Military Service Academy Director of Admissions Act of 2023

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 82) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2023, which fully repeals Social Security's windfall elimination provision and government pension offset.

The WEP and GPO are two Social Security policies that adjust benefits for workers who receive a pension from jobs that were exempt from Social Security payroll taxes, frequently police officers, firefighters, teachers, and other public servants. These two provisions affect around 4 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries, more than 60 percent of whom are concentrated in 10 States.

These two policies were put in place more than four decades ago to prevent workers with earnings that were exempt from Social Security payroll taxes from getting more generous treatment from Social Security than workers who spent their whole careers contributing to Social Security. Unfortunately, these policies still result in overly generous benefits for some while unfairly penalizing others.

This Congress, the Ways and Means Committee has held more hearings on WEP and GPO than any other Congress over the past 20 years.

At our first hearing, held at a fire station in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, we heard directly from American retirees who have been affected by these flawed provisions, which took most of them completely by surprise.

At our second hearing, we identified that there are alternatives to the current WEP and GPO formulas, using data which wasn't available when those two provisions were put in place 40 years ago, which would provide all beneficiaries with a fair benefit based on their actual earnings.

Mr. Speaker, while the Social Security Fairness Act repeals the flawed WEP and GPO, it is far from being a perfect solution and does nothing to replace them with a fair formula.

Unfortunately, without a replacement, this bill is projected to cost Social Security almost $200 billion over the next 10 years and expedite Social Security's insolvency by about 6 months. When that happens, it is projected that all beneficiaries, not just those affected by the WEP and GPO, will receive a 20 to 25 percent benefit cut.

The WEP and GPO are flawed, but they were put in place for a reason: to try to fairly account for workers holding jobs both outside and inside the Social Security system.

I think everyone agrees they have done an imperfect job in treating all workers fairly, and that is certainly something we need to fix. However, to get rid of them without a replacement potentially trades unfair treatment for preferential treatment.

Like many of the Members who support this legislation, I share the goal of providing real relief to those who are harmed by these unfair Washington rules, which is why it is unfortunate that this legislation had to come to the floor this way. I would have much rather had a bipartisan solution that came

to the floor through regular order that both repealed this formula but also replaced it while holding retirees and current workers harmless. It is why I appreciate that while the gentleman could have filed a Consensus Calendar motion for H.R. 82 more than 460 days ago, Representative Garret Graves instead chose to work in good faith with the committee to find an alternative that is fully paid for.

Unfortunately, Democrats and key stakeholders were ultimately unwilling to come together and identify a real bipartisan solution that would protect both those harmed by the WEP and GPO and the Social Security trust fund, which all beneficiaries rely on.

Mr. Speaker, if Members don't want to be right back here next Congress, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us to fix this issue moving forward and protect the retirement security of all American seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, America's public servants deserve to be treated fairly by Social Security, and all of America's seniors deserve access to the benefits that they have earned and to live out their retirement with dignity. These truths are not mutually exclusive.

We owe it to those Americans who dedicated their careers to serving the public that they are not treated unfairly because of a mistake Congress made decades ago. We also have a duty

to the millions of seniors on Social Security not impacted by GPO or WEP to put in place a legislative fix that protects their benefits.

I will commend my colleague and good friend, Congressman Graves, for his tireless work on behalf of these seniors and encourage all of my colleagues to consider how this legislation will affect their constituents one way or another as they vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Representative for tens of thousands of Virginians whose earned retirement benefits have been slashed by the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset for far, far too long.

I urge my colleagues, 330 of whom have cosponsored this legislation, to join us in passing the Social Security Fairness Act this evening and put an end to this theft.

For generations, hardworking Americans have been promised that if they work hard, save, and contribute to their Social Security, they will be afforded a secure retirement with their earned benefits.

The WEP and the GPO, two misguided provisions that were added to the Social Security Act in 1983, have denied Americans the retirement security they worked for and expected to receive.

Today, the WEP steals benefits from more than 2 million retired Americans, more than 45,000 Virginians, who both paid into Social Security for long enough to earn these benefits and worked in the public sector during their careers. These are firefighters who worked a second job to make ends meet, police officers who began a second career after leaving the force, and teachers who took a summer job to cover the bills and buy school supplies. They are Federal employees who went on to work in the private sector. They are all receiving a fraction of their earned Social Security benefits.

The GPO denies benefits to more than 750,000 Americans and nearly 8,000 Virginians, people who dedicated their careers to public service who were then robbed of the survivor benefits that they should have received while dealing with the death of a spouse. These Americans have been punished simply because they chose to selflessly serve our communities and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from thousands of Virginians about this issue. Francis, a retired police officer in Virginia, is seeing his benefits slashed by the WEP. Richard, a veteran who served our Nation first in the military, then in civil service, and then in the private sector, sees nearly half of his Social Security benefits stolen. That has been the case for the past 15 years, even though he started working when he was 16 years old and started paying into Social Security.

For more than 40 years, public servants have tirelessly implored their Representatives in Congress to listen to their stories and to correct this glaring injustice. Today, for the first time, Congress will vote on the Social Security Fairness Act, to repeal the WEP and the GPO, and to finally put an end to this theft.

Let me be very clear. The long-term solvency of Social Security is an issue that Congress must address, and the issue of how much those earned benefits pay to those who are in their retirement is something that must be addressed, but that is a separate issue.

Mr. Speaker, that is a separate issue from allowing Americans who did their part, who contributed their earnings, for them to retire with dignity.

In signing their names onto this legislation, more than 330 lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, have made clear their belief that we must repeal the WEP and GPO. We must pass it tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this legislation and in sending it over to the United States Senate, where 61 Senators who are currently serving in that body are cosponsors of our legislation. By passing the Social Security Fairness Act, we can deliver long-overdue relief to the American public, to our public servants, to those who have served our communities.

I thank everyone who will speak on behalf of this bill this evening. I thank my cosponsor, Congressman Garret Graves, for his extraordinary partnership as we have worked with public servants from around the country to get to this point tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act. This bill is a critical step to ensure fair treatment for hardworking Americans who have dedicated their lives to public service. In Virginia alone, nearly 8,000 individuals are unfairly impacted by the Government Pension Offset, and over 46,000 Virginians suffer from reduced Social Security benefits due to the Windfall Elimination Provision. These provisions penalize teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other dedicated public servants, denying them benefits they have rightfully earned. We must correct these inequities. Most public servants aren't in it for the money--rather, they've decided to work in government because they want to serve their country. For their dedication to service, they should be rewarded, not penalized for their well-earned pension.

Those affected by WEP and GPO are unfairly penalized because these provisions reduce or even eliminate Social Security benefits for retirees who have paid into the system over the course of their careers. The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) decreases Social Security benefits for individuals who receive pensions from jobs not covered by Social Security, such as teachers or local government workers, regardless of their income or total lifetime contributions. In reality, this results in a situation wherein workers who have paid into the system but split their careers between covered and non-covered employment see a disproportionate reduction in benefits.

The Government Pension Offset (GPO) adds to this unfairness by reducing spousal or survivor benefits by two-thirds of the individual's government pension, affecting many retirees who rely on spousal benefits for financial stability. This provision especially impacts lower-income retirees, such as widows, who can lose most or all of their benefits simply because they served in public-sector roles. In short, these provisions punish individuals and their families for dedicating their lives to public service, and make it harder for such individuals to have a secure retirement.

Through this bill, which repeals WEP and GPO, we can provide much- needed relief to public sector retirees and their families who often rely in part on Social Security benefits for financial security. This bill is about fairness, equity, and honoring our commitment to individuals who have served their communities. As such, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.