U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–683 2005

H.R. 4391, THE ‘‘PUBLIC SERVANT RETIREMENT 

PROTECTION ACT’’ 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 20, 2004 

Serial No. 108–65 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 

ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman 

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois 

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida 

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

WALLY HERGER, California 

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota 

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington 

MAC COLLINS, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri 

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

MARK FOLEY, Florida 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York 

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

MAX SANDLIN, Texas 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

ALLISON H. GILES, Chief of Staff 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY 

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

MAC COLLINS, Georgia 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisories announcing hearing .............................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Social Security Administration, Martin H. Gerry, Deputy Commissioner, Disability and Income Security Programs ............................................................... 9 

Association of Texas Professional Educators, Randall Iglehart ........................... 30 

California Retired Teachers Association, George Avak ........................................ 36 

Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury ................................ 33 

Nevada State Education Association, Terry Hickman, on behalf of National 

Education Association .......................................................................................... 26 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Alberti, Jeanne M., Harvard, MA, statement ........................................................ 56 

Bates, Judy A., Midlothian, TX, letter ................................................................... 57 

Berman, Hon. Howard L., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, statement ........................................................................................... 57 

Bishop, Carolyn J., Belmont, MA, statement ........................................................ 58 

Blackwell, Martha E., Sunnyvale, CA, statement ................................................ 59 

Bovee, Charlene, Long Beach, CA, statement ....................................................... 59 

Bowers, Richard Kirk, Spring Branch, TX, statement ......................................... 59 

Bracken, Maurice A., Brookfield, MA, statement ................................................. 59 

Brandwein, Janet, Newton Center, MA, statement .............................................. 60 

Buccola, Dennis, E., Rock Falls, IL, statement ..................................................... 60 

California Federation of Teachers, Sacramento, CA, Judith Michaels, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 61 

California State Teachers’ Retirement Systems, Gary Lynes, Sacramento, CA, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 61 

Cannon, Robert Arthur, Rockport, MA, statement ............................................... 63 

Carbone, Henry L., Fort Kent, ME, statement ..................................................... 63 

Castro, Margaret Ann, Cypress, TX, statement .................................................... 64 

Clary, Jeff, Spring, TX, statement ......................................................................... 64 

Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association, Robert Gray, statement .. 65 

Cook, Patricia E., Braintree, MA, letter ................................................................ 66 

Cook, Tracey, Lisle, IL, statement ......................................................................... 67 

Cournia, Audrey, Sparks, NV, statement .............................................................. 68 

Cyr, Paul A., Greene, ME, statement .................................................................... 68 

Desmarais, Therese K., Rockport, MA, statement ................................................ 69 

Devereaux, Alfred E., Lenox, MA, statement ........................................................ 70 

DeSotell, Katie, Aurora, IL, statement .................................................................. 71 

Dyer, Jeanne, Foxboro, MA, letter ......................................................................... 71 

Fay, Paula Emerson, Cotuit, MA, letter ................................................................ 72 

Federally Employed Women, Patricia Wolfe, statement ...................................... 72 

Flick, Wayne, Grand Junction, CO, statement ..................................................... 75 

Garrett, Gerald R., Moses Lake, WA, statement .................................................. 75 

Gray, Robert, Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association, statement . 65 

Hamdorf, Ken, Seal Beach, CA, statement ............................................................ 76 

Hatford, Wane V., Palm Springs, CA, statement .................................................. 76 

Hayes, James C., Las Vegas, NV, statement ........................................................ 77 

Hedden, Karen, Wells, NV, statement ................................................................... 77 

Herzberg, James, Katy, TX, statement .................................................................. 77 

Hudson, Robert A., Colorado Springs, CO, statement .......................................... 78 

Jacobson, Linda B., Northbrook, IL, statement .................................................... 78 

Jones, Sheri, San Antonio, TX, statement ............................................................. 80 

Joyce, Barbara C., Sparks, NV, statement ............................................................ 80 

Page

iv 

Joyner, D.R., Lufkin, TX, statement ...................................................................... 81 

Keegan, James H., Belmont, MA, statement ........................................................ 82 

Kimber, Gary, Elko, NV, letter ............................................................................... 82 

Kush, Ralph, Sylmar, CA, statement ..................................................................... 83 

Langford, Deborah, Spring, TX, statement ........................................................... 83 

Larson, Paul E., Fallbrook, CA, statement ............................................................ 84 

LeCompte, Don, Chula Vista, CA, statement ........................................................ 84 

Lenarsky, Jane, Natick, MA, letter ........................................................................ 85 

London, Harold N., Northbrook, IL, statement ..................................................... 86 

Lynes, Gary, California State Teachers’ Retirement Systems, Sacramento, 

CA, statement ....................................................................................................... 61 

Makler, Linda and Fred, Ballwin, MO, statement ............................................... 86 

Mathison, William A., East Longmeadow, MA, statement .................................. 86 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, statement ............................................................................. 87 

McLemore, Sandra L., Houston, TX, letter ........................................................... 87 

McNay, Valerie J., Las Vegas, NV, statement ...................................................... 89 

Meehan, Elsie Lynn, Salisbury, CT, statement .................................................... 90 

Michaels, Judith, California Federation of Teachers, Sacramento, CA, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 61 

Moore, Mary Ann, San Antonio, TX, statement .................................................... 91 

Mun ̃ oz, Robert R., Sparks, NV, letter .................................................................... 91 

Montague, Sally P., Point Blank, TX, letter .......................................................... 91 

National Association of Postmasters of the United States, Wally Olihovik, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 92 

National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen M. Kelley, statement .................. 93 

Newman, Constance G., Acton, ME, statement .................................................... 94 

Newman, Francis A., Acton, ME, statement ......................................................... 95 

Nimerowski, Joan, Andover, MA, statement ......................................................... 95 

Oldebeken, Jim, Gladstone, MO, statement .......................................................... 96 

Olihovik, Wally, National Association of Postmasters of the United States, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 92 

Orzechowski, Edward W., Palmer, MA, letter ...................................................... 96 

Pickett, Jane K., Worcester, MA, statement ......................................................... 97 

Pond, Richard, Rochester, MA, statement ............................................................. 97 

Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 97 

Pratt, Mary Ellen, Carver, MA, letter ................................................................... 98 

Retired Educators Coalition for Social Security Fairness, statement ................. 98 

Roberts, Cecil Ralph, Farmers Branch, TX, letter ................................................ 99 

Rosenbaum, Noel R., El Paso, TX, statement ....................................................... 100 

San Jacinto College, Houston, TX, statement ....................................................... 100 

School Employee Retirement Systems of Ohio, Columbus, OH, James R. 

Winfree, letter ...................................................................................................... 100 

Sherrill, Vashti E., Bakersfield, CA, statement .................................................... 101 

Shipman, Karin, Houston, TX, statement ............................................................. 102 

Shultz, Glenn P., Las Vegas, NV, statement ........................................................ 102 

Sowder, Mary, Henderson, NV, statement ............................................................ 102 

Stek, Barbara W., Anchorage, AK, statement ....................................................... 103 

Sterrett, Frank W., Bridgewater, MA, statement ................................................. 103 

Terrell, Juanita, Mont Belvieu, TX, statement ..................................................... 104 

Texas Classroom Teachers Association, Austin, TX, Shelby Patrick, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 105 

Texas Federation of Teachers, Austin, TX, Eric Hartman, statement ................ 105 

Tutor, Tom, Islesboro, ME, statement ................................................................... 107 

Vinci, Gertrude M., Reno, NV, statement ............................................................. 107 

Wasneski, Donna, Grand Junction, Colorado, statement ..................................... 108 

Willard, Jean K., Spring Branch, TX, statement .................................................. 108 

Willard, Kirt, Pleasanton, CA, statement .............................................................. 108 

Wilson, Sandra, Aurora, IL, statement .................................................................. 109 

Wolfe, John G., Toledo, OH, statement .................................................................. 109 

Wolfe, Mary E., Toledo, OH, statement ................................................................. 110 

Wolfe, Patricia, Federally Employed Women, statement ..................................... 72 

Winfree, James R., School Employee Retirement Systems of Ohio, Columbus, 

OH, letter .............................................................................................................. 101 

Zimmerman, Pete, Mission Viejo, CA, statement ................................................. 111 

(1) 

H.R. 4391, THE ‘‘PUBLIC SERVANT 

RETIREMENT PROTECTION ACT’’ 

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2004 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:36 a.m., in 

room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. E. Clay Shaw, 

Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

[The advisory and revised advisory announcing the hearing follow:] 

2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–1721 

July 20, 2004 

SS–10 

Shaw Announces Hearing on H.R. 4391, the 

‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection Act’’ 

Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R–FL), Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means today announced that the Subcommittee 

will hold a hearing on H.R. 4391, the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection Act’’ 

(PSRPA). The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 20, 2004, in room B318 Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 a.m. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

Two Social Security provisions, the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and the 

Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), potentially affect about 7 million Federal, 

State, and local government employees. While these provisions were intended to 

help equalize, not penalize, the treatment of workers, many of those affected believe 

the provisions are unfair. Alternatively, some have suggested that requiring all government employees to pay Social Security taxes would ensure equal treatment of 

both government and private-sector employees, and would eventually eliminate the 

need for the GPO and WEP. Legislative proposals have been introduced in the 

108th Congress and previous congresses to modify or repeal the GPO and WEP. 

At a hearing in May 2003, the Subcommittee examined why the GPO and the 

WEP were enacted, how they work, and options for modification or repeal of these 

provisions. Implications of mandatory coverage of such employees were also examined. In addition, the Subcommittee examined how modifications to current law 

would affect beneficiaries, the budget, and Social Security’s long-term financing. 

Since then, on May 19, 2004, Rep. Kevin Brady (R–TX), along with Chairman 

Shaw, and Reps. Howard L. Berman (D–CA), Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon (R–CA), 

Sam Johnson (R–TX), and Michael H. Michaud (D–ME), as well as other Members 

of the Subcommittee, introduced H.R. 4391, the PSRPA. The PSRPA repeals the 

WEP and replaces it with a new benefit calculation. 

Created in 1983, the WEP modifies the Social Security benefit formula so that 

employees who pay into a government pension system or other retirement program 

in lieu of Social Security for some jobs in their career do not receive benefits that 

are relatively more generous than those of workers with equal earnings who paid 

Social Security taxes for all jobs in their career. 

Under the PSRPA, Social Security benefits would first be calculated as if all the 

worker’s earnings were subject to Social Security taxes, using the standard benefit 

formula. To ensure Social Security benefits are based only on Social Security-covered wages, the benefit that is actually paid would be adjusted to reflect the proportion of the worker’s earnings that were subject to Social Security taxes. 

3 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Shaw stated, ‘‘The hard work and dedication of our Nation’s public servants is deeply appreciated by all Americans. Teachers, police officers, firefighters, other public employees, and all workers deserve fair 

treatment under Social Security. This hearing provides an opportunity to understand how the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act’ ensures equitable treatment of public servants and how it would affect Social Security’s long-term financing.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The Subcommittee will examine the WEP under current law and how the 

PSRPAwould affect current and future beneficiaries, and Social Security’s long-term 

financing. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘108th Congress’’ from the menu entitled, 

‘‘Hearing Archives’’ (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=16). Select the hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, 

‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, completing all informational forms and clicking ‘‘submit’’ on the 

final page, an email will be sent to the address which you supply confirming your 

interest in providing a submission for the record. You MUST REPLY to the email 

and ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance 

with the formatting requirements listed below, by close of business, Tuesday, August 3, 2004. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the 

U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225– 

1721. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect 

format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 

hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

f 

4 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–9263 

July 19, 2004 

SS–10–Revised 

Change in Time for Hearing on H.R. 4391, the 

‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection Act’’ 

Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R–FL), Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee 

hearing on H.R. 4391, the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection Act,’’ previously 

scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 20, 2004, in room B–318 Rayburn House 

Office Building, will now begin at 10:00 a.m. or immediately following the 

completion of the full Committee markup of H.R. 4842, the ‘‘ United StatesMorocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act,’’ in the main Committee hearing room, 1100 Longworth House Office Building. 

All other details for the hearing remain the same. (See Social Security Advisory 

No. SS–10, dated July 13, 2004.) 

f 

Chairman SHAW. Good morning. The dedicated service of our 

Nation’s hardworking teachers, police officers, firefighters, and 

other public employees is deeply appreciated by all Americans. 

They have earned and deserved fair treatment under Social Security. Toward that end, today’s hearing will give us an opportunity 

to understand how H.R. 4391, the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection Act,’’ will ensure fair treatment of government employees 

and how it will affect Social Security’s long term financing. 

This is a bipartisan bill. It was introduced by Representative 

Brady, by myself, and by Representatives Johnson, McKeon, Berman, and Michaud. It is cosponsored by seven Subcommittee Members. The Subcommittee has long been concerned with the effect of 

the WEP (WEP), which currently affects about 760,000 beneficiaries. As the Social Security Administration (SSA) has said in 

public testimony numerous times, the WEP was intended to help 

equalize, not penalize, government employees. 

Nevertheless, many of those affected believe the provision unfairly punished them for their government service. The WEP adjusts benefits for workers who did not pay Social Security taxes in 

some of their jobs to ensure they do not receive a relatively more 

generous benefit that was intended only for low-wage workers. 

However, analysis of the WEP has shown that this broad-brush approach does not accurately adjust the benefits in many cases, especially for low-wage workers. 

To address this inequity, H.R. 4391 would eliminate the current 

arbitrary formula and would calculate benefits just like all other 

workers, assuming all wages were subject to Social Security taxes 

5 

using the standard benefit formula. Second, to make sure the Social Security benefit is based only on Social Security-covered wages, 

the benefit would be multiplied by the percentage of earnings subject to Social Security taxes. This formula would ensure that government employees receive benefits that replace the same amount 

of wages under Social Security as every other worker in America. 

No more, no less. 

In my home State of Florida, more than 44,000 beneficiaries have 

their benefits reduced because of the WEP. Firefighters, police officers, and other public servants in my district have told me about 

the effect of the WEP on their retirement security and their concern about the provision. I have discussed H.R. 4391 with them 

and, like many of our witnesses today, they have agreed that this 

legislation is fair and have pledged their support. I thank our witnesses for joining us and I look forward to hearing their views 

about the effect of this bill on workers’ benefits and Social Security 

finances. Now I would yield to Mr. Pomeroy. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over 7 million public 

servants are not covered by Social Security and potentially, therefore, subject to the GPO (GPO), and the WEP. The WEP and GPO 

are widely acknowledged as blunt instruments. It comes as a surprise to public servants about to retire, and they leave workers 

without enough time to adjust their retirement planning accordingly. In 2004 alone, some 850,000 Social Security beneficiaries will 

have their benefits reduced due to the WEP. Another 400,000 beneficiaries will have their benefits reduced by GPO. Those two provisions are unpredictable, often unfair. Congress has demonstrated 

broad bipartisan support for full repeal of both. Rather than a full 

repeal, today’s hearing is a more limited proposal. It pertains only 

to the WEP and it modifies, rather than limits, the benefit reduction formula. It does offer a formula that improves on current law; 

however, the approach does leave questions unanswered. 

The SSA have the wage data necessary to implement this new 

formula? What do we do about the GPO? Where will offsets be 

found? Also, if offsets are going to be found within Social Security 

to accommodate the additional costs of H.R. 4391, do they involve 

reducing benefits or increasing the Federal Insurance Contributions Act taxes? Finally, what do we tell beneficiaries who will be 

worse off, not better, under the new formula? Mr. Chairman, I am 

hopeful that the answers to these questions and any others that 

my colleagues will have will be answered in the course of today’s 

hearing. I would yield back. Are you going to go across the panel, 

Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SHAW. I have agreed to allow Mr. Sandlin to make 

an opening statement. We also have two other Members from our 

side from Texas, so I will allow them each to make a short opening 

statement for fairness—I know this is a Texas issue, and one that 

they are very concerned about. I will now recognize the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

holding this important hearing. Thank you specifically for inviting 

the Association of Texas Professional Educators (ATPE), who supports this legislation. I look forward to hearing their statements. 

6 

There are two offset formulas under Social Security. One of them 

was the GPO, which dealt with spousal benefits, and the teacher 

loophole was a GPO problem that was closed by law. The other offset is the WEP, which deals with workers’ own retirement benefits. 

It is an arbitrary formula meant to prevent a teacher or other government work, such as police or fire, from benefiting as a windfall 

from the progressive benefit formula under Social Security. 

The current formula hacks at benefits to reach a less than perfect Social Security retirement benefit, and the bill introduced by 

Representative Brady and others, H.R. 4391, the Public Servant 

Retirement Protection Act, of which we are all cosponsors, would 

require the SSA to calculate benefits based on total actual income. 

Thank you for yielding the time, Mr. Speaker—Chairman. 

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Sam. Mr. Sandlin? 

Mr. SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Pomeroy, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the WEP. I am pleased that the Subcommittee has convened a hearing to discuss the unfair impact of 

the current WEP’s benefits calculation on our Nation’s hardworking Federal, State, and local government employees. As a 

Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, I am proud 

to lead the fight to alleviate the disparate treatment of our public 

employees. 

As my colleagues know, I have introduced legislation in the past 

to eliminate the WEP. Today I come to encourage fairness and to 

reiterate my support for H.R. 594 and S. 349, the ‘‘Social Security 

Fairness Act,’’ which eliminates the WEP and the GPO. Rather 

than simply discuss amending the method by which the WEP is 

calculated, I am hopeful that our public debate today on the importance of restoring equity to the Social Security benefits for our retired government employees will result in H.R. 594 being brought 

to the floor of the House for a vote. 

Both the WEP and the GPO need to be repealed. Years ago, Congress enacted the GPO and the WEP, which hurt our public employees. The WEP reduces the Social Security benefits of persons 

who split their careers between Social Security benefit work and 

work not covered by Social Security. The GPO reduces teachers’ 

and other public employees’ Social Security spousal or survivor 

benefits by two-thirds of their public pension. The National Education Association (NEA) has testified before Congress that 9 out 

of 10 public employees affected by the GPO will lose their entire 

spousal benefit. That is undeserved. 

Until this year, Texas teachers have been able to escape the application of the GPO through use of the last-day rule, which granted teachers a reprieve if they worked their last day in Social Security-covered employment. The passage of H.R. 743, the so-called 

but misnamed ‘‘Social Security Protection Act’’, ended this practice 

July 1. It is a testament to Texas that we had thus far protected 

our teachers’ full earned spousal Social Security benefits. It is a 

travesty that these earned benefits were effectively taken from our 

teachers this year by the U.S. Congress. 

The vitriolic debate over our teachers’ benefits, fueled on by 

many Members of the Congress, included incredulous accusations 

that our teachers were gaming the system. Let me be clear. The 

7 

work our teachers, firemen, policemen, and other government employees do, strengthens the foundation of our Nation every single 

day. More often than not, these people accept considerably smaller 

paychecks in order to serve their communities and to educate our 

children. A recent national survey noted that the average teacher 

salary in Texas is $39,972, making Texas 30th in the Nation for 

teacher pay. 

The effect of the GPO and WEP on our educational system in 

Texas can only continue to hurt our already crippling teacher 

shortage. The Texas Workforce Commission projects that Texas 

will need over 82,000 new teachers by 2008. The Texas State 

Teachers Association noted that last year more than 53,000 classrooms were staffed with insufficiently certified teachers. Some 

claim the GPO and the WEP provisions are not particularly onerous to many of affected retirees because the provision generally affects only those who are well off and have a generous government 

pension. I assure the Members of this Subcommittee that my mother knows from personal experience how false this assertion is. She 

spent all her life in public teaching and planned her retirement 

carefully. To have had her Social Security benefits arbitrarily and 

unexpectedly reduced and stolen was more than just an insult; it 

was a serious blow to her standard of living in her retirement 

years. 

Some will characterize amending the WEP formula today as a 

good first step. I think it is a step too short. More accurately, it 

is a stumble characterized as a dance. Those who criticized our 

teachers and public servants on the floor of the House, those who 

voted against what was obnoxiously called a loophole now want to 

gallop in on what they think is a white horse and tell teachers they 

should be happy with less than half a loaf. Although they are still 

hanging teachers, they believe teachers should be happy because 

they are getting hung with a new rope. Isn’t that special? 

This year it is projected that over 850,000 public servants will 

have their retirement benefits slashed by the WEP, and 400,000 

will have their retirement benefits slashed by the GPO. Congressman Jim Turner filed a discharge petition on March 10, 2004, to 

bring H.R. 594 to the floor. As of today, 192 Members of Congress 

have signed this important discharge petition to compel and up or 

down vote on H.R. 594, a bill with 300 cosponsors. We only need 

26 more Members of Congress to step up to the plate for public employees. The time to act is now. Mr. Chairman, it is time to fish 

or cut bait. 

Mr. Chairman, as Congress moves forward with reform of the Social Security system, I urge you and the Members of the Subcommittee to remember our retired Federal, State, and local government employees. They deserve much better from us. They have 

earned that much. Thank you for your consideration. 

Chairman SHAW. Sir, I would like to make just a brief comment. 

You refer to this piece of legislation as a stumble. Well, it may be 

in the grand scheme of things, but I would like to point out it is 

a $7 billion stumble. Mr. Brady? 

Mr. BRADY. Well, now that the press conference is over, we can 

move to the hearing on the issue today of the WEP. I want to 

thank Chairman Shaw for holding this. I want to thank the cosponVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
8 

sors’ bipartisan way for working on this issue, and those testifying 

today, I think, have a real important message. Where I do agree 

with Max, my friend from Texas, is that there must be a better 

way to treat our teachers and firefighters and policemen when it 

comes to how much of their own Social Security they keep when 

they have earned two pensions—one within Social Security and one 

in the Social Security substitute. It seemed to me the more that we 

worked on this issue—and all of you are far more experienced than 

I—is that the WEP formula just seems to have grown arbitrary 

over the years and not reflective of the real world today. 

The WEP today pretends everyone is wealthy. Repeal of the 

windfall pretends everyone is poor. Let’s stop pretending. Let’s provide equal treatment for everyone in Social Security based on a 

complete and accurate work record, their own complete and accurate work record. From a policy standpoint, I can’t imagine what 

is more fair than equal treatment. As a teacher, I would want to 

be graded on my own work and not on the class average, which is 

what happens today. I think that it is important that we not pretend any longer that a $30,000 teacher in Texas, a $50,000 firefighter in California, and a $150,000 administrator in Florida, all 

have earned the same amount over their non-covered years. It 

didn’t happen, so let’s not pretend that any further. 

What this bill does is applies the same Social Security formula 

that all Americans receive for the actual time and proportioned 

years that people paid in. The result is—and this has been the 

hard part—the result is that we replace the same amount of wages 

for everyone within Social Security. That has been, I think, the elusive solution. I am not saying this is perfect, but what we are looking to do is find a way to help teachers, police officers, and firefighters while being fair to everyone else in Social Security. This 

is the balance we have sought in this bill, Mr. Chairman, and in 

testimony and the improvements, I think, from other Members, we 

are always looking for ways to make it just as good a bill as possible. I appreciate the chance for this hearing today. 

Chairman SHAW. Thank you. Now we will go back to regular—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Mr. Chairman? Do I have a chance to say 

something real quickly, please? 

Chairman SHAW. Well, I don’t know how many opening statements we are having. Let’s get to the witnesses, and anything that 

is brought out, you will be certainly given time, as all the Members 

of the Committee will be. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. A very polite way to say no. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SHAW. Our first witness, Mr. Martin Gerry, who is 

the Deputy Commissioner of Disability and Income Security Programs at the SSA. Welcome back to the Committee. We have your 

full statement, which will be made a part of the record, and you 

may proceed as you see fit. 

9 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN H. GERRY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 

DISABILITY AND INCOME SECURITY PROGRAMS, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. GERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to very much 

thank the Subcommittee for inviting me to appear before you 

today. It is a pleasure particularly to appear before this Subcommittee, as it always has been so supportive of the SSA and its 

programs. I am also pleased to have an opportunity to discuss the 

WEP, or WEP, which I believe is an extremely complicated provision and not well understood. I know that is one of the goals of the 

hearing today. 

First, let me begin by commending Congressman Brady and the 

other cosponsors of H.R. 4391, for what I believe is their very 

thoughtful approach to possible changes to the way the WEP is calculated. These changes are intended to better target the effect of 

the offset so that the amount of the resulting reduction in benefits 

more closely approximates the individual facts in each case. 

Before I discuss H.R. 4391 and other approaches to modifying the 

WEP, I would like to take just a moment to give some background 

on the provision. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Social Security 

amendments 1983 included the WEP as a means to eliminate what 

Congress viewed as windfall Social Security benefit for workers 

who also received pensions from employment not covered by Social 

Security. The WEP primarily affects government workers. Before 

WEP, some of these workers were treated as low lifetime earners 

for Social Security benefit purposes, and received the advantage of 

the weighted Social Security benefit formula in addition to their 

other government pension. WEP was intended to eliminate this advantage by using a different, less heavily weighted Social Security 

benefit formula. 

A number of bills have been introduced that would change WEP, 

and these proposals include eliminating it entirely, providing higher Social Security benefits for government workers whose pensions 

from non-covered employment and their Social Security benefits 

are below certain levels, and by replacing the WEP benefit formula 

with an alternative computation. This last approach is embodied in 

the H.R. 4391. Under this bill, as introduced by Congressman 

Brady, a hypothetical primary benefit would first be computed 

based on all of the workers’ covered and non-covered earnings after 

1950. This hypothetical benefit would then be multiplied by the 

proportion of the worker’s total earnings that were covered under 

Social Security to get a benefit level. 

The bill would also guarantee that workers with a government 

pension based on non-covered earnings would receive no less than 

the benefit under the present WEP provision. The bill would apply 

to beneficiaries already on the rolls, as well as to future beneficiaries. Unfortunately, the data needed to make many of these 

calculations will not be available for all cases, making it difficult 

for the SSA to equitably administer the provisions of the bill. The 

SSA only has records of non-covered earnings beginning in 1978, 

when it began receiving Form W–2 information from employers, 

some of these records are incomplete. Certainly we have significant 

problems with the data up to at least 1983. 

10 

It is questionable whether earnings before 1978 would be available from other sources. The non-covered earnings are needed for 

as many as 30 years ago, and employers are only required to keep 

records for 4 years. Many workers also may lack good records of 

their non-covered earnings prior to 1978, and providing information 

on those earnings could only serve to lower the benefits payable 

under the bill. 

The bill gives the Commissioner of SSA the responsibility for developing a method for determining the amount of non-covered 

wages used to calculate the worker’s pension. We understand that 

the intent is to permit SSA to deem non-covered earnings to a 

worker’s earnings record when such earnings are not available. It 

is not clear to us how we could do this. Possibilities include, one, 

using the average earnings amount for the specific position held by 

the employee for that year; or two, calculating a deemed earnings 

amount based on the other years of earnings for which the SSA 

does have records, and using that as a reference point. Both of 

these approaches present substantial problems and potentially significant costs, and I have outlined the reasons for both the problems and the costs in my written testimony. 

We are also concerned about taking on the workload of recomputing benefits for all current beneficiaries affected by the WEP to 

determine if they would receive higher benefits under the change. 

This would require that the SSA review benefits of up to 680,000 

retired and disabled workers. In addition, the bill also provides 

that current workers be guaranteed present law benefits if higher. 

Consequently, the SSA would need to maintain two alternative 

WEP calculations for many decades if we are going to carry out 

that provision for everyone who is now affected. 

In closing, let me again commend Congressman Brady for taking 

on such a complex issue, and thank the Chair and the Subcommittee for giving me this opportunity to discuss the WEP. As 

always, we would welcome the opportunity to continue to provide 

assistance and additional information to the Members of the Committee. I would be glad to answer any questions that you might 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerry follows:] 

Statement of Martin H. Gerry, Deputy Commissioner, Disability and 

Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration 

Thank you for inviting me to discuss the Windfall Elimination Provision, or WEP, 

and proposals that would modify or eliminate the current formula, and, specifically 

H.R. 4391, the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act. This bill would replace the 

current WEP benefit formula with a formula that would take into account a worker’s non-covered earnings as well as covered earnings. The proposed modifications 

to the WEP raise a number of technical issues that should be considered. 

The WEP is not well understood, so today, I would like to take some time to describe the purpose of this provision, how it works, and issues that should be evaluated when considering legislative changes to this provision. I will also discuss SSA’s 

efforts to educate individuals about the impact that a pension from non-covered 

work can have on their Social Security benefits. 

GPO Provision 

However, before I discuss the WEP, I would like to briefly discuss the government 

pension offset (GPO) provision. The GPO also affects workers who receive pensions 

based on employment not covered by Social Security and is often confused with the 

WEP. For ease of discussion, when referring to government employment, I am referVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
11 

ring to all levels of Federal or State government employment that is not covered by 

Social Security. 

The GPO affects government retirees who are eligible for both: 

• A pension based on their own work in a Federal, State, or local government job 

that was not covered by Social Security, and 

• A Social Security spouse’s or surviving spouse’s benefit based on their husband’s 

or wife’s work in covered employment. 

Under the GPO, a person’s Social Security spouse’s or surviving spouse’s benefit 

is reduced by an amount equal to two-thirds of the amount of the person’s government pension based on work not covered by Social Security. As of December 2003, 

about 390,000 beneficiaries had their benefits fully or partially offset due to the 

GPO. 

In enacting the GPO, Congress intended to assure that when determining the 

amount of a spousal benefit (e.g., wife’s, husband’s, widow’s, widower’s), individuals 

working in non-covered employment would be treated in the same manner as those 

who work in covered employment. The GPO provision removed an advantage that 

some government workers had before the GPO was enacted. Before GPO, a person 

who worked in a government job that was not covered under Social Security could 

receive, in addition to a government pension based on his or her own earnings, a 

full Social Security spouse’s or surviving spouse’s benefit. 

However, a person who works in a job that is covered under Social Security is subject to an offset under the dual entitlement provision. This provision, which has applied since 1940 when benefits were first payable to a worker’s family members, requires that Social Security benefits payable to a person as a spouse or surviving 

spouse be offset by the amount of that person’s own Social Security benefit. Thus, 

dually entitled beneficiaries receive the equivalent of their own worker’s benefit or 

the spouse’s/surviving spouse’s benefit, whichever is higher. 

The GPO acts as a surrogate for the dual-entitlement offset for workers receiving 

a government pension based on work not covered under Social Security because, if 

that work had been covered, any spouse’s or surviving spouse’s benefit would have 

been reduced by the person’s own Social Security worker’s benefit. The result of the 

GPO is that spouses and surviving spouses are treated similarly, regardless of 

whether their jobs are covered under Social Security or not. 

Windfall Elimination Provision 

I would now like to discuss the WEP provision. The Social Security Amendments 

of 1983 (P.L. 98-21) included the WEP provision as a means to eliminate ‘‘windfall’’ 

Social Security benefits for retired and disabled workers receiving pensions from 

employment not covered by Social Security. Generally, while the WEP applies to 

any pension based on non-covered employment, it primarily affects government 

workers. (The WEP does not affect the Social Security benefits payable to survivors 

of workers who received pensions based on non-covered employment.) 

The purpose of the WEP was to remove an unintended advantage that the 

weighting in the regular Social Security benefit formula would otherwise provide for 

persons who have substantial pensions from non-covered employment. This 

weighting is intended to help workers who spent their lives in low-paying jobs by 

providing them with a benefit that is relatively higher in relation to their prior 

earnings than the benefit that is provided for higher-paid workers. 

However, because benefits are based on average earnings in employment covered 

by Social Security over a working lifetime (35 years for retired workers), a worker 

who has spent part of his or her career in employment not covered by Social Security appears to have lower average lifetime earnings than he or she actually had. 

(In determining average earnings for Social Security benefit purposes, years with 

no covered earnings are counted as years of zero earnings, as if the person had not 

worked at all.) Without the WEP, such a worker would be treated as a low-lifetime 

earner for Social Security benefit purposes and inappropriately receive the advantage of the weighted benefit formula. The WEP eliminates this potential ‘‘windfall’’ 

by providing for a different, less heavily weighted benefit formula to compute benefits for such persons. 

Computation of the WEP Benefit 

Under the regular (non-WEP) benefit computation rules, a three-step weighted 

benefit formula is applied to a worker’s average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) 

to determine his or her primary insurance amount (PIA). The PIA is the monthly 

benefit amount payable to a retired worker first entitled at the full retirement age 

or a disabled worker. The PIA formula applicable to workers who reach age 62 or 

become disabled in 2004 is: 

12 

90 percent of the first $612 of AIME, plus 

32 percent of the next $3,077 of AIME, plus 

15 percent of AIME above $3,689. 

Under the WEP computation, the 90-percent factor applied to a worker’s average 

earnings in the first band of the Social Security benefit formula generally is replaced by a factor of 40 percent for workers who are receiving a pension from noncovered employment. 

(Under both scenarios, the 32 and 15 percent factors are the same.) 

For a worker first eligible in 2004, the maximum WEP reduction is $306 per 

month. Unlike the GPO, the WEP can never eliminate a person’s Social Security 

benefit. 

WEP does not apply to workers who have 30 or more years of substantial earnings under Social Security at all. For workers who have 21–29 years of substantial 

covered earnings under Social Security, the reduction under the WEP is phased out 

gradually. 

The WEP provision includes a guarantee designed to help protect workers with 

relatively low pensions based on non-covered employment. This guarantee provides 

that the reduction in Social Security benefits can never exceed one-half the amount 

of the pension based on non-covered work. 

Educating the Public 

As you can see, the WEP and GPO provisions are complicated and consequently, 

there have been misunderstandings about who is affected. In order to lessen this 

confusion, SSA has made revisions to the Social Security Statement that highlight 

and make clearer that the WEP and GPO may affect a worker’s future Social Security benefit if he or she receives a pension based on non-covered employment. The 

Statement refers individuals to SSA publications that explain how benefits can be 

affected by the WEP and GPO. It also refers individuals to an SSA website, which 

was recently revised to make sure that there is ample information and links to fact 

sheets that explain the impact of the GPO and WEP. The website includes a benefit 

calculator that allows workers to estimate the effects that WEP may have on their 

monthly benefit. 

Additionally, SSA offices nationwide provide pre-retirement seminars to employees who request them. If government employees request the seminar, we inform 

them of the potential impact that WEP and GPO may have on their monthly Social 

Security benefit. 

As you know, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 provides that all Social 

Security Statements issued after December 31, 2006 will contain language to explain 

the maximum potential effects of the WEP and GPO to any person whose records 

indicate that they may be subject to those provisions. We are currently examining 

ways to use our administrative records of non-covered earnings to identify individuals whose benefits are likely to be affected by the GPO or WEP. 

Legislation Affecting WEP 

A number of bills have been introduced that would change the WEP. These proposals include: 

• eliminating the WEP entirely; 

• providing higher Social Security benefits for government workers whose pensions from non-covered employment, in combination with their Social Security 

benefits, are below certain levels; and 

• replacing the WEP benefit formula with an alternative computation. 

Each of these approaches raises issues that I would like to discuss. Let me start 

with the elimination of the WEP. If the WEP did not apply, approximately 680,000 

retired and disabled workers would see their benefits increase. It is estimated that 

elimination of the WEP would have a 5-year cost of $10.8 billion and a 10-year cost 

of $29.7 billion. The long-range cost would be significant—estimated to be 0.06 percent of taxable payroll. 

The second type of proposal that has been introduced would provide less of a WEP 

reduction, or no WEP reduction, if the combined amount of the worker’s non-covered 

pension and Social Security benefits is below a certain threshold. Representative 

Frank has introduced two such bills. H.R. 4234, the more recently introduced bill, 

would exempt an individual from WEP if his or her combined benefits were less 

than $2,500 per month when he or she is first eligible for both Social Security and 

a non-covered pension. Workers with combined amounts of $3,334 or higher would 

be fully subject to the WEP in the same manner as under current law. And for those 

whose combined amounts are between $2,500 and $3,334 per month, the WEP 

would be phased in. This change is estimated to have a 5-year cost of $7.8 billion; 

13 

the 10-year cost would be $18.7 billion; and the long range cost would be 0.01 percent of taxable payroll. 

Because the threshold amounts of $2,500 and $3,334 are not indexed for future 

years, over time, more workers would have combined amounts exceeding $3,334 and 

thus would be fully subject to the WEP because their non-covered pensions and 

their Social Security rates will rise in nominal dollars. It is not clear if this effect 

is intended. Also, because of the link between the application of the WEP and a dollar amount of the person’s monthly income from Social Security and the government 

pension, some have said that this change would be introducing a form of ‘‘means 

test’’ for Social Security benefits. 

The third type of bill that has been introduced would replace the current WEP 

formula with an alternative computation. This is the approach embodied in H.R. 

4391, as introduced by Representative Brady. Under this bill, a hypothetical primary benefit would first be computed based on all of the worker’s covered and noncovered earnings after 1950. This hypothetical benefit would then be multiplied by 

the proportion of the worker’s total earnings that were covered under Social Security to obtain the primary benefit payable to the worker. 

The bill also includes a guarantee provision that would ensure that workers 

whose government pension is based on non-covered earnings in the year of enactment or earlier would receive no less than the benefit under the present law WEP 

provision. The bill would apply to beneficiaries already on the rolls, as well as to 

future beneficiaries. 

I would like to commend Representative Brady and the co-sponsors of this bill for 

the thoughtful approach developed for eliminating the ‘‘windfall’’ that would otherwise accrue to workers with pensions from non-covered employment. 

However, SSA has a number of concerns with the bill. The primary issue is that 

the computation would consider non-covered earnings after 1950, but SSA only has 

records of non-covered earnings beginning in 1978, when it began receiving Form 

W–2 information from employers, and some of these records are incomplete—particularly for the years soon after SSA began collecting this earnings information. 

An analysis of the records of individuals with non-covered earnings indicated that 

there are many individuals who have gaps in their non-covered earnings patterns. 

It appears likely that, in many cases, those individuals remained in non-covered employment during those ‘‘gaps.’’ An evaluation of the largest 155 non-covered Federal 

and State/local government employers showed that for about 30 percent of these employers there was either a complete gap for one year or more, or for one year or 

more there were substantially lower non-covered earnings posted relative to a surrounding year. 

• Of the 47 employers that seemed to have a problem, 32 had a problem in one 

of the years in the period 1984–1986. 

• For only 4 of the 47 employers, the ‘‘gap year’’ was for 1990 or later. 

In addition, although State and local governments were supposed to file Forms 

W–2 for non-covered earnings for the years 1978–81, compliance for this period was 

generally inconsistent with regard to State and local entities because there were no 

enforcement activities. 

With respect to a worker’s non-covered earnings for years before 1978, it is questionable whether information about these earnings would still be available. The 

earnings in question would be for periods that are 27 or more years ago and employers are only required to keep records for the last 4 years. It would be a substantial 

workload for SSA to try to develop this information which would be needed to calculate the Social Security benefit under the bill. In addition, it could be quite burdensome for the government employers to access this information—if it still exists. 

Further, there could be questions concerning willingness to cooperate, particularly 

when the agency needed records the employee might have, because including additional non-covered earnings in the computation could only serve to lower his or her 

benefit amount payable under the bill. Conversely, the benefit would be higher without such earnings. For example, a worker whose non-covered earnings were entirely 

before 1978 would fully avoid the WEP reduction under the proposed computation 

if those earnings were not counted. Counting such pre-1978 non-covered earnings 

in some cases but not others, based on availability, would not be equitable. 

As indicated previously, the bill would be effective for those on the rolls, necessitating a recomputation of benefits for all current beneficiaries affected by the WEP 

in order to determine if they would receive higher benefits under the change. This 

would require SSA to review the benefits of up to 680,000 retired and disabled 

workers currently affected by the WEP to determine if their monthly benefits should 

be adjusted. 

14 

If the worker had non-covered earnings before 1978, these reviews would require 

SSA to attempt to obtain information from the former employer regarding those 

earnings. Because of the large volume of recomputations required and associated 

manual actions, the workload impact on SSA would be substantial—and would create delays in other workloads. We estimate that implementation of H.R. 4391, including development of pre-1978 non-covered earnings (when available), would require more than 2,600 workyears ($190 million) over 5 years. Further, the necessary 

systems changes would be significant and would require at least 18 months to implement. 

The bill appears to recognize the problem associated with obtaining pre-1978 noncovered earnings. Although the effect of the bill language is not clear, it gives the 

Commissioner of SSA the responsibility for developing a ‘‘method’’ for determining 

the amount of non-covered wages used to determine the worker’s pension. The Commissioner would have some latitude in determining what is reasonable, but the noncovered wage amounts determined for the year in question must be derived from 

employment records or from other information received by SSA. 

We believe that the intent of this special language in the bill is to permit SSA 

to ‘‘deem’’ non-covered earnings to a worker’s earnings record when such earnings 

are not available. It is not clear exactly how this would be done. Possibilities might 

include using the average earnings amount for the specific position held by the employee that year. Under this approach, SSA would need to verify the job position 

(e.g., janitor, teacher, bus driver) for each worker for each year in question. There 

would also be an issue of how to compute the average. That is, would the average 

earnings amount be based on the average at the State level for that position or at 

the level of the specific employing entity? (There are over 2,300 State and local government entities.) There is also a question of whether such historical average earnings data would be available for the myriad of different positions employed by State 

and local governments. 

Another possibility might be to calculate a deemed earnings amount based on 

years of earnings that SSA does have on its records for the individual. However, 

because a worker’s pre-1978 earnings would often be early in a person’s career, the 

subsequent earnings used to compute the average would likely be higher than the 

actual amount of pre-1978 earnings. Therefore, the person’s actual pre-1978 earnings would be lower than the deemed amounts assigned to those years. Because inclusion of additional non-covered earnings could only lower the Social Security benefit payable, the worker may well object if he or she believes that the deemed earnings amounts are too high—even if he or she does not have proof otherwise. 

An additional point is that the bill provides for individuals to be guaranteed 

present law, if higher, for many years into the future. Thus, a worker who just recently became employed in a non-covered job at, say, age 22, would be allowed to 

retain the present-law WEP rules, if a higher benefit would result, 40 years in the 

future when he or she claimed Social Security benefits. Consequently, SSA would 

need to maintain two alternative WEP calculations for many decades to come. 

SSA’s Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that enactment of H.R. 4391 would 

increase program costs by $2.6 billion over the first 5 years; the 10-year cost would 

be $7.0 billion. The long-range cost of the program would increase by 0.01 percent 

of taxable payroll. These cost estimates assume that only the available non-covered 

earnings data on SSA’s records, for years 1978 and later, would be used in calculating the proposed benefit. The actuaries used this assumption because they believed that the availability of non-covered data for years before 1978 would be problematic for at least some, if not many, non-covered workers. To the extent that 

workers’ pre-1978 non-covered earnings are available and could be included in the 

proposed benefit computation, the cost of the bill would be somewhat lower. 

Conclusion 

H.R. 4391 proposes significant changes to the manner in which the WEP is calculated. These changes are intended to better target the effect of the offset so that 

the amount of the resulting reduction in benefits more closely approximates the individual facts in each case. Unfortunately, the data needed for these calculations— 

much of it wages paid to individuals as many as 30 or more years ago—will not 

be readily available for all cases, making it difficult for SSA to equitably administer 

the provisions of the bill. In addition, the workloads that would be generated by passage of such legislation would be tremendous and take years for SSA to complete. 

I want to again thank the Chairman and the Subcommittee for giving me this opportunity to discuss the WEP and GPO provisions and to share SSA’s analysis on 

legislation before the Congress. As always, SSA would welcome the opportunity to 

provide assistance to the Members and is more than willing to work with you to 

15 

provide any additional information you request. I would be glad to answer any questions you might have concerning the WEP and GPO provisions. 

f 

Chairman SHAW. Thank you. Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here, Mr. Gerry. Tell me, would workers, in your opinion, be treated more fairly under this bill, in your view? 

Mr. GERRY. Well, it is clear to me that that is the goal of the 

bill. Part of the problem in answering your question is how we 

would practically implement the bill. As I have looked at the problems that we have, in particular with pre-1978 data, it isn’t clear 

to me that we would eliminate many of the fairness problems. We 

might create new fairness problems, depending on how we approach that. I think, as Congress considers the legislation, it would 

be very important for Congress to lay out clearly to the agency how 

we should resolve some of those issues. I mentioned in my oral 

statement a couple of different approaches that we might use. Each 

of those has implications, particularly for people who might have 

had much lower earnings earlier in their career, where an average 

either for the profession or for themselves would not accurately 

represent. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, no, but it doesn’t. 

Mr. GERRY. It could overstate their earnings. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That would give them more, not less. Isn’t that 

true? 

Mr. GERRY. Well, it would give them a higher income level, 

which would give them a greater reduction in benefits. In other 

words, it would tend to inflate their non-covered earnings if indeed 

we had people whose early years were lower, by assuming the average, we would be raising, in effect, the amount that we would assign to those years. That would be the effect of it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I know, but how would that affect their retirement? 

