained by cost to do the right thing, but to repeal the windfall elimination provision would go back to pre-1983 when we had a windfall to certain Americans in the same States where they had independent retirement systems, and we were spending more money for certain retirees than they put into the Social Security system.

There was a great discrepancy and inequity between these individuals in these States and the vast majority of the tens of millions of other retirees across the country. So you had a teacher or a firefighter in certain States, like Texas, pre-1983 getting a windfall, large sums of money, over similarly situated people in other States. Firefighters and teachers are doing the same work, making roughly the same amount of money, but getting less benefits.

What we should do is fix the inadequacy of the windfall elimination provision that was oversimplified and did not use the data that we have today and make sure that people are paid what they are owed in terms of their benefits, but not revert back to pre-windfall elimination provision, where we were spending tens of billions of dollars more than we needed to according to what people put in it.

Why does that matter? Because we should have a system of fairness for every public servant in every State, every retiree who fits that definition. It is also because if we start just throwing money at this and allowing windfall payments to certain retirees, we are going to accelerate the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund.

One outside expert says that we will accelerate that if we go to H.R. 82 and just pull the plug on the windfall elimination provision, as opposed to fixing it and getting it right. We will accelerate it by 6 months.

We should be responsible in how we do this. We should consider retirees in every State, and we should also consider future retirees because what we do and how we solve problems doesn't just impact the people who have been shortchanged, and we need to deal with that, but we will impact future retirees, as well.

I am simply asking my colleagues to do the right thing, address this inequity with WEP and our public servants, but do it the right way so that we don't compromise the integrity and the fiscal responsibility of managing the trust fund and put these public servants now once again at odds with the vast majority of public servants who are retired.

Mr. Speaker, that is a mouthful, by the way. This is a complex issue, but what is not complicated is people who have been shortchanged need to get the money that they rightfully are owed by their government. I can start there and say that Democratic and Republican colleagues alike agree on that, but my bill will do it in a fiscally responsible way.

I think this H.R. 82 is well-intended, but it is going to accelerate the bankruptcy of Social Security. That is not good for anybody, current or future retirees.

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

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

My friend mentioned my seniors in west Texas. Let me tell you what they sent me here to do. They sent me here to be an advocate for them, to ensure that we have fair and just laws, to fix what is broken about Social Security but do it in a way that we don't accelerate what will be an automatic cut in less than 10 years.

By repealing the windfall that existed before 1983, you are saying you are okay with taxpayers just spending more money than they should, more money than what has been earned and owed to the seniors, and in a way that creates a vast and tremendous discrepancy and inequity between 2 million people in several States as opposed to almost 60 million across the country.

How unfair and how nearsighted and narrow-minded can we be not to consider the fact that we will have a bankrupt system and that we have future seniors who can't bank on their retirement because we want to go back to prewindfall? It doesn't make sense, Mr. Speaker.

The Democrats had control of this place from top to bottom from 2020 to

2022, and they didn't fix it. Republicans had control when I was a freshman in 2017. Let me tell the world: They didn't fix it. The only way we are going to fix it is if we come together. I agree with Mr. Larson that there are broader provisions to look at and the system as a whole to address going forward.

You mentioned benefits. That is a great place to do it, but to suggest that we are going to go back prewindfall elimination provision and have a $2,500 additional cut in 2033 because we are not doing it the right way and responsible way and equitable way because we now have the data, I just think is egregiously irresponsible for all parties involved, including our children, who don't have much of a say in this, even though they own the deferred tax on all of these programs that are bankrupt, including Medicare.

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

Mr. Speaker, this will be budget neutral over 75 years for the trust fund, according to the actuaries, and I thank Mr. Roy for his comments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my colleague and friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his comments. I don't know that I could add anything more to what he said. We are trying to fix this inequity that exists with this subset of the retirement or Social Security beneficiary population.

I agree with Mr. Larson that we need a broader debate on Social Security, and we had better hurry up because it will be insolvent in less than 10 years, so we need to talk about the solvency and sustainability, the entirety of the program, the pay-fors, programmatic reforms, and the benefits. All of it should be on the table.

That is why as budget chair, I passed a bipartisan fiscal commission that would look at that and also at Medicare, which is another important safety net for seniors. However, we are talking about one specific subset.

I love the gentleman's passion, and I hope that we can get thoughtful Members on both sides of the aisle, like my friend, to sit at the table and do the right, the responsible, and the mature thing and actually work on a compromise solution like Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did, and I will bet the gentleman agrees with that.

However, we are not talking about the entirety of Social Security. We are talking about this subset, this subset of people affected by WEP. It is about 2 million people. I want to fix that for them. I want them to get the money they have earned, because the windfall elimination provision wasn't adequate. It didn't use good information. We still have people who are shortchanged.

We still have people getting a windfall, albeit less, when we have the ability, the wherewithal, the tools, and the data to actually fix it without just eliminating WEP and going back to where the inequity is greater than what it is today.

