Social Security Protection Act Of 2003
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we have before us the Social Security Protection Act. This legislation was developed over several years in conjunction with the Social Security Administration, its Inspector…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, we have before us the Social Security Protection Act. This legislation was developed over several years in conjunction with the Social Security Administration, its Inspector General, beneficiary representatives and others. The bill reflects a preconference agreement negotiated with the other body on a bipartisan basis and is supported by the Consortium for Seniors With Disabilities, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Association of Administrative Law Judges, the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives and others.
I would like to take a few moments to highlight several items in this bill. The first deals with representative payees. Nearly 8 million Social Security and SSI beneficiaries who are unable to manage their own benefits have representative payees, including children, the mentally impaired and the very frail elderly. Most payees work hard to ensure that the benefits are spent to meet the beneficiary's needs. However, in some instances SSA's screening process for determining who should serve as a payee has failed to prevent the misuse of these benefits. This legislation gives SSA the tools it needs to reissue benefits that are misused. It provides for penalties for those who would take advantage of some of our most vulnerable citizens. It also strengthens Social Security's oversight of these payees.
Second, the bill helps individuals with disabilities gain greater access to legal representation when filing for benefits. Social Security disability insurance beneficiaries already have this access, and the bill extends it to SSI claimants, as well, so they can get the needed help and ensure that their applications are fully considered.
Finally, and very importantly, the bill prohibits paying Social Security benefits to fugitive felons and to those who have violated probation or parole. It is my strong belief that we should not be supporting fugitives who are fleeing the law, and this bill will help bring them to justice.
Now, I would like to mention one provision in the bill that has generated some controversy. This is the provision that would modify an exemption to the government pension offset, or known as GPO, that is being used by some workers but is not available to all. My colleagues from Texas have discussed this specific provision in more detail during the debate on the rule and will discuss it further on this bill, but the larger issue here itself is the GPO. Across the country, people who have worked hard all their lives are unexpectedly faced with the loss of Social Security benefits that they had been counting on because of the GPO. The GPO, which was created in the 1970s and phased in during the 1980s, was designed to provide roughly equal treatment between people who work under Social Security and pay into the system and those who do not. It was designed to end a disparity between couples where in one couple, both members paid into the Social Security system and in another when one spouse paid into the system and the other spouse paid into a State retirement system. Unfortunately, we now know that the GPO often produces unfair results. It is a rough tool that clearly needs adjustments.
Let me illustrate my point. Research shows that a widow needs 80 percent of the income needed to support a couple. Because of the GPO, the couple's income from Social Security can drop to zero when the husband dies. On average, the reduction caused by the GPO is $421 per month, which cuts the average widow's benefit in half, jeopardizing her ability to keep up with fixed costs of housing, health care and others that still exist after the death of her spouse.
We tried to address some of these problems with the GPO during the committee markup last year, but we were rejected on party-line votes. We were also denied the opportunity to address the larger GPO problem in the Rules Committee when the bill came before the House last April. Finally today, my good friend from Texas (Mr. Frost) attempted to bring forward for debate a bill that would fully repeal the GPO, and he was denied that opportunity.
The will to solve the problem with the GPO is clearly an issue of priorities. My Democratic colleagues and I have been prevented from bringing this issue before the Congress over and over again, while my friends on the other side of the aisle have continued to push policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of this important issue.
For example, the GPO affects 400,000 hardworking Americans every year and eliminating it would cost $31 billion over 10 years. Not $800 billion, not $1 trillion, but it would cost $31 billion over 10 years. In contrast, the 200,000 households that make more than $1 million each year will see $90 billion in tax cuts over that same period. That is half as many people being benefited at three times the cost. There are other examples of misplaced priorities. Congress could and should close corporate tax shelters and prevent companies from incorporating offshore. That would save $30 billion over a 10-year period and that amount would actually take care of dealing with the 10-year period of eliminating the GPO completely.
This is an issue that should not go unaddressed any longer, and I hope that the Congress will make it a priority for consideration this year. While I am disappointed that we are not addressing this important issue today, there are many other provisions in this bill that I mentioned that will strengthen the Social Security system, and I intend to support this bill; but it is my hope that we do address the issue of the government pension offset because it is creating a great deal of consternation and damage to many people who obviously lose their spouse. I support the legislation, but I just hope that we can take some action on the GPO in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Maryland (Mr. Cardin), member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make an observation. I would not have so many problems with this were it not for the fact that there are many other loopholes that have actually been passed through this House over the last few years.
For example, if a corporation in the U.S. goes to Bermuda to avoid U.S. taxes, we tried time and time again to close that loophole. But the other side of the aisle, in fact the gentleman who just spoke, denies the ability for us to even bring such a bill to the floor.
I guess that is where the frustration lies, is when we close loopholes, we pick on the people that are firefighters and teachers; but we let large corporations who avoid U.S. taxes go from that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.