Mr. GERRY. Well, then that would, of course, increase the relative amount of earnings that would be imputed to the non-covered 

side. That would, in effect, change the calculation of the benefit formula so that the Social Security portion of the wages would be 

lower, because of the imputed additional non-covered earnings from 

these early years, and that would mute or soften the attempt to try 

to eliminate the WEP. 

I said in my statement it is complicated, and I think part of the 

reason is that anything that we would do in the formula that would 

overstate non-covered wages—unintentionally, would have the opposite effect of what I think the bill attempts to do, and that is the 

problem with using averages, especially for people who had a progressive increase over the years in their wages for their profession 

taking their later average, or the average, would tend to give you 

a higher number than what they would really have earned, for example, in their early years. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, but that is why the bill gives you the authority to set up the system, so you can figure out how to do it. 

[Laughter.] 

16 

I am not impressed that you say you can’t do it. It seems to me 

you ought to be able to review 680,000 pretty quickly. You review 

every one of them every year, don’t you? 

Mr. GERRY. Well, what we are talking about is re-computing 

every one of these cases. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Don’t you re-compute every one every year? 

Mr. GERRY. We don’t re-compute every one every year. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you send us a form. Where do you get the 

numbers from? 

Mr. GERRY. When people apply for benefits, we are using information—unless that information changes, we wouldn’t re-compute 

that information every year. Basically, we make a calculation of the 

retirement benefit amount. Unless something changes with respect 

to the information, which would not normally be the case, we 

wouldn’t re-compute it every year. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Salaries don’t change on people every year? 

Mr. GERRY. Well, we are talking about people who are now retired. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I understand. 

Mr. GERRY. Whatever people are earning now wouldn’t affect 

that retirement benefit, unless the earnings were high enough to 

be included in the computation. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you have the computer capability to do that? 

Mr. GERRY. We could develop the computer capability to do the 

additional re-computations. We can make changes in the system to 

do that, and I think it is definitely feasible. I think there is a significant cost, which I have outlined in my written testimony, to 

doing it. The re-computation estimates suggest it is something 

around 2,600 work years, which is a significant additional cost. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I find that a little hard to believe. Thank you 

very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SHAW. Mr. Pomeroy? 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think your testimony, Mr. Gerry, lays out that while simple in concept, implementation of this legislative proposal is anything but easy. Therefore, 

I take some exception to characterizing those that simply want to 

scrap WEP as not playing substantively on the topic matter. This 

is not a path that gets us to just calculating carefully the percentage of Social Security versus non-covered wages because we don’t 

have that data. One of the things about the annual statement I get 

from SSA on my earnings history is that every bit of it back to my 

high school jobs were somehow captured in the system. It seemed 

like you would have 680,000 individuals, more than live in the entire State of North Dakota, to go back and figure out, well, what 

was covered, what did you do when you weren’t covered, how long 

does that go back? I understand that in particular it is a problem 

for pre-1978, but is a daunting challenge, is that correct? 

Mr. GERRY. That is right. Although I would say that the data 

situation obviously gets better each year in that, at some point, we 

will reach a point where people retiring won’t have pre-1978 earnings and wouldn’t have the problem, so there is a time—— 

Mr. POMEROY. That is correct, but you could be 45 and have 

pre-1978 earnings fairly conceivably in your earnings history. 

Mr. GERRY. Yes. 

17 

Mr. POMEROY. We are talking about a population 45 and older. 

I think most of us think that is still a group that counts. 

Mr. GERRY. Right, and I just want to say, to be accurate, that 

I think that there are parts of the changes that would not be difficult for data after 1983 particularly. We have that information; 

we can make those calculations. When there are gaps, I think they 

are relatively easy. 

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Gerry, it seems to me that all this wrestling 

around about what we ought to do to develop a new formula, I am 

still—I don’t fully appreciate the problems with the existing WEP. 

Is it unfairly reducing benefits? Is it too blunt an instrument that 

tends to err on shorting what people ought to be paid? I need more 

information on that. What is your view? 

Mr. GERRY. Well, it is clear that when Congress created it, and 

I want to keep stressing that Congress created this, because I 

think that this was deliberated at some length. The agency has basically attempted to apply it. By picking the 40 percent figure, 

there is an arbitrariness to that number. That certainly would 

mean that there are some people who are adversely affected by 

that number. There is no way around that. Now, any number 

would be arbitrary. Ninety is actually arbitrary, too. It is a question of—— 

Mr. POMEROY. Do you have any notion on percentage that 

might be disadvantaged at the 40 number? 

Mr. GERRY. No, and in part for the same data reasons. I think 

the approach that H.R. 4391 takes is a perfectly sound approach 

to looking at the comparison. I think the logic of the bill is very 

obvious. If we could really do that, if we could really see what were 

covered earnings and what were not covered earnings and what is 

the percentage of reduction, that is a very logical strategy to me. 

I think that makes sense. It is the practical problem of doing it. 

The concern I think that we would have about that is to be sure 

that if we are going to have to take another arbitrary approach one 

way or the other, that Congress look at that question. I think it is 

good that we have tools to ferret out what Congress intends, but 

I think it would be very helpful to know specifically which way 

Congress intends us to go. 

That is what I am trying to say. I think we have worked very 

long with this and we want to continue to work with the Subcommittee on this because the approach seems—if we could carry 

it out, I think it would be very much improved over where we are. 

I think the data problems are going to lead us to one set of assumptions or another. In other words, what I am saying, Mr. Pomeroy, is I think there are several intermediate positions between 

leaving everything the way it is and completely eliminating the 

WEP. That is what I assume the Subcommittee is struggling with. 

Mr. POMEROY. We are. Is the SSA doing work internally on it? 

Mr. GERRY. We have been looking, really, at the proposals that 

have been coming from the Subcommittee and trying to think 

through the questions that you have raised. There is the pre-1978 

earnings question, which is obviously the number one practical 

problem. There does seem to be a limited number of things that 

could be done. I have laid them out in my written testimony. 

18 

Mr. POMEROY. Some might suggest that the time to fix these 

issues, both of them, is in exchange for bringing these non-covered 

systems into the system, so you bring public plans into Social Security. At that time, part of the quid pro quo is we fix this. Again, 

that is not necessarily my position. Some have discussed it in that 

context. I would just note, as my time has expired, that Congressman Gene Green sought to testify today. For reasons of the Chair, 

the Members were not participating. I want to underscore his interest in the issue, as my colleague Max Sandlin’s, with whom I 

have talked about this issue many times. I thank the Chair and I 

yield back. 

Chairman SHAW. I think maybe we need a little clarification as 

to the problem that Mr. Gerry is talking about. Social Security benefits are figured using the 35 highest years of earnings. When Mr. 

Gerry says that he doesn’t have anything prior to 1978, if you do 

the math, that is 26 years ago. You can see the problem of the gap 

that he is concerned about. Our jobs are to make the law; his job 

is to be able to make it work. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GERRY. Faithfully executed, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SHAW. With that, Mr. Hulshof. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to, at the outset, provide my unqualified, unequivocal support, Mr. Brady, for 

your bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor. To me, politics is the art 

of the possible. We can all talk about the barriers that would be 

in place and the challenges that we would have. I guess, Mr. Gerry, 

one of the things we could be—and it is appropriate that you point 

out how difficult it would be for your agency. I guess—because as 

Mr. Johnson pointed out, we want to give leeway to the SSA. I 

guess one of the other options would be that we, Congress, could 

be very proscriptive as far as what authority we would give you, 

and yet we would opt for the flexibility. 

I have to say to my friend from Texas, Mr. Sandlin, the so-called 

incredulous claims that you, and I put quotations around it while 

you made that statement. The incredulous claims that you claim 

Members of Congress made regarding the Texas loophole, were 

based upon actual cases testified to by the Inspector General of the 

SSA. Don’t shake your head, Mr. Sandlin. It happened here in this 

hearing. 

Mr. SANDLIN. Do you want to yield? 

Mr. HULSHOF. I recall—I will if I have time. I recall specifically 

the Inspector General talking about a teacher from Texas who 

drove 500 miles one way, was a janitor for a day, drove back 500 

miles another way, and ended up having a significant windfall, and 

that was an actual case. I will yield to you to respond to that. 

Mr. SANDLIN. That is very interesting, and shows that you 

don’t understand the issue. The teacher probably did that. Here is 

the thing, the teacher 500 miles one way and 500 miles back to 

claim a retirement benefit earned by a lifetime of work by the 

spouse. Not 1 day. It doesn’t have anything to do with 500 miles 

or 5,000 miles. It has to do with a spouse that works an entire lifetime, earns Social Security benefits, and has them taken away. If 

the teacher had been in any other profession—a doctor, a lawyer, 

a street sweeper, anything else, that offset would not have hapVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
19 

pened. I don’t see it as unfair. It is to do what the law says, and 

now you have taken that away from them. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Sandlin, and I have 

yielded you time to explain. I stand corrected—it was not the Inspector General, Mr. Chairman, it was the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in hearings that you have conducted that 

we participated in. Let me talk just a little bit about fairness and, 

Mr. Gerry, bring you into this because I want to—let’s put this on 

the record and make sure that my information is accurate. In fact, 

in the next panel we have testimony that about one-third of teachers pay into a government employee pension plan that substitutes 

for Social Security. Is that a fairly accurate percentage? 

Mr. GERRY. I honestly don’t know. 

Mr. HULSHOF. I believe the testimony we are going to have is 

roughly—is that right, Mr. Brady, that roughly a third of teachers 

pay into a substitute, two-thirds of teachers across the country pay 

into Social Security. Do you believe, Mr. Gerry, that Mr. Brady’s 

bill, H.R. 4391, helps ensure that both groups of teachers are treated more equally as far as terms of how much of their Social Security taxed wages would be, benefits would be replaced? 

Mr. GERRY. I think, of course, I would like to answer yes, but 

part of the problem I have is with this question of how it will actually be administered and what Congress wants to do. Certainly 

that is its goal, and logically it should do that. For people—I would 

say that for individuals not affected by the pre-1978 earnings question, certainly I think that would be a reasonable conclusion to 

draw, that they would be more fairly and more individually affected. When you get to people with pre-1978 earnings, the problems that I have been identifying get to the very heart of the whole 

idea, which is making it specific to the individual. When you start 

assuming or assigning averages then you may get back to the same 

problem we have now. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Well, in conclusion I would say that perhaps a 

point of agreement that I could reach with my friend from Texas 

is that we understand this is an arbitrary line, that when WEP 

was created back in 1983, this was an arbitrary line, and it has 

taken us 21 years to get here. I would hope that it will not take 

us 21 years to get to a point where we could actually—where we 

can fix this. If we are talking about fairness, Mr. Chairman, my belief is that teachers who pay into a Social Security substitute and 

those that pay into Social Security should be treated on an equitable basis. I think complete repeal, as many have advocated, 

seems to suggest that some teachers deserve more generous Social 

Security benefits than others. I think ultimately we are trying to 

find that fair approach. Again, Mr. Brady, I commend you because 

I think your bill does just that. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SHAW. Mr. Becerra. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Gerry, thank 

you very much for being here again. You are right, this is a complicated issue, and I suspect that few people—maybe even those 

sitting in this room, but I suspect most sitting in this room are either affected by it or are here for a particular reason with regard 

to WEP and GPO. I suspect most people, if they happen to be 

20 

watching this hearing, don’t quite understand what is going on. In 

the 5 minutes that I have to ask you questions, I probably can’t 

help you edify all those who are watching a great deal more. 

Let me ask this. When you mentioned that it would cost 2,600 

work years or that it would take 2,600 work years to recalculate 

or to try to give us a formula and be able to calculate the Social 

Security benefits for folks affected by WEP, what does that mean— 

and that is 2,600 work years over 5 years. Does that mean something over 500 full time person working hours for 5 years? 

Mr. GERRY. Yes, it would. Well, that would be the average. This 

is assuming, now, that we take H.R. 4391 as it stands. That would 

include the work on the pre-1978 earnings. I just want to make 

that clear, because we have had some estimates, and some of them 

include pre-1978 earnings and some don’t. I am including that. 

Mr. BECERRA. Let me make sure I try to focus. I am trying to 

make sure I understand this, 2600 work years over 5 years? 

Mr. GERRY. Right. 

Mr. BECERRA. That straight calculation would be 520 work 

years—or 520 people working 1 year for 5 years. Five hundred 

twenty. 

Mr. GERRY. Well, it is really 2,630 people working for a year. 

The elapsed time over which they would work is 5 years. 

Mr. BECERRA. Right, so 2,600 new—would they be exclusively 

working on this issue? 

Mr. GERRY. Yes. That is the amount of time it would take to 

make all the calculations. 

Mr. BECERRA. These 2,600 people would not be doing other SSA 

tasks. 

Mr. GERRY. Right. 

Mr. BECERRA. Like making sure benefits are paid to those Social Security recipients, making sure that problems with receipt of 

benefits are handled, problems for those who are survivors or disabled individuals, this 2,600 new people that we need for 5 years 

would simply be to try to get this bill up and running? 

Mr. GERRY. Well, whether they were new or existing that is 

what they would do for 5 years. 

Mr. BECERRA. Okay, well, if they are existing, then you are 

pulling them off of something else? 

Mr. GERRY. That is right. 

Mr. BECERRA. Let me make sure. To try to make sure that we 

continue to do all the functions that the SSA has today and do 

what this bill provides, we have to find moneys to pay 2,600 additional people for the next 5 years. 

Mr. GERRY. I think it is a fair way to state it. 

Mr. BECERRA. Just trying to get a sense of what we are looking 

at doing, because as it is, I know we all in our own particular district offices get folks who have constant concerns about their existing benefits and getting their payment and so forth. I just wanted 

to make sure I understood that correctly. How can we calculate the 

salaries and payments into a non Social Security covered work before 1978? What is your best sense of how we can do that, aside 

from what you mentioned before, which is an average, take the average salary for that particular position? 

21 

Mr. GERRY. The agency has looked at, and I know in one case 

communicated—three different approaches that I am aware of. One 

is to simply ignore pre-1978 earnings for everybody. That is an approach. It costs more money; it is much simpler to do. The work 

year estimates, for example, would drop to 740 from 2,630 if we ignored these earnings. The amount of money that we would end up 

paying in benefits would be significantly higher. 

Mr. BECERRA. Let me stop you for a second. Are you saying 

that the 2,600 work year number that you have given us includes 

doing the work to calculate prior to 1978? 

Mr. GERRY. Yes. 

Mr. BECERRA. Okay, good. 

Mr. GERRY. As best we can estimate it. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thanks for that clarification. 

Mr. GERRY. Okay, so if we didn’t do that, it would drop. 

Mr. BECERRA. How do you—— 

Mr. GERRY. On the other hand, the cost, that is, the amount of 

money that we would pay out. One way of putting it is that establishing pre-1978 earnings, when they exist, always results in either 

the same or a lower. Not doing that has to result in significant increases in benefit amount program costs. 

Mr. BECERRA. How would you secure the participation or cooperation of workers in attempting to secure records for pre-1978 

work? 

Mr. GERRY. We would use our best efforts to ask people. If that 

is what Congress required us to do, we would have to use our best 

efforts to persuade people to voluntarily come forward and do that. 

Mr. BECERRA. You become not the SSA but the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), probably, in the minds of a lot of these folks, 

I suspect. 

Mr. GERRY. I am not sure how voluntary IRS participation is. 

Something like that. The second approach—you were asking me 

about the three, and I gave you the first one. The second approach, 

which I know has been outlined in a letter from the actuary, would 

be to have a situation where people would have a choice of either 

proving what their earnings were or staying with the existing rule. 

That would really get at the point you are making, which is it 

would put the option with the individual, who would then have an 

interest in trying to find all this data if they wanted to come in and 

take advantage of the different formula. That is another approach. 

Obviously, that would have significant administrative savings for 

us because, the burden would be on the worker to show us what 

the earnings were, rather than for us to go out and try to find that 

data. Now, it obviously means that for workers who don’t have the 

data and have no way to get it, they really don’t have that choice. 

The third approach is this assigned-average idea, that instead of 

either of the other two approaches, we would treat pre-1978 earnings by either looking at the years of work that we do have records 

of and assuming that the same level exists for the years we don’t 

have records of. That would be one approach; or looking at the profession, like teachers, and—take the Texas teachers situation—saying that in 1972 the average Texas teacher earned this amount of 

money and so we will assume that that is the amount of money the 

individual earned. Now, those are the only approaches that I know 

22 

of. It is either, forget about the pre-1978 earnings, have this choice, 

or use some way of imputing a value when you don’t have the data. 

I think that covers the options that I can see. 

Mr. BECERRA. I guess the one concern I would have in how we 

implement this—and I will end with this, Mr. Chairman—is that 

if we are projecting that this bill could cost about $10 billion in 

order to try to provide some fairness to all those folks who have 

retired and are seeing this offset, we are going to have to—and the 

sponsors have said, they are going to find an offset to pay for this, 

I hope what we don’t do is try to look within Social Security to try 

to find the offset, because it is already difficult to find $7 billion 

to continue to pay the benefits that people are entitled to and into 

the future. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Chairman, I thank 

you for the time. 

Chairman SHAW. I want to tell all Members that the clock down 

in front of the witness is not working, but the clock in front of me 

is working, and you went 3 minutes over. Mr. Brady? 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. Look, I think this is a good line of questioning. Two thoughts for Mr. Gerry. One, did you get a chance to 

see the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on who would 

benefit from this bill that was released yesterday? 

Mr. GERRY. Yes. 

Mr. BRADY. What it says—— 

Mr. GERRY. Well, I am sorry, Mr. Brady. I have heard about 

what was said. I haven’t read it. 

Mr. BRADY. Okay. Just studying it, what it says, I have two 

points to make, really. One is on the costs. We will come to this. 

What CRS basically says is, running the estimates, that minimumwage workers and low-wage workers will receive the greatest-percent increase in Social Security under this bill, compared to current 

law; that average-wage workers with up to 27 years in that second 

job, their non substitute job, would also receive more than they do 

today; and that high-wage workers with up to 23 years of covered 

earnings would also receive benefits greater than they would today, 

which is a major part of the 750,000 people who are affected by the 

WEP. 

If you would take a look at those numbers and how CRS came 

to that, those are consistent with the numbers the Subcommittee 

has run in our offices. Any thoughts you have, because, again, everyone is individual. It is hard to do averages—which is the whole 

intent of this bill, by the way, but if you take a look at those computations and let us know any thoughts you have, that would be 

helpful. 

Second point on cost. One, I think, compared to the unfairness 

of it, I think the administrative costs are small compared to the unfairness of what people haven’t received under the windfall provision. Two, the costs, the $190 million, the 2,600 work years, seem 

awfully high. Over the next 5 years what that works out to is 

$250,600 for each person affected by WEP. One, let this be my bid 

to do it for half of that for each of those workers; and second, it 

seems to me that we have and opportunity to allow workers to do 

their own computations. I know that since we have introduced the 

bill, we have had thousands of teachers contact us. A number of 

them pulled down your own computation worksheet to figure out, 

23 

those born in 1940, their own figures. I think providing people the 

option to reconstruct their work wages is a very viable option. 

The final point is it seems to me this problem gets smaller each 

year. Obviously, as more and more work records are absolutely accurate and very accessible, this becomes a small problem. You will 

have to re-calculate figures if WEP is repealed as well. What this 

does is—no question, I think the point you make is a good one. We 

have to do a lot of work to make sure it is accurate to each person. 

That is my point. I think it is worth doing work to make it accurate 

to each person, because most of these people in this room today 

think their Social Security really is based on their actual work 

record—not an average, or a formula, or some estimate. I think it 

is important that we work through this, any suggestions on more 

flexibility, any opportunities for working to have accurate records, 

any coordination with the IRS or the ability for a person to request 

their IRS records to complete their own work record, I think, would 

be very helpful. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GERRY. Let me just say, Mr. Brady, that we would be happy 

to look at the data and I would be happy to sit down and talk with 

you about it after we do. I would be happy at any point in time 

with any Members of the Committee to talk about how to do this. 

This is a difficult task, and I think a dialog from time to time between us would be good. I think we appreciate the goal that the 

bill is attempting to achieve, and perhaps together we can come up 

with some other strategies. 

The difficulty, as much as I agree with you that it probably 

makes sense to do the work, is whether, even if we do the work, 

we can still arrive at a number that is going to really represent the 

individual. Right now it still appears to me that we are going to 

reach a point where we need to decide and this is something I 

think Congress rather than the agency probably has to focus on. 

When in doubt, do we basically assume the average or do we assume up? In other words, is the goal to ensure that no one gets an 

unfairly low amount of pension or too large an offset? When we get 

to certain groups of cases, we may end up giving some people some 

amounts that might be higher than if we had all the individual 

data, in order to ensure that no one would get an amount that is 

too low. 

Mr. BRADY. I think, Mr. Gerry, to conclude, the goal is to get 

people the most accurate Social Security benefit based on their actual complete work records. I think we can do that for far less than 

has been estimated today for those beneficiaries. I look forward to 

working with you on that. Thanks. 

Chairman SHAW. I think it is important—just a point of clarification, for people outside of this room listening to these proceedings that it is important to point out that we do have complete 

records as to Social Security earnings. Nobody should think that 

they paid into Social Security and there is no record of that, because there certainly is. What Mr. Gerry is talking about is non Social Security wages. Why is that important? It is important because 

when you take the highest 35 years of earnings to calculate whether someone is high-income or low-income, this can make a big difference. Particularly, most people prior to 1978, who are still in the 

workforce, made probably a lot less than they are making today. 

24 

It would be to their advantage to have their average amount of 

earnings reduced because of the progressiveness within the system 

itself. 

I think when you bring out the point that you can ask people to 

supply you with that information, almost totally it would be to 

their advantage to do so. I think that probably would work. If we 

don’t make an attempt to learn exactly what those wages were 

prior to 1978, it is probably going to—for most people, it will be unfair to them as to the benefits that they would receive. What we 

are trying to do, and our objective here under this bill, is to give 

people the benefits they paid for. It is plain and simple. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to 

also request unanimous consent to submit an opening statement 

for the record. 

Chairman SHAW. Without objection. All Members—and I didn’t 

mean to cut you off on that—all Members by unanimous consent 

without objection can put whatever opening statements into the 

record they like. Now, I am talking about Members of this Committee. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. How are you today, 

sir? 

Mr. GERRY. Fine, thank you, Ms. Tubbs Jones. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Good. You seem to propose three possible 

options. As we do on our tax forms, we have options of taking a 

deduction, we can take an itemized deduction, we can take a deduction that it is kind of general across-the-board, based on our income, and so forth. Have you contemplated the possibility of giving 

people one of these options on the way in which they would calculate their Social Security for purposes of looking at an offset? 

Mr. GERRY. Well, we have looked at each of those three categories, the ones that I mentioned, which would be completely ignoring pre-1978. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. We don’t have a lot of time, so I don’t want 

you to go back through the three. 

Mr. GERRY. Yes, we have looked as best we can at what the implications would be of doing each. Now, we haven’t done the calculations, but, and we wouldn’t know, one of the options, remember, was a choice by the worker. It would have to be based on our 

estimate of the choices that would be made. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Understood. Do you see it as a possibility 

that there could be any of those options that a worker could choose 

which way you would calculate? 

Mr. GERRY. Well, I think the worker option—I want to separate 

that from what I would say is the Congress’s option. The options 

that I was looking at were options that Congress could consider. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. No, no, back up a minute. What I am saying is these are options that the Congress could consider, but one 

of the options that Congress could consider would be to allow the 

worker to submit information for purposes of a calculation. 

Mr. GERRY. That is right, and the proposal was to allow the 

worker to submit information, or go with the current WEP formula, 

so it would be a choice. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. This is a significant issue for people across 

the country, not just in Texas but across-the-board, because I conVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
25 

stantly have people coming into my congressional office saying, 

Congresswoman, why can’t I get the wages of my husband? He 

didn’t get them; I ought to be able to get them. I shouldn’t be stuck 

with wages that are much lower, particularly when you begin to 

look at women who have been in the workforce and their salaries 

or their income have been probably 7 cents on the dollar of the income of men, and women tend to get penalized more often than 

men do, when you begin to calculate Social Security or the amount 

of money that they are going to receive on retirement. Is that a 

fact? 

Mr. GERRY. Well, what you are describing I think is the GPO 

problem, which is what happens to a spouse who has—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. That is why we are here. 

Mr. GERRY. Well. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Or that is part of the discussion we are having today, though, right? 

Mr. GERRY. Yes. I just wanted to separate it from the discussion 

on the WEP that we are having. I think they are related, but they 

are two different issues. The equity issues exist in both, but the 

provisions are quite different. In the example that I think you were 

giving, Congress adopted the theory of dual entitlement in the GPO 

approach. The reduction is at two-thirds, so it is not a dollar for 

dollar, but does reduce the Social Security benefit that a spouse 

can receive based on a non-covered government pension. In the 

case of Social Security, it is of course a direct offset, the dual entitlement provision. They are related. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Conceptually, then, we could end up when 

we come through this process in a similar problem that the notch 

people, or notch babies, are faced with in that we are unable to explain to them as to how we calculate or allocate Social Security for 

people. 

Mr. GERRY. I wouldn’t want to compare them, but I think we 

could come through and have a problem that would not be easy—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. I am not comparing, but—— 

Mr. GERRY. I think it is very hard for people to understand this 

now, and I think it is going to remain complicated for most people 

to understand. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. The process is complicated, but the dollar 

signs are not complicated. People understand ‘‘more money’’ or ‘‘less 

money’’ or ‘‘no money.’’ I think the obligation is on us, and I think 

you are hearing from every Member of this panel, that we must resolve and work this issue out, because the people of the United 

States deserve some resolution to have this completed. Fair? 

Mr. GERRY. It seems fair to me, and I think obviously the Subcommittee is approaching it that way. It seems—I guess my only 

point would be that what we would like to do is, in any way that 

we can, be helpful to the Subcommittee in figuring out the best 

way to do that. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Including following whatever instructions 

we ultimately decide that you need to do to get this done, right? 

Mr. GERRY. Absolutely. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. 

26 

Chairman SHAW. Good move. You passed the buck right back to 

us. Okay. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SHAW. Mr. Gerry, thank you very much for you testimony.We now have a panel of witnesses, if they would come up and 

take a seat at the table. Terry Hickman, who is the President of 

the Nevada State Teachers Association (NSEA), and he is appearing on behalf of the NEA; Randall Iglehart, who is the State President of the ATPE in Austin, Texas; Chuck Canterbury is National 

President of the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police (FOP); and 

George Avak, who is the President-Elect of the California Retired 

Teachers Association (CRTA), Sacramento, California. Welcome to 

all the witnesses. As is my custom, I may have mispronounced 

some of your names, and you can correct me when you are called 

upon, if you would. We have your full written testimony, which will 

be placed in total in the record, and you may proceed as you see 

fit. 

I am going to try—is the other side of that clock working down 

there? Nothing is working? Anyway, I think all of you have been 

instructed to be with us for 5 minutes of direct testimony and then 

being available for questioning. We appreciate that. Mr. Hickman, 

you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY HICKMAN, PRESIDENT, NEVADA STATE 

EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, ON BEHALF 

OF NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HCIKMAN. Good morning, Chairman Shaw and Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with 

you today about the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act. My 

name is Terry Hickman. I am a high school counselor. I am President of the NSEA, and I am here today on behalf of the 22,000 

members of the NSEA, the 2.7 million members of the NEA, and 

my own family. 

I am pleased to speak today in support of the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act. This legislation represents a critical first 

step toward addressing the harsh impacts of the WEP as well as 

the GPO. As you know, the WEP reduces the earned Social Security benefits of an individual who also receives a public pension 

from a job not covered by Social Security. I am a prime example 

of the impact of WEP. Years ago, when my wife and I were just 

starting out, I began teaching in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. I loved 

teaching, and I was thrilled to have my first job in Lake Tahoe. I 

was equally passionate about my students as well as building up 

my support for my own family. 

In my second year of teaching, my wife and I decided we needed 

some additional income in order to buy our first home, and to fulfill 

her lifelong dream of going to college. Rather than incurring large 

debt, we decided that I would take a second job. For nearly 10 

years, I worked two jobs—teaching or in counseling every day until 

2:30 p.m., and managing a health and fitness center in a casino 

until 10 p.m. four nights a week. 

The hours were tough, but the rewards were well worth the sacrifice. Not only were my wife and I able to purchase our first home 

in which to raise our family, but my wife was able to graduate from 

27 

college and become a teacher herself. I was never more proud than 

the day that I watched my wife receive her diploma. Family came 

from across the United States to see her walk across the stage, because she had worked—we had worked as a family together to pull 

together the resources to make her dream come true. I was also 

very proud that I believed that by working the second job, I was 

working to make a difference for my family and for long-term security for my wife and myself. My job at the casino was covered by 

Social Security, and I had earned the 40 quarters necessary to 

qualify for benefits. 

I was quite surprised and disappointed to hear and to learn that 

the public teaching pension from Nevada would result in a loss of 

a significant portion of my Social Security benefit. I was further 

shocked to hear that some policy makers justified this offset by referring to my Social Security benefit as a windfall, or double dipping. It is unfathomable to me that Congress considers the benefits 

that I earned at two separate jobs to be double dipping. It seems 

only fair that if I worked two jobs that I should be able to collect 

the benefits that I earned. It is even more unbelievable that Congress would penalize me for my values of hard work and the family 

values that we had of dedication as a family to work together for 

my community and also for our country. 

Sadly, my story is not unique in Nevada or for many other 

States. As President of the NSEA, I have gotten phone calls from 

members devastated by the news that they are going to lose or 

sometimes almost all their benefits from Social Security. Like me, 

these educators entered the profession because of their desire to 

have an impact on the Nation’s children. They often ask me to do 

something about it as President. Some of you have received e-mails 

today from those in Nevada and other States who are so concerned 

about this provision, the WEP. 

The WEP has an impact far beyond the individuals losing benefits. Perhaps the most alarming problem that we face is the fact 

of recruiting new teachers into the profession. Like many States, 

Nevada is the fastest-growing State and certainly needs more 

teachers. It is surprising when I get phone calls, especially—not too 

long ago I got a call from a couple in Minnesota who wanted to 

move to Las Vegas. After I asked them, do you live in a Social Security State, and explained to them the penalties that they could 

receive, they were no longer willing to move to Nevada. When we 

need teachers the most, we have to pull out the welcome mat in 

Nevada because of the benefits that they could lose if they come 

from a Social Security State. 

The NSEA has formed a strong coalition with our State retirement system, and together we regularly publicize the fact that public service in Nevada can lead to a significant loss of one’s Social 

Security benefits. I would like also to just take a moment to address the GPO. The GPO also penalizes individuals who have dedicated their lives to public service. This offset has the harshest impact on those who can least afford the loss—lower-income women. 

Given the unacceptable impact of the WEP and GPO on so many 

of our Nation’s teachers, NEA supports the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act as a critical first step toward repeal of both 

offsets. NEA is very pleased to see such strong bipartisan support 

28 

for this important legislation, and we thank the Chair and the 

Committee Members, especially Congressman Kevin Brady, for 

their efforts to bring this legislation forward. The NEA supports 

the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act as a first step toward 

full repeal of the GPO and WEP. We believe it will result in a significant benefit for those educators and public employees in Nevada 

and the other states. I can say, from my own calculations, that I 

believe I will receive several hundred dollars more a month if this 

bill comes to fruition. 

On behalf of NEA, NSEA, and my family, I wish to thank you 

for the opportunity to share my thoughts. My wife and I made the 

right decision many years ago. We valued hard work, we valued 

our family, we valued our first home, and we valued her college 

education. We now ask the Committee to move quickly to mark up 

Public Servant Retirement Protection Act and move it swiftly to 

final passage and enactment. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hickman follows:] 

Statement of Terry Hickman, President, Nevada State Education 

Association, on behalf of National Education Association 

Chairman Shaw and Members of the Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the National Education Association’s (NEA) 2.7 million members, I 

would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act (H.R. 4391). 

My name is Terry Hickman and I am a high school counselor and the President 

of the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA). I am here today on behalf of 

myself, the more than 22,000 members of NSEA, and the 2.7 million members of 

the National Education Association. 

I am pleased to speak today in support of the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act. NEA believes this legislation represents a critical first step toward addressing the harsh impacts of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) as well as 

the Government Pension Offset (GPO). 

The Windfall Elimination Provision: An Unfair Penalty for Public Service 

As you know, the WEP reduces the earned Social Security benefits of an individual who also receives a public pension from a job not covered by Social Security. 

Congress enacted the WEP ostensibly to remove an advantage for short-term, higher-paid workers under the original Social Security formula. Yet, instead of protecting low-earning retirees, the WEP has unfairly impacted lower-paid retirees 

such as educators. 

I am a prime example of the impact of the WEP. Years ago, when my wife and 

I were just starting out, I began teaching in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. I loved teaching, 

and was passionate about working with children. I was equally passionate about 

building and supporting my family. 

In my second year of teaching, my wife and I decided we needed some additional 

income in order to buy our first home and to fulfill her dream of going to college. 

Rather than incurring large debt, we decided that I would take a second job. For 

ten years, I worked two jobs—teaching every day until 2:30pm and managing a 

health and fitness center at a casino until 10:00pm four days a week. The hours 

were tough, but the rewards were well worth the sacrifice. Not only were my wife 

and I able to purchase a home in which to raise our family, but my wife was able 

to graduate from college and become a teacher herself. I was never more proud than 

the day I watched my wife receive her diploma, because I knew how hard she had 

worked, and how we had pulled together as a family to make her dream come true. 

I was also proud because I believed that by working two jobs for so long, I had 

made a real contribution to our family’s long term security. My job at the casino 

was covered by Social Security, and I had earned the 40 quarters necessary to qualify for benefits. So, I was quite surprised to learn that my eventual receipt of a public teaching pension from Nevada would result in the loss of a significant portion 

of my hard-earned Social Security. I was further shocked to hear some policymakers 

justify this offset by referring to my Social Security benefits as a ‘‘windfall’’ or ‘‘double dipping.’’ 

29 

It is unfathomable that Congress considers the benefits I earned at two separate 

jobs to be double dipping. It seems only fair that if I work two jobs, I should be 

able to collect the benefits I earned. It is even more unbelievable that Congress 

would penalize me for my values of hard work and dedication to my family, my community, and my country. 

Sadly, my story is not unique in Nevada or in many other states across the nation. As president of NSEA, I get phone calls every week from members devastated 

by the news that they will lose Social Security benefits they had counted on for their 

retirement. Like me, these educators entered the profession because of their desire 

to have an impact on our nation’s children, often at considerable financial sacrifice. 

They often ask me to do everything I can to get the WEP and GPO repealed. 

The National Impact: Undermining Teacher Recruitment Efforts 

The WEP has an impact far beyond the individuals losing benefits. Perhaps most 

alarming, the offset is impacting the recruitment of quality teachers. Like many 

states, Nevada is facing a shortage of qualified teachers, and is looking for ways to 

attract the best and the brightest to teach in Nevada. Yet, while policymakers are 

encouraging experienced people to change careers and enter the teaching profession, 

individuals who have worked in other careers are less likely to want to become 

teachers if doing so will mean a loss of Social Security benefits they have earned. 

I see the impact on Nevada first hand. In addition to the calls I receive from 

NSEA members impacted by the WEP and GPO, I receive many calls from teachers 

looking to move to Nevada and from individuals looking to enter teaching from the 

military or other professions. I now advise these callers to think long and hard before making such a move, because of the negative impact of the offsets on any Social 

Security benefits they have earned. 

In addition, our state retirement system has just mandated that anyone new to 

the system be informed of the penalties that may result from the Social Security 

offsets by taking a public service job in Nevada. NSEA has formed a strong coalition 

with the state retirement system and, together, we regularly publicize the fact that 

public service in Nevada can lead to a loss of a significant portion of one’s Social 

Security benefits. 

The Government Pension Offset: Another Unfair Penalty 

Although the bill under consideration today does not address the GPO, a discussion of the offsets must include a mention of this other unfair penalty. The GPO 

reduces Social Security spousal or survivor benefits by two-thirds of the individual’s 

public pension. Thus, a teacher who receives a public pension for a job not covered 

by Social Security will lose much or all of any spousal survivor benefits she would 

expect to collect based on her husband’s private sector earnings. 

Congress and the President agreed in 1983 to reduce the spousal benefits reduction from a dollar-for-dollar reduction to a reduction based on two-thirds of a public 

employee’s retirement system benefits. This remedial step, however, falls well short 

of addressing the continuing devastating impact of the GPO. 

The GPO penalizes individuals who have dedicated their lives to public service. 

Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and education employees, and more 

than one-fifth of other public employees, are not covered by Social Security, and are, 

therefore, subject to the GPO. 

Estimates indicate that 9 out of 10 public employees affected by the GPO lose 

their entire spousal benefit, even though their deceased spouse paid Social Security 

taxes for many years. Moreover, these estimates do not include those public employees or retirees who never applied for spousal benefits because they were informed 

they were ineligible. The offset has the harshest impact on those who can least afford the loss: lower-income women. Ironically, those impacted have less money to 

spend in their local economy, and sometimes have to turn to expensive government 

programs like food stamps to make ends meet. 

NEA receives hundreds of phone calls and letters each month from educators impacted by the GPO. In Nevada, I also am contacted by many widows and widowers 

struggling to survive on incomes close to poverty and fearing they will be unable 

to cover their housing, medical, and food expenses on their meager incomes. 

The Public Servant Retirement Protection Act: An Important Step 

Given the unacceptable impact of the WEP and GPO on so many of our nation’s 

teachers, the National Education Association supports the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act as a critical first step toward repeal of both offsets. NEA is very 

pleased to see such strong bipartisan support for this important legislation, and we 

thank the chair and committee member Congressman Kevin Brady for their efforts 

in bringing this legislation forward. 

30 

H.R. 4391 would eliminate the current WEP offset formula and would apply the 

same formula currently used to calculate non-impacted individuals’ benefits. It 

would then reduce the benefit by the percentage of indexed earnings that came from 

work not covered by Social Security. The bill includes a ‘‘hold harmless’’ provision 

guaranteeing that no person who already has earnings from any non-Social Security 

employment will receive less in benefits than they would under the current system. 

NEA supports the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act as a first step toward 

full repeal of both the GPO and the WEP. We believe it will result in a significant 

benefit increase for many educators and other public employees. 

We do, however, believe that several issues must be addressed as the bill moves 

forward. First, we look forward to working with the committee to resolve issues regarding the availability of earnings information from jobs not covered by Social Security. It is critical that the legislation address how the Social Security Administration will determine earnings from non-covered work in calculating benefit levels. 

Second, we urge the committee to pay for the WEP fix in a manner that does not 

further exacerbate the unfair impact of the WEP and GPO. We would strongly oppose any effort to pay for this legislation through additional enforcement of these 

discriminatory offsets. 

Conclusion 

On behalf of NEA, NSEA, and my family, I thank you for the opportunity to share 

my thoughts with you today. I urge the committee to move quickly to mark-up the 

Public Servant Retirement Protection Act and move it swiftly to final passage and 

enactment. Furthermore, I ask that you please look for ways to repeal completely 

both the WEP and the GPO as Congress continues to explore these issues. 

Thank you. 

f 

Chairman SHAW. Thank you. Here is the name I am worried 

about mispronouncing. 

Mr. IGLEHART. Iglehart. 

Chairman SHAW. I did it. 

Mr. IGLEHART. That is correct. You did an excellent job with 

that. 

STATEMENT OF RANDALL IGLEHART, STATE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS, AUSTIN, 

TEXAS 

Mr. IGLEHART. Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, my name 

is Randall Iglehart and I thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today to testify in support of H.R. 4391. I am here as president of 

the ATPE, the largest professional educators association in Texas. 

We are the largest non-union independent educators association in 

the Nation. I have been a public educator for over 28 years. I teach 

English, limited English proficient students, at Mark Twain Middle 

School in San Antonio Independent School District. 

The ATPE supports H.R. 4391 because it addresses a problem in 

current law that reduces the Social Security benefits of individuals 

eligible for government pensions, such as those provided through 

the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) of Texas. Currently, only 45 

of nearly 1,100 Texas public school districts participate in both Social Security and TRS. However, many public educators have 

earned Social Security benefits by working second jobs or from private-sector jobs they held before teaching. 

The WEP reduces the Social Security benefits of these folks by 

imposing an arbitrary formula on their benefits. Under this formula, a person who merely meets the minimum eligibility requirements for a government pension could face the full effect of the 

WEP formula, reducing his benefit by as much as $300 per month. 

31 

The ATPE believes the WEP acts as a deterrent to talented private-sector employees who are vested in Social Security and are interested in teaching as a second career, as well as to professional 

educators from states that pay into Social Security who are thinking about moving to Texas to teach. 

Texas is facing a teacher shortage approaching 50,000. The State 

recently cut benefits for active and retired educators due to State 

budget cuts last year, and retirements are at an all time high. The 

ATPE believes we must take steps to recruit and retain the brightest individuals into the classroom to ensure that every Texas student receives an exemplary education. The ATPE supports H.R. 

4391 because it repeals the WEP, and replaces it with a formula 

that figures government employee Social Security benefits in the 

same way the benefits of private-sector employees are figures. The 

Public Servant Retirement Protection Act will help the State of 

Texas recruit and retain qualified public educators from other professions and from other States, and Lord knows we need that. 

The ATPE thanks Representative Brady and Representative 

Johnson and the co sponsors of H.R. 4391 for working with our association toward ending the inequities of the WEP. However, because H.R. 4391 does not address the GPO, we urge your support 

for an amendment to the bill that will address the harsh effects of 

the GPO on public educators. By reducing the spousal or widow Social Security benefits of persons eligible for government pensions by 

two-thirds of the amount of the pension, the GPO eliminates spousal or widow benefits for many retired Texas public educators. The 

GPO has caused an enormous strain on the morale of public educators in Texas, causing a potential doubling of the retirement rate 

in 2004, as projected by the TRS. 

Many experienced educators recently retired to meet the July 1, 

2004, deadline in H.R. 743. By retiring by that date and working 

their last day in a district that pays into both TRS and Social Security, they avoided the GPO. Many other educators are leaving the 

profession early and cashing in their TRS accounts to avoid the 

GPO. The ATPE urges this Subcommittee to amend H.R. 4391 to 

lessen the effects of the GPO on public educators. Now, although 

we support total repeal of the GPO, as is accomplished by H.R. 594, 

a bill that now has 300 cosponsors, we have included several suggestions for compromise in our written testimony. This would bolster teacher morale and encourage qualified public educators to remain in the classroom. 

The ATPE thanks the Members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to participate in this hearing and for your willingness to 

receive our input on this critical issue that affects so many public 

educators. We urge you to amend and pass H.R. 4391 during the 

108th Congress. Educators are the most important resource in providing children with the knowledge they will need to succeed in 

life, and your efforts to protect their retirement benefits will have 

a lasting impact on the quality of the education received by students in the public school system. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Iglehart follows:] 

32 

Statement of Randall Iglehart, State President, Association of Texas 

Professional Educators, Austin, Texas 

The Association of Texas Professional Educators (ATPE) is the largest professional educators’ association in Texas. With more than 100,000 members, we are 

also the largest non-union educators’ association in the nation. ATPE is committed 

to: advocating for better benefits for all educators; promoting a collaborative work 

environment; the right of educators’ to choose the association they feel represents 

their interests; and providing the best education possible for Texas children. We 

thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the Subcommittee on HR 4391, 

the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act (PSRPA). 

ATPE supports HR 4391 as a step toward addressing the inequities in current law 

related to the Social Security benefits of individuals eligible for government pensions, such as those provided through the Teacher Retirement System of Texas 

(TRS). In Texas, it is mandatory for public school employees to contribute 6.4 percent of their pay to the TRS system. Currently, only 45 Texas public school districts 

also participate in Social Security. However, many public educators have earned Social Security benefits by working second jobs or from private-sector jobs they held 

before teaching. 

The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) reduces the Social Security benefits of 

persons who have worked in jobs that pay into the Social Security system and in 

jobs that do not. The WEP imposes an arbitrary formula on these individuals that 

is based partially on the number of years they paid into Social Security rather than 

the amount they will receive from their government pensions. That means that a 

person who worked in a Social Security-covered job for 20 years but who is also eligible for a government pension benefit of $500 per month will have his Social Security benefit reduced by the same amount as a person who paid into Social Security 

for 20 years but will receive a government pension benefit of $1,200 per year. Under 

this formula, a person who merely meets the minimum eligibility requirements for 

a government pension could face the full effect of the WEP formula, reducing his 

benefit by as much as $300 per month. 