That is because if the public servants of my State and the gentleman's State would get more than they put into Social Security, then we accelerate the insolvency. Then we add to the cuts that will be automatic on seniors that would be $2,500 in 2033, and we give almost no peace of mind and hope for future seniors and our children and grandchildren that this important antipoverty safety net program for seniors will still be there when they need it.

Mr. Speaker, it is too easy just to throw money at every problem up here when you are borrowing from China, and you have a $2 trillion deficit that will double in 10 years. We have higher levels of indebtedness than we had when we were fighting Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

This country is going to go into the fiscal ditch never to come out, never to prosper, never to be offered the American promise, and never to lead the free world because we are going to bankrupt it because we don't know how to address these problems like every American does in their own household, in their businesses, and at the State and local level, and that is conducting their business within their means and not like there is a money tree at the Treasury Department where they can borrow ad infinitum. That is not reality. That is not reality.

Let's fix it. Let's do it the right way. Let's not add to the debt. Let's not add to the inequity. Let's not accelerate the trust fund insolvency.

Then let's do what the gentleman said. I agree with the gentleman. Let's be men and women who love this country and are more concerned with solving these big problems than staying up here and being called Congressman and chairman. Let's do the people's business. I am ready. I am ready.

This is a very finite subset, and we have the solution. It is not perfect, but it balances the things that need to be balanced like these folks up there would at their homes and like my parents have to do back home in Plainview, Texas.

Taxpayers deserve a voice as much as seniors, and my children deserve a voice as much as taxpayers. That is what we are trying to do here.

I hope we can get my friend's support. I feel like that is about as compelling a pitch I can make. I think John Larson ought to come over and fix this the right way with me, then let's get that fiscal commission going, get our President to lean into this and do the Reagan-Tip O'Neill grand bargain so we can actually solve the bigger and broader issues that plague Social Security.

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

Mr. Speaker, only in Washington, D.C., and, unfortunately--I respect my Democrat colleague and many of my Democrat colleagues--only from the Democrat side of the aisle could I hear that paying above and beyond what we defined as an earned benefit and has now become a windfall for 2 million people at the expense of 60 million people who don't receive the same benefit so that we can give people equal treatment and not accelerate the insolvency, only in this town could I hear that as a solution. That is not a solution. It is a bad plan. Let's have the broader debate about Social Security, which is what the gentleman is suggesting, but let's fix this.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Rep. John B. LarsonD-CT-1 · Nov 12, 2024

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I start by acknowledging my good friend and colleague, and I thank him. I think his heart is in the right place. Let me say,…

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

Mr. Speaker, I start by acknowledging my good friend and colleague, and I thank him. I think his heart is in the right place.

Let me say, having worked on this issue for a number of years, to have a Social Security, and in this case a portion of it, come to the floor, albeit under suspension and not through regular order, Mr. Speaker, is a step in the right direction, but the American people have to be outraged by the fact that it has been over 50 years since Congress has adjusted Social Security. By that, I mean enhanced Social Security for its recipients. Imagine that.

Do you think a few things have happened since Richard Nixon was President of the United States? Do you think a few things have happened, especially as we live in this post-COVID and now inflationary period?

It impacts over 70 million of our fellow Americans. This provision that my colleague and good friend is talking about, WEP, is minuscule in terms of comparing that to individuals. As well intended as I believe he is, this doesn't straighten out the problem. In our bill, the Social Security 2100 Act, we repeal WEP and GPO, and we pay for it. That is the responsible thing that Congress has to do on behalf of the American people.

Here are the facts: 70 million Americans rely on Social Security, and it is the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for children. More veterans rely on Social Security for disability than they do the VA.

Congress has done nothing to help these individuals out. Add to that, Mr. Speaker, the fact that 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security.

What we need to do today, and in both of these bills that are coming before us, are steps forward, but we need to come together as a Congress and vote to fix Social Security in a manner that doesn't hurt or cut benefits for individuals who haven't seen a benefit enhancement in more than 50 years. We come here today and say here is a crumb, but even in the form of this crumb, this proposal will cut benefits for hardworking, everyday Americans.

I respect my colleague, and I do believe that his heart is in the right place, but Congress--both sides--have responsibility here, but perhaps now there is an opportunity for us to act--perhaps the fact that even under suspension, not regular order with public hearings where viewers get to see and actually hear from expert witnesses and get to hear both the fiscal side of what needs to be paid for but also the benefits side in terms of what has not been done.

Imagine, my dear friend knows this, 5 million of our fellow Americans--and they are in Texas and Connecticut--get below poverty- level checks from their government. So it is great that you have a proposal for WEP, but 5 million people currently on Social Security get below poverty-level checks from the wealthiest Nation in the world and from a country that has had a program in place, but Congress hasn't acted in over 50 years. Most of the 5 million are women, and most of them are women of color.

There are more than 33 million who the only benefit that they have, the only thing that keeps them out of poverty, is Social Security, and Congress hasn't acted since 1971. These people will be hurt by this proposal.