ATPE believes the WEP acts as a deterrent to talented, private-sector employees 

who are vested in Social Security and are interested in teaching as a second career, 

as well as to professional educators from states that pay into Social Security who 

are thinking about moving to Texas to teach. Furthermore, it arbitrarily punishes 

those who have worked to become vested in both Social Security and government 

pensions. Texas is facing a teacher shortage approaching 50,000, the state recently 

cut benefits for active and retired educators due to state budget cuts last year and 

retirements are at an all-time high. ATPE believes we must take steps to recruit 

and retain the brightest individuals into the classroom to ensure that every Texas 

student receives an exemplary education. 

Some suggest that mandating all public school employees to participate in Social 

Security would solve the controversy surrounding the Social Security offsets. ATPE 

emphatically disagrees and opposes mandating Texas educators into the Social Security system. Texas is one of 13 states where Social Security participation is not 

required of all public school employees. In those 13 states, contribution rates, retirement formula multipliers and cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) are higher than in 

Social Security states. These higher rates are established by state legislatures to 

make up for the lack of this important federal retirement benefit. 

ATPE believes the additional fiscal demands that mandatory Social Security coverage would require of the state would ultimately be reconciled through smaller 

state contributions to TRS and larger contributions from active and retired educators. This would produce additional strain on an already overworked and underappreciated profession and could have a devastating effect on the actuarial soundness of the TRS fund, reducing benefits for TRS members. 

ATPE supports HR 4391, the PSRPA, because it repeals the WEP and replaces 

it with a formula that figures government employees’ benefits in the same way the 

benefits of private sector employees are figured. By considering the complete earnings history of a worker, in both covered (by Social Security) employment and noncovered employment, when determining average monthly earnings over a worker’s 

lifetime and applying the same formula percentage to all workers, the PSRPA will 

mean greater benefits for public educators qualified for Social Security benefits. 

The new formula under the PSRPA is a fair compromise between the arbitrary 

WEP and total repeal and will help the state of Texas recruit and retain qualified 

public educators from other professions and from other states. ATPE thanks Rep. 

Brady and the cosponsors of HR 4391 for working with our organization toward ending the inequities of the WEP. 

33 

However, because HR 4391 does not address the Government Pension Offset 

(GPO), we urge your support for an amendment to the bill that will address the 

harsh effects of the GPO on public educators. By reducing the spousal or widow Social Security benefits of persons eligible for government pensions by two-thirds of 

the amount of the pension, the GPO eliminates spousal or widow benefits for many 

retired Texas public educators. The GPO has caused an enormous strain on the morale of public educators in Texas causing a potential doubling of the retirement rate 

in 2004 as projected by the TRS. Many experienced educators recently retired to 

meet the July 1, 2004, deadline in HR 743. By retiring by that date and working 

their last day in a district that pays into both TRS and Social Security, they avoided 

the GPO. Many other educators are leaving the profession early and cashing in their 

TRS accounts to avoid the GPO. 

ATPE urges this Subcommittee to amend HR 4391 to lessen the effects of the 

GPO on public educators. Suggestions include total repeal of the GPO, an exemption 

for public educators, or a partial repeal that would exempt widows and those with 

combined pension and spousal benefits that fall below a certain level. 

HR 594, the Social Security Fairness Act, is legislation that would repeal both the 

WEP and the GPO. That bill now has 300 bipartisan cosponsors, including several 

of the cosponsors of HR 4391, but the bill has yet to be marked up by this Committee and debated on House floor. ATPE is hopeful that both HR 4391 and legislation to address the GPO will pass the 108th Congress and become law. This will 

bolster teacher morale and encourage qualified public educators to remain in the 

classroom. 

ATPE thanks the members of this Subcommittee for the opportunity to participate 

in this hearing and for your willingness to receive our input on this critical issue 

that affects so many public educators. Educators are the most important resource 

in providing children with the knowledge they will need to succeed in life, and your 

efforts to protect their retirement benefits will have a lasting impact on the quality 

of the education received by students in the public school system. 

f 

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Iglehart. Mr. Canterbury? 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

GRAND LODGE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members of the House Subcommittee on Social Security. 

My name is Chuck Canterbury. I am the National President of the 

FOP, and I am the elected spokesperson of our 318,000 rank-andfile police officers. We are the largest law enforcement labor organization in the United States. I am here this morning to advise you 

of our support for H.R. 4391, which would repeal the WEP and replace it with a more equitable individualized calculation of Social 

Security benefits. 

The FOP has been at the forefront of an important effort by public employees to repeal both the WEP and the GPO. In May, I appeared before this Subcommittee to testify in favor of H.R. 594, 

which would repeal both of these inequitable provisions. This morning I would like to confine my remarks to the WEP and its effect 

on retired law enforcement officers, and to demonstrate the importance of this new act and why it is needed and how it will help our 

law enforcement officers. 

Under the current WEP formula, law enforcement officers who 

serve communities which are not included in the Social Security 

system may lose up to 60 percent of their Social Security benefit 

to which they are entitled by virtue of secondary or post retirement 

employment which required them to pay into the Social Security 

system. While this provision affects all public employees who are 

34 

outside the Social Security system, we have maintained that it has 

a disparate impact on law enforcement officers for several reasons. 

One, law enforcement officers retire earlier than employees in 

many other professions owing to the physical demands of the job. 

Thus, after their law enforcement service, many law enforcement 

officers are likely to begin second careers and hold jobs that do pay 

into the Social Security system, and even more officers are likely 

to moonlight, that is, hold second or even third jobs, throughout 

their entire careers in order to augment their income. This creates 

an unjust situation that too many of our members find themselves 

in. They are entitled to a State or local retirement benefit because 

they worked 20 or more years keeping their streets and neighborhoods safe, and also worked at a job, or jobs, in which they paid 

Social Security, entitling them to that benefit as well. 

However, because of the WEP, if their second career resulted in 

less than 20 years of substantial earnings, upon reaching the age 

they eligible to collect Social Security, they discover that they lose 

60 percent of the benefit for which they were taxed. Actuarially 

speaking, I doubt many of our officers will even live long enough 

to break even, and that is to collect the money that they paid into 

the system, much less a windfall, Mr. Chairman. These men and 

women earned their State and local retirement benefits as public 

employees, and they paid Social Security taxes while employed in 

the private sector. There is no windfall. Bluntly put, the WEP has 

not eliminated a windfall for individuals who did not earn it, but 

it has resulted in a windfall for the Federal Government at the expense of public employees. 

House Resolution 4391 is an excellent first step in correcting the 

inequity of the current law and represents a commendable compromise between those who justly believe that public employees are 

being treated unfairly and those who are concerned about the potential financial consequences of repealing the WEP. Under H.R. 

4391, the WEP would be repealed and replaced with an individualized calculation of Social Security benefits based on an individual’s 

entire work history. Social Security benefits would be calculated as 

if all the worker’s earnings were subject to Social Security taxes, 

using the standard benefit formula. To ensure Social Security benefits are based on Social Security wages, the benefit would be multiplied by the percentage of earnings subject to the Social Security 

taxes. 

The legislation will change the law to treat our Nation’s public 

employees much more fairly, and the FOP is proud to offer this 

measure our support. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the 

other Members of this distinguished Subcommittee for the chance 

to appear here today, and we thank you for your work on this very 

important action to our Members. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Canterbury follows:] 

Statement of Chuck Canterbury, National President, Grand Lodge 

Fraternal Order of Police 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Matsui, and distinguished Members of the House Subcommittee on Social Security. My name is Chuck Canterbury, 

National President of the Fraternal Order of Police. I am the elected spokesperson 

of more than 318,000 rank-and-file police officers—the largest law enforcement labor 

organization in the United States. I am here this morning advise you of our support 

35 

for H.R. 4391, the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection Act,’’ which would repeal 

the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and replace it with a more equitable, individualized calculation of Social Security benefits. 

The Fraternal Order of Police has been at the forefront of an important effort by 

public employees to repeal both the WEP and the Government Pension Offset 

(GPO). In May of last year, I appeared before this Subcommittee to testify in favor 

of one of the F.O.P.’s top legislative priorities, H.R. 594, the ‘‘Social Security Fairness Act,’’ which would repeal both of these inequitable provisions in current law. 

This morning I want to confine my remarks to the Windfall Elimination Provision 

and its effect on retired law enforcement officers to demonstrate the importance of 

the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection Act’’—why it is needed and how it will 

help law enforcement officers. 

Under the current WEP formula, law enforcement officers who served communities which are not included in the Social Security system may lose up to sixty percent (60%) of the Social Security benefit to which they are entitled by virtue of secondary or post-retirement employment which required them to pay into the Social 

Security system. This sixty percent (60%) is a lot of money, especially when you consider that the officer and his family were likely counting on that benefit when they 

planned for retirement. 

While this provision affects all public employees who are outside the Social Security system, the F.O.P. has always maintained that WEP has a disparate impact 

on law enforcement officers for several reasons. First of all, law enforcement officers 

retire earlier than employees in many other professions. Owing to the physical demands of the job, a law enforcement officer is likely to retire between the ages of 

45 and 60. Secondly, after 20 or 25 years on the job, many law enforcement officers 

are likely to begin second careers and hold jobs that do pay into the Social Security 

system. Even more officers are likely to ‘‘moonlight,’’ that is, hold second or even 

third jobs throughout their law enforcement career in order to augment their income. This creates an unjust situation that too many of our members find themselves in: they are entitled to a State or local retirement benefit because they 

worked 20 or more years keeping their streets and neighborhoods safe, and also 

worked at a job or jobs in which they paid into Social Security, entitling them to 

that benefit as well. However, because of the WEP, if their second career resulted 

in less than twenty (20) years of substantial earnings, upon reaching the age they 

are eligible to collect Social Security, they will discover that they lose sixty percent 

(60%) of the benefit for which they were taxed! Actuarially speaking, I doubt many 

officers will live long enough to ‘‘break even’’—that is collect the money they paid 

into the system, let alone receive any ‘‘windfall.’’ These men and women earned 

their State or local retirement benefit as public employees and they paid Social Security taxes while employed in the private sector. How is this a windfall? 

I think it is clear that Congress did not intend to reduce the benefits of hardworking Americans who chose to serve their States and communities as public employees and then went on to have second careers or worked second jobs to make 

ends meet. After all, when Social Security was established in 1935, it intentionally 

excluded State and local employees. And though most public employees are now in 

the Social Security system, fifteen (15) States—Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia (certain local governments), Illinois, Louisiana, Kentucky (certain 

local governments), Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Rhode Island, 

and Texas—which remain outside the Social Security system. It is these approximately seven (7) million public employees that need the help of Congress. 

When the WEP was enacted in 1983, it was part of a large reform package designed to shore up the financing of the Social Security system. Its ostensible purpose 

was to remove a ‘‘windfall’’ for persons who spent some time in jobs not covered by 

Social Security (like public employees) and also worked other jobs where they paid 

Social Security taxes long enough to qualify for retirement benefits. Yet the actual 

effect of the provision has had a profoundly negative impact on low-paid public employees outside the Social Security system, like law enforcement officers. 

To the Fraternal Order of Police, this is a matter of fairness. The WEP substantially reduces a benefit that employees had included and counted on when planning 

their retirement. The arbitrary formula in current law, when applied, does not 

eliminate ‘‘windfalls’’ because of its regressive nature—the reduction is only applied 

to the first bracket of the benefit formula and causes a relatively larger reduction 

in benefits to low-paid workers. It also overpenalizes lower paid workers with short 

careers or, like many retired law enforcement officers, those whose careers are split 

inside and outside the Social Security system. 

The repeal of the Windfall Elimination Provision has elicited no organized support, because I believe that the overwhelming majority of Members of Congress 

agree with the position of the Fraternal Order of Police, which is that the current 

36 

law is unfair to public employees. Yet despite this agreement, the estimated costs 

for a full repeal of the WEP are considerable and I believe that this is the primary 

reason that such proposals garner a great deal of support, but little attention. 

Bluntly put, the WEP has not eliminated a windfall for individuals who did not earn 

it, it has resulted in a windfall for the Federal government at the expense of public 

employees. 

This is why I believe that H.R. 4391, introduced by Representative Kevin P. 

Brady (R-TX), Howard L. Berman (D-CA), Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon (R-CA), Sam 

Johnson (R-TX), Michael Michaud (D-ME), and you, Mr. Chairman, is so important. 

It is an excellent first step in correcting the inequity of current law and represents 

a commendable compromise between those who justly believe that public employees 

are being treated unfairly and those who are concerned about the potential fiscal 

consequences of repealing WEP. 

The legislation we are discussing here today would repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and replace it with an individualized calculation of Social 

Security worker benefits based on an individual’s entire work history. Under the 

legislation, Social Security benefits would be calculated as if all the worker’s earnings were subject to Social Security taxes, using the standard benefit formula. To 

ensure Social Security benefits are based only on Social Security wages, the benefit 

would be multiplied by the percent of earnings subject to Social Security taxes. Current retirees and workers who have non-Social Security wages in or before the year 

following enactment will receive the higher of either their benefit under current law 

or their benefit calculated under this bill. 

The ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection Act’’ will change Social Security law 

to treat our nation’s public employees much more fairly and the Fraternal Order of 

Police is proud to offer the measure its support. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other Members of this distinguished 

Subcommittee for the chance to appear before you today. It is my hope that you and 

the Subcommittee will mark-up and pass H.R. 4391 in the near future. I will now 

taken any questions you may have. 

f 

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Canterbury. Mr. Avak? 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE AVAK, PRESIDENT-ELECT, CALIFORNIA RETIRED TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. AVAK. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee on Social Security, my name is George Avak and I 

am President-Elect of the CRTA. We have more than 52,000 members and represent the interests of 170,000 retirees who receive a 

pension from the California State TRS (CalSTRS). Thank you for 

inviting me to testify here today regarding H.R. 4391. 

The CalSTRS is not integrated with the Social Security system, 

so most of our members are subject to the WEP and the GPO. 

While we continue to support repeal of both of these penalties, as 

encompassed in H.R. 594 and S. 349, we welcome H.R. 4391 as the 

first step toward fair and equal treatment of all people, regardless 

of their careers, by the Social Security system. 

While California’s public schoolteachers did not pay into Social 

Security during their teaching careers, nor were they given the opportunity to do so if they so chose, many did pay into Social Security doing summer jobs or prior employment. The reality was that 

a 9 month teaching job could not support a family for 12 months, 

so teachers worked in the summer. By doing so, teachers not only 

met the immediate needs of their family, but they thought they 

were also helping to meet their needs in their retirement. They recognized that they could not have a secure retirement by relying on 

just their teacher’s pension. Not only was their pay below average 

compared to people with comparable educational backgrounds and 

37 

training, but the pension based on that working salary was not 

adequate to maintain a decent standard of living in retirement. As 

recently as 1998, an independent study conducted for CalSTRS concluded that the pension benefit provided by the system was not 

generally accepted by standards of income replacement in retirement. 

I would also note that teachers paid for their pensions with an 

8 percent payroll deduction. In the private sector, at companies 

that provide pensions, the common practice is for the employee to 

pay his share of the Social Security tax and the employer provides 

a pension at no additional cost to the employee. For example, a 

teacher who retired in 1987 today receives a CalSTRS pension of 

less than $2,000 a month. Women retiring that year, and most 

teachers are women, receive an average of just $1,688 a month. 

These pensions alone can hardly secure a retirement in a high-cost 

State such as California. That is why so many teachers worked in 

summer jobs where they could pay into Social Security in the belief 

that they would receive supplemental income in retirement. We estimate that about 40,000 California teachers are affected by the 

WEP. They lose an average of $300 per month due to WEP. That 

may not sound like much money, but it is nearly 18 percent of the 

average retired female teacher’s income. The maximum Social Security benefit payable in 2004 is $2,111 a month. The average payment is $922. Our members typically 

qualify for a little more than half of the average payment based on 

their Social Security covered earnings before the application of 

WEP. That level of benefit is commensurate with the level of employment in Social Security jobs. To have what is already a modest 

benefit further reduced because one chose a career in public service 

such as education is not a message we should be sending. No other 

Social Security beneficiary is subjected to any type of means testing 

based on non Social Security income or financial resources, and we 

do not believe it is fair to impose such a test on public servants. 

California and many other states are facing looming shortages of 

qualified teachers. One important source of new teachers will be 

those who decide on teaching as a second career. While they may 

be willing to make financial sacrifices in order to teach, they may 

be unable to make similar sacrifices in retirement. 

There is another issue that must be addressed when identifying 

the necessary revenues to partially restore benefits lost to the 

WEP, as proposed in H.R. 4391. The fact is that 20 years after its 

imposition, the WEP and the GPO are a mystery to most people 

affected by them. The SSA sends out annual estimates of benefits 

that are misleading to those affected and has made no concerted 

effort to inform people about those penalties. The CalSTRS make 

only a limited mention of the Social Security penalties in the information it provides to its members. Many of our CalSTRS first learn 

about WEP and GPO when they apply for their benefits—much too 

late to make alternative financial plans to ensure a secure retirement. 

Many times Social Security mistakenly provides a full benefit to 

retired teachers even though they are subject to those penalties. 

When Social Security learns of their error, they routinely send out 

letters to recipients demanding full repayment of the overpaid 

38 

amount within 30 days. We have members who have been paid full 

benefits for years, unaware that they are subject to these penalties. 

When the mistake is caught, they not only find they are losing a 

portion of their monthly income, but also have a significant and unexpected debt to pay. For some, the amount owed has ranged from 

$4,000 to $43,000. We would urge you to hold harmless such people 

who have been overpaid due to governmental error absent any evidence of fraud on the part of the recipient. Our members worked 

hard all their lives. They played by the rules and always expected 

to carry their own weight. What they didn’t know was that the 

rules were changed, and now they are bearing the unfortunate 

brunt of that change. 

We applaud Congress for finally recognizing that the impacts of 

WEP are not what were originally intended. House Resolution 4391 

makes an important first step in rectifying those unforeseen consequences, and it will provide a measure of needed relief. I would 

like to thank all the Members of this Committee, and thank you 

for the time you have given me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Avak follows:] 

Statement of George Avak, President-Elect, California Retired Teachers 

Association, Sacramento, California 

Mister Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Social Security, my name 

is George Avak, and I am president-elect of the California Retired Teachers Association. We have 52,000 members and represent the interests of 170,000 retirees who 

receive a pension from the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS). 

I want to thank you for inviting me to testify here today regarding HR 4391. 

CalSTRS is not integrated with the Social Security system so most of our members are subject to the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension 

Offset. 

While we continue to support repeal of both of these penalties, as encompassed 

in HR 594 and S 349, we welcome HR 4391 as the first step towards fair and equal 

treatment of all people, regardless of their careers, by the Social Security system. 

While California’s public school teachers did not pay into Social Security during 

their teaching careers—nor were they given the opportunity to do so if they chose— 

many did pay into Social Security during summer jobs or prior employment. The 

reality was that a nine-month teaching job could not support a family for 12 

months, so teachers worked in the summer. 

By doing so, teachers not only met the immediate needs of their family but they 

thought they were also helping to meet their needs in retirement. They recognized 

that they could not have a secure retirement by relying on just their teacher’s pension. Not only was their pay below average compared to people with comparable 

educational backgrounds and training, but the pension based on that working salary 

was not adequate to maintain a decent standard of living in retirement. 

As recently as 1998, an independent study conducted for CalSTRS concluded that 

the pension benefit provided by the system did not meet generally accepted standards of income replacement in retirement. 

I would also note that teachers paid for those pensions with an eight—percent 

payroll deduction. In the private sector, at companies that provide pensions, the 

common practice is for the employee to pay his share of the Social Security tax and 

the employer provides a pension at no additional cost to the employee. 

For example, a teacher who retired in 1987, today receives a CalSTRS pension 

of less than $2,000 a month. Women retiring that year—and most teachers are 

women—receive on average just $1,688 a month. These pensions alone can hardly 

sustain a secure retirement in a high-cost state such as California. That is why so 

many teachers worked in summer jobs where they could pay into Social Security 

in the belief they would receive supplemental income in retirement. 

We estimate that about 40,000 California teachers are affected by the WEP. They 

lose an average of $300 per month due to the WEP. That may not sound like much 

money, but it’s nearly 18 percent of the average retired female teacher’s income. 

The maximum Social Security benefit payable in 2004 is $2,111. The average payment is $922. Our members typically qualify for a little more than half of the averVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
39 

age payment based on their Social Security-covered earnings before the application 

of the WEP. That level of benefit is commensurate with the level of employment in 

Social Security jobs. 

To have what is already a modest benefit further reduced because one chose a 

career in public service such as education is not a message we should be sending. 

No other Social Security beneficiary is subjected to any type of means testing based 

on non-Social Security income or financial resources, and we do not believe it is fair 

to impose such a test on public servants. 

California and many other states are facing looming shortages of qualified teachers. One important source of new teachers will be those who decide on teaching as 

a second career. While they may be willing to make financial sacrifices in order to 

teach, they may be unable to make similar sacrifices in retirement. 

The penalties imposed on their earned Social Security benefits may make teaching a poor choice and could hamper efforts to recruit competent professionals in the 

coming years. 

There is another issue that must be addressed when identifying the necessary 

revenues to partially restore benefits lost to the WEP, as proposed in HR 4391. The 

fact is that 20 years after their imposition, the WEP and the GPO are a mystery 

to most of the people affected by them. The Social Security Administration sends 

out annual estimates of benefits that are misleading to those affected, and has made 

no concerted effort to inform people about these penalties. CalSTRS makes only limited mention of the Social Security penalties in the information it provides to its 

members. 

Many of our members first learn about the WEP and GPO when they go to apply 

for their benefits—much too late to make alternative financial plans to ensure a secure retirement. 

Many times Social Security provides a full benefit to retired teachers even though 

they are subject to these penalties. When they learn of their error, they routinely 

send out letters to recipients demanding full repayment of the overpaid amount 

within 30 days. We have members who have been paid full benefits for years, unaware that they are subject to these penalties. When the mistake is caught, they 

not only find out they are losing a portion of their monthly income but also have 

a significant and unexpected debt to repay. For some, the amount owed has ranged from $4,000 up to $43,000. We would urge 

you to hold harmless such people who have been overpaid due to governmental error 

absent any evidence of fraud on the part of the recipient. 

Our members worked hard all of their lives. They played by the rules and always 

expected to carry their own weight. But what they didn’t know was that the rules 

were changed and now they are bearing the unfortunate brunt of that change. 

We applaud the Congress for finally recognizing that the impacts of the WEP are 

not what were originally intended. 

HR 4391 makes an important first step in rectifying those unforeseen consequences and it will provide a measure of needed relief to our members impacted 

by the WEP. Thank you. 

f 

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Avak. Just very briefly, the 

problem of a notice going out showing the incorrect amount is 

something that has come to the attention of this Committee, and 

we are working with the SSA hopefully to correct that, or at least 

have some type of a warning on it telling people receiving a government pension other than Social Security, that that amount might 

vary. It is unfair to people who are going into retirement and trying to figure out exactly what their budgets are going to be. Mr. 

Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Iglehart, thank 

you for being here. It is a lot cooler here than in San Antonio right 

now, isn’t it? 

Mr. IGLEHART. A little bit. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I notice that you still want some changes to the 

GPO. I would love to ask you a question. The GPO only replicates 

the dual entitlement rule that all other American spouses live with. 

Everyone is allowed to collect the greater of either retirement beneVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
40 

fits or spousal benefits, but not both. Why do you believe that those 

Texas teachers who don’t participate in Social Security should get 

more benefits than those in the 45 Texas school districts that do 

pay taxes into Social Security? 

Mr. IGLEHART. Well, we don’t view it as these individuals necessarily receiving more. We are just trying to establish some type 

of equity, because these people, even though they may not have 

paid into the system, their spouses did. As a result of that, we feel 

that they are entitled to some of those benefits. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, they do get the benefits. They get the higher of the two, whichever is greater. That is true for me and everybody else in this audience. What is different about a Texas teacher 

as compared to a policeman or a fireman or somebody else? 

Mr. IGLEHART. Well, we are not saying that there is any difference between them. That is not what we are saying. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay, you don’t want to answer the question, I 

take it. That is okay. Mr. Avak, you indicated that some of your 

teachers get more than they should after they retire and then have 

to pay it back. I understand that situation, but does your organization try to inform the teachers, or do you just leave it to the Social 

Security system to do that? 

Mr. AVAK. Well, we don’t have all of the retired teachers as 

members of our association. There are 170,000 in the State of California. We feel that the obligation of informing them should be 

with Social Security. We are not an agent—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Even though they don’t work under Social Security? 

Mr. AVAK. Well, if they are going to have the penalties imposed 

upon them because of having paid in Social Security prior to their 

employment as teachers, or subsequent to having been employed as 

teachers, then the obligation is with Social Security to let them 

know of the consequences of this particular process. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You don’t feel any obligation. 

Mr. AVAK. We do the best we can to inform as many of our retired teachers as possible. We have a limited budget and it costs 

a lot of money to send out letters to all the people in our association and those who are not members. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I bet you send out letters all the time. Do you 

in Texas, do you all inform them of the differences in the systems? 

Mr. IGLEHART. I am sorry, I was not listening to the question. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you keep them informed, your members, of 

the differences in the Social Security system and what they can expect when they retire? 

Mr. IGLEHART. We try to. Of course, on an individual basis, it 

is difficult to tell members exactly what they are going to get. We 

try to keep them informed about the differences between the two 

and what they may be eligible for and not eligible for. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Hickman, do you all as well? 

Mr. HICKMAN. Yes. In Nevada we have made very sure, because we have a close relationship with the Public Employee Retirement System, and we were actually going to put a bill in for 

this coming session in Nevada to require such notification. Our 

Public Employee Retirement System has already agreed to that. 

We totally support the effort that everyone who now becomes a 

41 

member of the Public Employee Retirement System is notified that, 

by doing so, they may be subject to the WEP/GPO problems that 

may come to them if they have some Social Security. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. HICKMAN. We are all very proud of that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Yield back. 

Chairman SHAW. I was reminded by staff that under H.R. 743, 

‘‘The Social Security Protection Act’’ (P.L. 108–203) passed by this 

Committee and recently enacted into law that the SSA is going to 

have to come up with some way of handling that particular problem of notification. Mr. Becerra? 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony and the work that you and your associations have done to try to bring this to a final vote and, hopefully, 

passage. Let me ask a question. This is a question that I ask simply to see if you all can continue to give us some guidance on how 

to get this done. 

There will be a cost associated with this. Some may portray this 

as not so much a cost, it is finally paying up what was due a lot 

of folks who didn’t get their share of Social Security retirement 

benefits. One way or the other, the Federal Government would 

have to come up with money—in the case of this legislation, if the 

cost projections are accurate, about $7 billion over the next 10 

years. If we were to eliminate WEP, that would be somewhere 

around $30 billion over the next 10 years. Let’s talk simply about 

this legislation, about $7 billion. We are running a fiscal budget deficit of some $470 billion this year alone. We have over a $7 trillion debt right now in this country. Everything that we are being told is that we are going to continue to see historically high budget deficits for the Federal Government. Seven billion compared to a $7 trillion national debt isn’t 

that much. Seven billion dollars compared to a 1-year annual deficit for this year of $470-plus billion is not that much, but $7 billion 

is still $7 billion more than what the Federal Government has 

available to spend. 

Give me your sense of how you would suggest to us that we move 

forward on this. I can give you some of my ideas on that, but without influencing what you might have to say, give me a sense of how 

you would suggest that we try to address all the different needs 

that the government has, whether it is national security, fighting 

terrorism, providing education funding, providing health care, Social Security, Medicare, all the rest, and then also doing this which 

I think most of us would agree is essential to do. Open question. 

Anyone. 

Mr. IGLEHART. I am sure all of us would agree here that that 

is a very difficult task. With the help of Mr. Gerry and some other 

keen advisors, I think it is something that can be accomplished. 

Exactly how, we would have to look at the details of all of this, of 

course, which we don’t have before us. Be we are pretty certain it 

can be done. 

Mr. BECERRA. Well, let me propose—let me ask a question, you 

can give me a thumbs up or thumbs down. Should we do more aggressive enforcement of current GPO/WEP provisions, to collect 

money there to then have money to pay out to do a revised or reVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
42 

formed WEP? In other words, there are lot of folks out there who 

have received these letters from Social Security saying we didn’t 

realize this but we are paying you more than, under the current 

law, you should be receiving because you did government non-Social Security work and also you have earnings that are Social Security-related government work. Should we do more active enforcement of those folks who received those letters but haven’t returned 

the money Social Security says they are owed to try to help pay 

for this reform of WEP? Any thumb up? Probably thumb down? 

Let me ask this. I am going to assume that if you don’t give me 

a thumb up, that means it is a thumbs down. What about this? We 

passed some tax cuts in this country in the last few years, 2001 

and 2003, totalling over a trillion dollars in reduced Federal revenues as a result of those tax cuts. Most of the money went to folks 

far beyond the means of those who are retired under Social Security and trying to get some of this money back. Would you suggest 

that perhaps we reduce the size of the tax cuts for perhaps the one 

tenth of 1 percent wealthiest Americans in this country to find 

some of the money to help pay for this? Thumbs up? Thumbs 

down? See, one thumb up. Okay. 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Becerra leading the witnesses 

at all in this? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BECERRA. It is a tough one, and it is going to be a tough 

one for us to resolve, because I think everyone has the desire to 

try to make this work. I hope that what we will be able to do is 

come up with the courage to find how we pay for this, because we 

need to. We have a lot of obligations, but we also have obligations 

for people who have worked very hard. I just wanted to see if you 

all might have some recommendations or suggestions for us. Mr. 

Chairman, I know we don’t have the light, but I suspect my time 

is up, so I yield back and thank you for the time. 

Chairman SHAW. You yield back 9 seconds. Mr. Hulshof? 

Mr. HULSHOF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SHAW. By the way, that was a very interesting line 

of questioning. 

Mr. HULSHOF. It was, and even though it is an accounting device, there still is the firewall between the Social Security taxes 

that are paid into the system and the income tax structure. I want 

to commend the gentleman from California and want to maybe step 

back. I appreciate the testimony offered, because we have had a 

good, lively discussion—I heard somebody say, actually, ‘‘sparring’’ 

this morning—and I wanted to get back more to some general 

themes. I have heard throughout about how your constituencies, in 

fact, yourself, Mr. Hickman, your personal story about working 

hard, people playing by the rules, a strong work ethic. We all lament the salary structure that you have. Of course, that is not 

within the purview of Congress necessarily. Mr. Avak, you even 

mentioned the high cost of living in California—talk to that guy 

down there, Mr. Becerra. 

As we understand it, the purpose of the hearing is, of course, 

that we recognize that last year there were 700,000 retirees and 

disabled Americans, about 2 percent of the workforce, that earned 

the benefit both from Social Security and from a pension plan that 

43 

substitutes for Social Security. Again, for those folks—Mr. Chairman, you reminded us that there is an audience broader than just 

these walls, that back in 1983 Congress enacted this arbitrary line 

of the WEP, and the intent was—I haven’t gone back to look at the 

debate specifically, but generally the intent was this formula that 

employees who earned a Social Security pension along with a pension from a substitute, like a teacher, like a police officer or Mr. 

Canterbury, that they would not receive a more generous Social Security benefit that some worker with equal earnings who had paid 

into Social Security their entire lifetimes. That was the intent. Everybody recognizes, though, this was an arbitrary line that was 

drawn. 

The thing, though, the final point I would like to make, and really not a question but I think just, again, to kind of step back, is 

that Mr. Brady’s bill, this bill that we are here and you have testified about, does in fact repeal the WEP. His bill repeals the WEP. 

Social Security would no longer be figured by an arbitrary formula 

but would, in fact, be based on each worker’s actual work history. 

Again, that attempt is to treat all workers fairly. Again, I want to 

commend you not only for your lifetime of experience in the groups 

that you represent, but your willingness to work with us and to try 

to address this in the most fair and equitable manner possible. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Hulshof. Mr. Brady? 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join with Mr. 

Becerra, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Hulshof in thanking the witnesses 

because I think it has been real enlightening. A couple of thoughts. 

One, I think all of us agree that this formula from 21 years ago 

just doesn’t fit today. When you listen to a teacher who worked a 

second job in a casino, teachers trying to recruit educators to San 

Antonio, police officers whose colleagues aren’t going to live to a 

ripe old age, and a teacher in California whose elderly colleagues 

have trouble living in a high-cost State. The real problems with the 

one size fits all approach. Under this bill, the point you made is 

this WEP formula disappears. The same formula that everyone else 

on Social Security receives is applied to your workers, which is— 

I can’t think of anything fairer than equal treatment. If you will 

remove that—if you can pull that down a second, thank you, Mr. 

Hulshof. 

What we are trying to do under this bill is everyone is so different an individual it is hard to compare dollars, but you can compare how much their wages are replaced by Social Security. That 

is what we focused on. Are people getting back an equal percentage 

of what they put in, in other words. Under this bill, a Social Security worker, a little over 40 percent replacement wage. Under the 

current law, it dips, just as each one of you said. Each one of your 

fellow members and fellow teachers and police officers are penalized. Under H.R. 4391, the wage replacement rate is almost identical for workers, so they are getting back in Social Security almost 

identical percentage of what they paid in. That is the goal of what 

we are trying to do today. 

The point I think I want to make, the question I want to ask of 

each of those who testified, you are individuals, as your stories tell 

today. There have been some who are suggesting that the cost of 

44 

going back and figuring out your accurate and complete work 

records is too high, is too much for the effort. While I think the 

$190 million estimate, which really does work out to about a quarter of a million dollars a worker, seems to me just insane in 

amount. I think we can do it for a fraction of that. The point that 

still remains is, for your members to be eligible for equal treatment 

based on, really, what their life work history is, do you think it is 

worth the effort to recalculate the benefits based on an individual 

rather than on some guess? I will start with Terry, Mr. Hickman. 

Mr. HICKMAN. Thank you, Congressman Brady. I would ask a 

question in return: what price is justice? I believe the individual 

does have a right to have their Social Security benefit based upon 

what they have done. You are absolutely correct, one-size-fits-all is 

not correct. I know the thousands of retired teachers and educators 

and State employees in the State of Nevada are asking for fairness, 

and this is the way for it to be based upon the individual. We totally support that. There is no price for justice, because this bill 

will help to make it right based upon the individual’s work record, 

and we think that is what should be done. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, sir. Howdy, Randall. 

Mr. IGLEHART. Thank you, Representative Brady. We certainly 

appreciate your and the Committee’s efforts in this process. We 

think it does take a giant step toward establishing some type of equity in this system. Our members will greatly appreciate this effort, and we would like to see it passed during the 108th Congress. 

Mr. BRADY. You bet. Thank you. Sir. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Absolutely, it has been an equity issue from 

day one. I think the misnomer has always been that it is getting 

a benefit that you are not entitled to. It is a benefit that you paid 

into. If I work a parallel career while I police the streets of my city 

and then bus tables at Shoney’s the rest of the time, I am getting 

my Social Security benefit on my bussing tables. It was an inequity 

from the start. I can promise you that my members will volunteer 

enough man-hours individually to track down their non-covered 

wages. 

[Laughter.] 

If I can promise from the thousands of e-mails that I receive, 

they already know those figures. If they have to go to their private 

pensions, I am sure that the private pension calculated their benefit based on their non-covered Social Security. I believe those figures are very easily retrievable. 

Mr. BRADY. We hear exactly the same thing from our teachers 

in Texas. We can recalculate. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. We can find them. 

Mr. BRADY. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Thank you. 

Mr. AVAK. We have a lot of retired math teachers. 

[Laughter.] 

We would be happy to resume employment. I know my wife, she 

is very, very mathematical. I don’t want to say ‘‘calculating,’’ but 

she is terrific in math. She looks forward to looking at the bill 

when we go to the grocery store and calculating to be sure that 

there were no errors in what the grocery store told us we were to 

pay. 

45 

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, we had better hire his wife. 

Mr. AVAK. Our association, though, is supporting this bill as a 

major step forward. We appreciate the efforts of this Committee, 

and especially you, in bringing it forward. I think that democracy 

is an evolution, and things take steps sometimes to get accomplished. If we didn’t have these small or whatever steps they are, 

we wouldn’t see the fruition of a lot of tremendous efforts that take 

a lot of time to accomplish. Thank you. 

Mr. BRADY. Well, thank you. All your testimony has been very 

enlightening. We appreciate it. 

Chairman SHAW. I think this is an unusual bill; it is an unusual 

moment. I particularly like the way Mr. Canterbury summed it up 

for the FOP, and that it is a question of fairness, getting what you 

paid into. That is what this bill asks, and that is what we hope it 

can do. I think also it is an interesting moment when you see the 

NEA, the Texas teachers, FOP, retired California teachers, and 

conservatives on this Committee, such as Mr. Johnson, all agreeing 

together. Something is wrong. 

[Laughter.] 

Or something is very right. I think all of us fully understand this 

bill. I join you in my hope that this can be done in the 108th Congress. If not, I would guess that in the 109th Congress there will 

be probably an overhaul of Social Security. I, for one will work 

hard to try to get it done this year, but if not, we will work to get 

it put into the bill next year. In fact, I think it is in a bill. We are 

trying to move this ball ahead. One of the most unfair things that 

you think about in Social Security is that young workers going into 

the workforce, such as my grandson back here—who is working for 

nothing in my office. I might say—I want to be sure that Wyatt is 

going to be able to be sure that he is going to get back a good retirement for the money that he is going to pay into Social Security. 

Congress has got to do something about this, because we are in 

danger. We talk about the amount of deficit that we have today. 

We haven’t seen anything yet, unless Congress gets busy and reforms Social Security. I will do my best to be sure that, if we 

haven’t passed it beforehand, that it will certainly be part of the 

total Social Security reform. I want to join the other Members of 

this panel in thanking all of you for coming and testifying. You obviously have done your homework, and I share your views. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Questions submitted from Chairman Shaw to Mr. Gerry, Mr. 

Hickman, Mr. Iglehart, Mr. Canterbury, and Mr. Avak, and their 

responses follow:] 

Questions from Chairman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. to Mr. Martin H. Gerry 

Question: Please comment on the enclosed CRS analysis of H.R. 4391. Do 

you agree with the findings of this report? Please describe generally the 

workers who would benefit from H.R. 4391. 

Answer: This CRS report analyzes the effect of the proposed benefit formula 

change on various categories of future hypothetical workers with scaled earnings 

who retire at age 67 in 2051. The report determined that minimum-wage workers 

and low-wage workers would receive the greatest percentage increase in Social Security benefits under H.R. 4391, relative to current-law, regardless of the number 

of years of covered earnings. Further, the level of benefit increases under H.R. 4391 

for individuals with somewhat higher earnings would be dependent, in part, on the 

46 

proportion of the individual’s lifetime earnings that are attributable to covered employment. While H.R. 4391 would generally provide higher benefits for many beneficiaries, among those who would not gain would be: 1) average earners with more 

than 27 years of covered earnings, 2) high earners with more than 23 years of covered earnings, and 3) all those with career maximum earnings under Social Security. 

While we have not replicated their analyses, the methodology CRS uses in this 

report appears reasonable, and their conclusions are generally consistent with SSA’s 

analysis of the bill’s effects. We have generally found that: 

• Lower and mid-level career earners (considering both covered and non-covered 

earnings) are more likely to receive a benefit increase under the proposal, and 

the amount of the increase would tend to be higher for these individuals than 

for other groups. 

• Workers who are more likely to receive lower benefits under the new calculation 

formula (unless protected by the present-law guarantee provision) include workers who— 

• currently benefit from the present-law rule that phases out or eliminates the 

WEP reduction for individuals who have 21 or more years of substantial covered earnings under Social Security; 

• have high career earnings with substantial combined earnings from both covered and non-covered employment. 

Last year SSA staff evaluated the impact of this proposal on simulated WEP 

beneficiaries attaining age 62 in 1999. This analysis assumed that, unlike H.R. 

4391, there was no present-law guarantee and that pre-1978 non-covered earnings 

were not considered. This analysis found that: 

• 88 percent of those affected would receive higher benefits under the new calculation; and 

• the group with the largest average increase in benefits was the lowest earning 

group. 

A similar analysis (using the same assumptions) was done for simulated workers 

reaching age 62 in 2018. For this group, 61 percent of those affected would receive 

higher benefits. The substantially greater percentage with improved benefits in 

1999 is due to the fact that the proposed proportional WEP would provide a greater 

increase if a portion of non-covered earnings is ignored, as occurs in the analysis 

for those eligible in 1999 by leaving out pre-1978 non-covered earnings. 

Question: Please discuss whether the current law WEP (WEP) fairly adjusts benefits for all workers to ensure workers with part of their careers 

in jobs not subject to Social Security taxes receive equal replacement of 

their Social Security-covered earnings as workers in covered employment 

their entire career. Also, please discuss the history of this provision and 

how the current formula was determined. 

Answer: Congress established the WEP to prevent workers with pensions from 

work not covered by Social Security from receiving the unintended advantage of the 

full weighting in the regular benefit formula that is meant for long-term, low-paid 

workers. The WEP eliminates this potential windfall by providing for a different, 

less weighted benefit formula to compute benefits for such persons. 

The WEP also includes two special provisions that limit the potential benefit reduction for many workers. One provision guarantees that the WEP reduction can 

be no more than one-half of the amount of the pension from non-covered employment. The other provision phases out the reduction for workers with more than 20 

years of substantial earnings under Social Security and fully eliminates the WEP 

reduction for workers with 30 or more years of substantial earnings. These two provisions were included to provide some protection for workers with low non-covered 

pensions or workers who had substantial careers in Social Security covered employment. 

With respect to the legislative history of the WEP, the 1982 National Commission 

on Social Security Reform, chaired by Alan Greenspan, recommended that the computation of benefits for workers who receive pensions from non-covered work should 

be modified. (No specific benefit formula was recommended.) The decisions to reduce 

the first factor of the Social Security benefit formula from 90 percent to 40 percent, 

to set the guarantee at one-half of the pension, and to phase out the WEP reduction 

based on the number of individual’s years of substantial covered earnings, were the 

result of compromises between the House and Senate versions of the 1983 Social 

Security amendments. (The Senate version would have lowered the first factor from 

90 percent to 32 percent, set the guarantee at one-third of the pension amount, and 

47 

provided a phase-out of the reduction for workers with substantial covered earnings. 

The House version would have lowered the first factor from 90 percent to 61 percent, set the guarantee at one-half of the amount of the pension, and did not include 

a phase-out provision.) 

Originally, the provision that phases out the benefit reduction for workers who 

had substantial earnings under Social Security applied only if the worker had 26 

or more years of substantial earnings. Legislation enacted in 1988 (P.L. 100–647) 

extended the phase out so that it first begins to apply to workers who have 21 or 

more years of substantial earnings under Social Security. 

Question: You said the Social Security Administration (SSA) does not 

have complete information on earnings not subject to Social Security taxes 

prior to 1978 and has only incomplete information for about a decade after 

that. Why is that the case? What options does the SSA have for obtaining 

wage data that pre-dates 1978? Are you able to partner with the Internal 

Revenue Service, the Office of Personnel Management, State employers or 

State pension systems to obtain information not currently available in SSA 

archives? Are these agencies likely to have these records? Or would the 

SSA expect to rely primarily on beneficiaries’ own records of their past 

wages? What procedures and evidence does the SSA normally utilize in 

verifying missing earnings information (whether or not an individual is affected by the WEP)? 

Answer: Prior to tax year 1978, when Annual Wage Reporting began, covered 

(FICA) wage data was collected by the IRS and forwarded to SSA. Non-covered 

earnings for these years were also collected by IRS but were not forwarded to SSA. 

While SSA did begin to receive non-covered earnings information on Forms W–2 beginning in 1978, many State & local government entities did not start submitting 

W–2 data to SSA until 1980 or 1981. State and local entities began filing W–2s with 

all information including Social Security covered wages (previously reported separately to SSA) with W–2s for tax year 1982. 

Even after 1981, some earnings records continue to be incomplete—primarily for 

years prior to 1990. An analysis of the records of individuals with non-covered earnings indicated that there are many individuals who have gaps in their non-covered 

earnings patterns. It appears likely that, in many cases, those individuals remained 

in non-covered employment during those ‘‘gaps.’’ An evaluation of the largest 155 

non-covered Federal and State/local government employers showed that for about 30 

percent of these employers there was either a complete gap for 1 year or more, or 

for 1 year or more there were substantially lower non-covered earnings posted relative to a surrounding year. 

• Of the 47 employers that seemed to have a problem, 32 had a problem in one 

of the years in the period 1984–1986. 

• For only 4 of the 47 employers, the ‘‘gap year’’ was for 1990 or later. 

It appears that the missing non-covered earnings are due to reporting errors by 

the employer, rather than an error in posting the earnings to the worker’s record. 

If pre-1978 non-covered earnings were to be used in the benefit computation (as 

under H.R. 4391), the potential sources for obtaining pre-1978 non-covered earnings 

are the individual, the individual’s employer, or his/her pension system. Following 

is a discussion of the availability of non-covered earnings from various sources. 