Benefit cuts in a time of inflation? Ask your constituents back home, Mr. Speaker, whether or not they can afford this cut.

Now, here is the other irony. Here we have one of the great economic development plans ever instituted by the United States Congress; That is right, an economic development plan, Social Security. How so?

Every district, on average, has about 143,000 Social Security recipients. Every district, monthly, receives on average $200 million in cash coming into their district.

In fact, for my dear friend and colleague here, $222 million comes into his district on a monthly basis. He has more than 95,000 retirees, 9,000 children who get money from Social Security, 10,000 widows, 4,800 spouses, and 14,000 disabled.

Congress has done nothing. These cuts will take place because Congress hasn't stepped up and said we need to fund this program, not cut it. Some say back in 1983 they did do something. Yeah, what they did is they raised the age, another great proposal on the other side. For every year you raise the age, that is a 7 percent cut in benefits. Let's raise the age to age 70, the Republican Study Committee says, and what does that do? It cuts benefits by 21 percent.

Aren't you glad you worked hard and invested and put your money aside so that you could find out that, yeah, what we are going to do is raise the age so you work longer, and as you are living longer, we expect that you will get less in retirement, not more. It makes no sense whatsoever.

We need to come together as a Congress and vote to enhance the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and for our children.

I respect the good intentions that people have, but as they say, the road to hell oftentimes is paved with good intentions. In this case, though, let's not talk about the parties. There is a lot of blame to go around here. How about we focus on the people, the American people, who we take an oath of office and swear to serve.

Staring this Congress in the face is over 50 years of inaction and 70 million people who are impacted by this in what is the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and for our children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have to say I do agree with Mr. Roy's last statement that what we needed to do was go through regular order and what we need is to pay for it. That is the responsible thing to do, is to pay for it.

We have a plan to not only repeal WEP and GPO but pay for it. Yes, I heard people refer to the Brady-Neal proposal, but Ranking Member Neal has a plan also to deal with WEP that is fair and makes sense and is something that we should be embracing and including and is paid for. That is the big issue today. It is not that people's hearts aren't in the right place, and I think the gentleman from Texas understands this.

All of us are Americans. The President of the United States, Mr. Biden, has made a proposal. The incoming President, Mr. Trump, has made a proposal also. He has made a proposal to cut taxes for people on Social Security. We have that proposal in our bill, except we pay for it. That is the responsible thing to do.

What has been irresponsible is Congress not debating this in regular order and bringing it to the floor. How about doing something incredible here, actually have a vote on the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and number one antipoverty program for our children until the child tax credit is fully adopted, and is the program that more veterans rely on for disability than the VA.

This program is so admired and respected by the American people that overwhelmingly Independents, Republicans, and Democrats, all believe that it should be supported, expanded, because it hasn't been in over 50 years, and paid for.

We have a plan. We are anxiously waiting for the debate and for the discussion and the dialogue to take place here in regular order and have a vote on a plan that is comprehensive and paid for and lifts the 5 million Americans who get below-poverty-level checks from the government above the poverty level and provides people with the opportunity in every single one of our communities to get the benefits they richly deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I think you gave a very impassioned plea, but I think we have to dispense with we are throwing money at the problem. This is money that people have paid weekly, biweekly, and monthly out of their paychecks.

We are not talking about just 2 million people with regard to WEP. We are talking about 70 million Americans. They understand this program.

Frankly, it doesn't need to be studied. It needs to be voted on.

Where is the plan on your side?

We have a plan, and God only knows that plan should be subject to debate and discussion, but the plan is to enhance Social Security, not to cut it, so that people who are currently struggling, people now, today, not waiting for a study, but as we speak are getting below poverty-level checks.

You stand there and tell me we are throwing money at them?

They didn't think it was throwing money when we were paying the money out of their paycheck and they put their trust and confidence in the United States of America to return to them a benefit that has been the number one antipoverty program for the country.

I don't care what party you are in or who you are, you understand what Social Security has meant to you. Social Security is the safety net for capitalism. It is what allows entrepreneurialism to succeed, for people to take risks, and if they fail unintentionally or otherwise, people are disadvantaged or out of work, they are protected. We learned that lesson after the Great Depression.

If you think it can't happen again, it can. In 2008 and 2009, people saw their 401(k) become a 101(k), and during that time, that trust fund never missed a payment, not a pension payment, not a disability payment, and not a spousal or child payment.

What it needs is Congress to act and Congress to vote. Congress is going to go one of two ways. They are either going to enhance the benefit and say: Hey, do you know what? This hasn't been adjusted in over 53 years, and we recognize we have the responsibility to do that, but we haven't acted, and we haven't voted.

Both sides haven't acted.

However, now is the time for us to act and to vote and put a plan in front of people so that they get the opportunity to choose.

Have you got a better plan?