Individuals 

The IRS requires that an individual taxpayer keep his/her tax returns for 3 years 

from the date the return was due or filed, or two years from the date the tax was 

paid, whichever is later. Presumably, most individuals would not have wage information going back 27 or more years. Individuals could contact their prior employer(s) to see if they had this earnings information but IRS rules require that employers only keep employment records for 4 years after the tax is due or paid, 

whichever is later. 

Further, under the language in H.R. 4391, if the individual did have the earnings 

information, it may not be to his/her advantage to provide it to SSA because inclusion of these additional pre-1978 non-covered earnings would serve to lower the benefit payable under the H.R. 4391 computation. Likewise, if an employer/pension 

payer had the worker’s yearly earnings amounts (or could derive them from other 

records), there is no incentive for the employer/pension payer to expend the resources to research this information—especially if it could only decrease the former 

employee’s Social Security benefit. 

48 

Internal Revenue Service 

IRS has informed us that they would be unable to supplement information already in SSA’s possession regarding non-covered earnings. IRS stores paper copies 

of Forms W–2s for only 7 years from the date of filing before they are destroyed 

by law. The information that IRS stores electronically (related to this issue) is the 

‘‘wages, salaries, and tips’’ block on the 1040, line 7—not wage amounts off the 

Forms W–2. This excerpted information is only available for up to 10 years. Furthermore, the electronic transcript information for joint returns would combine the 

couples’ wages (on line 7) and there would be no way to discern the earnings of each 

member of the couple, nor would there be a way to discern covered versus non-covered earnings. 

Office of Personnel Management (Federal Employees) 

The OPM maintains only paper records of federal employee’s annual retirement 

deductions, which presumably could be used to derive an annual earnings amount. 

It would be a very labor intensive manual process to obtain this information for 

prior years—potentially, back to 1951 (as required by H.R. 4391). SSA would have 

to provide OPM with the name and SSN of the employee; OPM would have to go 

to the record center and pull the paper record to get the payroll deduction amount. 

SSA would then have to apply appropriate conversion factors for each year to get 

the amount of earnings. (There were a number of changes made to the payroll deduction amounts between 1951 and 1969.) 

We were informed that individual federal agencies may have paper payroll records 

at the St. Louis records center; again, if available, obtaining this information would 

be a manual process and it is unlikely that records are maintained back to the fifties. Retirement records are automated but only record the total years of service and 

average salary amount for purposes of the ‘‘high 3’’ retirement annuity calculation. 

State and Local Governments 

There are approximately 22,000 State and local governmental employers in the 

U.S. The number of State and local government pension payers is not known and 

it is not clear how many of these organizations would have wage information earlier 

than 1978. However, based on a few of the larger non-covered State entities we have 

contacted, few have such information available and those that do would require either a labor intensive search and/or development of a special program that could 

derive the wages from the contributions paid. For example, one large State pension 

plan told us they have wage information on contributions from the mid-seventies; 

however, to obtain just the contributions of one employee for 1 year, they would 

have to look at 24 separate reels of microfilms (i.e., one microfilm for 1 pay period). 

In situations where wages could be derived from pension contributions, the amount 

of these wages would not match taxable wages because certain payments such as 

bonuses and overtime are not subject to pension contributions. 

The SSA has long-established procedures and evidentiary requirements that are 

used to develop and document earnings that have not been recorded on a worker’s 

earnings record. The first step in an investigation and resolution of an allegation 

of missing or incorrectly posted covered earnings is to establish the identity of the 

requester. Once SSA has established the individual’s identity, the individual is requested to provide evidence of his employment, such as a Form W–2, employer 

statement, pay stubs, and so forth. There is a hierarchy of primary and secondary 

evidence which is requested in order to establish and post missing earnings. Primary evidence of earnings, such as the Form W–2 or employer statements verifying 

the fact and periods of employment as well as amount of earnings, is always requested first. If primary evidence is not available, then additional evidence is requested, such as union statements, pay slips, tax records, and so forth., in order to 

establish the missing earnings. 

All questions, discrepancies, and so forth., are resolved by requesting additional 

evidence from the individual or employer before any action is taken by SSA to credit 

the earnings. SSA does not take any corrective action unless the evidence submitted 

or obtained clearly establishes the individual’s identity, the employment and the 

amount of earnings. 

Question: H.R. 4391 provides leeway for your agency to determine how to 

implement the new benefit computation. In your testimony, you described 

a scenario where the SSA would use only post-1977 earnings to calculate 

benefits under the new benefit formula in H.R. 4391. Please elaborate on 

other options for how the SSA might implement the bill. For each option, 

provide a discussion of the following: the effect on the SSA’s ability to administer the provisions of H.R. 4391; incentives or disincentives for workers and employers to provide historical earnings information; equity or poVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
49 

tential inequity in treatment of workers who cannot obtain proof of their 

non-covered earnings; and the estimated short and long-term cost to the 

program. What do you recommend as the best way to ensure those affected 

by the WEP receive fair replacement of their Social Security-covered earnings without creating an undue administrative burden on the SSA and 

State and local government employers? 

Answer: For purposes addressing the lack of readily available data on worker’s 

pre-1978 non-covered earnings, there are potential options for computing Social Security benefits under H.R. 4391 (in addition to excluding all pre-1978 non-covered 

earnings). These options are: 

Option 1 

If actual earnings are unavailable, assign to the worker the ‘‘average’’ salary in 

that jurisdiction for his or her specific position (e.g., teacher) for that year. 

• While actual pre-1978 pay records of individual workers may no longer be available, historic pay tables may exist that would allow SSA to determine an average salary. • The SSA would have to verify the job position (teacher, janitor, administrator, 

bus driver, and so forth.) for each worker for each year. We would then need 

to know the average salary for each non-covered position. • There would be a question of how specific should the ‘‘position’’ be—for example, 

an electrician trainee is not the same position as a master electrician—at least 

in terms of salary. • The SSA would have to determine whether to use the average at the State level 

or at the level of the specific employing entity (i.e. individual school district. 

Local government, and so forth—.) • There is also a question as to what average amount would be used if the data 

needed to compute the average is not available. • Because the greater the amount of non-covered earnings used in the computation, the lower the resulting benefit would be under H.R. 4391, people may complain that the average used by SSA is too high for them. For many affected 

workers, the pre-1978 non-covered may reflect their earliest years of employment and the ‘‘average’’ earnings amount could be too high compared to the 

amount of their actual earnings. Such workers for whom pre-1978 non-covered 

earnings are not available may believe that they are not being treated fairly 

compared to other workers who can obtain their pre-1978 earnings. • However, if the ‘‘average’’ earnings amount used for many pre-1978 years were 

much higher than the worker’s actual earnings, this could become an incentive 

for workers to provide SSA with proof of actual earnings. Conversely, there 

would be a disincentive to supply actual earnings if the ‘‘average’’ used for many 

of the pre-1978 years were much lower than the worker’s actual earnings. 

Option 2 

Determine the Average Indexed Yearly Earnings (AIYE) for all years of covered 

and non-covered earnings that are available (e.g., if there are 15 such years of earnings, then compute the AIYE for those 15 years) and assign that AIYE for all years 

of non-covered earnings that are not available. 

The years of earnings that are not available (often early in the person’s career) 

may be lower than the other, later, years and thus the AIYE that is ‘‘deemed’’ for 

those earlier years may be too large—compared to the person’s actual earnings. 

(This result would be disadvantageous to the person.) 

If the AIYE is larger than the person’s actual earnings, this would serve as an 

incentive for workers to provide proof of non-covered earnings. However, applying 

the AIYE in such cases may then be viewed as unfair to workers who simply are 

not able to provide such proof. 

• This approach may also be inaccurate if the worker received a significant promotion (e.g. teacher to principal) or a demotion. • This Option would be simpler to administer than Option 1. Unlike Option 1, 

the amount of earnings for missing years would always be determinable and 

would not require research into the pay levels for a myriad of different positions 

in that State or local jurisdiction. Further, the earnings used for missing years 

would not be arbitrary amounts based on other workers’ average salaries; rather, they would be based on the worker’s own personal earnings history. 

Option 3 

SSA would use all available procedures to establish a worker’s entire non-covered 

work history in order to compute the worker’s Social security benefit. However, if all 

non-covered earnings cannot be established, present-law WEP will apply. 

50 

• Such an ‘‘all-or-nothing’’ approach could be an incentive for workers to assist 

SSA in establishing proof of their non-covered earnings. Most workers would 

gain from the provisions of H.R. 4391. Under this Option, the only way they 

could take advantage of the new computation would be to have all of their noncovered earnings. 

• For future cohorts, this provision may not be a significant problem as SSA has 

better records of non-covered earnings. However, it may be viewed as unfair to 

those workers who cannot give us this information, especially for workers on 

the rolls who have a significant proportion of their non-covered work prior to 

1978. 

• Maintaining present law WEP would prevent any worker from being disadvantaged. However, SSA may have to maintain present-law WEP forever since 

there may always be instances where SSA cannot establish amounts of non-covered earnings (e.g., foreign work for which the worker receives a pension.) 

In estimating the program costs of H.R. 4391, SSA’s Office of the Chief Actuary 

assumed that no-pre-1978 non-covered earnings would be available for inclusion in 

the computation. Based on that assumption, program costs for H.R. 4391 are estimated to be $3.5 billion over the first 5 years and $7.1 billion over the first 10 years. 

The estimated long-range cost is 0.01 percent of taxable payroll. 

The program costs for Options 1 and 2 would be less than the costs for the approach that would exclude all pre-1978 non-covered earnings because any additional 

pre-1978 non-covered earnings used in the benefit computation would decrease the 

Social Security benefit. SSA has not developed costs for Options 1 and 2 because 

there is significant data that is unavailable, but needed, to generate reliable cost 

estimates (such as the periods and extent of workers’ non-covered service before 

1978). However, SSA is currently working on a cost estimate for Option 3. 

With respect to question 4b, SSA does not believe that any of the options offer 

a better way than current law to ensure that those affected by the WEP receive a 

fair wage replacement of their Social Security-covered earnings, without creating an 

undue administrative burden on SSA and State and local government employers. 

Question: Beginning with which cohort of retirees do you believe the SSA 

would have substantially complete earnings records and would be able to 

administer the benefit computation in H.R. 4391 without having to develop 

additional proof of non-covered earnings? 

Answer: The first year for which SSA has a record of workers’ non-covered earnings is 1978. Therefore, the first cohort for which SSA would have reasonably complete earnings records, and would be able to administer the benefit computation in 

H.R. 4391 without having to develop additional proof of non-covered earnings in 

most cases, would be those persons who were age 22 in 1978 and who will attain 

age 62 in 2018. These individuals are currently about 48 years old. (Age 22 is often 

used in benefit examples as the age at which it can be expected that full-time workers will have begun their careers.) 

However, as noted earlier, many State & local government entities did not start 

submitting W–2 data to SSA until 1980 or 1981. Because of this significant issue, 

the first cohort for which SSA would have substantially complete earnings records, 

and thus could avoid having to develop additional proof of non-covered earnings, 

would be those persons who were age 22 in 1982 and who will attain age 62 in 2022. 

Question: The ‘‘Social Security Protection Act of 2004’’ (P.L. 108–203) requires the SSA to include in the Social Security Statement sent to workers 

an explanation of the potential benefit reductions under the GPO (GPO) 

and WEP, and requires the SSA to develop a notice for employers to use 

in informing newly hired employees who are not subject to Social Security 

taxes of the effect of the GPO and WEP. Would you provide an update as 

to how implementation of this provision is progressing? What feedback are 

you receiving from stakeholders as the process moves forward? 

Answer: With respect to modifying the Social Security Statement, the Office of 

Communications (OCOMM) has been working with the Office of Disability and Income Support Programs to undertake the activities required to fulfill the requirements of the law. Because the SSPA was only signed into law on March 2, 2004, 

we are in the planning stages for this provision which is effective January 2007. 

Our goal is to provide the most meaningful WEP/GPO information to the largest 

number of workers, ensuring that all those potentially affected by these provisions 

receive the necessary information. 

With respect to the notice to be given to newly hired employees, SSA has developed a draft notice that provides information concerning both the WEP and GPO 

provisions, as required by the legislation. SSA recently met with concerned advoVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
51 

cates to discuss the draft notice and to address their concerns. SSA is on track for 

timely implementation of this provision of P.L. 108–203. 

Question: In addition to worker education about the GPO and WEP required in P.L. 108–203, what other recent improvements to brochures, the 

SSA website and other public communications have been made to help 

make individuals aware of these provisions and how they may affect their 

benefits? 

Answer: We have taken many actions in the last year to help individuals affected 

by GPO and WEP understand how these provisions may affect their future benefits. 

For example, we have strengthened the language in our publications, GPO and 

WEP. These publications are available in print and electronically. 

On our website, Social Security Online, we have improved our page, ‘‘Information 

for government Employees,’’ at http://www.ssa.gov/gpo-wep/ by adding a GPO calculator, enhancing the existing WEP calculator and adding a chart on ‘‘How the WEP 

Can Affect Your Social Security Benefit.’’ This page provides ample information on 

GPO and WEP. It is valuable in financial planning, because it helps the public get 

realistic estimates of the benefits they may receive from Social Security after GPO 

or WEP is taken into account. We also have added several new entries to our ‘‘Frequently Asked Questions’’ page on our website that explain the GPO and WEP provisions and how they can affect Social Security benefits. 

Question: Under current law, workers are exempt from the WEP if they 

have 30 or more years of substantial earnings under Social Security. If a 

worker retiring this year paid Social Security taxes on approximately 

$282,000 in wages, just meeting the minimum requirement over the past 30 

years, he would be exempt from the WEP. However, if he paid Social Security taxes on the same amount of wages, but earned it over 20 years instead 

of 30 years, he would not be exempt. Or, if he earned just $1.00 less than 

the minimum amount for ‘‘substantial’’ earnings in each of those years, he 

would not be exempt. While H.R. 4391 grandfathers current and past noncovered employees if they benefit from this exemption, do you think it is 

needed as a permanent part of the law under the new benefit computation 

in the bill in order to ensure workers with identical wage histories are 

treated equally? Similarly, do you believe the provision limiting the WEP 

reduction under current law to an amount equaling no more than one-half 

the government pension should be made a permanent part of the law under 

H.R. 4391 (rather than only a grandfather provision) in order to ensure 

workers with identical wage histories are treated equally under the program? 

Answer: The H.R. 4391 ‘‘hold harmless’’ provision allows any individual who has 

non-covered earnings prior to the year after enactment to be subject either to the 

new benefit formula or to the current-law WEP, whichever is more advantageous. 

These individuals would have the opportunity to benefit from current-law provisions 

which 1) phase out the WEP reduction if the worker has 21–29 years of ‘‘substantial’’ covered earnings and fully eliminate the WEP if the worker has at least 30 

of such years, and 2) guarantee that the WEP reduction will not be more than one 

half of the non-covered pension amount. Approximately 7.6 percent of workers subject to the WEP have the effect of the WEP reduced due to the guarantee that the 

WEP reduction will not exceed one half of the non-covered pension amount; almost 

19 percent have the effect of the WEP reduced because they have between 21 and 

29 years of substantial covered earnings. No data are available on the number of 

beneficiaries who would have been subject to the WEP but were exempt because 

they have 30 or more years of substantial covered earnings. 

Under H.R. 4391, individuals with non-covered earnings which first occur in the 

year following enactment or later would not benefit from the exemption based on 

30 years of substantial covered earnings or the guarantee that the reduction will 

not exceed one half of the non-covered pension amount. Modifying H.R. 4391 to 

make these two provisions a permanent part of the law would provide additional 

protections for those whose non-covered employment begins in the future, reducing 

the possibility that they would be disadvantaged relative to current law. However, 

these changes to the bill would increase program costs. In addition, they would also 

increase administrative complexity because SSA would need to administer these additional provisions for all years into the future. 

As pointed out in the question, it is true that equity questions can be raised about 

the operation of the WEP ‘‘phase-out’’ based on the number of years of substantial 

covered earnings. That is, the distribution of earnings over a worker’s lifetime, including whether the earnings in a given year are slightly more or less than the specified threshold, can result in wholly different treatment under this provision. These 

points could be used as arguments against retaining the current phase-out provision 

52 

for those whose non-covered employment first begins in the year following enactment. 

Question: We heard testimony stating that about one-third of teachers 

pay into a government employee pension plan that substitutes for Social 

Security coverage, and the remaining two-thirds pay into Social Security. 

Would H.R. 4391 help ensure that both groups of teachers are treated 

equally in terms of how much of their Social Security-covered wages that 

Social Security benefits replace? If we repeal the WEP, would the two 

groups be treated equally? 

Answer: As I stated before your Subcommittee at the July 20, 2004 hearing, the 

goal of H.R. 4391 is to better target the effect of the offset so that the amount of 

the resulting reduction in benefits more closely approximates the individual facts in 

each case. Unfortunately, the data needed for these calculations—much of it wages 

paid to individuals as many as 27 or more years ago—will not be readily available 

in many (perhaps most) cases, making it difficult for SSA to equitably administer 

the provisions of the bill. Inequities would occur in the application of the WEP because counting pre-1978 earnings for some cases and not for others (based on availability) would not be fair. 

As an illustration, there would be a question of equity in recomputing the benefits 

of workers whose non-covered earnings are entirely before 1978. For those workers 

for whom the needed pre-1978 earnings information cannot be obtained, the WEP 

reduction would be entirely removed. However, for those workers for whom pre-1978 

earnings are available, those earnings would result in a WEP reduction. 

Repeal of the WEP would not result in equal treatment of teachers who were covered under Social Security compared to teachers who instead paid into a government retirement system. As I stated in my written testimony: 

‘‘The purpose of the WEP was to remove an unintended advantage that the 

weighting in the regular Social Security benefit formula would otherwise provide for 

persons who have substantial pensions from non-covered employment. This 

weighting is intended to help workers who spent their lives in low-paying jobs by 

providing them with a benefit that is relatively higher in relation to their prior 

earnings than the benefit that is provided for higher-paid workers. 

‘‘However, because benefits are based on average earnings in employment covered 

by Social Security over a working lifetime (35 years for retired workers), a worker 

who has spent part of his or her career in employment not covered by Social Security appears to have lower average lifetime earnings than he or she actually had. 

(In determining average earnings for Social Security benefit purposes, years with 

no covered earnings are counted as years of zero earnings, as if the person had not 

worked at all.) Without the WEP, such a worker would be treated as a low-lifetime 

earner for Social Security benefit purposes and inappropriately receive the advantage of the weighted benefit formula. The WEP eliminates this potential ‘‘windfall’’ 

by providing for a different, less heavily weighted benefit formula to compute benefits for such persons.’’ 

Thus, repealing the WEP would result in workers who spent a portion of their 

careers in employment not covered by Social Security receiving more favorable 

treatment under Social Security than comparable workers who had worked a lifetime in covered employment. 

Question: One of the witnesses at the hearing testified that the SSA does 

not always immediately identify workers who should be subject to the GPO 

or the WEP, and as a result some retirees may accumulate a large overpayment of benefits by the time the SSA correctly applies those provisions to 

their benefits. The witness also recommended that the SSA hold these individuals harmless, absent any evidence of fraud. Do you agree with the recommendation? What do you recommend to prevent or minimize these overpayments? 

Answer: Claimants for retirement benefits are asked at the time of application if 

they are receiving or expect to receive a pension based on non-covered work, and 

the application they sign affirms this information. If they expect to receive in the 

future a pension based on non-covered employment, the beneficiary is required to 

report such receipt to SSA. Once SSA learns of the pension receipt, SSA obtains 

verification of the pension and applies the WEP and/or GPO accordingly. Because 

claimants are made aware of the need to report these pensions, we have concerns 

about the recommendation to hold them harmless if they are overpaid because they 

have failed to report. 

Waiving the overpayment would result in an incentive for the claimant not to tell 

SSA of the receipt of the non-covered pension. If the claimant knew that the overpayment would be waived, it would be in his/her best interest to not inform SSA 

53 

of the pension because the WEP or GPO reduction would only apply prospectively 

beginning at the point that SSA otherwise learns of the pension receipt. 

Further, waiving the WEP/GPO overpayment in situations in which the beneficiary fails to inform SSA of the receipt of a non-covered pension may provide an 

advantage to this group compared to other similarly situated beneficiaries. For example, when a disability beneficiary fails to inform SSA of the receipt of a workers’ 

compensation payment that is subject to Social Security offset, the resulting overpayment that occurs when SSA learns of the payment is not automatically waived. 

The SSA largely relies on the applicant/beneficiary to correctly inform us that he 

or she is entitled or becomes entitled to a non-covered pension. To minimize overpayments that result due to retroactive application of the WEP and/or GPO, SSA 

has an ongoing computer-matching program with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that matches persons receiving Social Security benefits with persons 

receiving a pension from OPM based on non-covered employment. However, SSA 

does not have any similar program to identify Social Security beneficiaries who are 

also receiving pensions based on non-covered work for a State or local government. 

In addition, when the claimant states that he/she expects to receive a pension from 

noncovered employment in the future, SSA establishes a diary to alert claims personnel to recontact the claimant at the time the claimant has alleged that pension 

payments will begin. 

To help address this problem, the President’s FY 2005 Budget includes a proposal 

that would improve the administration of the WEP and GPO by improving the coordination of reports of pension payments based on employment not covered by Social Security. This change would give SSA the ability to independently verify whether beneficiaries have pension income from employment not covered by Social Security. 

A past study of SSA’s administration of the WEP and GPO provisions by the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that there are many beneficiaries who are not 

subjected to the WEP and GPO because SSA does not know they are receiving pensions based on non-covered employment. With the change proposed in the President’s Budget, SSA would be able to obtain data on pensions based on non-covered 

work in a more timely and consistent manner. The proposal would thereby improve 

SSA’s stewardship over the program and the Social Security trust funds. 

Questions from Chairman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. to Mr. Terry Hickman 

Question: You stated that H.R. 4391 would apply the same basic benefit 

formula to everyone. If H.R. 4391 would ensure that all workers are treated 

equally, regardless of whether part of their career was spent in jobs not 

subject to Social Security taxes, would you explain why you believe the 

WEP should be completely repealed? Should teachers who pay into a Social 

Security substitute receive more generous Social Security benefits than 

teachers who pay Social Security taxes on all their earnings? 

Answer: The NEA supports repealing two Social Security Act amendments that 

negatively impact thousands of public employees including many teachers and education support professionals. The GPO (GPO) and WEP (WEP) unfairly reduce or 

eliminate benefits that employees or their spouses have earned and are expecting 

in retirement. These provisions impact educators, police officers, firefighters and 

other public employees who have dedicated their lives to public service. The WEP 

reduces the earned Social Security benefits of an individual who also receives a public pension from a job not covered by Social Security. The WEP causes hardworking 

people to lose a significant portion of the benefits they earned themselves. The number of people impacted by these provisions across the country is growing every day 

as more and more people reach retirement age. 

While H.R. 4391 does initially apply the same basic benefit formula to all recipients, it then reduces the final benefit by a percentage. NEA believes this bill offers 

an important first step, but it does not ensure that educators and other public employees will receive all the benefits they earned by paying into Social Security. 

Therefore, NEA urges Congress to pass H.R 4391 as a first step, but also to pass 

the Social Security Fairness Act (H.R.594), which would completely repeal both the 

GPO and the WEP. 

The NEA believes that teachers and other public employees should receive the Social Security benefits they have earned by paying into the system. We do not believe 

that repealing the WEP or GPO would give public employees a more generous benefit, but would simply ensure them the benefits they or their spouse have earned. 

Question: You state in your testimony that the WEP hurts teacher recruitment efforts, especially in cases where people are considering teachVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
54 

ing as a second career. Would passage of H.R. 4391 help your recruitment 

efforts? 

Answer: The NEA believes that individuals who worked in other careers are less 

likely to want to become teachers if doing so will mean a loss of earned Social Security benefits. The WEP also causes current educators to leave the profession, and 

students to choose courses of study other than education. Passage of H.R. 4391 

would be an important first step in providing relief from the negative financial consequences of the WEP and ought to encourage more individuals to enter the teaching profession. 

Again, thank you and the House Ways and Mean Committee, Subcommittee on 

Social Security, for addressing the Social Security provisions affecting public employees. We look forward to working with you on this issue. 

Questions from Chairman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. to Mr. Randall Iglehart 

Question: You stated that H.R. 4391 would apply the same basic benefit 

formula to everyone. If H.R. 4391 would ensure that all workers are treated 

equally, regardless of whether part of their career was spent in jobs not 

subject to Social Security taxes, would you explain why you believe the 

WEP should be completely repealed? Should teachers who pay into a Social 

Security substitute receive more generous Social Security benefits than 

teachers who pay Social Security taxes on all their earnings? 

Answer: As I stated in my testimony last month, ATPE supports HR 4391. We 

believe that the formula proposed by the bill to calculate the Social Security benefits 

of persons also eligible for a government pension is a fair one because it will figure 

these workers’ benefits in the same way that private sector employees have their 

benefits figured. Our advocacy of full repeal of the WEP has been based on our 

members’ recognition of the inequities of the current law and their desire to receive 

the benefits they have earned while working in jobs covered by Social Security. We 

understand that full repeal of the WEP would create new inequities in the benefits 

formula and believe HR 4391 offers a workable solution and a fair compromise between total repeal and the current law. 

Question: You state in your testimony that the WEP hurts teacher recruitment efforts, especially in cases where people are considering teaching as a second career. Would passage of H.R. 4391 help your recruitment 

efforts? 

Answer: I also testified that removing the strong disincentive (WEP) in current 

law to become a Texas teacher would help the State of Texas with our massive 

shortage of certified teachers. If potential Texas teachers know that the Social Security benefits they have earned in other states or other careers will be not be reduced 

by an arbitrary formula just because they are also eligible for a pension from the 

Teacher Retirement System, school districts will be better able to recruit the best 

and brightest into our classrooms. 

Questions from Chairman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. to Mr. Chuck Canterbury 

Question: We appreciate your support for H.R. 4391. As you said, it would 

help police officers who enter a second career after doing so much to ensure Americans’ safety. Are there any particular aspects of the bill you 

think could be improved? 

Answer: The F.O.P. supports H.R. 4391, the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection Act,’’ (PSRPA) which we view as a solid, compromise piece of legislation between the proponents of a full repeal of the WEP (WEP) and the GPO (GPO), as 

provided for in H.R. 594, the ‘‘Social Security Fairness Act,’’ that was the subject 

of a hearing before the Subcommittee last May, and those who have concerns about 

the cost associated with the full repeal of both these measures. 

In the view of the F.O.P. however, the issues of the WEP and GPO are linked. 

While we have no further suggestions to improve H.R. 4391 insofar as it addresses 

the WEP, we would be supportive of adding a new section to the bill which would 

address the unfairness of the GPO to law enforcement officers and their families 

and believe the legislation would be improved by such an addition. 

Question: According to a Public Pension Coordinating Council survey, 

about 40 percent of police officers and firefighters are subject to Social Security taxes in their jobs, and would not be affected by the WEP. Since H.R. 

4391 results in equal treatment of both Social Security-covered and noncovered police officers and firefighters, would you explain why you believe 

the WEP should be completely repealed? Should police officers who pay 

into a Social Security substitute receive more generous Social Security 

55 

benefits than police officers who pay Social Security taxes on all their 

earnings? 

Answer: The enactment of H.R. 4391, the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection 

Act,’’ does make the treatment of public employees more equal, and it is for that 

reason that the F.O.P. supports its passage. However, the new benefit calculation 

proposed by this legislation still treats public employees who pay to participate in 

their own retirement plans differently than public employees who are inside the Social Security system. 

The ostensible purpose of the WEP is to remove a so-called ‘‘windfall’’ for persons 

who spent some time in jobs not covered by Social Security (like public employees) 

and also worked other jobs where they paid Social Security taxes long enough to 

qualify for retirement benefits. The PSRPA does lessen this penalty and certainly 

treats public employees in a public pension plan better and more equally than the 

current formula, but the basic unfairness still exists—the Social Security benefits 

for which these employees were taxed are computed differently, not for different 

work or a different length of service, but solely because they receive a government 

pension from non-covered employment in the public sector. These retirement plans, 

many of which were designed and tailored with the public safety employee in mind, 

deliver a greater benefit to their participants than does Social Security. This is the 

so-called ‘‘windfall’’ that the WEP was designed to eliminate and it is also the basis 

for the new benefits calculation proposed by H.R. 4391. 

We believe that Martin H. Gerry, Deputy Commissioner of Disability and Income 

Security Programs at the Social Security Administration, was correct in his concluding remarks at the Subcommittee’s hearing on this legislation: ‘‘H.R. 4391 proposes significant changes to the manner in which the WEP is calculated. These 

changes are intended to better target the effect of the offset so that the amount of 

the resulting reduction in benefits more closely approximates the individual facts in 

each case.’’ [emphasis added] 

The F.O.P. supports H.R. 4391 because it does treat public employees more fairly 

than the current formula. However, the fact remains that the benefit formula in the 

PSRPA is still a reduction that is applied only to those employees who receive a 

government pension for work outside the Social Security system who also worked 

at jobs inside the Social Security system and who paid taxes on these wages in the 

expectation that they would provide them with a future benefit. The F.O.P. maintains that this benefit ought to be calculated in the same way as any other employee’s Social Security benefit, and not be reduced because they participate in a State 

or local retirement plan. 

Questions from Chairman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. to Mr. George Avak 

Question: You mentioned that H.R. 4391 makes an important step toward 

helping teachers affected by the WEP. Would you explain in more detail 

how it would help retired teachers in California? 

Answer: HR 4391 would reduce the WEP (WEP) by approximately 10% to 30% 

for those currently retired teachers who are effected by the WEP. We estimate that 

over 40,000 California retired teachers are affected by the WEP and that many 

more will be affected in future years. The estimate of the 10% to 30% restoration 

for those affected by the WEP is based upon the HR 4391 examples developed for 

the legislation and our analysis of data from the State Teachers’ Retirement System. 

Approximately 30% of the STRS members have joined the System after age 40. Presuming those who joined the system after age 40 had a career in Social Security 

prior to joining STRS, we then project for those retirees who are affected by WEP. 

Because the WEP reduction can be up to $300 per month, the 10% to 30%, HR 4391 

restoration would result in between $30 per month and $90 per month compared 

to the current application of the WEP. 

Question: You stated that sometimes the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) does not learn a beneficiary is subject to the GPO or WEP until they 

have received benefits for many years, thus resulting in overpayment of 

benefits. Individuals are asked whether they receive a government pension 

when they apply for benefits, and are required to report any changes in 

their government pension to the SSA. Why do you believe so many people 

become overpaid? How would you suggest we prevent overpayments from 

happening? 

Answer: We believe individuals indicate that they have a government pension 

when they are asked the correct question. However, it might not always be clear 

to either the person in Social Security filling out the form or to the individual applicant that this also then triggers a WEP or GPO effect. CRTA, State Teachers’ Retirement System, California Teachers Association, and the United Teachers Los AnVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
56 

geles are attempting to ensure that all current and future retirees are aware of this 

issue. CRTA believes that in addition to our efforts to inform current and future retirees, the SSA needs to have more significant training of their personnel to ensure 

that the questions are asked correctly and any necessary follow up questions are 

asked correctly. 

The CRTA strongly believes that if the overpayment occurred because of Social 

Security staff error, then the individuals should not be excessively penalized for that 

overpayment. We recommend the repayment be no more than 5% of the monthly 

Social Security allowance reduced until the overpayment is paid. We do not advocate this, however, in the case of fraud or intentional misrepresentation. In those 

cases, the full overpayment should be recovered as soon as possible, if not immediately, and any appropriate legal sanctions should be applied. 

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your supplemental questions. 

f 

[Submissions for the record follow:] 

Statement of Jeanne M. Alberti, Harvard, Massachusetts 

I am writing to explain my concerns regarding the WEP and the GPO, and to 

urge you both to pass H.R. 4391, the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act, and 

to work toward repealing both the WEP and the GPO. 

Both my husband and I worked for many years in the private sector, each of us 

earning enough quarters to be eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. 

When we started our family and bought a house, I continued to work by writing 

the local newspaper, and selling Avon products, which I could do from home while 

raising our children. My husband continued his education, getting his doctorate, and 

went into teaching at Northeastern, a private university. 

In order to help out financially, I finished my degree, and taught at a Catholic 

high school for two years before entering the public education system. Eventually 

we both decided to spend the largest part of our career years teaching in public education, myself at the high school level, and my husband at the university level. My 

husband, now deceased, had a gift for teaching and connecting with university-age 

students. I myself have loved teaching, and though retiring this year, will miss it 

greatly. 

Since my husband’s death I have been receiving a small pension from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as he died before retiring, just after reaching his 50th 

birthday. His Social Security benefits, which I am not yet eligible for as his widow, 

are currently approximately $600 per month. 

Having retired this year due to health concerns, and as I didn’t start public school 

teaching until the age of 40, I will be receiving a pension of only 36% of my annual 

salary, which is only slightly more than the 2/3 of my husband’s Social Security benefits to which I would be eligible next year on my 60th birthday. This completely 

wipes out for me any widow’s benefits I might have been expecting. In addition, at 

age 62, when I might be able to begin collecting on my own Social Security benefits 

(which are approximately $350 per month at the moment), my benefits will ostensibly be cut in half due to the pension I am receiving from the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. 

Together, my husband’s annuity and my pension total barely enough to cover my 

present living expenses. I foresee future possible medical expenses, and worry how 

I will cover them when the time comes. Although retired, I will be looking for ways 

to find additional income in the next few years, while I am still healthy and can 

do so. To have to pay more into Social Security in the next few years will be a very 

unfair situation considering my expectation of receiving little in return. 

I fail to see how either my public school teaching pension or my Social Security 

benefits could be construed as a ‘‘windall’’ or ‘‘double dipping.’’ If I have worked at 

separate jobs, why am I penalized, and not able to collect benefits from each job 

worked? 

Teaching is hard work, and though my first inclination was that it would give me 

time with my family, I came to love the opportunities I was given through teaching 

to work with and be inspired by the teenagers I taught. I find it incomprehensible 

that I am now struggling to make ends meet because I changed careers from the 

private sector to committing myself to the community and our nation through public 

education. 

I respectfully urge the committee to move quickly to move the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act swiftly to final passage and enactment. In addition, I ask 

57 

you please to look for ways to repeal completely both the WEP and the GPO as Congress continues to explore these issues. 

f 

Midlothian, Texas 76065 

July 20, 2004 

House Ways and Means Committee 

Social Security Subcommittee 

Dear Sirs: 

I am writing this letter as a plea to quickly pass the Public Servant Retirement 

Protection Act, which will ultimately repeal the Government Pension Offset of Social 

Security provision and the Windfall Elimination Provision. These laws penalize the 

people who have dedicated themselves to serving their communities and their country. Most of us have sacrificed financially in the first place by providing these services. As it stands now, I would never encourage anyone to enter the education field 

knowing what they would be facing at retirement age. My particular situation is as 

follows: 

I am a single woman and have 25 years of social security contributions (19 years 

that ‘‘count’’), but have spent the last 12 years working for a public school district. 

I will be eligible to retire from Teacher Retirement Service (TRS)in 8 years. Since 

I am a secretary (lower salary=lower annuity), my retirement will not cover my living expenses. I was counting on supplemental income from social security to help 

offset this deficiency. I have recently attended a seminar, which clarified that my 

social security will be cut by approximately 66% because I will be drawing retirement from TRS. 

I realize that my contributions to social security ceased when I began my employment with the school district, but feel that I should be allowed to draw the full benefit that I earned with 19 years of prior contributions. Without this, I will fall into 

the poverty level and will most likely be forced to sell my home. My projected TRS retirement annuity will be approximately $1100/month. My full social security benefit is $575/month. I will be hard pressed to live on $1675/month 

when I am 65 years old but if that social security figure is further reduced to $200/ 

month, I will be forced to sell my home and rely on government assistance. This 

is NOT what I worked my entire life for. 

I’m not asking for anything more than what I feel I have earned but I would like 

to know that what I have contributed to social security was, indeed, mine and not 

be penalized for drawing retirement from TRS. Had I been self-employed these last 

12 years, I would not have suffered from this reduction in benefits. Had I just 

stayed home and not worked, I would not have suffered from this reduction in benefits. Had I retired from ANYPLACE other than TRS, I would not have suffered from 

this reduction in benefits. 

I know that I am just one of many who have similar situations. Please listen to 

our pleas and move the Public Servant Retirement Protection legislation through 

your committee. 

Respectfully, 

f 

Judy A. Bates 

Statement of the Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California 

Thank you, Chairman Shaw, Ranking Member Matsui and Members of this Committee for holding this hearing to highlight the unfairness facing some public employees upon retirement. 

The Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) 

are two provisions of Social Security law that directly affect public servants who, 

throughout the course of their career, earned both a Social Security benefit and a 

benefit from a Social Security substitute, such as a state pension plan. The GPO 

reduces or eliminates Social Security spousal benefits if the worker’s spouse has a 

government pension based on work that was not covered by Social Security. Likewise, the WEP reduces Social Security worker benefits based on work history by applying an arbitrary formula to calculate benefits. 

Public employees—teachers, police officers, fire fighters—face the possibility of 

losing up to two-thirds of their retirement benefits as a result of the GPO and WEP. 

58 

While these two provisions were created to help equalize the treatment of workers, 

the consequences have proven to be a significant financial burden for many of our 

nation’s retiring public servants. 

Today, more than 758,000 public servants in thirteen states today face up to a 

$306 reduction in their monthly Social Security income upon retirement. 

In early February 2003, Congressman ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon and I introduced legislation 

to repeal both the Social Security Government Pension Offset (GPO) and the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). Our bill, the Social Security Fairness Act (HR 

594), has 300 cosponsors. 

Since introducing H.R. 594, I have been working with you, Mr. Chairman, other 

members of Congress and with various advocates to provide workers affected by the 

GPO and WEP with some financial relief before the end of the year. That is why 

I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 4391, the Public Servant Retirement Protection 

Act, introduced by Congressman Kevin Brady, which takes a meaningful step in 

granting some relief to these dedicated workers. 

The Public Servant Retirement Protection Act provides an immediate solution to 

the arbitrary WEP adjustment of worker retirement benefits by implementing a formula that calculates retirement benefits in proportion to each worker’s actual work 

history. Specifically, the legislation repeals the arbitrary WEP formula and treats 

the Social Security contributions of public servants the same as those of the rest 

of the American workforce. Under this legislation, a worker’s entire work history, 

regardless of whether he or she paid into a Social Security substitute, would be used 

to calculate benefits. 

Although H.R. 4391 does not address the GPO, it does provide immediate relief 

for retirees and their families while serving as an amicable bipartisan compromise. 

H.R. 4391 is an important first step leading to a full repeal of the GPO and WEP. 

I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to move this legislation to the Floor as quickly as possible. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing. I hope that this is one of many steps 

that will lead to the elimination of this inequity in our nation’s Social Security policy. 

f 

Statement of Carolyn J. Bishop, Belmont, Massachusetts 

Please accept my statement for the record for the hearing by the Committee on 

Ways and Means, H.R. 4391. The Public Servant Retirement Protection Act: 

As a statement on the unfairness of the current WEP provision I would like you 

to consider my story. I contributed to Social Security while a teacher in NY State 

for three years, while a teacher in a private school in MA for 6 years and during 

various summer jobs before, during and after college. I had my 40 quarters in and 

am eligible to collect benefits of over $600 a month and of course a portion of my 

husband’s benefits should I survive him. 

However, because for 24 years I taught in the MA public schools I am receiving 

a pension from the Mass Teacher’s Retirement System. This pension is based on 24 

years of 3/4 pay because that is what I made as a full time Kindergarten teacher 

in the Brookline Public Schools. I retired at age 56 because of personal health reasons. Therefore I retired on 40% of my 3/4 pay, which amounts to about $15,000 

a year . . . obviously not enough to live on! 

When my husband turned 65 in 2002 and went to the Social Security office to 

inquire about his benefits, the agent urged me to start collecting at my age of 62, 

and then gave me the bad news about WEP/GPO: my benefit is reduced by 2/3s to 

$225 from which is now deducted by $66.60 Medicare since I turned 65 this spring. 

My survivor benefits would also be seriously reduced. Now if I were unfortunate 

enough to be single and trying to survive on my own pension plus SS you can see 

I could not manage. 

Teachers in New York State contribute to Social Security and a retirement system 

and are able to retire relatively comfortably. Not so in Massachusetts. 

As it is the unfairness of the situation still rankles! If I had not contributed to 

SS then of course I should not expect to collect. If I had been offered the option of 

contributing during my Massachusetts Public School teaching years and refused it, 

then I should not be able to collect. But to have contributed through those many 

years and not be able to collect what should be due me is UNFAIR! Add that to 

the fact that my income from my pension is exceedingly low, the spectre of struggling by in my senior years is very real, especially if widowed. 

59 

It is ironic that ‘‘public servant’’ has come to mean just that, being treated as the 

lowliest of servants when it comes to collecting the Social Security to which we are 

due. When accepting and performing the low paying public position for the rewards 

of teaching in the public school, I never dreamed I would be penalized by the Social 

Security system at retirement. 

This unfair provision must be repealed and repealed retroactively to bring those 

of us who are being cheated into a living wage. Thank you for your consideration 

of my statement. 

f 

Statement of Martha E. Blackwell, Sunnyvale, California 

At age 76, the GOP and WEP prevent me from retiring from part time teaching. 

My California State Teacher’s Pension is $752 a month. My Social Security benefit 

has been decimated to $200 a month by the GPO and the WEP. My retirement income does not cover the rent and mortgage on my very modest Mobile Home in 

Sunnyvale, CA., not to mention other living expenses. 

I was married to a Methodist pastor for 32 years and assisted him in the churches 

he served while he paid into the Social Security system. During those years, I 

worked full time and part time (and paid into S S) and raised two children. I fully 

anticipated being eligible for a modest retirement income from my spouse’s account 

as well as the portion I earned on my own. I am denied all but $200 because of 

my very modest California Teacher’s pension of $752 a month. Divorced at age 61, 

I earned a Master’s Degree in order to resume teaching in order to support myself. 

I respectfully request that you repeal or at the least modify the formula in these 

laws which unfairly penalize teachers (as well as other public servants) such as myself who, after working many years, find ourselves living barely above the poverty 

line. 

I do not believe these laws were designed to create the circumstances I have described. I sincerely hope and pray that you will seriously consider the hardship that 

many of us are enduring and take action during this Congressional session. 

I heartily commend Anna Eshoo for her hard work on our behalf and I thank the 

300 co-sponsors of HR 594. 

f 

Statement of Charlene Bovee, Long Beach, California 

I do not have access to word perfect. I would like to respond to HR 4391. I think 

Teachers et al should be able to get Social Security and their retirement. I am a 

widow and cannot even get my husbands social security because I get a teachers’ 

retirement! Thank you for considering this response. 

f 

Statement of Richard Kirk Bowers, Spring Branch, Texas 

This letter is to inform you that I am in favor of the repeal of the Social Security, 

Windfall Elimination Provision on federal retired employees. I paid in my quarters 

and feel that I am entitled to my fair share. 

f 

Statement of Maurice A. Bracken, North Brookfield, Massachusetts 

I am a veteran teacher of electrical technology at Tantasqua High School in 

Sturbridge, MA. I have been here in the trenches for 20 years. Although many years 

ago I took a substantial cut in pay and benefits to leave employment in the electrical trade for a career in public education, I am proud to say that I have made 

a significant difference in many young people’s lives. I know this because the past 

graduates stay in touch with me and I am privileged to watch them grow into contributors to our society. 

I began working on a farm at the age of 13 and began contributing to Social Security at that time. I contributed into Social Security for 20 years before I left the sysVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
60 

tem to start work as a public school teacher in a state (Massachusetts) that has it’s 

own public employee pension system. Now I find out that my benefits as a citizen 

contributor into Social Security will be severely depleted because of the GPO–WEP 

laws that currently exist. Worse than that, my spouse will not receive the normal 

death benefit from the system when I pass on! 

Truthfully, if I had know the consequences of leaving the Social Security system 

20 years ago I doubt that I would have made the choice to switch careers. One of 

my former students, a gainfully employed electrician, wishes to make a similar career choice to teach in a public vocational school and I am advising him not to! This 

will be a loss of a fine teacher to the future of America. This example is typical of 

the hurdles the educational industry has to overcome in hiring qualified teachers 

in every subject area, due in no small part to the GPO/WEP laws. 

I understand the original logic of the law. I respectfully submit however, that my 

circumstance, which is typical, is not the intention of the original legislation. People 

like me, and our loved ones, are being penalized for making an unselfish career 

choice many years ago. This affects not only teachers, but also any public servant 

who retires from a non-contributing state. We are not seeking a ‘‘windfall’’, but rather are trying to secure only the benefits that we paid for, and not to have our families penalized because we choose to serve the country we love! 

I urge the Committee to favorably move the Public Servant Retirement Protection 

Act to enable its enactment into law. This will provide some temporary relief to my 

colleagues who are facing retirement soon. My ultimate goal is for the complete 

elimination of the GPO/WEP laws. I believe the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act is an important step towards that goal. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

f 

Statement of Janet Brandwein, Newton Center, Massachusetts 

• I retired in 2000 after having taught for 28 years in Massachusetts having 

moved to Massachusetts when my husband’s profession brought us there. I 

taught in New York and Maryland and had paid into Social Security while 

working at other non-teaching jobs as well. I will be 67 years old in September 

and have paid into Social Security since age 16. 

• I was fully vested only to learn that I would receive only 40% of what I would 

otherwise have been entitled to because of the WEP; after the fact and when 

it was too late to make a career decision based on this knowledge. 

• The Windfall Elimination Provision was enacted after the fact of my paying into 

Social Security and thus withdrew the social contract promised by the government. I now receive $86 per month, 40% of what should have been my allotment 

and a sad thank you for a teacher. 

• It is terribly unfair and discriminatory to single out and penalize those of us 

who chose careers in public service while retirees who worked in the private 

sector receive no penalty at all. 

In addition to the WEP’s effect on retirement security, because of the Government 

Pension Offset provision, were I to be widowed, I would receive nothing in survivor 

benefits through my husband’s Social Security despite the fact that, at age 70, and 

still working, he has paid into Social Security at the maximum rate for half a century. Who would choose a teaching or other public service career today knowing 

they would lose so much in benefits? ? ? 

f 

Statement of Dennis E. Buccola, Rock Falls, Illinois 

I am writing to you with my concern about the Social Security Bill. I worked hard 

putting myself through college as a young adult. I entered the teaching profession 

because I wanted to work with kids and to help mold them into becoming successful 

citizens. While attending college I worked full time to keep my head above water. 

I continued working in retail for over 20 years. I have paid thousands of dollars into 

the social security program and am STILL paying into it. I have heard over the 

years I will not be able to collect any of this money since I am a teacher. How UNFAIR! If I am not able to collect SS, then why am I being forced to pay it? All I 

am asking is that I am given the SS that I am entitled to when I retire. It is so 

unfair that since I chose to enter the teaching field, that I will not be able to collect. 

61 

Public servants should NOT be discriminated against. We are underpaid as it is. 

For those of us who have paid into SS and have over their 40 quarters, should be 

entitled to collect their benefits or be given a refund of those contributions. 

f 

Statement of Judith Michaels, California Federation of Teachers, 

Sacramento, California 

The California Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers, AFL– 

CIO submits this testimony because of the serious affect the Government Pension 

Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision of the Social Security Act have upon our 

more than 100,000 active and retired members, specifically those who are members 

of the California State Teachers Retirement System (Cal-STRS. Many California 

teachers have earned Social Security benefits by working second jobs or from private-sector jobs they held before becoming teachers. In addition, many mid-career 

individuals reject teaching when they discover that they would have to give up Social Security benefits during retirement if they become teachers. Our teachers, 

former teachers, and prospective teachers cannot count upon a full Social Security 

benefit, either as a benefit from work they may have done under Social Security or 

from benefits earned by a spouse. 

The California Federation of Teachers supports H.R. 4391, the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act (PSRPA), revising the Windfall Elimination Provisions of 

Social Security, as a step forward that would partially correct current inequities by 

looking at each member’s full career, work covered by both Social Security as well 

as in California teaching. We realize that H.R.4391 addresses only the Windfall 

Elimination Provision. Since H.R. 4391 does not address the Government Pension 

Offset (GPO), we urge your support for an amendment to the bill that will address 

the harsh effects of the Offset on California public school teachers. H.R. 594, the 

Social Security Fairness Act, legislation that would repeal both the WEP and the 

GPO, now has 300 bipartisan cosponsors, including several of the cosponsors of H.R. 

4391. 

We urge you to take steps to make sure that public employees will not have to 

worry about their retirement because of the provisions that reduce Social Security 

spousal and worker benefits. We would like to see both H.R. 4391 and legislation 

to address the Government Pension Offset pass the 108th Congress and become law. 

Passage will encourage qualified teachers to remain in the classroom, and support 

mid-career individuals to become public school teachers without giving up the Social 

Security benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled. 

f 

Statement of Gary Lynes, California State Teachers’ Retirement System, 

Sacramento, California 

Introduction 

Established by State law in 1913, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) provides defined pension retirement benefits to more than 735,000 

active and retired public school teachers and their beneficiaries. Thus, CalSTRS was 

in operation some 22 years before Social Security was created. At the time Social 

Security was established, California’s teachers and all other State and local government workers were barred by Federal law from participating. California public 

school teachers are the largest single group of State and local government employees in the country who do not participate in the Social Security system. Through 

sound management over nine decades, CalSTRS has developed into the third largest 

pension system in the United States, with assets of over $116 billion. CalSTRS currently provides almost $5 billion a year in retirement benefits. 

The California Teachers’ Retirement Board has previously expressed its strong 

concerns about the impact of the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) of the Social Security Act, particularly on California’s ability to recruit and retain workers from other professions into second careers 

as teachers and teachers from other states. California would be better able to recruit 

and retain future California educators if these professionals did not face reductions 

in their future Social Security benefits. Accordingly, in 2003, the Board supported 

California Assembly Joint Resolution 29, which requests that the President and 

62 

U.S. Congress enact legislation that removes the burdensome effects of the WEP 

and GPO. Absent full repeal of the WEP and GPO, CalSTRS supports efforts to 

eliminate the inequities resulting from the application of the WEP. Benefits should 

not be determined by provisions that are arbitrary and unrelated to the very government pensions which subject those individuals to the offsets. 

H.R. 4391, the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act (PSRPA) represents a 

good first step to addressing these inequities. The Teachers’ Retirement Board supports the general approach taken by the PSRPA to address the inequities created 

by the WEP under current law. In addition, the Board stands ready to work with 

the Subcommittee in exploring possible legislative solutions to relieve similar inequities created by the GPO. 

The Windfall Elimination Provision Hinders Efforts to Attract Qualified 

Teachers 

CalSTRS members do not pay the Social Security payroll tax on their earnings 

from CalSTRS-covered service, and therefore are not entitled to Social Security benefits for such service. Nonetheless, many CalSTRS members are eligible for Social 

Security benefits either because they were employed in Social Security covered positions for some period of time or are the spouses or widow(er)s of individuals who 

were employed such positions. However, the WEP reduces Social Security benefits 

of teachers in California public schools, who worked in education long enough to receive a CalSTRS pension and also worked other jobs for which they paid Social Security taxes long enough to qualify for Social Security retirement or disability benefits. 

Many California educators have complained that the WEP creates an unfair reduction in the Social Security benefits that they have earned. In addition, California 

schools have indicated that imposing a reduction in Social Security benefits has a 

negative effect on efforts to recruit and retain teachers. Specifically, the WEP may 

reduce the willingness of people who have worked in Social Security-covered service 

to change to employment, such as public school teaching in California, if it results 

in a reduction in Social Security benefits. This is particularly true for individuals 

who are considering teaching as a second career or taught in another state under 

Social Security. 

Creating an impediment to people who might otherwise want to change careers 

to become public school teachers in California may hinder efforts by school districts 

to attract new people to the California classroom. Currently, there are over 100,000 

public school educators in California who are eligible to retire and over 35,000 who 

are 60 years old or over. Clearly, most of these people will be retiring over the next 

decade. Although many enter the teaching profession at the beginning of their career, a significant portion become teachers as a second career, after lengthy work 

in the private sector covered by Social Security. In addition, individuals work as 

educators in a state in which their earnings are covered by Social Security, but later 

desire to teach in California. The current WEP may cause persons who otherwise 

would receive a full Social Security benefit to decide not to become public school 

teachers in California, if their Social Security benefits would be substantially affected by their California service. This makes it more difficult for California school 

districts to find qualified educators to replace those who will be retiring in the near 

future. 

H.R. 4391 Is a Significant Step Forward to Correct Inequities Caused by the 

WEP 

Unlike the arbitrary WEP offset formula, which reduces the Social Security benefit from the covered employment unless the individual has 30 years of substantial 

Social Security covered earnings, the PSRPA replaces the WEP with an approach 

based on each worker’s actual work history. More fairly, it uses the standard benefit 

formula based on an individual’s entire work history as if all the individual’s earnings were subject to Social Security taxes with the benefit multiplied by the percent 

of earnings subject to Social Security taxes. Similar to the current Social Security 

benefit formula, the earnings that are covered and the earnings that are not covered 

by Social Security would be adjusted for inflation. 

A more detailed analysis of H.R. 4391, its impacts on CalSTRS members, and 

issues raised by the current version of H.R. 4391 is attached to this written statement. 

Conclusion 

PSRPA represents a new approach to addressing some of the concerns of the 

Windfall Elimination Provision. The proposal would result in a larger and more equitable Social Security benefit for most affected CalSTRS members. For some future 

63 

workers, there could be a reduction in Social Security benefit as compared to the 

current WEP, although typically the cut would be relatively modest compared to the 

increases in Social Security benefits to others. 

Although the Teachers’ Retirement Board remains concerned about the adverse 

impact of the Social Security offsets on California’s efforts to recruit and retain people to serve as public educators in California, the Board, on behalf of its 735,000 

members, supports the efforts reflected in the Public Servant Retirement Protection 

Act to provide a more equitable adjustment in Social Security benefits to those 

members who receive both government pensions and Social Security benefits. We 

stand ready to work with the Subcommittee on some minor changes to the legislation to improve its equitability and resolve potential administrative burdens. 

f 

Statement of Robert Arthur Cannon, Rockport, Massachusetts 

I am writing in favor of the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection Act’’ as a proper and appropriate step to correct the existing situation, which is blatantly unjust 

and a grievous disservice to public servants and the people they serve. 

Approaching retirement, my wife and I decided to finish our working careers in 

public education as a way to contribute to the future of our community, state, and 

country. We had no idea what a personal financial calamity would ensue due to the 

misfortune of our living in one of a few states where public servants are singled out 

for a so-called ‘‘Windfall Elimination Provision’’ or ‘‘Government Pension Offset’’. 

After a lot of effort to fathom this complicated and arbitrary WEP/GPO, it is our 

understanding that we must either give up pension benefits in the last years of our 

working lives or lose roughly two thirds of the Social Security benefits we have 

already earned. Believe me, when you look at the numbers for people changing careers to serve the public, this is no windfall! If the 108th Congress does not take 

action soon, we will have to leave our service careers in order to meet basic family 

financial responsibilities. How ironic it will be if we—and many others in our situation—have to leave our government jobs in order to keep the government retirement 

benefits of Social Security we have been earning all the previous decades of our 

working lives. 

At a time when the Committee on Ways and Means states that ‘‘America’s economy is strong and growing’’ your action is needed to backup stated administration 

priorities for education and other public service efforts by supporting H.R. 4391 

now. 

f 

Statement of Henry L. Carbone, Fort Kent, Main 

I would like to ask for help in correcting a wrong that has been done to retired 

teachers in the State of Maine and other states that have their own retirement systems. 

The Public Servant Retirement Protection Act offers an important first step toward the ultimate goal of repealing both the WEP and the GPO. It will make a real 

difference for many public employees, who will receive increased Social Security 

benefits as a result. 

I recently retired after thirty-eight of teaching in secondary education and now 

faced with the realty that my other career as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Maine at Fort Kent will have been and is for not. I have been employed 

for twenty-seven years at the university, working to supplement my state retirement because of low teaching wages. Now I find that my social security will be reduces by sixty percent because I already have a pension from the state. This is not 

fair, as I have worked two careers so I would be able to enjoy my retirement. This 

is not a case of double dipping. I have put the hours into both jobs and should be 

able to receive the benefits that I am entitled to from each. 

We who have earned Social Security benefits are not getting a ‘‘windfall.’’ We are 

merely asking to receive the benefits we earned. 

I urge the Committee to move this important bill quickly to final passage and enactment into law, and I urge Congress to continue to work toward full repeal of both 

the GPO and the WEP. Thank you in advance for any help you give on this important matter. Time is of the utmost importance to me as I am quickly reaching full 

retirement age. 

f 

64 

Statement of Margaret Ann Castro, Cypress, Texas 

My name is Margaret Ann Castro. I am a teacher in the Cypress Fairbanks 

School District in Cypress, Texas. I have taught in this district for 14 years, and 

twice during that time have been named the Spotlight Teacher of the Year for my 

campus (Millsap Elementary and Hamilton Elementary). I have also been a participant in the NEWEST program, which is a 2 week training program sponsored by 

NASA for math and science teachers. I received my Masters in Early Childhood 

Education in May 1985 after working 13 years in the business world. Throughout 

my years of teaching I continued to work part-time to supplement my income, especially once my two children began college. I love teaching, and do not want to give 

up this career. However, I face losing major portions of my own social security income and that of my husband’s (in the case that he predeceases me) due to the unfair laws currently in effect. I am asking you to correct this inequality to me and 

to all other public servants the law affects. My last statement from social security 

states that at retirement age of 66 years, my benefits would be $663 a month. This 

is money I paid into social security myself. I WOULD NOT be ‘‘double dipping’’! I 

have paid into two different retirement programs and should be able to receive complete benefits from both without being penalized. With my understanding of the law 

as it now stands, I would stand to lose between $600 and $700 per month from social security benefits owed to me or to my husband, merely because I have served 

as a public school teacher. This represents a major drain on my retirement income. 

This is not fair, and it is a shame to penalize those of us who teach our future generations. I ask you to please revoke the existing laws and quit penalizing teachers 

and other public servants. Thank you. 

f 

Statement of Jeff Clary, Spring, Texas 

To Those People Who Care About Our Children: 

I write to you as a teacher. I made a career change six years ago and have invested my life since in young people. I always hear people talk about the importance 

of education, how children are our future. I have chosen to not only talk, but to do 

something. I hope you will join me! 

Recently, I have discovered that my government has decided that the Social Security money that I paid in during a previous career shouldn’t be mine. I am not referring to unearned benefits. I am talking about money I contributed. Although it really isn’t relevant, it should be noted that in my previous career, I was an independent contractor, so I paid ALL of those benefits directly, myself! Now, I discover 

that teachers, who are in another retirement system, are barred from collecting 

their SS benefits. Imagine that, the people who are in charge of caring for our future are asked to turn over all those retirement earnings and start again at zero. 

Where is the support for our children in those actions? 

We constantly hear of teacher shortages. The newspapers tell story after story of 

troubled children facing difficult times. We only have to turn on the TV to discover 

the plight of thousands of young people born into desperate situations. Yet teachers 

across this country dedicate themselves to fighting for those kids. A short visit with 

any seasoned teacher will expose you to a series of sad stories of kids in need. 

It is no secret that those very teachers can never aspire to earn their way to the 

top levels of society. Personally, it is my wife’s income that allows me to continue 

to teach and maintain my standard of living. I am not asking for a handout; simply 

allow me access to my money. 

If you are truly concerned about our children, then you will support those with 

whom you have entrusted their care. Please allow Texas teachers to collect all the 

retirement benefits they earn, both as teachers and in their other careers. 

Do it for the children! 

f 

65 

Statement of Robert Gray, Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement 

Association 

Chairman Shaw, Ranking Member Matsui, Members of the Subcommittee, I am 

Robert Gray, Director of Government Relations for the Colorado Public Employees’ 

Retirement Association (PERA). PERA covers 177,000 active state, school, local government, and judicial employees in Colorado. PERA also pays monthly lifetime benefits to 67,000 retired public employees and survivor beneficiaries. Except for a few 

of the local government members, PERA members are not covered by Social Security 

from their public employment with a PERA employer. 

I would like to thank you for having the hearing on July 20 and receiving written 

testimony on H.R. 4391, the proposed Public Servant Retirement Protection Act 

(PSRPA). PSRPA would affect thousands of state, school, and local workers who will 

receive or who already are receiving benefits from public employee retirement systems from their employment not covered by Social Security. 

Colorado PERA has followed the Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision 

(WEP) since it was enacted over 20 years ago and revised in 1988. There have been 

a number of attempts to revise or repeal WEP since then. H.R. 4391 has many 

strong features, and Colorado PERA urges the Subcommittee to approve this bill 

and send it to the full Ways and Means Committee. 

The original purpose of the WEP is to ensure that public employees who work a 

part of their career in Social Security-covered employment and the other part of 

their career in public employment outside Social Security, do not receive an unfair 

advantage from the weighting in Social Security’s regular benefit formula. Social Security is a social insurance program in which benefits paid to low-income workers 

replace a higher percentage of pre-retirement earnings than for higher-income workers. For example, in 2004 Social Security replaces 90 percent of the first $612 of 

a worker’s AIME (Average Indexed Monthly Earnings), and replaces 32 percent of 

the next $3,077 of AIME. 

Because weighting occurs in all Social Security benefit calculations, it makes 

sense that public employees who have pensions from employment not covered by Social Security should be treated for Social Security benefits in some manner that 

takes into account their entire career earnings. Public employees who also have 

other employment in their careers that was covered by Social Security should not 

be accorded the advantage normally given only to low-income career workers in the 

calculation of their Social Security benefits. 

PSRPA would accomplish this goal better than WEP. PSRPA would use a sounder 

concept for calculating the Social Security benefit. It compares the average indexed 

earnings covered by Social Security to the average indexed earnings during the 

worker’s entire career, and bases the Social Security benefit on this ratio. 

PSRPA would apply to public employees’ Social Security benefits the same earnings-based weighting that is currently used in Social Security benefit calculations. 

According to examples prepared by the Subcommittee, the Social Security benefit 

under PSRPA to a low-wage career earner would replace a higher percentage of his 

average SS-covered indexed monthly wages than would be replaced for a mediumwage earner or a high-wage earner. 

The WEP calculation, on the other hand, uses fairly arbitrary percentages in 

order to calculate the ‘‘windfall’’ reduction. Employees who meet other fairly arbitrary thresholds of income earned and years worked are exempt from WEP. 

Colorado PERA prepared seven examples of employees with differing work patterns. In six of the examples, the Social Security benefit under PSRPA would be 

higher than the benefit under WEP. This occurred whether the employee first 

worked under Colorado PERA and then went to a Social Security-covered job, or 

started in Social Security and ended the career under PERA. A table showing results for all seven examples is attached. 

For worker 7 in the table, WEP provides a larger benefit than PSRP, but only 

because the worker has 33 years of ‘‘substantial earnings’’ under Social Security and 

is exempt from WEP. However, PSRPA would grandfather active and retired public 

employees, including worker 7. Under H.R. 4391 an employee would receive the 

greater of the benefit under WEP or PSRPA if he or she is already retired or had 

public employment outside Social Security prior to 12 months following enactment 

of H.R. 4391. 

The examples in the table are consistent with the findings of several other groups 

that show that most public employees would receive larger benefits under PSRPA 

than under WEP. 

In addition to providing larger benefits under a fairer method than WEP, Colorado PERA believes that H.R. 4391 is attractive for other reasons. 

66 

Many Colorado PERA members make good use of portability provisions in PERA 

to purchase additional years of service credit based on prior, nonvested employment 

with another employer. In many cases, the prior employment was covered by Social 

Security. The maximum reduction under WEP is $306 per month in 2004, but in 

no case greater than one-half of the PERA retirement benefit. The PERA benefit, 

for purposes of the WEP, excludes the purchased service if the prior employment 

was covered by Social Security. Currently, PERA completes a special form to calculate the correct PERA benefit that is used by SSA for determining the WEP reduction in Social Security benefits. H.R. 4391 would eliminate this step because 

under PSRPA, the amount of the PERA retirement benefit would not affect the Social Security benefit. 

The cost to the Social Security trust funds is far less for H.R. 4391 (PSRPA), at $7 billion over the next 10 years, than the cost of full repeal or the cost of H.R. 

4234, which would eliminate WEP for public retirees with income below a certain 

figure. 

H.R. 4391 addresses how best to provide benefits to public employees who have 

also worked in covered employment for enough years to qualify for Social Security 

benefits based on those earnings. It does so without mandating Social Security coverage. 

Colorado PERA opposes mandatory Social Security because the current PERA retirement system has worked very well in the eyes of employees, retirees and employers. PERA provides very comprehensive benefits as a substitute for Social Security, and PERA is an attractive part of the benefits package for Colorado public employees. All seven examples from the attached table show that the worker received 

a significantly larger benefit if he was covered by PERA during his entire career 

than if he was covered by Social Security during his entire career. 

The Colorado General Assembly has stated several times that it also believes that 

its employees are already well-served by existing retirement plans that do not include Social Security. Mandatory Social Security coverage would increase costs to 

taxpayers and employees, and challenge the soundness of the current plan. In the 

long run, mandatory coverage would not significantly benefit Social Security. 

The Social Security Administration testified at the hearing on July 20 that it 

would be difficult to obtain data for employees’ earnings prior to 1978, or to estimate 

it. The Internal Revenue Service has received wage and salary earnings reports 

from all employers for years, and if it was retained, it would seem the IRS could 

transmit this information to SSA. Colorado PERA would be willing to work with federal agencies and national public pension groups to try to find a workable solution 

to data problems. 

Conclusion 

Colorado PERA urges the Social Security Subcommittee to adopt H.R. 4391 and 

greatly appreciates the efforts of the sponsor and cosponsors to improve equity in 

the calculation of Social Security benefits for state and local workers who have 

earned those benefits. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I would be glad to provide further information or answer any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

f 

Braintree, Massachusetts 02184 

July 15, 2004 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

I am a reading specialist for the Braintree Public Schools in Braintree, MA. I 

spend my day helping children in grades 1–5 improve their reading skills, something I consider extremely important. I am writing to you concerning the Windfall 

Elimination Provision, Government Pension Offset, and the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act. I want to thank you for working on this bill because its passage will make a tremendous difference to my family and me. 

I am 51 years old and left a position in private industry in 1994. I had worked 

for 13 years in an extremely well-paid position, a systems analyst in the communications industry. I left my job to get my master’s degree in education from Lesley 

University in Cambridge, Massachusetts; something I had always wanted to do. It 

took me four years to complete my degree and find a teaching position. Because of 

the years I spent working in private industry and the years spent working on my 

graduate degree, I will never be able to receive a full teacher’s pension. In addition, 

the pension I will receive for those 13 years at my former company will be miniscule. Little did I know I would have little else on which to fall back. 

67 

When I left what was then the NYNEX Corp. (now Verizon) to go into education, 

it was for all the right reasons—social security and retirement issues never entered 

my mind. I knew I would be taking a tremendous salary cut (I am making about 

the same salary now in 2004 that I was making at NYNEX in 1994). However, I 

had absolutely NO idea that making this particular career change would have such 

a detrimental effect on my retirement income. The public pleas from state and federal government encouraging those in business to switch careers and enter teaching 

failed to inform about what we would be giving up. Many of the years that I was 

employed in the telephone industry seem to be for naught when it comes to my Social Security benefits. I also don’t understand why, as a spouse, my survivor benefits 

will be cut. My husband has worked only in private industry, so that represents a 

significant loss for me as well. 

I worked in private industry while my children were small. Financially our family, 

like so many others, required two incomes to make ends meet. Those were very difficult years for us. However, during those years, one consolation to me was that I 

was building retirement security. What is the windfall that this provision speaks 

of? It is only money I earned through hard work and sacrifice. To think that I am 

going to receive basically no credit for that work and also stand to lose most of my 

husband’s benefit because I chose to enter the teaching profession seems cruel, unfair, and I must say, unfathomable. 

Sincerely, 

f 

Patricia E. Cook 

Statement of Tracey Cook, Lisle, Illinois 

I am writing to support the passage of the bill. My husband, Donald R Cook and 

I are both impacted by the current laws that prevent us from collecting our social 

security benefits at 62 or 65. We are not unique. We never expected to get rich in 

our careers. We have simple goals, but we do believe that we deserve the benefits 

we have paid. Both of us paid into social security in our first careers; both of us 

have earned the necessary credits to receive benefits. However, both of us chose to 

enter public service careers. I am a teacher and he is a firefighter. When we decide 

to retire, we will receive reduced benefits, if any, from Social Security. Public servants in other states receive benefits from more than one retirement plan. I have a 

friend in Montana who not only receives his full teacher pension, but also his pensions from BLM and Social Security. 

I decided to become a teacher at age 40. I will never teach long enough to receive 

the pension equivalent of a thirty-year career. There are many answering the call 

to teach who bring the wisdom of a former career to the classroom. This is a benefit 

to the students and the educational system in general. Every career-changing teacher in Illinois is penalized for their decision by not being able to receive full social 

security if they also choose to take TRS benefits when they retire. We do not have 

the choice to continue to pay into the Social Security system. We are required to 

pay into TRS. Many teachers do not realize this situation until their first job. Many 

do not stay once they realize the long-term financial implications. 

Why do legislators think we will become so rich? Firemen typically work 56 hours 

a week and then work a second job to support their families. Their wives usually 

juggle around their schedule to work a job as well. Teachers put in long hours (60 

hours a week) during their nine and 1/2 months active teaching time and more 

hours retaining their certification and curriculum planning during their 2-month 

‘‘vacation’’ time. Many teachers work another job in the summer to help make ends 

meet. People in both of these careers could be doing something that makes more 

money, but then who would save your houses when they burn? Who would teach 

your children? 

You have chosen to punish us in a monetary fashion for dedicating our lives to 

the community. You, legislators, have a separate pension plan, at no cost to you just 

because you were elected to office. It is time to allow us to collect the full benefits 

of all of our pensions, just as you, the ‘‘servants of the people,’’ do. 

Please note that the WEP and the GPO unfairly punish people who chose to become firefighter and teachers, in spite of the long term financial consequences. We 

cannot afford to continue penalizing teachers and firemen. With our fragile education system and even greater hazards in the fire service, our nations needs dedicated individuals who are appreciated for their efforts, not punished at the end of 

their careers. 

68 

Please also note that we are not asking for a ‘‘windfall;’’ we are only asking to 

receive what we have earned. My friend who stayed at home and never had a career 

will receive more social security benefits than me. That just doesn’t make sense. 

Please also note that the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act is an important beginning with the goal of repealing both the WEP and the GPO. This will impact many public employees by allowing them to receive what they have already 

earned. 

I am asking you to get this bill out of committee so that it can be passed and 

enacted into law. 

Then I ask you to work quickly to repeal both the GPO and the WEP. We need 

good teachers in our school system. We can make a difference by getting careerchangers into the schools. Repealing the GPO and WEP will allow them to make 

that transition without penalizing them with long-term monetary consequences. 

Within the next two years, the country will need over 200,000 teachers to replace 

those who retire. If you really value education, you cannot fail to repeal GPO and 

WEP. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

f 

Statement of Audrey Cournia, Sparks, Nevada 

I have been a teacher for 40 years and retired in 1997 from Washoe County with 

20 years of service qualifying me for a pension from the state of NV which approximates 50% of my salary. In addition I have worked in other capacities earning more 

than the required 40 credits to qualify for social security. It was not a lot, but my 

$300 a month was arbitrarily cut to $150 a month. These work credits had nothing 

to do with my pension and I fail to see how it can be considered a windfall. It is 

as unfair as any legislation can be and it singles out public employees in a discriminatory fashion. I feel quite sure that public employees in the Congress are not subject to this same unfair treatment, or it would have been rectified long ago. Please 

pass HR 4391 as at least a first step in bringing justice to those Americans who 

have chosen public service and are being treated so poorly! 

f 

Statement of Paul A. Cyr, Greene, Maine 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to write to you. 

I am fifty-seven and a half years old and I work for the state of Maine Department of Transportation as a Highway Worker II. My job is driving truck—winter 

and summer—and when I’m not actually driving I am doing heavy physical work. 

I’ve worked for the state of Maine for approximately nine and a half years. The first 

three and a half years were as a Highway Worker I. The job was mainly flagging 

for eight to ten hours a day, and at forty-seven years old it wasn’t easy standing 

on hot top all day or being out in 10 below zero weather. While doing this job I’ve 

had the driving public swear at me for holding them up for three minutes, or people 

going by and hollering at me to get a real job. There have also been numerous times 

when I was almost hit by cars and in some cases the drivers actually laughed about 

it. I took the insults and obsenities thinking I would just do what I had to and it 

would pay off in the long run—that when I retired I would have a pension from 

this job to go along with my social security. 

Before I went to work for the state of Maine I was a sheet metal journeyman. 

I spent four years going to school at night to get my state license as a sheet metal 

worker. I worked for a copy while going to school and stayed with them for approximately twenty-five years. After that I worked for another metal shop for about four 

years until they filed for bankruptcy. And than it was another metal shop company 

for three years until I was let go for supposedly not being able to keep up with the 

younger people. These companies had very few benefits—no pension, no paid vacations, no bonuses, some paid holidays, and some had very limited health insurance. 

During all those years I installed duct work in dirty paper mills, in buildings with 

asbestos, and out in the cold and heat. I was paying into Social Security during this 

time and thought I would have a SS check when I retired. I couldn’t put money into 

savings for retirement because it took all I had to be able to get by and pay the 

bills. 

Then after working with no benefits or pension all those years and being out of 

work for two years, I landed a job with the state of Maine. After being a state workVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
69 

er for seven years I went to a retirement seminar and learned about the GPO and 

WEP. I was very upset by what I was told so I went to my Social Security office 

in Auburn, Maine. The person I spoke to told me I would loose about a third of my 

Social Security benefits because I worked for the state of Maine. To add insult to 

injury, she told me that I should not have taken this job, but should have found 

work somewhere else! But as I told her, I had been out of work for two years when 

I got the job with the state and figured that with their pension and Social Security 

I would be able to get by when I retired. But now the way I feel they might as well 

bury me in my work clothes, because I’ll probably be working until I die. 

From what I see the future looks pretty bad for me. With taxes going up all the 

time as well as the cost of living (gas, lights, insurance, etc.), I’ll never have enough 

to make ends meet if I retire. Also, there has been a woman in my life and we can’t 

get married because if we do and she draws any of my state of Maine pension after 

I die she will get penalized on her Social Security. And I won’t do that to her. And 

why should she get penalized anyway? 

In my opinion HR4391 is not a good bill for anyone and will cost more to implement than just repealing the GPO and WEP. Just give me the money that I earned 

and put into Social Security over the years—all of it, no more and no less. And do 

not penalize my fiance ́ either. Please, please repeal these two unjust laws so that 

people like myself that have worked so hard for so many years (four of which were 

serving this country in the military) can end our working days with dignity and a 

sense of self worth and accomplishment. 

Thank you. 

f 

Statement of Therese K. Desmarais, Rockport, Massachusetts 

My name is Therese K. Desmarais. I am the only child of first generation Polish 

parents, the first girl on both sides to go to college. I paid my own way through 

a state college in order to earn my Bachelor’s Degree in Elementary Education, and 

then attended a private university to complete my Master’s Degree in Education. 

I was married in 1965, and continued to teach full time, attend graduate school part 

time and summers, and had two children. 

When the children were born, I was not allowed to be in the public schools after 

my seventh month of pregnancy. My husband was laid off from a computer-based 

company, and we moved to Massachusetts in 1970. Since I was 100 miles away from 

both sets of grandparents and extended family, I stayed at home to raise my two 

children until they were of school age. 

I returned to the public schools on August 24, 1975 and worked for two public 

school systems until my retirement at age 60, on August 24, 2002. 

During that period of time, my parents began having age related health issues. 

I cared for my mother until 1996, when I was forced to turn to a nursing home because of her declining health, and the beginning of my father’s poor health due to 

colon cancer. My husband, Richard had a serious heart attack in 1997, and I had 

to continue working because he was self-employed and our medical insurance was 

available through my teaching job. Richard was self-employed for thirty years. 

In that same year, I was diagnosed with the same breast cancer that my mother 

was recovering from in 1994. After two surgeries and radiation, I could no longer 

keep up with the two round trips a week to my hometown of Hartford, Connecticut 

to care for both parents. My father wished to remain in the house he had built for 

us fifty years earlier, and to be near the Polish Catholic Church and his Carpenter’s 

Union, his only sources of peer support. 

I incurred many bills while caring for them, as they were both receiving Social 

Security. My mother’s Social Security went toward payment of the nursing home. 

I managed my father’s household bills, taxes, insurance, food, fuel, and clothing 

costs for those five years. My mother died in February 2001. My father died on Father’s Day of 2001. 

Both of our children attended college. Our daughter did a mid-career change from 

finance to teaching, attending Harvard University School of Education in order to 

comply with certification in Massachusetts for Math and Science teachers. She 

taught for two years, and is presently on maternity leave with her second child. 

Upon my retirement, we relocated to our daughter’s place of residency in order 

to be close to grandchildren and family, and eventually help with childcare, as she 

will return to work as a Math/Science teacher in a public school. 

My husband, Richard James Desmarais, died on February 14, 2004 after living 

in our retirement home for nine months. Our second grandchild, Talia Therese was 

70 

born February 5, 2004. Those nine days were filled with the most intense joy one 

could ever have imagined. 

Our son and his new wife were visiting the new baby when Rich had his fatal 

heart attack here at home, and he died in my arms, with my son and new daughterin-law at my side. I can never forget the sadness of the ensuing weeks and months. 

Richard’s death caused his ninety-year-old mother to be hospitalized with grief, in 

shock, over losing her son. 

I then began making all the arrangements for his funeral, tried to sort out his 

company which death with Information Systems, and our finances. It was at that 

time that I realized that I was not eligible for his social security widow’s benefits 

because I was retired and receiving my teacher’s pension from a private retirement 

board. 

Because of Richard’s history of heart disease, (his father died of a heart attack, 

his mother has had a triple bypass twice), he was only able to get minimal life insurance before his parents were diagnosed with heart disease. It was minimal coverage. Since he was self-employed, he not only paid the standard Social Security 

tax; he paid twice that amount. 

Richard began working on tobacco in 1954 at the age of 14. He worked very hard, 

providing all the necessities to both his children, my parents, his mother who is still 

living. He contributed to the Social Security System for fifty years, expecting that 

it would help, along with my retirement to allow us to live in our own home, as 

independently as our health would allow. 

The Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) 

are causing me to loose my home, my independence, my simple but quality life style 

of caring for family and community members. I have been receiving the same social 

security projection notices that everyone else receives not knowing that I would 

loose them upon my husband’s death, when I need it the most. I was not trying to 

cheap or double dip, as the writers of that bill projected. I need it to pay my mortgage, my taxes, and my car insurance, buy food, fuel, and clothing. 

I urge you to consider the impact this is having on my family, especially my 

daughter, whom I never want to see in this position at any point in her lifetime. 

I urge you to consider my situation when you meet to discuss this bill addressing 

the GPO and WEP. Richard paid into social security for fifty years so that he and 

his family would have financial security. 

I do not have him to help me through this sad time. Please consider my situation, 

and know there may be many others who are depending on your support of this action. 

f 

Statement of Alfred E. Devereaux, Lenox, Massachusetts 

I would like to submit for testimony my personal distress caused by the GPO 

WEP. 

I taught in the public schools of Massachusetts for 24 years and retired early. I 

currently receive $609 per month in retirement benefits. 

For the past 16 years I have been self employed and have contributed to Social 

Security. 

I was surprised to find out just three years ago that I would only be eligible for 

a portion of my Social Security. 

I had been counting on the full amount that was revealed in the statements that 

I was receiving from the Social Security Administration. 

I was assuming at the age of 65 I would be able to get by on the combination 

of my Social Security, my wife’s Social Security and my small teacher’s pension. 

Unless this law is overturned I do not see how I can get by unless I continue to 

work full time. 

It is not fair to have to pay in to the system and not receive the benefits that 

are accorded to other people that pay the same and have not worked as a public 

servant. 

I realized going into teaching that the rewards were not necessarily monetary, 

however, I didn’t realize going in that I would be penalized further. 

Please repeal this law and allow our teachers, police, firemen, and other public 

servants in Massachusetts that work a second job to be fairly treated. 

Thanks 

f 

71 

Statement of Katie DeSotell, Aurora, Illinois 

I am writing in regard to the Social Security issues facing me and many other 

Americans. I am very proud of my work as a teacher and I feel that I have given 

a great deal of myself serving my community as a teacher. 

Raised in a middle class neighborhood, I worked to put myself through college. 

While my parents helped with the cost of my education, I worked part time during 

the school year as well as the summer to put myself through school. During my beginning years as a teacher it was necessary for me to work a second job to meet 

my financial obligations. 

During high school, college and for part of my teaching career, I contributed to 

Social Security. I do not feel my contribution to the Social Security funds is any different than anyone else’s contribution. I do not feel that I should be penalized for 

serving my community as a teacher while working a second job. 

Please allow me and other public servants the opportunity to obtain our fair share 

when we reach retirement. I have paid into Social Security and should be allowed 

to collect upon retirement from the teaching profession. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share my thoughts. 

f 

Foxboro, Massachusetts 02035 

July 20, 2004 

Dear Hearing Committee Member, 

Please address the unfair impact of the Windfall Elimination Program (WEP) 

which has caused many teachers like me, who left industry to work in our public 

schools, to lose the benefits for which they have worked long and hard. 

In 1986 I left a lucrative position as a Systems Analyst working for a privately 

held firm (Nyman Manufacturing, RI) to work as a high school teacher in the 

Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School System. I was 39 years old and had dutifully 

paid social security during my years in industry. I have since contributed to the 

Massachusetts Retirement System and my current rate of contribution is 11% of salary. Massachusetts teachers do not contribute to Social Security. I will be 62 in five 

years but will only have 23 years in the teacher retirement system by that time. 

This means I can only draw 50.6% of the average of my last three years income at 

that time[1] Current calculations show that I would only receive about 1/3 of the 

social security payment I would receive otherwise (about $210 in today’s dollars) according to the WEP calculator available at the socialsecurity.gov website. 

Had I never contributed a cent to Social Security but rather earned all my income 

teaching, I would be able to retire at 80% instead of 50.7% at age 62. Conversely, 

had all my earnings been under the social security system, my monthly contribution 

would be at the rate of 6.2% and not 11%. To compare apples and apples this means 

that at age 62 I would have three sources of income: 

a. Social Security at over $1500/mo plus 

b. interest from retirement savings at the differential between the SS contribution rate of 6.2% and the MTRB contribution rate of 11% or an additional $500/ 

mo plus 

c. the professional retirement plan with over 30 years vested at a private company (like Nyman Manufacturing above) at about 80% of my last several years. 

This is the payback for leaving industry to work with our nation’s children! Please 

do right by our nation’s teachers by not penalizing them for responding to a noble 

calling. 

Sincerely, 

Jeanne Dyer 

[1] Reference: Estimating Your Retirement Balance an MTRB publication 

f 

72 

Cotuit, Massachusetts 02635 

July 22, 2004 

Social Security Subcommittee 

Committee on Ways and Means 

United States House of Representatives 

1102 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Committee Members, 

I am writing to outline how the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) unfairly 

penalizes those who have chosen or desire to enter public service and how it impacts 

our nation’s schools. 

In 1975, I obtained my Bachelors of Science in Mathematics. And, although I had 

many options available to me, I decided to become an educator. I truly felt that in 

a classroom, I could make a difference. For six years, I taught mathematics at 

Dedham Junior High School in Dedham, MA. During this time period I obtained 

graduate degrees in Special Education and School Administration. 

In 1981, I, like many of my peers, was faced with the impact that budget cuts 

and declining enrollment had on many aspects of public education. At that point, 

I decided to explore some of the other options that were available to me. 

For the next fourteen years, I worked in a variety of technology positions. These 

jobs ranged from computer programmer to director of information technology for a 

major manufacturer. In addition, I continued my studies at the graduate level and 

obtained my M.B.A. 

From a financial standpoint, my situation changed drastically during this time period. Within months of leaving the classroom, my salary doubled. The annual 

growth in my earnings after that point far exceeded that which I would ever see 

in public service. And, I must admit that for awhile I found myself questioning why 

I ever considered spending those first six years as a teacher. 

On a personal level, however, I knew why I spent those six years in a classroom 

and I yearned to be back there. It was because I could make a difference. As a 

teacher, I could ‘‘touch the future’’. Due to this, I returned to education in 1995. 

My desire to make a difference has not been without significant financial hardship. The Windfall Elimination Provision has significantly reduced the Social Security benefits that I earned and would have received if I was not committed to returning to the classroom where I knew my educational and business experience 

would make a difference. 

Our nation’s schools are lacking qualified teachers of mathematics and science. 

There is a need to actively recruit educators from the private sector. The hardships 

associated with the Windfall Elimination Provision serves as a barrier to improving 

public education. 

The Public Servant Retirement Protection Act offers an important first step toward improving our nation’s educational system. It will make a real difference for 

many considering the possibility of transitioning from business and industry in 

order to become public school teachers 

I urge the Committee to move this important bill quickly to final passage and enactment into law, and I urge Congress to continue to work toward the full repeal 

of the Windfall Elimination Provision. 

Sincerely, 

f 

Paula Emerson Fay 

Statement of Patricia Wolfe, Federally Employed Women 

FEW is a private, non-profit organization founded in 1968 after Executive Order 

11375—that added sex discrimination to the list of prohibited discrimination in the 

federal government—was issued. FEW has grown into an international organization 

serving the one million federally employed women (both civilian and military). FEW 

is the only organization dedicated solely to eliminating sex discrimination in the federal workplace, and the only organization that monitors legislation particularly of 

concern to women employed in the federal government. 

INTRODUCTION 

Federally Employed Women (FEW) very much appreciates the opportunity to submit this written statement on HR 4391, the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection 

73 

Act.’’ On behalf of the one million women employed in the federal government and 

military, we thank Chairman Clay Shaw and the other legislators serving on this 

Subcommittee for conducting this important hearing on the Windfall Elimination 

Provision (WEP). We call on Congress to completely repeal this provision, as well 

as the Government Pension Offset (GPO) which both unfairly impact federal workers, especially women. 

BACKGROUND 

FEW is a private, non-profit organization founded in 1968 after Executive Order 

11375—that added sex discrimination to the other forms of discrimination prohibited in the federal government—was issued. The early organizers of FEW realized 

that the government could dismantle the Federal Women’s Program (FWP) that was 

established after E.O. 11375 was issued within most Federal agencies. They wanted 

to ensure that there would always be an organization dedicated to promoting equality for women and addressing concerns of women in the Federal workforce. 

As a private organization, FEW works as a constructive pressure group to improve the status of women employed by the Federal government. This includes contact with Congress to encourage progressive legislation. FEW national officers also 

meet with agency officials at all levels to demonstrate support of the FWP, encourage officials to support the program and to obtain insight on the effectiveness of the 

FWP at agency and local levels. FEW has been called on in past years to testify 

before Congress on sexual discrimination, Senior Executive Service (SES) diversity 

and sexual harassment cases. 

For 36 years, Federally Employed Women has been working to end sexual discrimination and enhance opportunities for the advancement of women in government. Every day, nationwide, FEW members work together to bring about an 

awareness of the issues facing women throughout the federal government and 

achieve positive reforms and equality for women in the federal workplace. In addition, FEW members support all efforts within the government to improve operations 

and efficiencies in the federal workforce. 

THE PROVISIONS 

As the Subcommittee members are already aware, the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) greatly reduces the Social Security benefits of a retired federal worker 

who paid into Social Security and also receives a government pension. Private sector 

retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to 90% of their first $561 in 

average monthly career earnings, plus 32% of monthly earnings up to $3,381 and 

15% of earnings above $3,381. Federal retirees however are only allowed to receive 

40% of the first $561 in career monthly earnings, a penalty of $280.50 per month 

simply for working in the federal government. 

GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET 

Of equal importance to FEW members is the Government Pension Offset (GPO). 

This provision was enacted in 1977 to prevent government retirees from collecting 

both a government annuity based on their own work and Social Security benefits 

based on their spouse’s. This law decreases by two-thirds whatever spousal social 

security benefits for which a retired government worker might be eligible. 

The GPO, in effect, prohibits federal retirees from collecting both a full Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) annuity based upon his or her own government employment and full Social Security benefits based upon a spouse’s employment. The 

victims of GPO are largely elderly women who are both CSRS annuitants and widows of private sector employees. Had these women spent their careers anywhere but 

the federal government, they would be entitled to full, unreduced Social Security 

spousal or survivor benefits. But because they earned their pensions through federal 

service under CSRS, their Social Security benefit is ‘‘offset’’ by their own earned retirement benefits. 

The National Association of Retired Federal Employees (NARFE) has estimated 

that approximately 635,000 beneficiaries are receiving less benefits than they deserve due to the provisions of the WEP. This number continues to grow by 60,000 

annually. The GPO penalizes about 335,000 beneficiaries, and this number rises by 

about 15,000 per year. Of those affected by the GPO, 73% are women, and this offset reduces benefits by more than $3,600 a year. This is simply unfair and it is time 

to make it right. 