We have got one. We have got one that expands benefits and is paid for. We actually have the temerity to ask people who pay nothing to actually contribute to Social Security just like they do to this great military that we have in this Nation. People don't go out and buy their own tanks and their own F-35s. It is long overdue that people in this country all contribute their fair share to the process. This is the safety net for capitalism and entrepreneurialism in order for us to survive. Every single district--every district--is benefited by it. It is an economic development plan.

How do you explain it to people?

How can you look them in the eye and say: I am sorry we couldn't do anything for you, even though your districts all receive over $200 million, and yet we haven't done anything to enhance that?

These were suggestions that they take less while they are living longer?

Where do they spend that money?

They spend that money right back in your district at the local pharmacy, at the grocery store, paying their rent and mortgages, and at the dry cleaners. It all goes back to the American people and allows our economy to flourish.

The brilliance of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is still with us today. It is

obstinate of Congress to not vote to enhance people's benefits in more than 50 years.

Ask anyone in your district: Have things changed for them since 1971? Could they use a little help from their Congress?

How many do you think even understand there is a cap on Social Security?

Are we proposing that we lift the cap on people making over $400,000 and that they actually would have to pay the same thing as someone who is making $30, $50, and $100,000?

They all pay.

Isn't that the fair thing to do in the country so that all of your constituents and mine and all 435 Members of this body can make sure that we are taking care of the people whom we are sworn to serve, especially those who are already retired, those who are there now?

While I respect the intention of the gentleman, 14 million people's benefits get cut under your proposal--14 million. That is not acceptable.

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

Rep. Garret GravesR-LA-6 · Nov 12, 2024

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Smith for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I listened to this debate and heard so many things that are simply misunderstandings or maybe just intentionally telling things…

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Smith for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to this debate and heard so many things that are simply misunderstandings or maybe just intentionally telling things that aren't true.

When I was growing up, my mom used to ask me: ``Is it going to take an act of Congress for you to clean your room?'' She would say it all the time. ``Is it going to take an act of Congress for you to clean your room?'' I didn't know what she meant because I thought my room was pretty clean.

What she meant is: Is it going to take the Earth, wind, stars, and mountains all moving in order for you to act?

Mr. Speaker, this has been 40 years of treating people differently, discriminating against a certain set of workers.

These are police officers, teachers, firefighters, and other public servants. Mr. Speaker, I worked side by side with these folks. They are not people who are overpaid. They are not people who are underworked.

Think about the crime issue, the defund the police issue, the safety of our communities. Police officers are integral to our State. They are integral to our Nation. We need to treat them fairly, respectfully. That means not treating them differently and discriminating against them and their benefits.

Teachers are the ones who train the next generation. Firefighters-- who are you going to call when your house is on fire? These are the very people whose benefits we are cutting.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard people sit here and say the solvency of this Social Security trust fund is going to move forward 6 months with this bill. Mr. Speaker, the solvency has been delayed years because you have stolen from these people. Do you not understand math? This number right here--the Congressional Budget Office, $195 billion--do you know what that number is? That is the number that you are going to be stealing from these same public servants over the next 10 years if you don't fix this.

Mr. Speaker, we can sit here and talk about all of these numbers and math. Here is the reality. Probably somewhere between $600 billion and $700 billion in Social Security benefits from police officers, teachers, firefighters, and other public servants has been stolen. If we don't pass this, the Congressional Budget Office says we are going to steal another $995 billion.

An interesting nugget that was in the Congressional Budget Office's evaluation is they also said if we actually pass this law, we are going to save money on social welfare programs because we are going to lift people out of poverty. They will no longer be dependent upon our social welfare programs.

Mr. Speaker, we can't keep doing this. I heard people talking about penalizing people and taxes and all of that stuff. Let me tell you what is happening. There is a group of people right now that effectively is paying a higher tax than anyone else. That is what is happening. It is the reason why the Social Security trust fund is going to remain solvent for years longer. It is unfair. It is unjust.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say it again. This is a community of people who cannot afford this. This is a community of people who are some of the hardest working folks in our community, and they have been stolen from for 40 years.

Mr. Speaker, very simply, here is the scenario. Let's say that Chairman Smith and I were both security guards. We were paid the same amount of money over the same period of time. After 20 years, I say that I am out. I go back and help raise a family. Chairman Smith goes on to become a sheriff's deputy. He does it for 10 years.

When we retire on the same exact date, my Social Security benefits may be $1,500 to $1,800 more. Why? We paid the same amount for same period of time into the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, look, there are folks who have tried to throw up other legislation and say that these other alternatives are the right way to go. There is one bill in this Congress that has a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats. I don't know the number right now. I know that, recently, it was the most cosponsored bill in all of Congress. With over 12,000 bills introduced, it was the most cosponsored bill.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what? We didn't go through the regular committee process. I do want to thank Chairman Smith for working with us. Do you know what we did? We had a hearing in Louisiana. We had a hearing in Washington, D.C. We negotiated for months, trying to get there. We couldn't.

Mr. Speaker, there is one package that has the support of the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats that will fix this once and for all. How in the world are we trying to beat up on the bill that is the most cosponsored bill in Congress?

My friend, Mr. Larson, was talking about the divisiveness, the polarization. My gosh, we have finally come together on something.

Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill. Let's show America that we can do what is right and what is just. Let's make sure this bill gets through the Senate and to the President's desk and that it doesn't take another 40 years to do what is right.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been amazing. I will say it again. At one point it has been the most cosponsored bill in Congress, 330 cosponsors. This bill has a majority of the majority.

There is one Social Security fix bill that has a majority of the majority as cosponsors. There is one bill that has the Speaker of the House as a cosponsor that fixes this. There is one bill that has the majority leader of the House as a cosponsor that fixes this. There is one bill that will truly solve this problem after 40 years of stealing from police officers, from teachers, from firefighters, and others, and it is H.R. 82.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at home a lot of people are probably confused, and, quite frankly, a lot of Members of Congress are probably confused.

Why are there two different bills that we are voting on today?

I will be very clear: One bill, H.R. 82, actually fixes the problem. I appreciate the efforts of my friend from Texas working to try to solve this. The bill doesn't do it.

Let me just give you one little story, one little anecdote, to make it clear.

Today, Mr. Speaker, if you have a police officer killed in the line of duty, that widow, that spouse, gets zero in spousal benefits in Social Security. If we pass the other bill that was introduced that was suddenly thrown up and put on the agenda, if we pass that legislation, that spouse will continue to get nothing. The widow of a police officer killed in the line of duty, the spousal benefits will still be zero.

According to all of the groups that are out there supporting this legislation that are identified on this poster here, the other bill, H.R. 5342, would actually benefit 1 million and result in cuts to 14 million retirees.

Let me say it another way. You vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5342, you are voting to cut Social Security benefits. If you want to go home and explain that, have at it. There is one bill that solves the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Congresswoman Spanberger, for being a great partner. I thank Logan De La Barre-Hays, Shaun, Ben, Mark, and Maggie Ayrea, and the staff folks for being so helpful. While the chairman and I were unable to get to an agreement, a consensus on this, I thank Chairman Smith for his tireless efforts to fix this.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say it one more time. There is one bill--one bill--that has the support of police officers, teachers, firefighters, and all the other retirees. I urge support for H.R. 82.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from the Federal-Postal Coalition, the Fraternal Order of Police, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, NARFE, the International Association of Fire Fighters, and the American Federation of Government Employees.

Federal-Postal Coalition,

November 12, 2024.

Dear Representative: As Chair of the Federal-Postal

Coalition, an organization of over thirty labor unions and

management associations representing the interests of current

and retired federal and postal employees, I urge you to vote

in favor of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act, when

it is brought up on suspension.

As you are aware, the Social Security Fairness Act would

repeal the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall

Elimination Provision (WEP). These policies from the 1970s

unfairly target the earned Social Security benefits of our

nation's public servants, including a substantial portion of

our country's federal retirees.

GPO and WEP reduce the hard-earned retirement benefits from

public sector employees at the federal, state and local

levels whose work is not covered by Social Security. GPO

targets and reduces spousal and survival Social Security

benefits, which disproportionately impacts widows and

widowers. Currently, widow's benefits are reduced by $2 for

every $3 earned if the widow is eligible for a pension based

on a public sector job that was not covered by Social

Security. WEP can result in a monthly Social Security benefit

as much as $512 1ess than under the regular benefit formula,

drastically reducing the amount of fixed income for a retiree

to live on.

Repeal of these provisions is long overdue. Social Security

is a critical source of income for our nation's retirees, but

we have allowed needless discrimination against retired

public servants for far too long. These individuals paid

Social Security taxes in connection with covered work (e.g.,

in the private sector), earning their Social Security

benefits. Yet because they chose careers in public service

and earned a pension through that service, their earned

Social Security benefits are significantly reduced--or even

eliminated. These penalties discourage public service and

hamper the retirement security of those with long careers

benefiting this nation.

Now it is time for the House to take action to address

these longstanding inequities and vote yes on H.R. 82.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Katie Maddocks,

Federal-Postal Coalition Chair.

Mr. Speaker, all of these groups are supporting this bill and urging a ``no'' vote on the other bill, H.R. 5342.

Rep. John B. LarsonD-CT-1 · Nov 12, 2024

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I commend Representatives Abigail Spanberger and Garret Graves for their extraordinary work. It is not often…

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I commend Representatives Abigail Spanberger and Garret Graves for their extraordinary work. It is not often in this body, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues are going to find a bipartisan group of more than 300 Members who sign on to a proposal. Why? Well, my colleagues did it because of how dead wrong WEP and GPO are and because of the impact on schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, and municipal employees. That is why it is so heartening to see colleagues on both sides of the aisle come together and say, yes, there is a path forward, and yes, WEP and GPO need to be reformed and, in fact, eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the chair. We need regular order. We need regular order because Social Security needs to be addressed comprehensively. If not for the work of Ms. Spanberger and Mr. Graves, we wouldn't even be here. There would be no dialogue, no discussion, no debate on the number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for children, a program that protects spouses and their children, which every American agrees with and understands.