74 

OUR VIEWS 

FEW supports the repeal of both of these unfair provisions. Both the GPO and 

WEP lower the retirement income of federal employees by altering the Social Security benefit formula for certain groups. What is particularly egregious is that spousal and retirement benefits are reduced for Americans simply because they worked 

for the federal government. The end result is to dissuade more potential federal 

workers from joining the civilian workforce. 

Additionally, both affect women much more harshly than men despite the fact 

that older women are one of the fastest growing poverty populations in our nation 

today. Plus, women are more likely to spend time out of the workforce (about 12 

years) to tend to family care giving responsibilities. That is time she is not earning 

a pension, vesting in a pension or contributing to Social Security. This absence from 

the paid workforce translates into inadequate retirement income and an increased 

financial dependency on their spouses. 

Our views have previously been made part of the public record through written 

testimony submitted to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee for its September, 24, 2003, hearing, as well as the issuance of numerous Press Releases sent 

out over the last year. 

FEW’S GRASSROOTS EFFORTS 

FEW, on August 1, 2003 asked its members and other interested parties to send 

letters to their legislators urging them to co-sponsor bills in both Chambers that 

would repeal these provisions. To date, over 2,500 letters were sent to lawmakers 

representing 42 states. And FEW is just one organization. No doubt, hundreds of 

thousands of letters from a whole host of multi-faceted organizations have been sent 

to Congress urging repeal. 

During these times of an aging workforce, we need to do what is right for federal 

retirees. Americans who choose to serve their country by working for the federal 

government should not then be penalized during their retirement years. These provisions need to be repealed as soon as possible. 

HR 4391 

Although the bill being discussed at this hearing is a good attempt and first step 

at rectifying the situation for federal retirees, FEW harbors some concerns about the 

legislation’s language: 

No GPO Included: 

As mentioned above, FEW is firmly advocating the repeal of both the WEP and 

GPO. The latter has an even greater negative impact on some of our nation’s most 

hard-hit Social Security recipients—widows and widowers, and lower-income 

women. Fixing the WEP while leaving the GPO in place will not help the majority 

of retired federally employed women who are being punished monetarily simply for 

working in the federal government. They need some relief now! 

Social Security Records: 

It is our understanding that this bill would compute a recipient’s benefits based 

on the individual’s entire work history and earnings. However, it has been reported 

by the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) that SSA 

only has records of non-covered earnings beginning in 1978. Therefore, those beneficiaries who earned non-covered wages after 1950 would be negatively impacted 

under the formula included in this legislation. This problem needs to be fixed. 

‘‘Hold Harmless’’ Clause: 

Contained in this bill is a ‘‘hold harmless’’ clause that states that earners would 

receive the higher of the two benefit calculations (current method and new method 

outlined in this bill). We want to express our firm belief that no individual should 

be harmed by this bill, and we ask the Subcommittee to further investigate the proposed formula by using many different scenarios to ensure that it is equitable. We 

also ask that a process be detailed in the bill on how recipients can appeal their 

Social Security payments should they be penalized through the use of the new formula. 

Again, we very much appreciate the Subcommittee and Chairman’s interest in 

this issue and all the support you have given federal workers in the past. I, and 

the thousands of other FEW members, am proud of the work we do for the federal 

government, and simply want to receive those retirement benefits to which we are 

entitled. 

75 

We look forward to working with the Subcommittee members and their staffs to 

repeal these unfair provisions. 

f 

Statement of Wayne Flick, Grand Junction, Colorado 

I taught in the public schools of Colorado for 31 years. I started teaching at age 

30 after about 10 years working for several companies and spending time in the 

Army. I paid social security all those years, even the years in college. After receiving 

my teaching credentials, and getting my first teaching position, I realized how little 

teachers make. The first summer I got a job, and every summer following I got 

‘‘summer jobs’’. Summer jobs were easy to get in Leadville where I taught the first 

five years. When I moved to Grand Junction, summer jobs weren’t easy to find. I 

probably made about $100,000 total in today’s dollars in non-teaching jobs. As a retiree, I won’t see but a small portion, if any, of the amount I would have, had I 

not gone into teaching. 

I understand why I don’t get any SS for the money I earned teaching, but I can’t 

understand why I can’t get SS for what I earned outside of teaching. Had I known 

I was going to take such a hit, I probably would not have become a teacher. 

The Public Servant Retirement Protection Act offers a first step toward the ultimate goal of repealing both the WEP and the GPO. It will make a real difference 

for me and other people in my shoes since I will receive increased Social Security 

benefits as a result. 

Both the WEP and the GPO unfairly penalize public servants which severely limits communities ability to attract quality people to fill positions in education, firefighting, and public safety. 

I urge the Committee to pass this bill through congress and enact it into law, and 

I urge Congress to continue to work toward full repeal of both the GPO and the 

WEP. 

f 

Statement of Gerald R. Garrett, Moses Lake, Washington 

I am writing to urge the Committee to move quickly in its deliberations on the 

Public Servant Retirement Protection Act as a first step toward full repeal of the 

WEP and GPO. I am one of the tens of thousands of retired Americans who are unfairly penalized by the WEP, thus denied full benefits of Social Security after making contributions to the system through full—and part-time jobs for fifty years. 

Since retirement I continue to contribute to Social Security through occasional and 

part-time jobs with no possibility of enhancing my benefits because of the WEP. 

In my opinion, both the WEP and GPO are unfair offsets that deny public servants who have worked in non-Social Security jobs the benefits that they have earned 

through contributions made in prior employment and in part-time or second jobs. 

Nothing about the careers of these hard-working public servants smacks of a windfall. Instead, these are benefits that have been earned through many years of social 

security contributions. In my case, I have made contributions in some years at the 

maximum level in every year of my life since I was a teenager. This includes some 

32 years as a professor and administrator at the University of Massachusetts Boston and several years as a university professor providing educational services to the 

U.S. Forces in Europe, Asia, and at home. Like many others I was counting on Social Security to help protect me from inflationary costs that are often financial obstacles for retired Americans. Since I am subject to the WEP, my benefits are reduced to only a few hundred dollars each month. 

This nation should not take advantage of dedicated public servants, such as educators, police, firefighters, and public administrators, by denying them benefits that 

they have earned. Thus, I urge the Committee to move this bill quickly to final passage and enactment into law, and I also hope that Congress will continue to work 

toward a full repeal of both the WEP and GPO. 

f 

76 

Statement of Ken Hamdorf, Seal Beach, California 

Recently I retired after forty years of Teaching in California school systems. I also 

worked at numerous jobs part and full time to supplement my teaching income. 

These jobs all contributed into my social security account. In addition I served during the Viet Nam war for two years in the U.S. Army, also subject social security. 

When I turned 65 I applied for Medicare. Which I received because I had the necessary Quarters. I was also informed that because I had a teacher’s retirement I 

would not be eligible for my full entitlement ($950), instead I would be reduced to 

approx. $243. Someone who works outside of the public employees system can earn 

MILLIONS and still be eligible for full social security. Hardly seems just or fair! ! 

Please repeal the W.E.P. 

f 

Statement of Wayne V. Hatford, Palm Springs, California 

There are several bills now before your subcommittee that deal with proposed 

changes in the very unfair WEP provisions of current Social Security laws: The 

Total Repeal Bill plus HR 1321 & HR 4391. 

Here is an example of how that unfairness adversely affects someone’s life: I am 

a retired public school teacher who taught in the Brookline, Massachusetts public 

schools for a total of 24 years; my current gross teacher’s pension from Massachusetts is approximately $12,.600 per year with net payments of $878 per month; I 

have worked in other part-timeand full-time jobs and paid into SS for a total 30 

years which will provide me with a social security benefit; however, when I am eligible for Social Security in September, 2004 at age 62, under current law, and just 

for the fact of having been a ‘‘public’’ employee in MA, I understand that my earned 

social security benefit, which should be $444 per month, will be cut in half to $222 

per month due to the WEP law. 

As you can see, my retirement income level is already low without facing a 50% 

reduction in earned social security benefits. And, at my income level, the notion of 

‘‘Retirement’’ seems very elusive; Losing $222 a month is tough. 

The current WEP Law is unfair and discriminatory towards people who chose to 

be of service in society and who worked in the ‘‘wrong’’ states—teachers plus many 

other public sector employees—while those with any size private pension collect 

their full earned social security benefits—Another point: I was never made aware 

of this law when I was a teacher in MA; Neither the SS Administration nor the 

school districts in non SS public employees states inform teachers of this law and 

they should; I would have loved to pay into Social Security while working in the 

Massachusetts Public Schools but I had no choice in the matter. 

From what I have read, a large number of Representatives and Senators are interested in either eliminating the WEP and GPO provisions or providing relief in 

the form of exemptions or a recalibration of how SS benefits are calculated. Please 

give everyone in Congress a chance to discuss these bills and to vote on these ideas. 

Please help this to happen in the 108th Congress! ! 

My personal opinion is that both the WEP and GPO should be completely repealed; however, if in your opinion, an exemption style bill is much more likely to 

pass in this Congress, please see that HR 1321, (which exempts 24K annually of 

combined public pension and SS benefits from the WEP) or HR 4391 get to the floor 

for consideration and vote. These bills represent strong steps in the right direction! ! 

HR 4391 provides some relief to the WEP; in my specific situation, I calculate that 

I would regain $50 to $60 per month of the $222 per month that I am losing due 

to the current WEP Law; that is an improvement and I support this proposed law 

as it does go in the right direction. However, I have 2 concerns: the calculations required for this law are complicated (because each person’s tax returns will have to 

be examined for an up to 40+ yrs time period) and also this law may be very costly 

for the SS Admin. due to the personnel required to do the calculations work. Why 

not just exempt a certain amount of pension from being subject to the WEP and/ 

or do a phase in of the WEP on higher amount pensions? ? ? ? That would be so much 

easier for the SS Administration to calculate and easily accomplish. 

Thank you so much in advance for your consideration of my comments and your 

support of either Hr 4391 or HR 1321; please work toward a total repeal of the 

WEP—.Please allow these bills on the floor ASAP! ! ! 

f 

77 

Statement of James C. Hayes, Las Vegas, Nevada 

The WEP and the GPO unfairly penalize those who have chosen to enter public 

service, often at great financial sacrifice. Our nation cannot afford to penalize educators, police, firefighters, and others who have dedicated themselves to serving 

their communities and their country. The Public Servant Retirement Protection Act 

offers an important first step toward the ultimate goal of repealing both the WEP 

and the GPO. It will make a real difference for many public employees who will receive increased Social Security benefits as a result. I urge the Committee to move 

this important bill quickly to final passage and enactment into law, and we urge 

Congress to continue to work toward full repeal of both the GPO and the WEP. 

I am a teacher. I have been teaching mathematics in Clark County, Nevada for 

29 years. Teachers are known to be underpaid professionals. I have had to financially supplement by teaching job by working for DOD and DOE. I have also done 

work for private industry. This was the only way I could remain a teacher yet afford 

the luxury of buying a home and new cars, sending my sons to college and living 

a life that is equal to the advanced degrees I have earned. In all these supplementary jobs, I paid Social Security taxes, making me eligible for benefits. I DESERVE to receive full Social Security benefits, just like every other US citizen that 

pays their taxes. To say otherwise is to say that teachers and others who have jobs 

that offer retirement benefits but still can qualify for Social Security benefits are 

not equal citizens. 

Since everyone knows that teachers are unpaid. Since most teachers work more 

than one job to maintain a higher standard of living and in doing so pay taxes 

which earn them Social Security benefits, PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING and 

correct this unjust situation to the people that dedicate themselves to serving the 

citizens of our nation. 

f 

Statement of Karen Hedden, Wells, Nevada 

I would like to be on record as opposed to the WEP and GPO. As a public school 

educator, I have worked part-time, minimum wage jobs. I did this before, during 

and after college. After obtaining employment as a teacher, I still needed a parttime minimum wage job at night and over the summer in order to pay off my student loans and make ends meet. I am a single-parent. Those small jobs meant a 

lot to my family. I had Social Security taxes deducted from my paychecks, now you 

are telling me because I chose a higher calling to work as a public servant, I won’t 

be able to claim those benefits? How fair is that? ? ? Firefighters, police officers, and 

the military are also being penalized. We all put our lives on the line for the public 

and you are telling us we are not worth supporting when we retire! If this doesn’t 

change, a lot of public servants are not going to be working in the professions they 

chose for the very reason of being penalized at the end of their careers. I wish to 

put in my two-cents worth and ask that these bills be repealed. 

f 

Statement of James Herzberg, Katy, Texas 

PUBLIC SERVANT RETIREMENT PROTECTION ACT 

This message is in support of the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act. This 

legislation offers an important first step toward the ultimate goal of repealing both 

the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset. These provisions unfairly penalize people who have chosen to enter public service. We are not 

asking for a windfall, only to receive benefits we earned and which were promised 

to us. 

In my own case I entered the teaching profession after several years of work in 

the private sector and with government. I and my employers paid into Social Security for thirty-four years. As some of that work was part time and temporary when 

I was in school, I do not have enough years of substantial payments to avoid the 

Windfall Elimination Provision. As a result, even though I have more than met the 

forty quarters requirement and had several years in which I paid the maximum contribution into Social Security, I will see my benefits reduced to a third of what I 

had expected to receive. As is well known, teachers do not make a great deal of 

money. Saving and investing enough to cover this offset will be difficult. Having 

come somewhat late in life to this profession, neither can I accumulate enough seVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
78 

niority in the teacher retirement system to receive adequate support in my old age. 

As the law now stands, I will have to work several years beyond conventional retirement age. I will probably have to work part-time, even as a retiree. 

Besides being unfair, the present law discourages many qualified people from entering the profession. Had I known of this penalty, I would not have made the move 

myself. People who have years of experience and great expertise in many areas, 

which could greatly enrich the classroom, will find something else to do. With the 

chronic teacher shortage, our nation cannot afford to do this. The present law is unfair and punitive. I urge its repeal, or at least its modification. 

f 

Statement of Robert A. Hudson, Colorado Springs, Colorado 

Even though I currently am employed by the Social Security Administration, this 

statement is not a voice of the agency but instead an individual citizens input. I 

am not representing the agency what so ever in this regard. 

I do however have an advantage in that I understand the WEP and GPO to a 

great extent. I must voice my concern regarding the solubility of the trust funds by 

allowing fellow tax payers to receive full Social Security benefits even though for 

years they had paid into another retirement. Since Social Security benefits are a 

pay as you go plan’ then the persons not involved with paying as you go’ for a number of years, if not an entire career should be offset under the Windfall Elimination 

Provision. It is only fair to those of us that have and will continue. There is no case 

to be made that these individuals are going to be disadvantaged. The max reduction 

this year is $306.00. Even though a person may be reduced by this amount, he or 

she will certainly still get more from the program than he or she paid in. The idea 

these individuals are ‘disadvantaged’ is pure nonsense. Also, the system is designed 

to provide those that have contributed additional years by further lessening the reduction factor. Please do not give those that have not participated any more than 

the current law allows. It is fair and equitable the way it is written. 

As far as GPO goes I must echo the same comments. The Government Pension 

Offset is truly designed to stop those that would be the quintessential double dippers into a system that they contributed naught. Please allow the current law to 

stay the way it is. This is an equitable system and gives those that paid exactly 

what they are due. Thank you for your time. 

f 

Statement of Linda B. Jacobson, Northbrook, Illinois 

I firmly believe that not permitting public school teachers to receive their teacher’s pension AND social security benefits (if they qualify for such benefits) is discriminatory. In my personal situation, it has been a hardship, and a loss of income 

which I had counted on in my retirement years, not knowing initially that it would 

be kept from me by those very people that I elected. I began working and paying 

into Social Security when I was twelve years old. I continued working and earning 

Social Security benefits throughout my early years, even while I was attending college. Later, when I was teaching, I held a second job to earn Social Security benefits. That was the only way I could insure my retirement, since I did not make 

enough money to save significant amounts of money. When my children were eight 

years old and eleven years old, my husband became terminally ill, and I had to support my family alone. During this time, I paid into Social Security also, hopefully 

planning for my future needs, since it was clear that my husband would not be 

around to take care of us. As a young widow, I did receive Social Security benefits 

for my two dependent children until they were sixteen years of age (I understand 

that now, children get benefits until they are eighteen years old), but was denied 

Widow’s benefits from Social Security, because I allegedly ‘‘earned too much because 

I was a teacher.’’ It did not matter that I had paid for many years into Social Security, or that my late husband had paid the maximum into Social Security during 

his work lifetime—I was denied benefits, except for the $255.00 I received as his 

death benefit. For the next fifteen years, following his death, I worked several jobs, 

sometimes as many as four jobs at a time, working seven days a week, including 

my full-time job in education, to save money for my children’s college education. My 

husband was ill for four years prior to his death, and any money we had put aside 

for the children was used to help pay for his bone marrow transplant and other 

medical expenses. I supported our family during this time. I was a responsible citVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
79 

izen. I put my children through college. I paid off more than one hundred thousand 

dollars in college loans for them. When my educational career in the public school 

system approached twenty-nine years, I prepared to retire. The public elementary 

school districts where I had worked reported all my years of service to TRS (Teacher’s Retirement System of the State of Illinois), so getting my credits from them was 

not a problem. 

Next, I contacted the University of Illinois, Illinois State University, Northern Illinois University, Northeastern Illinois University and Governor’s State University 

for my work ‘‘credits’’, because I was told that if I paid into ‘‘SURS’’, the State University Retirement System, now, for the years I had taught at these universities, 

they would contribute to my retirement income. There was reciprocity with TRS, I 

learned. I was pleased, because there was no SURS credit available for part-time 

faculty when I taught at these graduate schools, so I paid into Social Security only 

at that time. 

It is significant to note that despite the fact that I worked over thirteen years in 

the state university system as a lecturer and adjunct professor, these state schools 

could not locate any employment records for me. They don’t keep them that long, 

I was told. And I had paid into Social Security during those assignments! I taught 

for ten years and was a Program Director in the Graduate School of Education at 

Roosevelt University. In Chicago. I paid into Social Security for those years also, 

but Roosevelt. Is not, of course, a member of SURS. 

Next, I called and wrote the Social Security Administration to seek my old employment records. They did have a record of my participating in Social Security between 1981 and 1994 (My years at the universities), but they had NO records of 

where the Social Security contribution had come from, so I still could not document 

my service at the universities! Next, I called the Internal Revenue Service in Kansas City. Surely they would have a record of whom I had either 1099s or W2 forms 

from during those years—they, too, informed me that they do not keep records that 

long. 

The end result was that I lost thirteen years of retirement credit when I retired 

from TRS. I received only less than two years credit from SURS, and my income 

from them is only one hundred four ($104.00) per month as a result. For twelve 

years of service in the SURS system! ! ! ! Had I received the credit I was entitled 

to, I would have retired (as I planned) with full credit and full retirement benefits 

(36 years of service), but instead, got only twenty-nine years and a reduced retirement benefit. Also, even though I retired at fifty-eight due to health reasons, I had 

to pay an eighteen thousand dollar penalty to TRS on the day I retired, because 

I was retiring before the age of sixty, and wanted to get my full benefit for twentynine years. 

Also, from 1979 through 1998 I worked for the Illinois State Board of Education 

as a Level I Due Process Hearing Officer in matters related to schools and special 

education for the disabled (one of our three children was profoundly disabled, and 

I had become somewhat of an educational expert in this area of the law. I attended 

The John Marshall Law School for three years on a full Academic Dean’s Scholarship, but was unable to ever finish my last semester because my husband was so 

ill). There was no retirement benefit available for these nineteen years of service. 

After these experiences, I hope you can imagine my upset and disappointment to 

learn that I would not be entitled to Social Security retirement benefits at sixtytwo years of age. Despite the fact that my deceased husband paid the maximum into 

Social Security for as long as he worked, and despite the fact that I paid into Social 

Security for many, many years, I will be denied benefits. How could that possibly 

be fair? How could that possibly be equitable? How could that possibly be right? 

We are the people who taught your children and prepared them for life in our 

society. This is not the thanks I expected. Ironically, The Social Security Administration disappointed me again. 

After more than eight years I remarried. I was told that because I was not yet 

sixty at the time of my remarriage (I was only fifty), I would be permanently denied 

Widow’s Benefits from my first husband when I turned sixty! It didn’t matter that 

we were married for more than twenty-two years. It didn’t matter that I was denied 

Widow’s Benefits when I became a widow, because I worked and earned more than 

three hundred dollars a month! ! (How can the Social Security Administration arbitrarily decide, with the approval of legislators who don’t seem to care or are unrealistic about life in the real world, that one who is widowed at forty-two years of age 

can not re-marry until they are sixty without losing their benefits? ? ?) To add insult 

to the injury, I was also informed that I can not get Social Security Benefits from 

my second husband either, until we are married for ten years! Then, the final blow! 

I wouldn’t get benefits from either of my husband(s) or from my own Social Security 

paid in anyway, because my state, the State of Illinois, does not permit people reVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
80 

ceiving Teacher’s Retirement Benefits to also receive Social Security, if the TRS benefits exceed the amount I would have received from Social Security. I could not believe that this could be true! 

I worked my whole life. I paid my taxes. I paid into Social Security. I raised my 

children alone. I put my children through college alone. I paid for their weddings 

alone. Now, it is time for me to retire, and I find I will be denied benefits I worked 

hard and long to get! 

It is my understanding, and has always been my understanding, that there is a 

pension one gets from working in the District Attorney’s Office. Then, if they become 

legislators, they can get a pension from the House of Representatives. Then, if they 

go onto the Senate, they can get a third pension from the Senate. If they go onto 

to higher office, they can get a fourth pension. Presidents have received as many 

as five pensions! ! ! And I am only entitled to one? ? Where is the logic? ? ? Where 

is the concern for your constituency? ? ? Where is the fairness? ? ? I am only asking 

for what should be mine. I worked for it! I paid for it! I earned it. I do not get a 

refund of monies which I paid in from the Social Security Administration, if they 

do not pay me my benefits or the benefits worked hard for by my husband(s). 

I hope that you will consider this letter very seriously. I hope that you will attempt to put yourself in my shoes, so to speak, to see how truly unfair and inappropriate the current law is for teachers and other service personnel. I hope that you 

will not disappoint me, and that I will eventually receive the Social Security Benefits for which I worked, and which I counted on in my retirement years. To do otherwise is to discriminate against me and all others negatively affected by this unjust 

law. 

f 

Statement of Sheri Jones, San Antonio, Texas 

My name is Sheri Jones. I have been a teacher in the San Antonio Independent 

School District for the last 20 years. As an employee of this school district I have 

paid into Social Security and into the Texas Teacher Retirement System for all of 

those 20 years. I was not given a choice. I had to pay into both because that is the 

way the school district is set up. 

Public Servant Retirement Protection Act is very necessary for me. Without a 

change in the way public servants are allowed to receive their social security benefits I will loose much of what I was told I had to participate in. I will loose benefits 

that the government of our Nation and the government of my state have required 

me to pay into. I am being negatively impacted and it is all because the two governments can’t cooperate. 

This reform is very necessary. 

f 

Statement of Barbara C. Joyce, Sparks, Nevada 

Please respect public service and repeal the Social Security Offset. I am one of 

the many people affected by this unfair offset. I began working part-time jobs in the 

state of New Jersey at the age of fourteen. I went on to teach in the public schools 

of New Jersey and New York for over ten years. I earned social security benefits 

during this time. 

Currently I am teaching in the state of Nevada and no longer earn Social Security 

benefits because I am now part of the Public Employees Retirement System. I am 

beginning my twenty-first year teaching in NV. 

I feel that I am being penalized by the Social Security Offset for choosing to continue my teaching career here. It is not unreasonable to expect to receive the benefits I have previously earned, as well as the retirement I am now building. This is 

not a ‘‘windfall.’’ This is simply what is right. 

Please move the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection Act’’ to final passage 

quickly and enact it into law. I ask you to please continue to work to fully repeal 

both the GPO and WEP. 

Thank you so much for your consideration. 

f 

81 

Statement of D.R. Joyner, Lufkin, Texas 

Eight months ago, I became a teacher; however, I worked at the Lufkin paper mill 

for twenty-five years and also at a motor home plant before entering the teaching 

profession. The mill had five different owners during my employment. I toiled in the 

paper machine department, made cores, worked in the quality control lab, and endured humid buildings with 150 degree summer temperatures until I could go outside on a break where it felt cooler. I was re-assigned three times during a six 

month period of downsizing. 

Following several years of multiple-week shut-downs and downsizing, rumors 

began to circulate that the Canadian owners would permanently close the mill. 

Workers with over twenty years experience believed they were immune from the 

downsizing and doubted that the mill would ever shut its doors. Sons, fathers, and 

grandfathers had worked at that mill for sixty years. The Canadian government 

subsidizes its paper mills. When it was cheaper for a Canadian paper mill to transport its paper by boat and truck than the Lufkin mill could transport paper to their 

next door neighbor via the railroad tracks, the mill lost even its neighbor’s business. 

I saw the handwriting on the wall and prepared for an ‘‘after paper mill’’ life. 

There were numerous newspaper stories about the Texas teacher shortage. I decided 

to reach my goal of earning a degree, started as an eighteen-year old in the 1970’s, 

even though a teaching salary amounted to nearly a 50% pay cut from my paper 

mill salary. I took seventeen college hours each semester while working forty or 

more hours per week, mostly on the graveyard shift. I accumulated $32,000 in student loans while completing requirements for teacher certification. 

I wanted my sons’ lives to be better than mine. Their college education was very 

important to me even though our finances were strained. My wife is a first grade 

teacher and her salary hasn’t increased since her twentieth year of service. Our insurance costs are also much higher through TRS Active-Care than they were 

through Cigna. We drastically altered our way of life and budget. Watching our debt 

increase was terrifying. Watching my sons personally assume student loan debt was 

worse. 

During the summer of 2003, I applied to every school district in the area, but they 

chose certified teachers over those completing post-baccalaureate certification. In 

September, a small school district planned to move one of its current teachers to 

a reading specialist position through the ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act’’. I was hired 

to teach fourth grade, pending grant funding. Unfortunately, funding for the bill 

was gutted on September 16 and TEA cancelled all grants. In November, the same 

district located alternate funds and hired me as an elementary science teacher for 

one year. Although I was heavily in debt and earned a diminished salary, I made 

a difference in children’s lives as a public servant and had a future in teaching. 

There was one problem. When officials asked people to change careers and become 

teachers, they never mentioned that in doing so, one would be sacrificing their social 

security benefits earned over a lifetime. This spring, I was advised to quit teaching 

before becoming vested at five years to prevent the loss of the majority of my social 

security. My wife and I searched for school districts that still withdraw social security from teachers’ paychecks to determine where we needed to move. Our home is 

here. Our friends are here. Our jobs are here. But we had to repay school loans and 

still save for retirement following our years of public service. Once shut-downs at 

the paper mill began, our budget hadn’t included retirement plan allocations. 

At my age, I am unlikely to reach the twenty year marker as a teacher, so my 

teacher pension will be at a very reduced benefit and my social security will be 

WEP’ed. I could withdraw my TRS deposits instead of becoming vested at five years, 

but that would prevent me from buying TRS medical insurance during retirement. 

I could be covered with spousal insurance through my wife, but that is much more 

expensive. 

The Texas teacher shortage is more acute than ever following a mass exodus of 

veteran teachers this year. Many teachers retired early in order to take advantage 

of the government pension offset loophole, which was eliminated on July 1 of this 

year. Our entire nation needs science teachers. Please repeal the WEP and replace 

it with a fair benefit calculation so that those who entered public service after working for years in the private sector will not lose the retirement they earned. I ask 

you to reward those that chose to share their real world skills with America’s children rather than punish them. 

f 

82 

Statement of James H. Keegan, Jr., Belmont, Massachusetts 

The WEP and GPO unfairly penalize people who have chosen public service. As 

someone who has paid into Social Security for over 42 years (both full-time and 

part-time), I know. When I begin to receive SS payments this fall, I will lose about 

$300 per month in benefits. I spent nearly 35 years in Massachusetts public education. During most of those years, I found it necessary to work second jobs just to 

satisfy basic family needs. I can’t understand why those of us who chose public service are being singled out through the current WEP to receive a reduced benefit. We 

earned the full amount and planned on receiving it at retirement. The Public Service Retirement Protection Act is an important first step toward the ultimate goal 

of fully repealing both the WEP and the GPO. I respectfully request the committee 

to move quickly to final passage and enactment into law. Thank you. James H. 

Keegan Jr. 

f 

Elko, Nevada 89801 

July 18, 2004 

Committee on Ways and Means 

1102 LHOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Committee: 

The ‘‘Windfall Elimination Provision’’ is discriminatory and should be eliminated! 

From 1976 to 1998 I worked in the private sector as an account representative, 

sales manager etc. During this time, approximately $40,000.00 of privately paid Social Security taxes were taken directly out of my earnings. My deductions should 

be used for my retirement when I turn 66 years of age. I worked long and hard 

to maintain this employment, sacrificing my enjoyment with my family, friends, and 

educational endeavors as well. 

In 1998 I was able to sell some assets and go back to school to become a ‘‘public 

school teacher’’. You know those people that help train the next generation of ‘‘tax 

payers’’, the students we all so desperately need to keep filling the coffers of Social 

Security! After 5 years of employment I am now vested in the Public Employee Retirement System of Nevada. My district (taxpayers) pays for a retirement contribution that goes into a fund for my retirement if I stay in the PERS system. My retirement account with the state of Nevada is paid by the taxpayers of Nevada, not the 

Federal Government. PERS is a totally separate retirement system than social security (thank god). 

I am now faced with the reality that my 22 years of ‘‘private sector’’ social security 

‘‘benefits’’ will be reduced because I now have a ‘‘state funded’’ pension plan. This 

is outrageous! If Social Security was privatized, I would have MY MONEY, IN MY 

ACCOUNT and some bureaucrat would not be able to INTEND to do anything with 

MY MONEY without my permission! ! If I want to give it to others, then I could 

make that decision, not some Social Security analyst! ! 

You have no right to reduce my hard earned Social Security benefits because of 

the ‘‘intentions’’ of the program. What made the United States a great country is 

the fact that some of us work long and hard to have a better life. What you have 

done with this provision is slap all of us ‘‘hard workers’’ right in the face with an 

illegal reduction of benefits for some idiotic social scheme built on the ‘‘robin hood’’ 

theme. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Need I remind you that ‘‘the road 

to hell is paved with good intentions’’? 

From your web page I read— 

‘‘Your Social Security benefits are reduced because Social Security benefits were 

intended to replace only a percentage of a worker’s pre-retirement earnings. The 

way Social Security benefit amounts are figured, lower-paid workers get a higher 

return than highly paid workers. For example, lower-paid workers could get a Social 

Security benefit that equals about 55 percent of their pre-retirement earnings. The 

average replacement rate for highly paid workers is about 25 percent.’’ 

The ‘‘windfall elimination provision’’ affects how the amount of your retirement 

or disability benefits is calculated if you receive a pension from work where Social 

Security taxes were not taken out of your pay. A modified formula is used to calculate your benefit amount, resulting in a lower Social Security benefit. 

This Committee needs to do one or more of the following: 

1. Eliminate the WEP altogether. 

2. Provide full Social Security benefits for teachers now covered by state plans. 

83 

3. Require everyone to pay into Social Security and eliminate WEP altogether. 

4. Privatize Social Security so the individual can determine where and when to 

spend his/her money. Halleluiah! ! 

Realize that your actions are important to many individuals that feel betrayed by 

a system that has no right to label hard work as a ‘‘windfall’’. Being a Senator or 

Congressman with six figure salaries, outrageous perks, retirement benefits, cheap 

insurance, and Social Security to boot is a true ‘‘WINDFALL’’. Take some of these 

goodies away from the ‘‘lords of the land’’ and see how they squeal like pigs. 

Thank you for allowing me to opportunity to enter this into the record! 

Sincerely, 

f 

Gary Kimber 

Statement of Ralph Kush, Sylmar, California 

I’m requesting passage of H.R. 4391, the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection 

Act’’ for the following reasons: 

1. My wife pasted away in May of 2003. During the course of our thirty-three 

years of marriage, my wife paid Social Security more then sixty-thousand 

($60,000.00) dollars. In addition, her private sector employers contributed an 

equal amount and the total received by Social Security is in excess of one-hundred and twenty ($120,000.00) thousand dollars. Because I come under the provisions of the Government Pension Offset (GPO), as a survivor, I receive one 

hundred and sixty-six ($166.00) dollars a month. 

2. I have been self-employed for the past six years. That means I have been 

forced to pay into Social Security both as the employer and the employee. For 

the month of October 2003, I earned Two-thousand, nine hundred and sixtytwo dollars and thirty-seven cents ($2,962.37). According to Social Security, I 

will pay 15.30 percent or four hundred and fifty-three dollars and twenty-four 

cents ($453.24) into the Social Security Benefits Program. I am paying into the 

Social Security Benefits Program more then twice the amount I receive each 

month as a survivor. It is also my understanding that after paying into Social 

Security as a self-employed individual, my monthly benefits will not change 

after full retirement. 

3. Had I been employed in the private sector, I would be receiving full benefits 

as a survivor. Because I was employed by my government I only receive a fraction of what other survivors receive. I paid for my pension and receive an 

amount commensurate with the duties, years and contributions I paid into the 

system while being employed by my government. Why should I be penalized 

for receiving a pension I earned? 

4. My wife died thinking all the monies withheld from her private sector earning 

would be of help to her in her retirement years or to her family in the event 

of her death. I am sure she never conceived that her government would keep 

a vast amount of all that money and leave her family less well off. 

5. I do not understand how something so grossly unjust and unfair, something 

so obviously illegal and morally wrong, has been allowed to continue for so 

many years. 

For the reasons cited above, I urge you to pass H.R. 4391. 

f 

Statement of Deborah Langford, Spring, Texas 

Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion on the matter of Social Security and WEP. When I began with the school district in 1980, there was no penalty 

with me being able to have my own career and then still rely on my husband’s social 

security in my older age. Especially, if he were to die before me. Now, that is not 

available to me, and also with the WEP, I cannot collect my own social security. 

I think this is very unfair, and Social Security was taken from my check every year 

for 11 years, (without my permission), and today, they tell me I can’t receive any 

benefit from the monies that I paid in for those years. To me, that is theft. The government demanded that I pay into a system that would benefit me later, just to 

change the rules in mid-stream to accommodate themselves. America shouldn’t punish people for working with the school districts, or their state by ‘‘stealing’’ the monVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
84 

ies already paid into the system. We should at least be ‘‘grandfathered’’ into social 

security, since the WEP wasn’t in effect when I started with a school district. Millions of other people are allowed to invest in social security and a pension plan at 

their jobs. Why should we be different? If I am not allowed to receive compensation 

for the 11 years, (plus what I will pay in, not voluntarily) when I work after retirement in 5 years, then all monies should be returned to me. If not, then again, It 

is theft. My daughter always wanted to be a teacher, but after teaching for four 

years, she had to make the decision to quit so that she could get another job, where 

she could earn a retirement and social security. This is really hurting the children, 

with so many school workers leaving the teaching field. 

This bill restoring the Social Security benefits of thousands of teachers, police, 

firefighters, and other state and local government employees now reduced by an outdated federal formula known as the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) is a great 

advancement for all the ones that have been forced to pay Social Security without 

benefits. God bless you all, and I am making sure that all school workers know of 

your attempts to ‘‘make right’’, what was made wrong by stupid and ignorant politicians. 

f 

Statement of Paul E. Larson, Fallbrook, California 

My wife and I are impacted strongly by the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provisions as they relate to Social Security retirement benefits. We 

are both retired teachers in the state of California. My wife retired in May, 2003 

and I retired in June, 2004 at the age of 74. 

I entered the teaching profession quite late in life. After serving four years in the 

United States Air Force and working in my family’s automobile repair business in 

the state of Nebraska for approximately 15 years and contributing to social security 

for 30 years due to contributions from other occupations, I have been receiving social security benefits for the past four years. Since I was over the age of 70, I was 

able to continue teaching and still receive benefits. I was hoping to teach to age 75, 

but health issues that occurred in the past year have caused me to retire this past 

June. Now that I have retired from the teaching profession, I have been told by the 

social security administration that my benefits will be cut substantially when I need 

them the most. Should I become deceased, my wife as my dependent would not be 

entitled to any benefits due to the pension offset provision. This is extremely discouraging. 

It is most sad that I have had to drive 140 miles per day round trip to my place 

of employment at the age of 74 in order to maintain my standard of living. I was 

counting on benefits from social security added to my meager California State 

Teachers’ Retirement benefits to provide a comfortable retirement. Unless these provisions are changed, a comfortable retirement that I have worked for 55 years to 

obtain will not be a possibility. This is truly unfair. 

Upon graduating from college in the state of New York and having obtained a 

teaching credential there, my wife worked in several different occupations during 

her college days and for several years after. She chose to move to California and 

become a teacher in 1965. She has accumulated 31 quarters of social security credit 

through working in other professions—real estate, immigration inspection, etc. Her 

plan was to accumulate at least 40 quarters by working after retirement from teaching. But due to the provisions indicated above, she would receive nothing for her 

efforts. What will happen to the money she has contributed to social security up to 

now? Will she just lose it? 

Please don’t continue to penalize us as dedicated educators who have given much 

to the teaching profession. Please enable us to receive the benefits we have earned. 

Please pass this intermediate bill and continue to work towards full repeal of both 

the GPO and the WEP. 

f 

Statement of Don LeCompte, Chula Vista, California 

It was the shock of a lifetime when the Social Security counselor told me that, 

contrary to my years of understanding, my retirement benefits would be reduced to 

a pittance of what I had been promised. It was explained that, because I am involuntarily part of the State Teachers’ Retirement System, I fall under the cruelly tiVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
85 

tled, ‘‘Windfall Elimination Provision.’’ (Up to this point the word windfall has 

meant to me some serendipitous, unmerited economic bonus.) 

My situation is that I spent the first half of my work life, following my four year 

enlistment in the Air Force, in the field of business, working for IBM, Xerox and 

Standard Oil. When I felt the call to become a business and social science teacher 

my wife was working as a modestly paid elementary teacher herself and we had two 

young children. I traded in my stock options for a college education. When I earned 

my credential and entered the field of education I was fully vested in the Social Security System. 

I happily spent the second half of my work life serving my students and their families and contributing to STRS. I have seen many of my students become entrepreneurs, business leaders, lawyers and solid citizens. I have always taught them 

of the benefits of active citizenship and self-determination. 

Imagine my surprise at age 65 when I discovered that my years in the world of 

business and my years in the service of education would collide to cost me the retirement benefit I had consistently been informed I could expect. 

My wife, by the way, has worked her entire adult life as a teacher and only 

earned 29 quarters of Social Security while putting herself through school. She has 

been cut off from the benefit she should have derived through our 45 year marriage 

because of the Government Pension Offset. Our question would have to be, ‘‘Offsetting what and for whose benefit?’’ 

In the future we will have need for great numbers of new teachers; some are predicting a shortage of crisis proportions. Hopefully a balance will be drawn from 

among mature people attracted as I was from other fields of endeavor. If we expect 

our educational system to keep pace with ever-increasing demands, we must attract 

the best. How can we ask people of talent and good will to subject themselves to 

this future folly? 

Please vote to repeal the WEP and GPO. 

f 

Natick, Massachusetts 01760 

August 3, 2004 

Representative Clay Shaw, Chairman 

Social Security Subcommittee 

The House Ways and Means Committee 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Shaw, 

When I graduated from college I never thought about Social Security, pensions, 

Medicare, retirement, etc. I was young and I was just glad that I had been offered 

a job. I worked at that job for a year and had Social Security taken out. Then I 

moved to Massachusetts and took another job in which Social Security was also 

taken out. Again, who ever related to retiring and collecting a pension? I returned 

to graduate school and then took a job in a school system where I joined the Massachusetts Teachers Retirement System. A number of years ago I took a second job 

as a means of supplementing my educator’s salary. That job deducted Social Security and Medicare payments. I still didn’t think about Social Security or it’s ramifications. All I knew was that someday I would have a pension. Well, that someday 

is now only 2 years away. I will be eligible for my state pension but I also have 

the 40 quarters needed to be eligible for Social Security. 

Over the years, I learned that even though money was being taken out for Social 

Security, money that was mine, part of my salary, I would not be able to collect 

its full value because I belonged to a State Retirement System, in one of the few 

states where you cannot collect a State Pension and full Social Security benefits. 

How unjust! ! ! How unfair! ! !. The government is keeping my money. I earned that 

money! ! ! It’s mine. 

I grew up in New York City. Both of my parents worked for the City. They contributed to both a City Pension System and to Social Security. When they retired 

they each made almost as much as I was making because they collected their City 

Pension and Social Security. They deserved it, it was the money that they had contributed and they were recouping it so they would be comfortable in their retirement. Why shouldn’t it be the same for me? I guess they were lucky because they 

lived in New York. I am being penalized because I live in Massachusetts. 

I could go on and on and list umpteen concerns about the Windfall Elimination 

Provision and the Government Pension Offset and their impact on my retirement 

income. I guess one question I do have is why is it called ‘‘Windfall’’ Elimination? 

86 

What kind of ‘‘windfall’’? Is it a ‘‘windfall’’ because I would collect my State pension and Social Security? ‘‘Offset’’ my State Pension? Why? Why not? No matter how 

or why, no matter what the rational was when this was first passed, no matter the 

present implications, THAT MONEY IS MINE AND I DESERVE TO GET IT BACK 

AND GET ALL TO WHICH I SHOULD BE ENTITLED. 

The Social Security Administration is concerned about finding the money to pay 

all the people affected, to recalculate and readjust payments already being made. 

Over all these years, they have been holding my money and the money of everyone 

else who has contributed but isn’t getting their full amount back. What has been 

done with that money? It should have been accumulating interest all these years. 

Or, is the SSA using our money to pay full benefits to others? Robbing Peter to pay 

Paul. 

I certainly hope the Committee, in its wisdom, will realize how unjust these provisions are. They effect all public employees in the given states. That includes not 

only educators but firemen, policemen, senators and representatives and any one 

else who has a state pension but also has earned their Social Security quarters. The 

fact that a person cannot collect both also has an impact on people who are contemplating a career change. People who might want to move from the private sector 

to the public sector. Should they have to give up their full Social Security benefits? 

Unfair. 

Again, I could go on, as I tend to do, but I think you are all aware of the implications of the WEP and GPO. I hope you will all DO THE RIGHT THING and repeal 

this provisions. 

Thank you for your time and attention. 

Sincerely, 

f 

Jane Lenarsky 

Statement of Harold N. London, Northbrook, Illinois 

As a retired teacher, I often hear people talk about our retirement benefits. I assure you that they are not exorbitant, and are often less for more time on the job 

than other government employees who do not also have to face reduced Social Security benefits. I currently pay almost maximum Social Security, but will face a reduction in benefits simply because I receive a pension that I have paid into for 34 years 

as well. I feel that if I face a reduced Social Security benefit, I should pay are reduced amount to Social Security while I am working. If I pay, I should receive the 

benefits to which I am entitled I have more than fulfilled my 40 quarters of contributions, and continue to pay in to the system. I should receive the benefits to 

which my contributions would entitle me, not one reduced arbitrarily by law. 

f 

Statement of Linda and Fred Makler, Ballwin, Missouri 

To: Committee on Ways and Means Hearing on H.R. 4391, the ‘‘Public Servant 

Retirement Protection Act’’ 

My name is Linda A. Makler, and I am a retired Missouri Public School Teacher. 

My husband, Fred A. Makler, is also a retired public school teacher. Before re-entering the teaching profession in 1986, I held other positions in which I contributed 

to the Social Security System. My husband, Fred, taught for 30 years, and in addition, worked two other jobs, after school and summers to support our family. He also 

contributed to the Social Security System. We each have accumulated 40 quarters 

but are receiving a very small monthly benefit in addition to our teacher pension. 

We feel this is unfair. We contributed to Social Security in good faith and expected 

to receive the benefits of our contributions. Please do all you can to pass the Public 

Servant Retirement Protection Act, H.R. 4391. 

Thank you for your interest, concern, and positive vote 

f 

Statement of William A. Mathison, East Longmeadow, Massachusetts 

I wish to express my outrage at the unfairness of the Government Pension Offset 

(GPO). As I understand the provisions of the GPO, because my wife has a MassaVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
87 

chusetts’ Teachers Pension she will not receive full Social Security spousal benefits 

in the event of my death. After paying into the Social Security System for over forty 

years I am enraged that my wife’s retirement security will be reduced because of 

this offset. I urge you to repeal this provision immediately! 

f 

Statement of the Honorable Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California 

Thank you Chairman Shaw, Ranking Member Matsui and Members of the Social 

Security Subcommittee for holding this important hearing on HR 4391, the Public 

Servant Retirement Protection Act, which takes a strong step forward in obtaining 

equity in Social Security for our nation’s public servants. 