Congress hasn't acted to expand a program and, in this case, hasn't acted to help people who actually worked other jobs and paid into a system and are being wrongfully penalized, which is why, in our proposal of Social Security 2100, we repeal it, as well, and pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the chairman. We didn't have all the data over 40 years ago. Now, we do, and now, we have that opportunity. We also have the momentum in a body that recognizes that not only is this unfair, but to have 5 million fellow Americans get below-poverty-level checks is unfair. To not have increased or enhanced benefits in over 50 years is unfair. To not have a COLA that actually reflects what seniors spend their money on is also unfair. To tax Social Security with regular income after you have retired is unfair.

It needs to be addressed. I thank the Members who have done this and have brought this, and we need to respond comprehensively. I will add that we need to pay for it as well, but the Members who have strove to bring this to the floor deserve tremendous credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Budzinski).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out as well that the Social Security trust fund is not part of the national debt. This proposal does not run up the national debt. It impacts the trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is rare when you see in this body the number of people who have come together to support a bill. I think it demonstrates overwhelmingly how badly we need to come together and pass legislation that impacts the American people. We see so many of them as was so eloquently stated by so many speakers today, especially Mr. Graves and Mr. Higgins, saying how these individuals have had money taken out of their paychecks and receive nothing. It is wrong. We all know that it is wrong. It needs to be corrected, and it needs to be paid for.

I respect the idea and notion that we have to be fiscally responsible, but Social Security, the trust fund, is so solid but for one thing: the inaction of the United States Congress for more than 53 years failing the American people, failing to do the right thing for teachers, for firefighters, and for police officers.

I will bet everybody here has heard from the firefighters' union and from the teachers' union and from others who are standing up and saying, this is flat-out wrong. They are absolutely right, but there are other people that are hurt as well when items aren't paid for.

Who is here to speak for the 5 million Americans who get below- poverty-level checks from the wealthiest Nation in the world? Who speaks for them? Who speaks for the more than 33 million Americans who the only benefit that they have is Social Security?

As proud as I am of the speakers on our side who have talked about the need to address this issue for people that have been hurt and disadvantaged, if we don't pay for it we hurt and disadvantage people who are in the fund currently by not comprehensively addressing this issue and paying for it.

What that takes is for the discussion to move forward in a manner in which it goes through regular order, it is debated in committee and on the floor, and then voted on.

The great news is that there will actually be a vote and there will actually be a discussion, and people will have to say, well, why was that so and what was the outcome?

In doing so, hopefully, we will have an understanding about the absolute neglect by the United States Congress, both Chambers, to address the Nation's number one antipoverty program for our elderly and for our children. It is the safety net of capitalism and entrepreneurialism. It should be something we are embracing where both sides have good points to make, but one of them clearly isn't cutting benefits intentionally or unintentionally that end up hurting the very people we are sworn to serve, the very people that Social Security was meant to protect. The genius of Roosevelt and the Congress back in 1935 is that they got it. It took a major event like the Great Depression, but if you think it can't happen again, think back to 2008 and 2009 when people's 401(k)'s became 101(k)'s.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are begging us to do something, to have a vote. They are right. These benefits have been taken from them that they earned and paid for. They deserve them, but in the process we can't hurt those people who we have also neglected. There are 5 million fellow Americans in all of our districts getting below-poverty-level checks. That is wrong.

My heart is heavy because I oppose this bill because of who it impacts and hurts, but I totally respect the effort in what was done and the fact, thanks to the efforts of 300 Members of this body, there will at least be a vote, not the vote I would have preferred, but a vote.

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

Show 8 more

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in HouseIssued September 5, 2023

118th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 5342

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 5, 2023

Mr. Arrington (for himself, Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Ms. Granger, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Latta, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Moran, Mr. Pfluger, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Smucker, Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Roy, and Mr. Gosar) 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 replace the windfall elimination provision with a formula equalizing benefits for certain individuals with noncovered employment, and for other purposes.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act of 2023.

Replacement of the windfall elimination provision with a formula equalizing benefits for certain individuals with noncovered employment

(a)

In general

Section 215(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:

(8)

(A)

In the case of an individual whose primary insurance amount would be computed under paragraph (1) of this subsection—

(i)

who first becomes eligible for an old-age or disability insurance benefit after 2067,

(ii)

who subsequently becomes entitled to such benefit, and

(iii)

who has earnings derived from noncovered service performed in a year after 1977,

the primary insurance amount of such individual shall be the amount computed or recomputed under this paragraph.