As you know, full repeal of both the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and 

Government Pension Offset (GPO) has become a very important issue to public servants, their spouses and families nationwide who earned both a Social Security benefit and a benefit from a Social Security substitute, such as a state pension plan 

throughout their careers. Although these provisions are only applicable to some 13 

states, they affect people in many of our nation’s most populated states such as 

Massachusetts, Texas, Illinois and my home state of California. 

For this reason, my friend, colleague and fellow Californian, Congressman Howard Berman, and I have spent the last two Congresses working hard to provide 

these dedicated firefighters, police officers, teachers and other public servants with 

the money that they have rightfully earned over the course of their careers. Our legislation, HR 594, the Social Security Fairness Act, accomplishes that goal by completely repealing both provisions. 

Since introduction of H.R. 594, we have spent a lot of time in discussion with 

Chairman Shaw, other members of Congress and various advocates, so that we 

could come to some compromise that would assist these workers with some financial 

relief before the end of the year. As such, I signed on as an original cosponsor to 

HR 4391, the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act, introduced by Congressman 

Kevin Brady, which will provide relief to those workers unjustly affected by the 

WEP. 

Specifically, the legislation repeals the arbitrary WEP formula and treats public 

servants’ Social Security contributions like the rest of the American workforce. 

Under this legislation, a worker’s entire work history, regardless of whether he or 

she paid into a Social Security substitute, would be used to calculate benefits. The 

benefit formula would be the same as applied to all other American workers. To ensure Social Security benefits are based on Social Security wages, the benefit would 

be multiplied by the percentage of earnings subject to Social Security taxes. 

While H.R. 4391 does not address the GPO, we still recognize the importance of 

its effect on retirees and their spouses. It is our full intention to continue to work 

with the Subcommittee and its members to push for further reforms of these provisions in the near future. 

I want to express my gratitude again for allowing me the opportunity to share 

my comments with the Subcommittee today. 

Thank you. 

f 

Houston, Texas 77096 

August 3, 2004 

Committee on Ways and Means 

1102 LHOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Social Security Hearing Advisory, 

I am writing in reference to the Government Pension offset and the Windfall 

Elimination Provisions of the Social Security System. 

In Texas, as well as other states, the recruiting and sustaining new teachers in 

the field of education has become more difficult each year. States and school districts across America are desperately trying to find certified teachers to fill the diminishing ranks caused by attrition rates, leaving for other jobs, or simply because 

of the low pay and benefits that most teachers receive across our nation. 

Benefits are a critical issue when recruiting employees in any job. ‘‘Head-hunters’’ 

for corporations tout benefits in accompaniment with salaries. One of the means to 

88 

fill the vacancies in education is to find workers, current, or retired, who hold college degrees in any field and place them into education through ‘‘alternative’’ certification methods. 

Any employee who works in a school district which selected not to participate in 

our government’s Social Security System, should not be penalized that business did 

not dig into its coffers to match Social Security Benefits for that employee whom 

they hire. It is common knowledge that teachers and all those who support their 

efforts in a school system traditionally have some of the lowest paying jobs. As a 

contract worker, my benefits paid by my employer are sick days and contributions 

to a health care plan. 

Until recently, there were few ways a teacher could receive ‘‘extra money’’ within 

a school system. 

A teacher that I admire greatly who is a single mom of five, left her job at school 

each day and went to work as a grocery cashier until midnight for years to support 

her family. She is still a career educator. Is she a double ‘‘dipper?’’ Another friend, 

recently lost her husband before she reached her magic number (80) to retire from 

her long time, educational district that selected not to pay into the system. She will 

not receive her spouse’s Social Security check now. She could not retire on June 30, 

2004. Many educational employees have left employment in Texas to meet the dead 

line of June 30th. In this manner, spousal benefits would not be denied. Your committee’s recommendations in the upcoming months will have an effect on millions 

of families. Many educators wanted to keep working left the workforce. The idea of 

retiring to receive what was rightfully promised from our government, is a ‘‘forced’’ 

decision created by the current law(s). This is not a ‘‘recent’’ occurrence. Several 

years, a friend phoned me so distraught after retiring from her school district. She 

had paid into northern school districts, private schools, etc., which paid into the social security system. When she retired from a school system in Texas that didn’t 

pay into social security, she ‘‘lost’’ 2/3’s of the money she had earned. To add to this, 

she will not receive spousal social security if he precedes her death (it would be the 

greater of the two). 

I could go on. But, the point should be made by now. Why would any person retired or otherwise wish to work in a system that does not pay into social security? 

Many people retire from one job to work again. How could this committee vote for 

a taxpayer to have full deductions taken out and then receive 2/3’s less or nothing, 

while other workers do not? 

If you speak to a person who started teaching at an annual salary of $1000, they 

would confer that after 30–40 years in education, their retirement check and even 

having full, social security benefits would provide an income barely above the poverty level. Therefore, having another pension is essential to provide a satisfactory 

level of income with inflation considerations. They were counting on both checks at 

full value. Many people have left the educational system as of June 30, 2004 to 

‘‘beat’’ the loophole. This mass exodus left many jobs without experienced employees. 

This loophole was not criminal then and would not be now if it continued to exist. 

My grandmother never worked outside the home, did not pay into the social security 

system, and received her husband’s social security. My grandfather was a farmer 

and sought a job that paid some Social Security for her. Children who never pay 

into the system receive benefits from a deceased parent until age 18 while perhaps, 

simultaneously having a job after the age of 16. Will you call that child a double 

dipper? 

Equity is the question that I would address to your committee. ‘‘Will you be our 

Representative that does not try to balance the budget with state or federal employee benefits?’’ This is simply not the solution. Any company that has 20,000 employees should pay into social security and not have the option to eliminate those 

monies into the social security system. This could put money into the system. Does 

our government wish to have situations of this nature to embed reducing social security recipients by 20,000 employees in the future? If so, you have created a system 

of no-win for both our government and citizens. 

Do I have all my quarters? No. My husband worked sometimes three jobs while 

supporting our family and putting me through school. The district that I work in 

does not pay into Social Security. Honestly, at the time, 1978, the amount not taken 

out paid for many things we would have not had. No one explained the causal effect. 

Medicare, what was that in the 60s’ and 70s’ to a young worker? I needed that 

money. I remember leaving a job with an oil tool company because I did not get 

a raise of $ 5 a month when I was making less that $200 per month. I had earned 

that small raise. I left because I felt betrayed for doing a job well done. The next 

day, I found another job that paid that 5 plus 5 more. Now, twenty-six years later, 

I have been employed by the largest employer in Houston, Houston ISD. It did not 

contribute to social security. Therefore, I am caught in this dilemma. 

89 

Teachers who left our ranks faced this question, ‘‘If I stay, will working keep reducing my benefits? If so, I must leave even if I don’t won’t too.’’ They left to receive 

what their husband, wife, etc. had earned honestly in social security. To imply now 

that somehow it is ‘‘cheating’’ is simply a deep betrayal. For people coming into a 

system that does pay into Social Security, that employer should give the opportunity 

to the employee to decline or to pay into Social Security. Why does our government 

allow an employer to make a decision not to support the Social Security System? 

My school district is the largest employer in this city. As an educator, where were 

my chances of getting a job? 

Employers should by law provide training and full disclosure of what not paying 

into Social Security could mean 30 years into an employee’s future. Where was the 

label on the education, postal, firefighter, VA Hospital employment papers warning 

us that this company’s policy was dangerous to our financial health? Who will testify that this information was with held from the worker? Where in the contract was 

the fine printing that we, the public servants would receive fewer benefits for ourselves or from a spouse because we worked for a state or federal company? Who was 

responsible for not reporting this to the worker years ago? Was it our government, 

employer, of a joint ‘‘don’t tell if not asked?‘‘ I am still finding people today that do 

not know of this policy. Your citizens are distraught that their Social Security 

earned will be cut entirely or reduced. Do we have the option to pay into Social Security now what should have been taken out all along? 

I still have a job to tend to tomorrow in the same district that does not pay into 

Social Security. I recently compose a letter of recommendation for a peer who is 

seeking employment. She is a widow of two years. Her husband worked hard to provide for her. Social Security was part of that plan. She now does not qualify for his 

social security. She has changed jobs to a system that pays into social security and 

Texas Retirement System. My own husband worked over thirty years providing 

service to our veterans in the VA Hospital. He maintained many other jobs over the 

years that garnished social security from his paycheck. Now, the government will 

reduce the benefits he earned and will stop all his survivor benefits from me if he 

proceeded me in death. 

What would this committee say to the deceased husband or wife who paid into 

social security for years to have a fund available in case of his or her death for their 

surviving spouse? My friend must count every penny after the medical bills added 

up and wiped out most of their savings before her husband’s passing. She continues 

to work, as she will receive nothing from her deceased husband’s social security to 

offset living expenses at this time. She will do what she has to do. But after 30 

years of her and her husband’s financial planning together, the government decided 

that she should not receive money that her husband had earned. Your committee 

must address this issue of equity. Equity in terms of how benefits earned are then 

provided back to each citizen. Selecting one group over another is governmental discrimination. Selecting a group that the committee feels is most ‘‘deserved’’ is subjective and based on a means to ‘‘balance’’ the budget. Using one group’s money, state 

and federal workers, to balance the budget by cutting or eliminating spousal or personal benefits is not a solution. You, our legislators, have placed citizens who did 

not work in state and federal employment the majority of their careers into another 

category. You have decided up to this point, our future, with out due process from 

all concerned. 

I am asking you to help my friends, my retired uncle (postal worker), and the 

countless others, including my husband and myself, who feel the absence of equal 

treatment guaranteed under our American law. 

Respectfully, 

f 

Sandra L. McLemore 

Statement of Valerie J. McNay, Las Vegas, Nevada 

I am a 53 year old woman with a Ph.D. and employed as a Speech/Language Pathologist in the Clark County School District, Las Vegas, Nevada for the past 10 

years. I could work in private practice or in a hospital, home health care organization, university or other facility—but I love to work as a school based speech/language pathologist because I can provide my services to those students who need 

treatment regardless of their ability to pay. 

Prior to relocating in Nevada to work for the 5th largest and fastest growing 

school district in the country, with extreme shortages of professionals in my field— 

I had worked for 27 years in the states of Michigan, Indiana, Montana, and Kansas 

90 

and in all of the various positions I held I these states I contributed to the Social 

Security System. I receive my periodic reports from Social Security indicating what 

I have contributed and my expected benefits upon reaching retirement age. 

When I was considering the position in the Nevada Public Schools, I was told that 

though the salary I would receive was not very high for someone with my credentials, I would be receiving an excellent benefit package worth approximately nearly 

$7,000 per year if I had to pay for these benefits out of my own pocket and this 

included the district’s contribution to the Public Employee Retirement System in 

Nevada and since FICA would not be taken out of my salary I would see more 

money in my paychecks. These financial considerations were important in my decision to accept the position in Nevada, since I am my sole provider. 

I had no idea there was such a thing as WEP (the Windfall Elimination Provision)—which is an inappropriate name for an act which reduces the Social Security 

Benefits I earned because I happen to have choosen to take a low paying position 

in the public schools for which I will receive a small public pension (depends on 

years of service and I have worked nearly 30 years in Social Security system and 

only 10 in my current public pension position). If I had known about this unfair legislation, I don’t think I would have accepted a position in the Nevada Public Schools 

at this point in my career—I would have sought out position in the Social Security 

system so as not to loose the benefits I have earned over nearly 3 decades. 

Not only am I hurt by this unfair legislation but many of my colleagues are also 

being penalized not only by WEP but also by GPO (Government Pension Offset). 

The services for children in the Nevada Public Schools is also being harmed because 

we are loosing good speech/language pathologists and other specialists and educators when they find out they will have their Social Security benefits reduced by 

staying in the teaching profession in Nevada. In our department alone, we are almost always short nearly 50 positions because of the growth in the district (1 new 

school built every month) and now the difficulty in recruiting staff from out of state 

who will be penalized like I will be. Please do the right thing for teachers and other 

poorly paid public employees and allow us to keep the benefits we earned by repealing both the WEP and the GPO. If there is further information that I can provide 

to the committee please feel free to contact me. 

f 

Statement of Elsie Lynn Meehan, Salisbury, Connecticut 

I am a 61 year old retired teacher from the Connecticut and New York public 

schools. After teaching for 35 years, I was quite confident about my retirement benefits until I learned of the WEP and GPO laws. I discovered when I attended a retirement seminar, that even though I have met the requirements for Social Security 

benefits while I was teaching in New York state for 13 years, I am eligible for only 

40% of these benefits because I retired after teaching in the state of Connecticut. 

There is no logical explanation for this reduction of federal benefits because of a 

state’s employment. 

For years, I have received my Social Security earnings reports with no indications 

that my benefits would be reduced so drastically. Specifically, the report states that 

my earnings at age 66 would be about $747 a month; but in reality, I will receive 

about $298 a month. Since my husband was also a teacher, our two retirement 

funds are hardly what one would call a windfall, especially when we compare our 

incomes to those in the corporate world who receive substantial retirement benefits, 

golden handshakes, and full Social Security. 

There seems to be an underlying belief that retired state workers in 14 states do 

not need Social Security payments to live comfortably. This argument, at its best, 

is arbitrary and unfair. It does not take into account cost of living in our state nor 

the relatively low salaries of teachers. And in my case, why should my teaching in 

Connecticut have any effect on the benefits I earned in another state at another 

time? ? 

I must add a comment about the WEP. If my husband predeceases me, I will not 

be allowed to collect any of his Social Security payments. That means that I must 

provide for all my housing, medical and food bills on my retirement income and 40% 

of my Social Security benefits. This is not the way to treat your public servant who 

has taken care of this country’s children for 35 years! 

The Public Servant Retirement Protection Act offers an important first step toward the ultimate action of repealing both the WEP and the GPO. Increased Social 

Security benefits will make a real difference in the lives of your public employees. 

I urge you to move this important bill to final passage and enactment into law. 

91 

Ultimately though, both the GPO and WEP must be repealed and the fair and 

equable treatment of your public employees must be obtained. 

f 

Statement of Mary Ann Moore, San Antonio, Texas 

I am currently a teacher in San Antonio, Texas. I am concerned with the unfairness of the non-application of social security funds for educators who have held 

other jobs before becoming a teacher. I was a late bloomer and did not earn my degree till I was 38 years old. Prior to that time I worked several jobs and earned 

social security benifits for a number of years. At the present time I work an extra 

job to increase my income. I feel that postal employees and military personal are 

able to get their retirement benefits and still collect social security with out being 

penalized. Why can’t the same apply to educators? Your child’s teacher, neighborhood policemen, and firemen should be afforded the same privilege especially if they 

contributed to the social security fund? 

These hard working Americans who have earned Social Security benefits are not 

getting a ‘‘windfall.’’ We are merely asking to receive the benefits we earned. Please 

support the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act offers an important first step 

toward the ultimate goal of repealing both the WEP and the GPO. It will make a 

real difference for many public employees, who will receive increased Social Security 

benefits as a result. As a teacher, I urge the Committee to move this important bill 

quickly to final passage and enactment into law, and we urge Congress to continue 

to work toward full repeal of both the GPO and the WEP. Thank you. 

f 

Sparks, Nevada 89436 

July 15, 2004 

Committee on Ways and Means 

1102 LHOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressional Committee Members: 

I urge you to support H.R. 4391. I have always been under the impression that 

my Social Security earnings would supplement my retirement as I had always been 

told as a young man. I had my first Social Security earnings withheld in Corpus 

Christi, Texaas when I was eleven years old. Today, I am approaching retiring age 

and hope to retire within 3–5 years. From my perspective, the government has 

changed the law as it applied when I initially begin having Social Security earnings 

withheld from my wages. Now I am being told that I am eligible to draw a fraction 

of what was promised to me. 

As a teacher for 30 years and having paid into the Social Security System for a 

minimum of 40 quarters, it is only fair that I should be entitled to what I was promised initially. Please support and help us pass H.R. 4391. It will be of tremendous 

help in fulfilling a promise to the American worker. 

Sincerely, 

f 

Robert R. Mun ̃ oz 

Point Blank, Texas 77364 

August 1, 2004 

Representative E. Clay Shaw, Jr. 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Social Security 

Dear Representative Shaw: 

I am a retired Texas Public School teacher with 35 years of experience in the 

classroom. At the time that I retired from Jasper ISD in l997, Jasper was not contributing to Social Security. However, I had worked for the Port Arthur ISD who 

did contribute to the SS System for their teachers. Prior to my teaching career, I 

worked in several businesses in which I paid into the Social Security System giving 

me more than forty quarters of contribution. Now that I am retired from a school 

district that did not pay into Social Security at the time I retired, I am getting only 

92 

one-third of the amount that I should be allotted. The SS office told me that I 

should be getting $l,l00. a month from my deceased husband of 39 years if it were 

not for the unfair Offset Laws. I only get a payment of $260. monthly which is a 

third of my earned Social Security. Of that amount, $66. is taken out for Medicare. 

Therefore, I am in favor of a complete repeal of the GPO/WEP. Please let this bill 

out of the Ways and Means Committee to be voted on in Congress. It has only 45 

co-sponsors. This bill will not ‘‘fix’’ the Offsets. Also, I am in favor of the Discharge 

Petition for HR594 (the bill that would totally repeal the Offsets). It has 192 cosponsors and only 26 more would force a vote on the bill. There are 300 co-sponsors 

for HR594. Please consider this plea from a retire Texas teacher and vote to repeal 

the GPO/WEP Offsets 

Sincerely, 

f 

Sally P. Montague 

Statement of Wally Olihovik, National Association of Postmasters of the 

United States 

Thank you, Chairman Shaw and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the 

opportunity to share the views of the more than 40,000 members of the National 

Association of Postmasters of the United States (NAPUS) with you regarding legislation to modify the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). Moreover, NAPUS is 

pleased about the legislative efforts of Representative Kevin Brady and other members of this Subcommittee to alleviate the impact of the WEP on public employees. 

H.R. 4391, ‘‘the Public Servant Retirement Protect Act,’’ is a positive first step in 

addressing the legitimate needs of retired postmasters and other retired government 

employees. 

As members of this panel know, the WEP unfairly slashes the earned Social Security benefits of retired and disabled workers receiving annuities from employment 

not covered by Social Security. This large group includes many retired and soon-tobe retired postmasters. Postmasters who have Social Security covered employment 

contribute into Social Security just like private-sector employees. They should not 

be treated differently. 

I would like to note for the record that NAPUS continues to urge this panel to 

report favorably legislation to lessen the punitive affect that the Government Pension Offset (GPO) has on the surviving spouses of many Social Security recipients. 

Last year, NAPUS submitted testimony to this Subcommittee requesting that Congress enact legislation to correct both the WEP and the GPO problem. 

Under the WEP, postmasters who retire under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) can lose almost two-thirds of their earned Social Security benefit. This 

is simply not fair. In 1983, Congress enacted the WEP during a legislative frenzy 

to ‘‘save’’ Social Security. The intent was to eliminate a ‘‘windfall’’ for public employees not covered by Social Security, yet who also worked in positions under which 

they earned enough credits to qualify for Social Security. The offset amount is arbitrary and regressive. The WEP victimizes many retired postmasters who managed 

small post offices for which their salary history renders them ripe for financial distress without their full-earned benefits under both CSRS and Social Security. 

Obviously, repeal of the WEP is the desireable alternative. Nonetheless, the legislation under consideration today, H.R. 4391, is a positive step forward. The measure 

would require that the Social Security Administration to compute Social Security 

benefits based upon a person’s entire work history, using the standard benefit formula. The Social Security benefit would be adjusted to reflect the portion of the employee’s earnings that were subject to Social Security taxes. This legislation would 

aid low and middle-income government retirees, while also guaranteeing that no 

employees subject to the WEP would receive less than currently entitled. Furthermore, Representative Brady’s bill would apply to current and future Social Security 

beneficiaries. In sum, the measure would replace the current arbitrary WEP offset 

with a better, more appropriate, mechanism to narrow the impact that the WEP has 

on former public employees. 

While H.R. 4391 does not remedy completely how the Social Security law discriminates against public-employed retirees, the legislation strives to lessen the financial 

distress they suffer. Therefore, NAPUS urges the Subcommittee to report favorably 

the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act. 

Thank you. 

f 

93 

Statement of Colleen M. Kelley, National Treasury Employees Union 

Social Security Provisions Affecting Public Employees 

Chairman Shaw, Members of the Committee: 

I am Colleen M. Kelley, the National President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). NTEU represents more than 150,000 federal employees across 

30 agencies and departments of the federal government. 

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this important hearing 

today. NTEU has presented testimony on many occasions and before several different Committees of the Congress over the years on the need to address the havoc 

that both the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension 

Offset (GPO) have caused for federal employees and retirees. 

While we are disappointed that the legislation under consideration today does not 

address the GPO, NTEU is nevertheless pleased that the Social Security Subcommittee is examining the need for reform of the WEP. NTEU is on record in support of bills to repeal and/or revise both the GPO and the WEP. These two Social 

Security offsets may affect the benefits of as many as 7 million federal, state and 

local government employees. As you know, many of these employees first learn of 

the potential application of either the GPO or the WEP to their expected Social Security benefit at the time of retirement. This frequently comes as a devastating blow 

to their retirement plans. 

The WEP unfairly reduces the retirement income of many federal retirees by reducing their own earned Social Security benefit by as much as 50%. Under current 

law, an employee eligible for both Social Security and a pension from work not covered by Social Security finds that a lower benefit formula is applied when calculating the Social Security benefit to which he or she is entitled. 

For example, a private sector worker with average monthly earnings of $500 

would be eligible for a Social Security benefit of $450 each month (90% of $500) at 

age 65. Using the same earnings as the private sector worker, a former federal employee at age 65 who is affected by the WEP would have his or her Social Security 

benefit calculated using a 40% formula in place of the 90%, significantly reducing 

the Social Security benefit he or she expected in retirement. 

The use of this lower formula—simply because the individual chose to spend his 

or her career in public service—has a devastating and unfair effect on the retirement plans of many federal employees. Those federal employees with 30 or more 

years of substantial Social Security covered employment are exempt from the WEP, 

however, it is a rare federal employee that can complete a public service career and 

also have 30 years of Social Security covered employment. 

It is precisely this financial devastation that so many federal employees only learn 

about when they apply for retirement benefits that has led so many members of 

Congress to introduce or cosponsor legislation to repeal or revise the WEP. Congressman McKeon (R–CA) has introduced H.R.594 to repeal both the GPO and the 

WEP provisions. This bipartisan bill has already garnered 300 cosponsors. In addition, Senator Feinstein (D–CA) has introduced S.349, legislation that also seeks repeal of both the GPO and WEP offsets. Her bill has attracted 30 cosponsors. 

Moreover, two other bills are pending before Congress that address the WEP. 

S.1011 (Kerry, D–MA) would restrict the application of the WEP to those individuals whose combined monthly income from both Social Security and a public sector 

pension exceeds $2,000 each month. Congressman Frank (D–MA) has introduced 

similar legislation in the House, H.R.2011. 

H.R.4391, the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act, and the subject of today’s 

hearing, seeks to apply a new benefit calculation that would take the place of the 

WEP. It is my understanding that under the new benefit calculation contained in 

H.R.4391, an employee’s potential Social Security benefit would first be calculated 

as if Social Security deductions had been applied to all the employee’s earnings 

(even for periods that the employee may have contributed instead to a retirement 

plan such as the Civil Service Retirement System). The standard Social Security 

benefit formula would then be applied and a Social Security retirement benefit determined. 

That potential benefit would subsequently be multiplied only by the period of time 

that the employee actually contributed to Social Security. This final calculation 

would determine the individual’s actual Social Security entitlement. If half of the 

employee’s career had been spent in positions covered by Social Security, for example, then the employee would be eligible to receive half of the Social Security benefit 

to which he or she would otherwise be entitled. 

While NTEU appreciates the Subcommittee holding this hearing to review 

H.R.4391, we would encourage the Chairman to fully consider these other pending 

94 

proposals for reforming or repealing the WEP. H.R.594, in particular, with 300 current cosponsors should be the subject of thorough review by the Subcommittee. 

In addition, NTEU urges this Subcommittee to hold hearings and consider legislation to either repeal or reform application of the GPO. This offset unfairly penalizes 

recipients of government pensions who are also eligible for Social Security based on 

a spouse’s work record. The GPO reduces the spousal Social Security benefit by twothirds of the amount of the government pension. In entirely too many cases, this 

provision results in the elimination of any Social Security benefit the federal retiree 

is otherwise eligible for. 

Unlike the WEP, which predominantly affects men (December, 2001 data from the 

Social Security Administration indicates that 67% of those affected by the WEP are 

male), the GPO has a particularly devastating impact on female federal retirees who 

frequently are eligible for smaller federal pensions than their male counterparts. 

This stems from a number of reasons, including interruptions they may have had 

in their careers while raising their families or working at lower paid positions for 

the bulk of their federal careers. 

A primary example of this is the elderly widow who is eligible for a monthly pension of $600 based on her federal government service. Two-thirds of her pension, or 

$400 must be used to offset any Social Security spouse’s or widow’s benefit for which 

she is also eligible. Assuming she is eligible for a monthly spousal Social Security 

benefit of $500, the application of the GPO results in her receiving only $100 in Social Security each month. The GPO has effectively slashed this individual’s retirement income from $1100 monthly to only $700 each month. 

More often than not, the GPO disproportionately affects those who can least afford to forgo this retirement income. Had individuals such as the widow in the 

above example not dedicated their careers to public service, they would remain fully 

eligible to collect their spousal Social Security benefits. As you know, the GPO does 

not apply to individuals who collect private pension benefits and are also eligible 

for Social Security. 

According to the Social Security Administration, more than 300,000 former federal 

employees have their Social Security benefits reduced as a result of the Government 

Pension Offset (December, 1999 data). It is particularly troubling that 69% of these 

individuals were women and the average offset applied to their Social Security benefits was $391 each month. 

I bring these facts to the Subcommittee’s attention in the hope that the Subcommittee will consider legislation to amend or repeal the GPO. In addition to the 

bills mentioned earlier, H.R.887 (Jefferson, D–LA) would impose the GPO in only 

those situations where the combined federal pension and Social Security benefit exceeded $2000 monthly. This bill currently has 126 cosponsors. Legislation pending 

before the Senate, S.363 (Mikulski, D–MD), would only apply the GPO when the 

combined pension and Social Security income exceeds $1200 each month This legislation is currently cosponsored by 28 Senators. 

It is my understanding that H.R.4391 has been estimated to cost $7 billion over 

a 10-year period. In this period of tight fiscal restraint, I applaud the Chairman for 

his interest in taking steps to address the WEP. However, in NTEU’s view, it is 

equally important that Congress commit the necessary resources to address the 

GPO. Thank you very much for this opportunity to share our views with the Social 

Security Subcommittee. 

f 

Statement of Constance G. Newman, Acton, Maine 

Please repeal WEP and GPO 

I have been the wife of a retired teacher for 16 years. He served as a teacher/ 

guidance counselor for 34 years before that. I raised four children on the meager 

teachers salary of those days. I worked part time getting 36 small quarters of Social 

Security in. He worked more time out of necessity, making his full 40 quarters. He 

EARNED his Social Security benefits. 

He also attended more classes at his expense to keep up his teaching and guidance qualifications and value to the children. 

Our Social Security benefits are cut because he has a teachers pension. He gets 

$381 a month and I get $135 a month. If he dies, I will receive nothing because 

of his teachers pension. But he EARNED his Social Security benefits. I feel that I 

earned something too, even if only in the part I played in keeping him in education 

when there were other more lucrative jobs available by taking care of our children 

and working part time. 

95 

Our health insurance premiums are about $450 a month out of his teachers retirement pension of approximately $1440 a month gross, before fees, taxes etc. The 

COLA increase in Social Security and retirement pension is not a thirtieth of the 

increase in the health insurance premiums annually. We are going backward in income and will have to give up some essential living expenses at some time soon. 

Our small savings will not keep our house going. Maybe we will lose health insurance. 

Many people receive both private pensions AND Social Security benefits, many 

who do not need them. Teachers, police, fire department workers and others who 

serve their community all their lives deserve the same treatment. Even members 

of Congress receive both, do they not? 

Please repeal these unfair and perhaps illegal laws. Where will you get your public servants in the future if these are treated this way? 

f 

Statement of Francis A. Newman, Acton, Maine 

How WEP and GPO affect me and my family 

I taught school and was a guidance counselor for thirty four years. Salaries were 

and are not high for teachers and I was forced to do other work to support my family which included four children. I also had to continue to take education courses 

to keep current with teaching standards. 

I earned my forty quarters in Social Security benefits. 

After retirement from teaching I found that my SS benefits were cut deeply because I had a teachers retirement pension which amounts to about $19000 a year. 

I receive $381 per month in Social Security and my wife receives $135 per month. 

If I die, she would receive no SS benefits at all because of my teachers pension income. 

Health insurance premiums are approximately $450 per month for the two of us. 

They outstrip by far any COLA included in the pension or Social Security updates. 

Therefore our income is going backward year by year becoming less and less. 

Please understand that I EARNED this Social Security benefit that I am not receiving. It was not given to me. At some point, we will not be able to afford health 

insurance or some other necessary cost of living. We live frugally now. 

I urge you to repeal the GPO and WEP bills. They are totally unfair to people 

who gave up lucrative types of work to serve their country and their children. At 

the same time they earned the benefits they are now denied. 

f 

Statement of Joan Nimerowski, Andover, Massachusetts 

As an educator for nearly 30 years (1976–2004), member of MTA and a member 

of my local teacher organization AEA, I am submitting testimony in regards to the 

current House Ways and Means Hearing on the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act. 

I started my full time working career in 1974. I was just out of college and unable 

to find a teaching position, so I took a clerical position in a local office and worked 

there through 1974 and 1975. I paid Social Security taxes on about $4,000 of income 

for those two years. 

In 1976 I found my first teaching position in a small Lawrence ‘‘parochial’’ school 

at the grand salary of $6,300. I continued there for the next 7 years until 1983 leaving at the grand salary of $8,500. Obviously, I worked additional jobs year round 

to supplement the low salary. Altogether I contributed Social Security taxes on 

about $56,000. 

From 1983 to 1986, I worked 1 year at a public library and then taught for 2 

years in a New Hampshire school system. I contributed to Social Security on about 

$25,000 over these 3 years. 

From 1986 on I did not contribute to Social Security as I worked in a local community college part time and then in 1989 started in the Massachusetts public 

school system. I have paid into MTR since 1989 and have paid in to ‘‘buy back’’ substitute teaching time, New Hampshire teaching time, and my public library time. 

Much to my dismay I cannot ‘‘buy back’’ the 7 years I taught in a parochial school 

or the three years I taught part time in the community college. I am also denied 

the full Social Security benefits I contributed from the 7 years spent teaching in a 

96 

parochial school. I have no pension from those 7 years either. I’m not clear how Social Security could be considered a ‘‘windfall’’ in this case. 

In conclusion, I feel the WEP as well as the GPO are penalizing me in three ways. 

First, I will not receive the benefits from Social Security that I contributed from my 

working years both in and outside of teaching. Second, I can’t ‘‘buy back’’ the 7 years 

parochial school teaching time, which would help provide years towards the MTR 

system, and I again won’t receive the benefits from Social Security for these years. 

Third, due to GPO, I’ll lose a good portion if not most of my husband’s Social Security benefits if he should predecease me. 

According to Social Security records I would be eligible to receive $370 per month 

in 2014 at age 62 (full benefits). If this were cut by 2/3 (WEP), I would receive about 

$125 per month or $1500 year. If I add this to my approximately $30,000 to $35,00 

per year retirement, I come up with a total of about $31,000 to $36,000 per year, 

not a very strong retirement package after 38 years as an educator. 

f 

Statement of Jim Oldebeken, Gladstone, Missouri 

What successful American has not been positively affected by at least one teacher? 

Our teachers give us the knowledge, tools, inspiration and vision to succeed in our 

chosen profession. 

For this reason I am shocked to learn that teachers and other public servants are 

denied a full social security benefit under the so-called Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). Such is not the case with private sector workers and the military who 

receive all of their social security benefits in addition to their primary retirement 

plan benefits. 

My aunt, Sally Navarro, was a Junior High English teacher for 21 years. After 

leaving the teaching profession in 1984, she worked in the private sector and paid 

into Social Security for 20 years, earning 80 quarters under Social Security. Although the threshold for full retirement benefits is only 40 quarters, the WEP penalizes her for having been a teacher and participating in California’s teacher retirement program, and denies her 56% of her rightful Social Security benefits. 

She is not alone. Over 7 million teachers, police officers, fire fighters and other 

government employees are discriminated against in a like manner. 

The WEP creates several embarrassing problems: 

• Discriminates against ‘‘public servants’’ who traditionally receive lower pay 

than private sector workers and the military. 

• Causes some retirees to have to resort to government assistance programs like 

food stamps. 

• Discourages young people from becoming teachers, fire fighters, and law enforcement officials. 

• Further undermines the reputation of the Social Security Administration as a 

fair, effective and properly managed federal agency 

Congress should not delay to pass this legislation. The excuse of ‘‘it’s an election 

year’’ is not acceptable. America needs H.R. 4391 to end injustice toward a group 

of seven million Americans we should protect and revere for their service to this 

country and all of its citizens. 

f 

Palmer, Massachusetts 01069 

July 17, 2004 

Dear Committee Members: 

Some 35 years ago, like so many other teachers, I found it necessary to hold two 

(sometimes three) jobs to support my family. I chose radio news broadcasting as my 

second ‘‘career,’’ because in addition to providing supplemental income, it also enhanced my teaching as a journalism instructor. I worked in radio over a period of 

two decades. 

I contributed Social Security payments during all those years, both because it was 

required and because I anticipated one day to supplement my teacher’s retirement 

pension with my SS earnings. However, I narrowly missed the legislated cut-off date 

for making me eligible to receive the full benefits of my SS contributions. 

All those late nights and weekend days away from my family were a sacrifice I 

was willing to make in order to provide a better life for them. Without a second job, 

97 

it would have been very difficult, perhaps impossible, to make mortgage payments 

on a home. Now, in our retirement years, Social Security income would be very helpful for my wife and me. 

The WEP and GPO are extremely unfair penalties for teachers and others who 

spent their careers in public service. It also bothers me a great deal to hear this 

situation referred to as a ‘‘windfall.’’ These Social Security benefits are benefits that 

I earned, just as everyone else, through deductions from my paychecks. 

My wife and I urge you to move the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act to 

final passage and into law, and we urge Congress to continue to work toward full 

repeal of both the GPO and the WEP. 

Thank you. 

f 

Edward W. Orzechowski 

Statement of Jane K. Pickett, Worcester, Massachusetts 

I am very interested in the resolution of this act of Congress. I have earned the 

requisite number of quarters to enable me to collect Social Security. 

I’m also a late comer to the higher education system of the state of Massachusetts. 

With retirement in the foreseeable future, I will need to be able to use both benefits in order to maintain even a marginal standard of living. As you well know most 

public service jobs are not especially lucrative. At age 67 I would be able to get 80% 

of $42,000. 

I can’t help but think about the retirement system that members of Congress are 

entitled to. Is it 100% of their current salary? ? 

I’m weighing for the public record because I think Congress needs to know that 

most public servants are not in lucrative positions, and will need as many resources 

as they are eligible for. 

Please restore our Social Security benefits, we have rightly earned them. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

f 

Statement of Richard Pond, Rochester, Massachusetts 

I am writing to voice my opposition to the WEP and GPO bills before you for your 

consideration. I urge you to reject these acts as being unfair and hurtful to retired 

public servants who have had to work second and third jobs to provide for their families. As an elementary school teacher, that is what I had to do for 20 of my 30 years 

of teaching. I earned my social security benefits and I ask that you give me and 

others like me the benefits we earned. 

Our nation cannot afford to penalize educators, police, firefighters and other public servants who have dedicated their lives to serving their communities and their 

nation. 

By supporting the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act, you, the members 

of congress, will move toward repealing both the WEP and the GFO. That repeal 

will make a great difference in myself and my wife’s quality of life in retirement. 

I am sure I speak for many public servants who have had to work second jobs and 

have social security benefits that they have earned. This money is no ‘‘windfall’’. It 

was earned— often at great sacrifice to our families. 

f 

Statement of the Honorable Jon C. Porter, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Nevada 

Subcommittee on Social Security Hearing on: H.R. 4391, the ‘‘Public 

Servant Retirement Protection Act’’ 

Mr. PORTER: Thank you Chairman Shaw, for calling this hearing on H.R. 4391, 

the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act of 2004. I wish to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Brady, and Mr. McKeon for introducing this important legislation 

that will protect the hard earned retirement benefits of nearly seven million Americans, and many of Nevada’s teachers, police officers, and other public servants. I 

98 

would also like to thank Terry Hickman, of the Nevada State Education Association, 

for coming here today to represent Nevada’s teachers and those around the country. 

This legislation represents a significant step forward in restoring fairness to the 

Social Security system that helps provide retirement benefits for many of America’s 

most dedicated employees. While created to equalize the treatment of all workers, 

the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision proved to 

be onerous burdens to many government employees. By correcting the problems associated with the Windfall Elimination Provision, a significant obstacle in restoring 

fair benefits will be overcome. 

Under current law, employees who pay into a government pension system or other 

retirement program in lieu of Social Security for some jobs in their career do not 

receive benefits that are relatively more generous than those of workers with equal 

earnings who paid Social Security taxes for all jobs in their career. An accurate accounting of the monies to be paid from the Social Security Trust Fund must be 

made. 

This important legislation would modify the Social Security benefit formula to 

first calculate all of the worker’s earnings, as though they were subject to Social Security taxes, using the standard benefit formula. To ensure Social Security benefits 

are based only on Social Security-covered wages, the benefit that is actually paid 

would be adjusted to reflect the proportion of the worker’s earnings that were subject to Social Security taxes. This common sense proposal would allow those individuals who choose to give up more lucrative careers for the benefit of their communities to receive their just dues from the Social Security Administration. 

Again, Chairman Shaw, I thank you for holding this important hearing. Through 

consideration of this important legislation, this Congress will better serve those individuals who so greatly benefit our communities. I encourage continued consideration of this legislation and urge support from all of my colleagues. 

f 

Carver, Massachusetts 02330 

July 31, 2004 

Committee on Ways and Means 

1102 LHOB 

Washington, DC 

To Whom It May Concern: 

I am writing regarding the impact of WEP and GPO. I have been a Registered 

Nurse since 1968. Up until 1987, I worked at several different jobs, spending 13 

years in geriatrics; my only pension was Social Security. I started working as a 

school nurse in 1987. My salary was initially reduced by 1/3; monetary compensation would have been much higher had I continued to work in the private sector. 

I chose to remain in the school system even as the Medical issues facing me every 

day increased. My pension will not be adequate to live on. If I had a pension other 

than Social Security for my first 20 years of employment I would be allowed to collect both. 

If something were to happen to my husband, the widows Social Security which 

I should be entitled to would be greatly reduced. I have a friend whose husband 

died; while she was working she was able to collect his Social Security after she retired it was taken away. She was a teacher, who had stayed home with her children 

for many years so her retirement was minimal. 

If I had known that I would loose most of my Social Security, which I worked 

hard for, I might have made different decisions. 

Please repeal the WEP and GPO so that those of us who are entitled to Social 

Security Benefits that we earned will be able to receive them enabling us to retire 

and live as we should be able to. Any one who has worked hard for their entire 

adult life deserves to collect the benefits they have earned. 

Sincerely, 

f 

Mary Ellen Pratt 

Statement of Retired Educators Coalition for Social Security Fairness 

We, the undersigned, as representatives of nearly 300,000 retired educators in 15 

states that are affected by Social Security’s Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset, believe that H.R. 4391 (the Public Servant Retirement ProVerDate Aug 18 2005 08:46 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 099683 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\99683.XXX 99683
99 

tection Act) is a positive first step in providing equitable treatment to public retirees. We are pleased to submit this statement to the House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Social Security as it gathers facts concerning the impacts on public 

employees of the current Social Security system. 

For 20 years, our members have suffered under the financial hardships imposed 

on public retirees by the Social Security system. Carefully constructed personal retirement plans have been destroyed because of the WEP and GPO. Too often, teachers and other affected school employees only find out about these penalties when 

they go to apply for their benefits. By then, it is too late to make alternative financial planning decisions, and public retirees are left to cope with what is often a 

greatly diminished retirement income. We appreciate the fact that Congress at long 

last realizes that the impacts of these penalties are not what were originally intended when they were enacted. 

The WEP, as currently designed, penalizes people who have dedicated their lives 

to public service, often at a personal financial sacrifice. Teaching is a rewarding career, but it is not lucrative. In order to support their families, teachers typically 

work in summer jobs and pay Social Security taxes. Many do so without realizing 

they will receive a reduced benefit because of the WEP. They understand they will 

not receive the maximum Social Security benefit because, frankly, they have not 

earned one. But they do believe they will be treated the same as everyone else who 

meets the minimum eligibility criteria of 40 quarters of covered Social Security employment. 

The regressive formula used in the computing the WEP, whereby all of the reduction is imposed on the first increment of eligible earnings, is counter to the intent 

of the Social Security system. The basic premise of Social Security is to replace a 

greater portion of the income of people who were more modestly compensated in 

their working lives. Imposing equal penalties on all public workers, regardless of 

whether the pension from a non-Social Security system is $500 a month or $1,000 

or more per month, further compounds this inequity. 

Replacing the current WEP calculation with a formula that takes into consideration the individual’s entire working career is an important step towards greater 

fairness in the system. While the increased benefit that will become available to 

those impacted does not fully restore Social Security earnings lost under the current 

formula, the additional income will be significant for the poorest retired teachers in 

our ranks. 

Additionally, many of the states we represent are experiencing severe teacher 

shortages. To meet increasing demands for qualified teachers, many school districts 

will seek to recruit mid-career individuals from other professions, most of which are 

covered by Social Security. While these individuals may be willing to make salary 

sacrifices to pursue a second career in education, they would be unwilling or unable 

to accept further financial sacrifices that Social Security will impose upon them for 

their career choice. Reducing the impacts of the WEP will also reduce this obstacle 

to teacher recruitment. 

As we have previously communicated to you and the entire Congress, our eventual goal is complete repeal of both the WEP and the GPO. These penalties impose 

too great a financial burden on hundreds of thousands of retired teachers who 

worked hard all of their lives, gave of themselves to their communities and played 

by the rules. HR 4391 represents an important first step towards achieving that 

goal. Thank you. 

f 

Farmers Branch, Texas 75234 

July 16, 2004 

Committee on Ways and Means 

1102 LHOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Sir, 

With regards to H.R. 4391, I can only relate my experience with the existing Social Security law. I worked for 22 years in jobs in which I was required to pay Social 

Security tax. I also worked as a public school teacher in Texas which did not withhold Social Security tax. For the last ten years or so, I received Social Security benefit statement that showed that I would get approximately $360. 00 per month at 

retirement age. When I retired, I was told by Social Security that since I was getting a pension from the state teacher retirement system, that my Social Security 

benefit would be $170.00 per month. To me this was not right at all. I had paid 

100 

into Social Security and met all the requirements, yet couldn’t receive the benefits 

for it. When I asked why, I was told—-WEP. 

I hope that H.R. 4391 will correct the unfairness in the existing law. I urge you 

to support and pass a bill that will be fair to all who contribute to the Social Security system. 

Sincerely, 

f 

Cecil Ralph Roberts 

Statement of Noel R. Rosenbaum, El Paso, Texas 

I have been teaching in the public schools since January, 1993. I teach Computer 

Literacy to 8th graders and assist teachers and students in their Internet projects. 

I am now 62. As a Texas teacher, I am automatically enrolled in the Texas Retirement System (TRS), for which pre-tax money is taken from my income. 

I am a widow. I also worked for thirty-five years—since the age of 15—at jobs 

that were within the Social Security system, meaning that I was contributing 

POST–TAX money to that system. 

I became a public school teacher in 1993. NO ONE told me I would lose my survivor’s benefit as a widow once I was part of the TRS system. I did not know that 

I would lose up to two-thirds of my Social Security benefits which, according to my 

December 17, 2003 Social Security Statement will be $1,042 per month at the retirement age of 65 and ten months. 

My last TRS statement dated August 31, 2003 informs me that my maximum TRS based on my Three Year Average Salary of $41,408 is $873.02 a month at normal 

retirement age. 

I’ve earned both Social Security and TRS retirements. I do not understand why 

I have to lose the Social Security I earned over 35 years. I am not sure what my 

spousal amount would be, but my husband earned well over $200,000 every year, 

so I assume my spousal benefit would be at the TOP and maybe higher than my 

individual Social Security retirement amount! 