(B)

The primary insurance amount of an individual described in subparagraph (A), as computed or recomputed under this paragraph, shall be the product derived by multiplying—

(i)

the individual’s primary insurance amount, as determined under paragraph (1) of this subsection and subparagraph (C) of this paragraph, by

(ii)

a fraction—

(I)

the numerator of which is the individual’s average indexed monthly earnings (determined without regard to subparagraph (C)), and

(II)

the denominator of which is an amount equal to the individual’s average indexed monthly earnings (as determined under subparagraph (C)),

rounded, if not a multiple of $0.10, to the next lower multiple of $0.10.

(C)

(i)

For purposes of determining an individual’s primary insurance amount pursuant to clauses (i) and (ii)(II) of subparagraph (B), the individual’s average indexed monthly earnings shall be determined by treating all recorded noncovered earnings (as defined in clause (ii)(I)) derived by the individual from noncovered service performed in each year after 1977 as wages (as defined in section 209 for purposes of this title), which shall be treated as included in the individual’s adjusted total covered earnings (as defined in clause (ii)(II)) for such calendar year together with amounts consisting of wages (as so defined without regard to this subparagraph) paid during such calendar year and self-employment income (as defined in section 211(b)) for taxable years ending with or during such calendar year.

(ii)

For purposes of this subparagraph:

(I)

The term recorded noncovered earnings means earnings derived from noncovered service (other than noncovered service as a member of a uniformed service (as defined in section 210(m)) for which satisfactory evidence is determined by the Commissioner to be available in the records of the Commissioner.

(II)

The term adjusted total covered earnings means, in connection with an individual for any calendar year, the sum of the wages paid to the individual during such calendar year (as adjusted under subsection (b)(3)) plus the self-employment income derived by the individual during any taxable year ending with or during such calendar year (as adjusted under subsection (b)(3)).

(iii)

The Commissioner of Social Security shall provide by regulation or other public guidance for methods for determining whether satisfactory evidence is available in the records of the Commissioner for earnings for noncovered service (other than noncovered service as a member of a uniformed service (as defined in section 210(m))) to be treated as recorded noncovered earnings. Such methods shall provide for reliance on earnings information which is provided to the Commissioner by employers and which, as determined by the Commissioner, constitute a reasonable basis for treatment of earnings for noncovered service as recorded noncovered earnings. In making determinations under this clause, the Commissioner shall also take into account any documentary or other evidence of earnings derived from noncovered service by an individual which is provided by the individual to the Commissioner and which the Commissioner considers appropriate as a reasonable basis for treatment of such earnings as recorded noncovered earnings.

(D)

Upon the death of an individual whose primary insurance amount is computed or recomputed under this paragraph, such primary insurance amount shall be computed or recomputed under paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(E)

In the case of any individual whose primary insurance amount would be computed under this paragraph who first becomes entitled after 1985 to a monthly periodic payment made by a foreign employer or foreign country that is based in whole or in part upon noncovered service, the primary insurance amount of such individual shall be computed or recomputed under paragraph (7) or paragraph (1), as applicable, for months beginning with the first month of the individual’s initial entitlement to such monthly periodic payment.

(b)

Conforming amendments

Section 215(a)(7)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7)(A)) is amended—

(1)

in clause (i)—

(A)

by striking after 1985 and inserting after 1985 and before 2068; and

(B)

by striking or at the end;

(2)

in clause (ii)—

(A)

by striking after 1985 each place it appears and inserting after 1985 and before 2068; and

(B)

by adding or at the end;

(3)

by inserting after clause (ii) the following:

(iii)

is an individual described in paragraph (8)(E),

; and

(4)

by striking hereafter in this paragraph and in subsection (d)(3) and inserting in this paragraph, paragraphs (8) and (9), and subsection (d)(3).

(c)

Effective date

The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable on or after January 1, 2025.

Benefit calculation during transition period

(a)

In general

Section 215(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)), as amended by section 2, is further amended by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:

(9)

In the case of an individual whose primary insurance amount would be computed under paragraph (1) of this subsection—

(A)

who first becomes eligible for an old-age or disability insurance benefit after 2024 and before 2068,

(B)

who subsequently becomes entitled to such benefit, and

(C)

who has earnings derived from noncovered service performed in a year after 1977,

the primary insurance amount of such individual shall be the higher of the amount computed or recomputed under paragraph (7) without regard to this paragraph or the amount that would be computed or recomputed under paragraph (8) if the individual were an individual described in subparagraph (A) of such paragraph.

(b)

Conforming amendment

Section 215(a)(7)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7)(A)), as amended by section 2(b), is further amended by striking shall be computed or recomputed and inserting shall, subject to paragraph (9), be computed or recomputed.

(c)

Effective date

The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable on or after January 1, 2025.

Additional monthly payment for individuals whose benefit amount is reduced by the windfall elimination provision

(a)

In general

Section 215(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)), as amended by sections 2 and 3, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

(10)

(A)

For any month beginning at least 270 days after the date of enactment of the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act of 2023, the Commissioner of Social Security shall, subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D), make an additional monthly payment of $100 to each individual who is an eligible individual for such month, and an additional monthly payment of $50 to each individual (other than an eligible individual) who is entitled to a benefit under section 202 for such month on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of such eligible individual.