I though I could afford to be a public school teacher. I have some money from my 

husband’s estate that allows me to live in my own house. I do not take frivolous 

trips or spend lavishly on my three grandchildren and two children or even myself. 

Why am I being punished to be a teacher? 

Please examine the consequences of this WEP provision keeping in mind thousands of women and men like me who have lost spousal benefits and will have their 

Social Security benefits reduced upon retirement from public school teaching. How 

can you justify such a legal/financial requirement? 

f 

Statement of San Jacinto College, Houston, Texas 

This be the full written submission for the list of persons of the San Jacinto College in that we are all in full support of the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection 

Act’’. 

f 

School Employees Retirement System of Ohio 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

August 2, 2004 

The Honorable E. Clay Shaw Jr. 

Chairman, House Ways & Means Subcommittee on Social Security 

2408 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Shaw, 

The School Employees Retirement System of Ohio is deeply appreciative of your 

co-sponsorship of Representative Brady’s H.R. 4391, the Public Servant Retirement 

Protection Act, and of the recent hearing you held on this bill in the Social Security 

Subcommittee. 

As you know, H.R. 4391 would eliminate the Windfall Elimination Penalty and 

recalculate public employees’ Social Security benefits based on both covered and 

101 

non-covered earnings. We believe this new approach represents a far more equitable 

distribution of Social Security benefits to retired public employees. 

We are especially pleased that this new approach continues to honor the intent 

of Social Security by providing a higher benefit to lower-wage workers. WEP penalizes both low-wage and high-wage workers equally; there is no modification for 

those who worked in vital, but poorly compensated public positions such as bus drivers, school cooks and custodians. These public employees will receive a far more 

meaningful Social Security benefit as a result of the new formula in H.R. 4391. 

We would like to alert you to some areas of concern for us as deliberations continue: we understand SSA only has records of non-covered earnings beginning in 

1978, and some of these records are incomplete; and mandatory coverage of new 

public employees could be suggested as a partial source of funding for the bill’s implementation. 

On the data collection and reporting issues, it should be noted that public retirement systems might not have complete career non-covered earnings information, especially if an employee worked for multiple public employers covered by different 

public retirement systems. On the mandatory coverage issue, we would firmly oppose such a suggestion, as it would not be in the best interest of the State of Ohio, 

our public employers, or our public employees and retirees. Mandatory coverage 

would ultimately destabilize public pension funds like ours by starving it of the new 

contributions needed to pay current benefits. 

In closing Chairman Shaw, we are extremely grateful for your efforts to move 

H.R. 4391 forward. It represents a far better approach to the calculation of Social 

Security benefits for public employees than we’ve had since the WEP and Offset 

were first introduced. Thank you for your diligence in pursuing critically needed reform in both these areas, and please let us know if we may be of assistance to you 

in this effort. Thank you again. 

Sincerely, 

James R. Winfree 

f 

Executive Director 

Statement of Vashti E. Sherrill, Bakersfield, California 

I am writing this letter in support of H.R. 4391, the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement 

Protection Act’’. I ask you to support this bill because it is so important to teachers 

who begin their profession as a second career. As you know, I am sure, there are 

many working adults who change professions during their career. They change professions for many reasons, but one that is prevalent is the adult continues his/her 

education and is able to move into a more satisfying and economical position. At 

the present time, I am an Adjunct Professor with a private university that has 

many prospective teachers as students. The majority of these students are beginning a second career in education. Most are unaware that even though they worked 

in the private sector as a banker, secretary, medical assistant, etc., they are forfeiting a large portion of their Social Security benefit when they retire. 

This happened to me. I married immediately after high school and worked at a 

local bank. Actually I began working at the age of sixteen. When my children started school, so did I. I have to say it was exhilarating. Education became very important to me. I received a Masters Degree in English, in Administration and a Reading Specialist credential. I had a rewarding career as a teacher, curriculum specialist and a principal. Even after retirement, I continued in the educational field 

as an Adjunct Professor because I love teaching and feel I have something to offer 

prospective teachers. 

It was a shock to me to learn when I retired that even though I had been employed in the private workforce for almost twenty years before I became a teacher 

and had earned many more than the required 40 quarters, I am eligible to receive 

only about $240 of a possible $650 of Social Security benefits that should be available to me. I also learned that I would not receive ANY of my husband’s benefits 

if anything happened to him. If I been widowed and receiving benefits from his Social Security, I would lose it when I retired. THIS IS NOT FAIR. If I had not paid 

into social security, then I would not expect to receive benefits, but I did pay into 

Social Security for many years. Not only that, I work for a private university part 

time and pay MORE into social security than I get and I will never receive any of 

these benefits unless you pass this bill. THIS IS NOT RIGHT! 

As President of the Kern Division of Retired Teachers, I have become acquainted 

with many members who are really struggling because they do not receive their 

102 

earned Social Security benefit. These are teachers who spent their evenings, weekends and summers working a second job to support their families. They paid into 

Social Security for many years and now are denied the benefit they earned. But the 

teachers I am really concerned about are the ones who worked many years in the 

private sector and worked only a portion of their career as a teacher. Their pension, 

through the teaching profession, is low and even though they dedicated a portion 

of their life to helping students through teaching, they have to work during their 

retirement to survive. THIS IS NOT RIGHT! 

I am sure that every one of you—who are the successful examples of education— 

can remember a teacher who influenced your life. You must know and accept the 

importance of education. There are teacher shortages in many school districts in 

California and I fear that if becomes well known that second career teachers will 

not receive the Social Security benefit that they earned in their first career, they 

may decide not to go into teaching. They should not be penalized because they become teachers. If they worked in the private sector, received the necessary quarters, 

then they should also receive the benefits. 

Please support H.R. 4391, ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection Act.’’ You will 

be supporting the many teachers who have dedicated their lives to you and your 

children. 

f 

Statement of Karin Shipman, Houston, Texas 

I would like to state my support for H.R. 4391, the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement 

Protection Act.’’ 

While I am not schooled in the technical aspects of Social Security benefit calculations, I do know that the Social Security benefits for which I have paid are being 

reduced due to my drawing retirement benefits from Texas Teacher Retirement System. Upon my retirement next year from the private sector, I will have 20 years 

of ‘‘Substantial Earnings’’ for Social Security purposes. It is my understanding that 

my Social Security benefit is being reduced under the Windfall Elimination Provision. 

Let me be clear on this. I am not trying for benefits based on my husband’s earnings. I simply feel that I should get full benefit of the Social Security taxes I have 

paid over the years. The publication furnished to me by Social Security Administration says that the ‘‘modified formula prevents a windfall to people who would unfairly benefit from provisions aimed at low-income workers.’’ My Social Security account will show that I am not a ‘‘low-income worker.’’ Surely there’s a more equitable way to compute my Social Security benefit. 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit information. 

f 

Statement of Glen P. Shultz, Las Vegas, Nevada 

To the Committee on Ways and Means: 

I am a teacher in the Clark County School District in Nevada. I have been a 

teacher for six years. Before I became a teacher I was a pastor for 18 years. In those 

18 years, and a few years before I became a pastor I paid into Social Security. It 

is my understanding that under current laws I would not receive my Social Security 

when I retired because of my public school retirement plan. I do not believe that 

I or anyone else who came into teaching as a second career should lose the Social 

Security benefits that we faithfully contributed to for many years. I urge your support of the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act and to stop this injustice toward public servants who have contributed to Social Security and who deserve to 

receive the full benefits of their prior service. Thank you for considering my request. 

f 

Statement of Mary Sowder, Henderson, Nevada 

I would like to submit testimony for the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act 

explaining how the WEP will impact my husband and me, and why Congress should 

address the unfair public employee offset. 

I have been a school teacher for the past 26 years, and my husband recently is 

a recently retired police officer with 25 of years of public service. We both came to 

103 

the public sector from careers in the private sector because we wanted to serve our 

communities. Unfortunately, it seems like we also chose to give up the Social Security benefits. My husband is now once again employed by a private company and 

he is once again paying for Social Security taxes which he will never have a chance 

to enjoy. Over the years I have worked part time in other positions in addition to 

teaching in order to make ends meet. In all of these positions I have also contributed some amount to Social Security. The current Windfall Elimination Provision 

will negatively impact our retirement income. Although the Social Security benefits 

we earned and expected to receive are not large, our combined benefits would help 

offset enormous payments for continuing health insurance payments once we fully 

retire. 

My husband and I have earned Social Security benefits, and we would not be getting a ‘‘windfall.’’ We are merely asking to receive the benefits we earned. I feel that 

the WEP and the GPO unfairly penalize those who have chosen to enter public service, often at great financial sacrifice. Our nation cannot afford to penalize educators, 

police, firefighters, and others who have dedicated themselves to serving their communities and their country. 

The Public Servant Retirement Protection Act offers an important first step toward the ultimate goal of repealing both the WEP and the GPO. It will make a real 

difference for many public employees who will receive increased Social Security benefits as a result. I urge the Committee to move this important bill quickly to final 

passage and enactment into law, and we urge Congress to continue to work toward 

full repeal of both the GPO and the WEP. 

f 

Statement of Barbara W. Stek, Anchorage, Alaska 

WEP Testimony 

I am a retired school teacher from Anchorage, Alaska. Since high school, I have 

worked in many capacities in addition to my teaching career. I have earned all the 

quarters necessary in order to collect Social Security benefits when I reach the required age. Imagine my chagrin when I learned that even though I had met all the 

necessary requirements, I would not be entitled to all the Social Security benefits. 

The Windfall Elimination Provision is very unfair to those of us in public service 

who have worked in traditionally lower paying positions in order to give back to our 

communities. My pension alone is not enough to support me and I have worked continuously since my retirement to supplement my income. I was, of course, looking 

forward to my upcoming Social Security income to insure that I would be able to 

live without too many monetary worries. 

People in other professions are not subject to this inequitable practice. They are 

able to collect their pensions and their Social Security benefits. Clearly this is an 

injustice which needs to be remedied. 

I ask that you give positive consideration to those of us who have worked in a 

public service position, who have contributed to Social Security, and who have 

earned their appropriate quarters in additional employment. Please repeal the 

Windfall Elimination Provision so that we may collect all the Social Security benefits to which we are entitled. 

Thank you for your time. 

f 

Statement of Frank W. Sterret, Bridgewater, Massachusetts 

In 1984 I left the for-profit sector to take a job as a professor at Bridgewater State 

College. Now at age 59 with over 20 years of service at the college, I will soon be 

looking at retirement. Unfortunately, I am one of those hard working Americans 

who is caught in the penalty situation under the current WEP and GPO laws. As 

I understand it now, I’ll be penalized approximately 40% when I retire and claim 

Social Security. My wife, who has not always worked full time while raising our 

children, has been working at various positions in public K–12 education. She never 

worked in the private sector and will suffer under GPO as well. 

I really feel that the current WEP and GPO law is grossly unfair to those of us 

who have worked in multiple jobs where significant amounts of social security dollar 

have been deducted from our paychecks over the years while working in the private 

sector. (Please refer to the second page for a list of my Social Security wages.) Typically, I often worked two jobs to make ends meet and to fund college educations for 

my two daughters. This helped close the pay gap between typical private sector employment and the lower wages of a state college professor. 

104 

It’s not like I’m trying to get social security money when I retire and have never 

contributed-just the opposite. I have worked many years with significant earnings 

under social security in the aircraft repair business, medical device manufacturing, 

and as a senior systems analyst. As a result of these and other for-profit sector jobs 

over the years, I have contributed significantly to both the social security system 

in my private sector jobs and to mandatory state retirement funds when working 

in the public sector. 

My wife and I have been in situations where we’ve had to sell two houses at a 

loss. We usually earned enough so that our daughters usually did not qualify for 

need based scholarships. We own our own home but still have 12 years to pay off 

our mortgage at $2130 per month here in the Boston area. My wife and I do not 

have a lot of assets, are not independently wealthy, and will not inherit much. We 

are counting on Social Security to help us in our later years. We support all efforts 

to eliminate the unjust penalty clauses for those Americans who worked in both the 

public and private sectors. Thank you. 

Year you worked Your Taxed 

S.S. Earnings Year you worked Your Taxed S.S. Earnings 

1963 337 1981 26,983

1964 912 1982 30,500

1965 305 1983 35,700

1966 727 1984 833

1967 2,584 1985 0

1968 6,421 1986 0

1969 7,330 1987 5,000

1970 7,800 1988 6,400

1971 4,975 1989 6,600

1972 8,546 1990 0

1973 10,800 1991 7,800

1974 13,140 1992 17,400

1975 12,761 1993 13,399

1976 15,300 1994 1,500

1977 16,500 1995 56,072

1978 17,700 1996 62,700

1979 16,754 1997 65,400

1980 19,426 1998 68,400

1999 72,600

2000 76,200

2001 64,212

2002 21,700

2003 5,400* 

TOTAL 

S.S. Wages = $801,717

* (partial) 

f 

Statement of Juanita Terrell, Mont Belvieu, Texas 

I began work for the Barbers Hill ISD in 1975, coming from other places of employment and paid into Social Security while employed at these other places 

(enough quarters to draw full benefits) 

Since the school district only paid SS in the new employees, when I retired I was 

not paying SS and therefore fell in the bill ‘‘must have been paying social security 

taxes on your last day of employment prior to retirement’’. 

I am unable to receive the social security that I have rightly earned, and am 

merely asking to receive those benefits. 

The Public Servant Retirement Protection Act offers an important first step toward the ultimate goal of repealing both the WEP and the GPO. It will make a difference for many public employees, who will receive increased Social Security benefits as a result. 

I chose to work for the school district starting out at $350 a month which was 

not much, but I was giving back to my community. 

105 

I would like to urge the Committee to move this important bill quickly to final 

passage and enactment into law, and I also urge Congress to continue to work toward full repeal of both the GPO and the WEP. 

Thank you very much for your consideration. 

f 

Statement of Shelby Patrick, Texas Classroom Teachers Association, 

Austin, Texas 

My name is Shelby Patrick, and I am the 2004–05 president of the Texas Classroom Teachers Association. I am also a high school chemistry teacher in Wichita 

Falls, Texas, and I appreciate this opportunity to provide input to the committee 

on an issue that has a serious impact on Texas teachers. 

The Texas Classroom Teachers Association is a statewide professional organization representing over 50,000 teachers and other non-administrative educators 

across the state of Texas. A large majority of our members is affected by the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset, the two laws that 

reduce Social Security benefits for many government employees. 

The TCTA supports HR 4391, and we appreciate the efforts of Representative 

Brady, Chairman Shaw, and the other members of the U. S. House of Representatives who have co-authored and co-sponsored this legislation. We have long supported HR 594 and other bills designed to either repeal the GPO and WEP or to 

at least mitigate their impact. We are aware that the costs of repealing the GOP 

and WEP are high, and understand the rationale behind finding a less expensive 

remedy to the problems faced by government employees who are subject to the two 

offsets. However, we strongly urge your support for HR 594 and encourage action 

on that legislation as soon as possible. 

While HR 4391 does not address the GPO, and does not completely eliminate the 

reduction of Social Security benefits for those employees who have earned benefits 

through their own participation in Social Security, it does represent a step forward 

that we believe will benefit government employees in Texas. 

Texas, as other states, faces a severe teacher shortage. The state has therefore 

made efforts to recruit individuals from other states and other professions. While 

there is no way to measure the impact of the WEP on these efforts, it is reasonable 

to assume that many such individuals are dissuaded from becoming a Texas teacher 

because of the likelihood that their hard-earned Social Security benefits will be reduced. Calls to our office have unfortunately borne out the other negative consequence: that individuals make the decision to become a Texas teacher only to discover the implications after the fact. 

The WEP also affects school employees who have taken additional jobs in the private sector in order to make ends meet. This is not uncommon, particularly among 

educational aides and other low-paid employees but also among teachers whose salaries are inadequate to meet their needs. 

These employees have paid into Social Security for 40 quarters or more, sometimes over a full career, and have fully earned Social Security benefits. The WEP 

arbitrarily and unfairly reduces those benefits. HR 4391 is designed to apply a more 

fair calculation that takes into account the employee’s individual earnings and 

should represent an improvement over the current law. 

We appreciate your consideration of our remarks, and encourage you to move HR 

4391 through the process. TCTA will continue to advocate for repeal of the WEP 

and the GPO, and again we urge the members of this committee to take action on 

HR 594 as well. 

f 

Statement of Eric Hartman, Texas Federation of Teachers, Austin, Texas 

Thank you, Chairman Shaw, for scheduling this hearing and for providing the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Texas Federation of Teachers, which 

represents more than 51,000 teachers and other education personnel in Texas public 

schools and institutions of higher education. TFT is an affiliate of the American 

Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.3 million teachers and other public servants nationwide. 

Congressman Brady, as author of H.R. 4391, deserves credit for recognizing that 

the Windfall Elimination Provision is Aterribly unfair, as he has put it. By replacing 

the WEP with a new benefit-offset formula that could give back to school employees 

106 

an average of 23 cents for each dollar currently taken away by the WEP offset, H.R. 

4391 would be a partial corrective for that unfairness. 

We welcome the introduction of this legislation as well as this hearing as evidence 

of the growing momentum in Congress for Social Security fairness for Texas public 

school employees and other public servants. However, we believe Congress can and 

must do more to remedy the inequity of the WEP and the other offset that does 

grave harm to public servantsBthe Government Pension Offset. 

These unjust offsets single out public employees like teachers for harsh treatment. 

The WEP typically takes $306 a month out of the Social Security retirement benefit 

of a dedicated public servant who has earned those Social Security benefits. Even 

more damage is done by the GPO, which cuts Social Security widow’s and spouse’s 

benefits by two-thirds of the pension earned from public service not covered by Social Security. For most of those affected, the GPO wipes out the entire Social Security benefit, and for many the result is poverty. 

At a time when Texas faces a shortage of more than 50,000 appropriately prepared and certified teachers, these offsets deter recruitment of educators needed to 

serve the schoolchildren of our state. Just this summer, the end of the last-day exemption from the GPO has aggravated the teacher shortage in Texas, as many 

teachers reluctantly retired in order to take their last opportunity to avoid the unjust GPO. 

Texas educators already suffer low salaries, lack any guaranteed cost-of-living adjustment in their Texas Teacher Retirement System pension, and must bear soaring 

costs for retiree health insurance of deteriorating quality. Their Teacher Retirement 

System pension is not an adequate stand-alone retirement benefit. Yet both the existing and proposed versions of Social Security offsets for Anoncovered public service 

rest on the false premise that public servants already have the benefit of a sufficient 

substitute for Social Security and therefore can afford to lose some of their earned 

Social Security benefit through an offset. No formula-based justification makes this 

a fair outcome. 

These offsets should be repealed outright, not just partially corrected. Texas 

school employees and other public servants nationwide lose billions of dollars a year 

in earned Social Security benefits because of these two unfair benefit-reduction formulas that apply only to retired public employees. It is an outrage that these federal 

benefit formulas treat a teacher’s pension as if it were some sort of ill-gotten gain 

that must be offset by a reduction in Social Security benefits duly earned by a 

school employee or that employee’s spouse. 

H.R. 4391 would take a step in the right direction, but Congress must go much 

further. The current Congress should debate and vote on another bill that has 

gained broad support and would go the full distance toward fairnessBH.R. 594. This 

bill proposes a Social Security Fairness Act that not only would repeal the WEP entirely but also would repeal the equally unfair and damaging GPO offset of spousal 

benefits. 

The Texas Federation of Teachers therefore calls on the Social Security Subcommittee to move quickly to bring H.R. 594 out of subcommittee and onto the floor 

for a vote. Another option would be to mark up H.R. 4391 promptly, send it to the 

House floor, and let the broader language of H.R. 594 be debated and voted on as 

an amendment to H.R. 4391. 

Congressman Brady has estimated that H.R. 4391 could add something approaching $7 billion to Social Security checks for 700,000 retired public employees nationwide over ten years. By comparison, H.R. 594, the bill to repeal the WEP and GPO 

entirely, would provide more than $60 billion in added Social Security benefits to 

a million-plus retirees over that same span. 

It is clear to us that Congress increasingly sees full repeal of these unfair offsets 

as the right thing to do. H.R. 594 currently has 300 cosponsors in the U.S. House, 

and an identical companion measure, S. 349, has 31 Senate cosponsors. Some 192 

House members even have taken the extraordinary step of signing a discharge petition to force a House floor vote on H.R. 594. 

As you continue to consider H.R. 4391, we ask you also to weigh the following 

concerns about the mechanics of the legislation: 

Despite the net gain for affected retirees promised under H.R. 4391, it should give 

you pause that, for a significant number of employees, the current WEP formula actually is more advantageous than the proposed new benefit-reduction formula. The 

current WEP places a cap on the reduction in benefits for noncovered service and 

phases out the offset for those with more than 20 years of covered employment. H.R. 

4391 has no such limits on benefit reduction. The bill’s hold-harmless provision is 

a partial but not complete answer to this concern. 

107 

When earnings records are unavailable, Social Security officials must not be authorized under H.R. 4391 to make arbitrary assumptions to the disadvantage of retired public servants regarding their earnings from noncovered employment. 

H.R. 4391 does not specify how Congress would pay the cost of restoring the benefits now unfairly reduced by the WEP. Ironically, it has been suggested that such 

costs could be covered by new measures to enforce Social Security offsets such as 

the GPO! Nothing could be better calculated to destroy the potential good will generated by H.R. 4391 among school employees. We call on the subcommittee to reject 

any such approach to paying for H.R. 4391. 

f 

Statement of Tom Tutor, Islesboro, Maine 

I ask that you support the passage of HR 4391 and eliminate the unfair provisions of the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provisions 

(WEP) of the Social Security Act. 

I am a teacher in a small island school in Islesboro, Maine. For fifteen years of 

my adult working life I was a ships carpenter and custom furniture maker. In middle age, with small children in our local school, I became a member of the school 

board and found the school to be a wonderful place. Several years later, off the 

school board and looking for more mental stimulation in my life, I became a math 

teacher at the age of forty—my math degree, earned almost twenty years before, 

became extremely useful. 

I have now been teaching for thirteen years and have found my life’s calling. 

Without a doubt, this is the hardest work I have ever undertaken. 

Looking ahead to retirement in another ten to twelve years, I am appalled to find 

that the contributions I made to Social Security (SS) for fifteen years will not be 

returned to me. Why? I’m no fat cat looking forward to living a luxurious life at 

the expense of the state. I’m a middle class, responsible, working citizen devoting 

my work to the betterment of my community. Why am I to be penalized and scramble to make ends meet as a retiree? I have worked long and consistently; I deserve 

an adequate pension. Only by combining my rightful SS benefits and my Maine 

State Retirement (MSR) benefits will I receive a meager living allowance. 

I project that if I receive all of my rightful SS benefits from fifteen years’ contributions and MSR after twenty years of teaching with a masters degree, I will receive 

$23,202 dollars a year. Under the present GPO, that would be decreased to $19, 

602. I am not some well heeled executive trying to feather my nest. I, and my fellow 

teachers, are threads in the fabric of our communities who should be rewarded with 

an adequate compensation for years of conscientious work. 

I ask for your help. Be active in your support of HR 4391. 

f 

Statement of Gertrude M. Vinci, Reno, Nevada 

This is my statement regarding the repeal of the Social Security Offsets. 

I am a two-career person. At age 40 I left my 20-year career as an office manager 

with the largest private accounting firm in the state of Nevada. I went back to 

school and became a teacher. I am currently teaching a Business Computer Systems 

class at Regional Technical Institute. I send high schools seniors into the business 

world with IC3 and Microsoft Office Specialist (MOS) Certifications. 

All of my retirement money has been paid into Social Security. I will only be able 

to teach, at the most, 15 years. Therefore, I will not be able to collect a full retirement from PERS or from Social Security under the current Windfall Elimination 

Provision Act. 

It just doesn’t seem fair that I have worked so hard and paid into these retirements and now will not be able to receive what benefits I have earned. I feel that 

this has been a deterrent for other people who have shown an interest in changing 

careers and going into teaching. There are a lot of business people who would like 

to help out our public education system, however, because of this WEP Act they feel 

that they cannot take the risk and loose their benefits. 

I urge the Committee to move this important bill quickly to final passage and enactment into law and I urge Congress to continue to work toward full repeal of both 

the CPO and WEP. 

Please respect public service—Repeal Social Security Offsets for the state of Nevada. 

108 

Thank you! 

f 

Statement of Donna Wasneski, Grand Junction, Colorado 

I am Donna Wasneski, a teacher who will not be able to receive my late husband’s 

social security or the benefits I have earned myself because of the GPO and WEP. 

These legislative actions unfairly penalize teachers and other public servants who 

chose to enter these professions after accumulating sufficient social security quarters to qualify for benefits. 

I am not asking for a windfall, just what myself and my husband earned. 

Please repeal these two unfair mandates, GPO and WEP and support the Public 

Service Retirement Protection Act. 

f 

Statement of Jean K. Willard, Spring Branch, Texas 

QUESTION: Looking for justification in not receiving ANY of my deceased husband’s 40 years of involuntary contribution to Social Security. Perhaps this could 

be reworded—my husband’s donation to be used for everything but his wife’s welfare in her advanced unemployable years. That is the problem. These benefits were 

EARNED by a hardworking, conscientious man who started working nights during 

his high school years; then was a veteran Army Air Force pilot in the South Pacific; 

then employed (and contributing) until his death. He died thinking his family would 

be provided with those earned funds through Social Security. He was always active 

in his community believing he should contribute his expertise to make the community a better place in which to live. Many children benefited from his energy and 

caring for them. Meanwhile his wife taught school, not knowing the time and energy 

spent in that pursuit would penalize her and negate her receiving the benefits her 

husband had been assured would be there. 

That Social Security check could make the difference in getting dental work done; 

medication and a decent diet not to mention house repairs. I’m not talking the Riviera here. 

ANSWER: Repeal both WEP and GPO I don’t understand how you can justify not 

doing IT. Stop the theft. 

A heartfelt plea. 

f 

Statement of Kirt Willard, Pleasanton, California 

Thank you for taking the time to read this statement. My mother is Jean Kaylor 

Willard. She was married to my father Walter G. Willard (1923–1981). My father 

lost his dad when he was 9 years of age and worked two jobs (A&P market and 

Rubber sole factory) after school to help my grandmother make ends meet. During 

WWII my father was asked to fly B–24’s in the South Pacific and was shot down 

three times. He returned to finish a degree in college and worked until his death, 

all the while paying Social Security. 

There were five children in the household. My mother still found time to substitute teach and, if we stayed in one place long enough she would teach full time. 

Teachers are the most under appreciated and under paid in my opinion. I have seen 

her spend countless late night and early morning hours preparing for lessons or 

grading exams. 

My concerns are that those who choose to enter public service are being penalized. 

The contributions my father made should not be kept by anyone other than his family. 

I strongly urge you to repeal the WEP and GPO in order to help those who have 

given the most and made the biggest sacrifices. 

f 

109 

Statement of Sandra Wilson, Aurora, Illinois 

My name is Sandra Wilson and I am a teacher at Still Middle School in Aurora, 

Illinois. If I had been aware of the WEP and GPO in 1992, I never would have left 

my business career to become an Illinois teacher. Although, I started out in teaching 

in 1970, I could not make enough money to support myself. 

For that reason, I went back to school and received a Masters in Business. I then 

worked for several Chicago companies for 15 years. I was making a good salary all 

of those years. However, I never lost my interest in the teaching field. 

In 1992, I took a 60% cut in pay to return to teaching. I was able to do that because then I was married. I exchanged a lucrative business career for a career working with children. Although it bothered me that I couldn’t pay for an average house 

and lifestyle without my husband, I believed that I was making an important contribution to society and to the state of Illinois. 

Although I was foregoing current income, I did not realize that I was putting my 

future retirement income at risk. Because I would not be able to teach more than 

10 to 15 years, I knew that I would not get a large teacher pension. However, I was 

counting on living a decent life based on the combined benefits of my Social Security 

Pension and my Teacher’s Pension. In order to have enough money in retirement, 

I need the full benefits of both pension plans. 

This is not a windfall. I have worked very hard for both pensions and my husband 

and I will need that money when we retire due to high medical insurance cost and 

the rising cost of living. This is especially true since my husband has no pension 

benefits. It is only fair that I receive the all the benefits that I was promised and 

the money that I contributed to each retirement system. I especially will need both 

pensions if my husband dies and I am a widow. Since most women outlive their husbands, this is not an unlikely scenario. 

I know that the government wants its public servants to live a decent life in retirement and not be penalized. For that reason, I am urging you to support The 

Public Servant Retirement Protection Act. This act is an important step toward repealing both the WEP and the GPO. This act will help me live a decent life in retirement because I will be receiving the full benefits of Social Security. 

Please pass this bill and enact it into law as quickly as possible. Also, I encourage 

the Committee to continue to work toward the full repeal of both the GPO and the 

WEP. 

f 

Statement of John G. Wolfe, Toledo, Ohio 

Gentlemen: 

I am a retired teacher, age 68, drawing my State Teachers Retirement and a monthly Social Security check of $99.00. 

I decided at age 13 to become a teacher. My parents were 8th grade educated that 

decided I would attend college. My dad was a city firefighter and my mother was 

a clerical worker in a hospital. I started my work experience at 13 in Pepsi Cola 

bottling plant putting cardboard carriers in pop cases. A year later, I got a job in 

a grocery store stocking shelves. When I turned 16 with a driver’s license, I delivered groceries and then moved to a job in a dairy. I was general labor so I unloaded 

sugar trucks, took cans out of a can washer and helped load semi trucks with cases 

of dairy products. I always had a part time job after school when I reached high 

school age and in the summer I worked for a construction firm doing manual labor. 

My parents insisted I put part of my wages in a savings account for college. When 

I was 17, I had money to buy a Model A Ford to give me transportation to work 

(it was 24 years old). 

When I went to college, I had a room and board job in the dining hall that also 

provided me with money for books and spending. My parents used money from their 

savings to pay tuition. In those days, it was $90.00 per semester at a state university. 

During college, I worked in a school bus factory to earn money for the following 

year. I was a teenager doing men’s work for men’s pay. 

When I graduated college, I got married to my high school sweetheart and, because of Selective Service, I immediately became eligible for the draft. I chose to 

enlist in the Navy rather than go into the Army. 

Because I was a college graduate, I was eligible for OCS. I served 3 years on active duty as a commissioned officer and upon completion of my obligation, I returned 

to Ohio and resumed a career in Education. Teachers were not overpaid in those 

days and I worked 2 jobs in addition to teaching to support my wife and children. 

110 

Thanks to the GI Bill, I was able to go to graduate school and obtain a Masters. 

I continued summer employment, teaching in the winter and going to graduate 

classes at night. 

After obtaining a Masters, I was able to secure a principalship in an Elementary 

School. I still worked in the summer building school buses as there never seemed 

to be enough money with a young family. 

In my education career, I went on to be a junior high and eventually a high school 

principal. 

As my administrative career progressed so did the terms of employment in the 

school so eventually I was unable to work a 2nd job in the summer. 

I completed 31 years service in the Public Schools of Ohio and retired at age 51. 

Upon retirement from School Administration, I opened a remodeling and home repair business to supplement my retirement. I continued this for several years until 

I was eligible for Social Security. When I applied for Social Security, I was flabbergasted to find my Social Security benefit was reduced because I was drawing a 

teacher’s retirement. I wrote to my congressman only to learn about the ‘‘Social Security offsets.’’ 

I continued in my remodeling business to supplement my teachers pension and 

meager Social Security benefit until last year, when at 67 I was no longer able to 

physically do the work involved in remodeling. 

My wife, who worked as a secretary for 24 years, later pursued her degree and 

entered the teaching field. We were able to send 3 of our 4 offspring to college with 

both of us working and our plans to reap the benefits of working 2 and 3 jobs with 

hopes of a teachers retirement and Social Security were dashed when we learned 

of the unfair offset of ‘‘windfall’’ provisions of the law. When I was contributing to 

Social Security, the deductions from my pay were not at a ‘‘50%’’ rate and I believe 

I should be entitled to the full amount of Social Security benefits, whatever they 

may be, for the years I worked and the benefits I accrued. 

f 

Statement of Mary E. Wolfe, Toledo, Ohio 

I am a retired secretary/teacher, age 67, drawing my State Teachers Retirement 

and a monthly Social Security check of $225.00. 

I began work at the age of 16 in various retail establishments. I started my college career at Ohio State Univ. in 1954, started as a clerk at a dairy company in 

the summer of 1955 and continued my college work in 1956 at Bowling Green State 

Univ. in their two year secretarial program. In 1957, I began doing secretarial work 

and had a variety of positions until 1967 when I started continuation of my college 

career. I was able to start in the teaching profession on a temporary certificate 

while completing my college degree in 1973. Needless to say, I was on a reduced 

payroll amount during this period of time. Because of my husband’s career in Education, we had several relocations and thus I was unable to retain a steady teaching 

job and did a variety of secretarial work and substitute teaching positions. 

When my husband retired from the education field in 1988 and we relocated to 

the Toledo area there were no business teaching positions open and I again entered 

the secretarial field working in temporary situations until the age of 60 when I was 

able to start drawing on my State Teachers Retirement. My retirement from STRS 

was a greatly reduced amount since salaries were low, substitute teaching was not 

a steady income, and temporary secretarial jobs were not high paying. 

When I received information from the Social Security Administration that I could 

expect to receive $450.00 a month at retirement, I felt that this would help supplement my reduced STRS amount. I was astonished when I found out that my Social 

Security amount would be cut in half due to my STRS income. For the last five 

years, I have received $225.00 per month from Social Security. Every time there has 

been a COLA increase, Medicare has increased but my Social Security is still 

$225.00 per month! I find this a very unfair provision. 

Why is it that only a few of the 50 states have this offset? My understanding is 

that this involves only 12 or 14 states. Other teaching associates of mine, who have 

moved to other states that do not have this provision, receive their full STRS and 

Social Security benefits. Also, those in Ohio that started drawing Social Security 

first and later their STRS are not affected by this law. I do not find this a very 

fair legislative action. 

When I was contributing to Social Security, my deductions were not at a 50% rate 

and thus, I believe I should be entitled to the full amount of Social Security benefits. 

I also feel I should be reimbursed for what I was entitled to over the past five years. 

f 

111 

Statement of Pete Zimmerman, Mission Viejo, California 

In submitting the following written letter for the record for the Committee on 

Ways and Means Hearing on H.R. 4391, the ‘‘Public Servant Retirement Protection 

Act’’ (to amend the W.E.P.), I am in agreement with the subcommittee chairman’s 

desire that the hard working, dedicated public servants of this country should not 

only be appreciated but should also be treated fairly and equitably with those in 

the private sector. That is why the first half of this letter deals with my opinion 

of the W.E.P. and the G.P.O. and why they both should be eliminated entirely. The 

last half of the letter focuses on my concerns/questions regarding H.R. 4391 which 

would instead amend the W.E.P. 

I retired in 1998 after 30 years as a California teacher and have worked another 

job for about 25 years (most of which were in the same years that I was teaching). 

As a California teacher, I paid no Social Security taxes; but in my other job over 

this period of time, I have paid a significant amount of total Social Security taxes, 

the amount varying each year. 

During the past years I have been working for the elimination of the WEP and 

the GPO. Since I am now 63 years old, and within two years of collecting Social 

Security, I have become more and more motivated to see the W.E.P. entirely eliminated—now. Furthermore, my wife has been a California teacher for 25 years; her 

government pension will be in an amount that will reduce her SSA survival benefit 

(after my death) to zero as a result of the existence of the G.P.O.—she is only one 

woman teacher out of tens of thousands that have or will have been hurt by this 

Social Security provision. 

As I have consistently argued over the past years, the W.E.P. and G.P.O. are very 

unfair to so many hard working, dedicated public employees in our nation. (It is estimated that more than 1/3 of education employees and more than 20% of other public employees in the U.S. are not covered primarily under Social Security.) Both offset provisions can be shown to discriminate against public employees who, for the 

most part, have not earned high incomes from government employment; but then 

they are penalized with varying cuts in Social Security benefits just because they 

also receive a government pension other than from Social Security. This is not true 

of most of the private sector employees who are allowed to keep their full Social Security and/or survivor benefits in addition to their own entire private pensions. 

(Note: I have not yet been able to discover if and how members of Congress are affected by the W.E.P. and/or the G.P.O. 

Secondly, many American public employees have not been made aware of these 

offset provisions until shortly before they retired. They had always counted on their 

full Social Security benefits for themselves and/or their spouses. Both the present 

G.P.O. and W.E.P. provisions have been a part of the Social Security Act since the 

1980’s, (15 years into my teaching career and 5 years after starting a second job). 

Yet I, like so many others, was never clearly informed by the Social Security Administration until the late 1990’s. In reviewing my own written announcements that I 

received from the SSA (and still possess), I discovered that it wasn’t until 1997 (the 

year before I had planned to retire) that the SSA started warning me of the possible 

affects of the G.P.O. and the W.E.P. on my Social Security benefits—a little late for 

planning for the future. All of these years I felt that by paying into Social Security 

on a second job I would be making retirement more comfortable for my wife and 

me. 

Furthermore, it should be said that some people in my case (paying into a government pension other than Social Security AND paying into Social Security for a second job) are totally exempt from the WEP if they can show 30+ years of what is 

termed ‘‘substantial earnings’’ in a job in which they paid Social Security taxes. 

They receive partial exemptions on a sliding scale down to 21 years of ‘‘substantial 

earnings’’. Without committing a whole lot of time to a second job (which takes away 

time both from a teaching/government job as well as from a family), it’s not easy 

to acquire those years of ‘‘substantial earning’’ which could lead to an exemption 

from the W.E.P. Unfortunately, it’s physically impossible for me to earn the required 

number of years of ‘‘substantial earnings’’, since my retirement at age 65 (and eight 

months) is only two years away. Even if I would have been fully informed of these 

provisions back in the 1980’s when the W.E.P. was passed (rather than in 1997 

when I was actually informed), I would have only had a little over 20 years until 

my retirement at 65 to think about the importance of working towards qualifying 

for ‘‘substantial earnings’’ years. Of course, at that time, our decision that I would 

112 

work a meaningful second job rather than my wife taking a job outside the home, 

may have been different. 

Still another crucial consideration is how the W.E.P. and G.P.O. affect teacher recruitment in many states. A state should want to encourage the hiring of quality, 

credentialed teachers for the open positions, rather than hiring less qualified teachers or rather than possibly raising the average class sizes. It doesn’t seem wise to 

have the G.P.O. and/or W.E.P. penalizing individuals who are considering either 

moving from private sector employment (where they have paid into Social Security) 

or teachers who are moving from one state(where they paid Social Security taxes 

as teachers) to another state where their teacher pension will not be a part of Social 

Security. The latter would probably be best brought out by women teachers whose 

husbands are being transferred to another state; and the women might then have 

to think hard whether or not to continue teaching in any of the following states: 

California, Texas, Colorado, Illinois, Ohio, Louisiana, Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, 

Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, or Washington (some of the 20 states in which 

the teacher retirement system is not within Social Security). 

In analyzing the recruitment of teachers from the private sector, one definitely 

needs to consider the possible affect of the W.E.P. It appears that both President 

and Mrs. Bush have been encouraging experienced people to eventually change careers and enter the teaching profession. Mrs. Bush has spoken out on this a number 

of times. A few years ago the President proudly introduced the national teacher of 

the year—a retired military man who chose to teach in a California community containing numerous low income families. It would be interesting to see if (and to what 

degree) he will be affected by the W.E.P. once he retires from teaching. (He served 

22 years in the military as an officer and thus no doubt has been credited with 22 

years of ‘‘substantial earnings’’, still 8 years away from the 30 years necessary for 

a complete exemption from the effects of the W.E.P.) 

Individuals who have worked in other careers would seem to be less likely to decide to teach, if they knew doing so would mean a significant loss of Social Security 

benefits that they or their spouse had earned. This is especially true in California 

where it is estimated that more than 1/3 of our teachers will enter the profession 

after the age of 35. Again, anyone changing careers from a ‘‘Social Security’’ job into 

teaching while still in the 30-to-early-40’s age group, has probably earned no more 

than 20 years of ‘‘substantial earnings’’—not even good enough to receive a partial 

exemption from the W.E.P. penalty (let alone the full exemption with 30 years of 

‘‘substantial earnings’’). Thus, it appears then that the most successful recruitment 

program would have to be directed toward those who are at least 50—an age which 

many might consider a little old for starting an effective career in many teaching 

assignments. 

Finally, some would say that the W.E.P. was especially set up in the 1980’s to 

limit ‘‘double dipping’’. Instead I would argue just the opposite—it actually affects 

peoplehaving two different jobs (one normally in the public sector and one in the 

private sector) and having two separate pension systems. That, in my mind, is not 

‘‘double dipping’’. 

I worked two jobs so that I could afford to have my wife stay home with our children during their early years, so we could pay for their future education, so we 

could prepare for an emergency and so we would have a comfortable retirement. Is 

that something that we should discourage by penalizing in their later years both 

the husband and wife for doing so? The G.P.O. and W.E.P. seem largely to be penalizing a lot of people who serve their communities/their country in what have been 

generally, lower paying public jobs. Furthermore, they do not encourage quality people to transfer from the private sector into many public jobs (especially those involving teaching). 

At this time a ‘‘compromise’’ bill (H.R. 4391 or the Brady bill) is to be considered 

by the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means. News of this 

led to efforts trying to figure out just how this would effect me personally and if 

my benefits would be much different than under the present W.E.P. offset. I used 

the examples on the N.E.A. website and also referred to Congressman Brady’s 

website for a template or formula. Unfortunately, I was unable to calculate the impact on me under this new proposal, particularly in those years where I had earnings from BOTH covered and non-covered work. The following are questions about 

the Brady bill that I would hope that the discussions in the committee hearing 

would address: In counting the highest 35 years of earnings including those of noncovered work. How/where does one (the Social Security calculator or a person like 

myself) find one’s annual earnings as a teacher? 

1. In counting the highest 35 years of earnings including those of non-covered 

work . . . 

113 

• How/where does noe (the Social Security calculator or a person like myself) find 

one’s annual earnings as a teacher? 

AND 

• Are these teaching earnings gross or net earnings calculated after deductions 

such as dues, retirement, etc.? 

2. In averaging the earnings over 35 years . . . 

• Does this mean to average those 35 individual years where the total of ‘‘noncovered’’ and ‘‘covered’’ earnings together was the highest? 

3. Who will make these calculations in determining my total Social Security benefit? 

• How is this person able to determine which total yearly figure to use? It seems 

that for a person (like myself) who has worked two jobs each year at the same 

time for a great number of years, it will be difficult to calculate. (Whereas for 

a person working a job covered by Social Security in a separate time frame from 

working a non-covered job, it could be a lot easier.) Needless to say, I would 

like to be able to verify for myself the final benefit figure determined by the 

Social Security Office. 

4. Did the formulators of the Brady proposal do numerous ‘‘test’’ analyses/calculations on specific, random individuals in various job scenarios to see how it would 

affect a lot of them individually? It would seem to me this would have to be done 

to determine accurately the actual cost of an amended W.E.P. Consider the following: 

• Does the Brady Proposal mainly help those who worked in a Social Security 

covered job first and then went into a teaching career? 

• Would it have the same affect if this order was reversed? 

• Does the Brady bill have different affects (and how significant) on individuals 

like me who have worked, for the most part, on a teaching job (where I did not 

pay into Social Security) at the same time as another job (where I did pay into 

Social Security)—compared to those who started into a new one of those types 

of jobs after completing another of those types of jobs (i.e. changed careers)? 

• Does the number of years working in each of the careers have a significant affect on the level of benefits under the Brady bill. 

• Finally, would all states be calculated the same according to the Brady bill? 

Why or why not? 

• Would differences in costs of living affect the Brady bill calculations? How? 

5. Did the cost analysis of H.R. 4391 include any benefits to be provided to previously retired people? 

6. Roughly what proportion of the cost for this bill would be for increased benefit 

payments? Where would the remaining monies go? 

7. Was it ever suggested to amend the W.E.P. by merely decreasing the number 

of years of ‘‘substantial earnings’’ that one must have (in order to receive increased 

benefits) down from 30 to 10 or to 20? Consider the following: 

• It would seem to benefit those who have had a serious second job/career as does 

the Brady bill. 

• It would seem to be much simpler and faster to calculate and cheaper to implement than the Brady bill. 

• It would seem to deal well with the issue of recruiting the best quality of teachers from other states where they had paid into Social Security or recruiting 

quality people from other careers who had paid into Social Security allowing 

plenty of time to serve in a school as an effective teacher. 

• It would seem to be much easier way for those affected by the W.E.P. to understand and calculate their benefits by themselves. 

8. Finally, why was the W.E.P. addressed in the Brady proposal rather than the 

G.P.O.? 

Thank you in advance for your consideration. 

Æ