(B)

For purposes of this paragraph, the term eligible individual for a month means an individual who—

(i)

(I)

first becomes eligible for an old-age or disability insurance benefit under this title before 2025, or

(II)

is an individual described in paragraph (8)(E), and

(ii)

is entitled to an old-age or disability insurance benefit under this title for such month based on a primary insurance amount that was computed or recomputed under paragraph (7) (and not subsequently recomputed under any other paragraph of this subsection).

(C)

In any case in which this title provides that no monthly benefit under section 202 or 223 shall be paid to an individual for a month, no additional monthly payment shall be paid to the individual for such month. This subparagraph shall not apply in the case of an individual whose monthly benefit under section 202 or 223 is reduced, regardless of the amount of the reduction, based on the individual’s receipt of other income or benefits for such month or the application of section 203(a) or due to the adjustment or recovery of an overpayment under section 204.

(D)

(i)

An individual is not entitled to receive more than one additional monthly payment for a month under this paragraph.

(ii)

An eligible individual who is entitled to a benefit under section 202 on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of another eligible individual for a month shall receive an additional monthly payment under this paragraph in the amount of $100 for such month.

(E)

Except for purposes of adjustment or recovery of an overpayment under section 204, an additional monthly payment under this paragraph shall not be subject to any reduction or deduction under this title.

(F)

Whenever benefit amounts under this title are increased by any percentage effective with any month as a result of a determination made under subsection (i), each of the dollar amounts in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by the same percentage for months beginning with such month.

(b)

Effective date

The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable for months beginning at least 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Reporting of noncovered earnings on social security account statements

(a)

In general

Section 1143(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b–13(a)(2)) is amended—

(1)

by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (E) as subparagraphs (C) through (F); and

(2)

by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:

(B)

the amount of earnings derived by the eligible individual from service performed after 1977 which did not constitute employment (as defined in section 210), not including service as a member of a uniformed service (as defined in section 210(m)), as shown by the records of the Commissioner at the date of the request;

(b)

Effective date

The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to Social Security account statements issued on or after January 1, 2025.

Study on partnering with State and local pension systems

(a)

Study

(1)

In general

The Commissioner of Social Security shall study and test the administrative feasibility of partnering with State and local pension systems, or other governmental entities, to improve the collection and sharing of information relating to State and local noncovered pensions.

(2)

Coordination with State and local pension systems

In conducting the study described in paragraph (1), the Commissioner shall coordinate with State and local pension systems that reflect the diversity of systems and individual experiences to explore the development of automated data exchange agreements that facilitate reporting of information relating to noncovered pensions.

(b)

Report

The Commissioner of Social Security shall conclude the study described in subsection (a) not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act. As soon as possible after conclusion of the study and not later than 41/2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report on the results of the study. Such report shall include the following:

(1)

A discussion of how the automated data exchange agreements could be implemented to cover noncovered pensions nationally, including the range of implementation timelines across State and local pension systems, or with other governmental entities.

(2)

An analysis of the barriers to developing automated data exchange agreements and lessons learned that can help address these barriers.

(3)

A description of alternative methods for obtaining information related to noncovered pensions, and an analysis of the barriers to obtaining noncovered pension data through such methods.

(4)

An explanation of how coverage information is obtained by the Social Security Administration when an individual purchases service credits to apply to a new covered or noncovered pension after moving from another covered or noncovered pension within the State or in another State.

(5)

An estimate of the total amount, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, of noncovered pensions not reported to the Social Security Administration as a result of noncompliance with voluntary reporting policies.

(c)

State and local pension information To be requested by the Commissioner

Section 202 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402) is amended by inserting after subsection (l) the following:

(m)

State and local pension information To be requested by the Commissioner

(1)

The Commissioner may partner with States to request information, including the information specified in paragraph (2), with respect to any designated distribution (as defined in section 3405(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) from an employer deferred compensation plan (as defined in section 3405(e)(5) of such Code) of the State (or political subdivision thereof) to a participant of such plan in any case in which any portion of such participant’s earnings for service under such plan did not constitute employment as defined in section 210 for purposes of this title.

(2)

The information specified in this paragraph is the following:

(A)

The name and Social Security account number of the participant receiving the designated distribution.

(B)

The dollar amount of the designated distribution and the date paid.

(C)

The date on which the participant initially became eligible for a designated distribution under the plan and, if different, the date of payment of the initial designated distribution.

(D)

The dates of each period of service under the plan that did not constitute employment as defined in section 210 for purposes of this title, and the dates of any other period of service under the plan.

(d)

Definitions

In this section—

(1)

the term noncovered pension means a pension any part of which is based on noncovered service (within the meaning of section 215(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7))); and

(2)

the term covered pension means any other pension.