[Page: H1671]
---

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. JEFFERSON) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide this statement regarding the Government Pension Offset Reform legislation that I introduced today.

   Pension offset reform is an important issue to me. It is an important issue for my constituents in Louisiana and it is an important issue for many State and local government employees across the Nation.

   As many of my colleagues are aware, State and local government employees were excluded from Social Security coverage when the Social Security system was first established in 1935. These employees were later given the option to enroll in the Social Security System, and in the 1960s and the 1970s many public employees opted to join in.

   Some local governments chose to remain out of the system. Their employees and spouses planned for their retirement according to the rules in effect. It is estimated that about 4.9 million State and local government employees are not covered by Social Security. Seven States, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio and Texas, account for over 75 percent of the noncovered payroll.

   Many of the State and local government employees that are covered by government pensions are or will be unfairly affected by the pension offset. As Members may be aware, the pension offset was originally enacted in response to the perceived abuses to the Social Security system resulting from the Goldfarb decision.

   The Social Security system provides that if a spouse who worked and paid into the Social Security system died, the benefits were to be paid to the surviving spouse as a survivor benefit. Men were required to prove dependency on their spouses before they became eligible for Social Security benefits. There was no such requirement for women.

   The Goldfarb decision eliminated the different treatment of men and women. The Court instead required Social Security to treat men and women equally by paying benefits to either spouse without regard to dependency.

   Many of the men who would benefit from the Goldfarb decision were also receiving large government pensions. It was believed that these retirees would bankrupt the system, receiving large government and private pensions in addition to survivor benefits.

   To combat this perceived problem, pension offset legislation was enacted in 1977. The legislation provided for a dollar-for-dollar reduction of Social Security benefits to spouses or retiring spouses who received earned benefits from a Federal, State or local retirement system. The pension offset provisions can affect any retiree who receives a civil service pension and Social Security, but primarily affects widows or widowers eligible for survivor benefits.

   In 1983, the pension offset was reduced to two-thirds of the public employer survivor benefit. It was believed that one-third of the pension was equivalent to the pension available in the private sector.

   The pension offset, aimed at high-paid government employees, also applies to public service employees who

[Page: H1672]

   Government pensions were tailored to reduce benefits that were equal to many combined private pension-Social Security policies in the private sector for upper level government workers. However, this was not true for lower income workers, such as employees who work as secretaries, school cafeteria workers, teachers' aids, and others who generally receive lower pension benefits.

   To illustrate the harsh impact of the pension offset, consider a widow who retired from the Federal Government and receives a civil service annuity of $550 monthly. The full widow's benefit is $385. The current pension offset law reduces the widow's benefit to $19 a month. Two-thirds of the $550 civil service annuity is $367, which is then subtracted from the $385 widow's benefit, leaving only $19. The retired worker receives $569, $550 plus $19, per month.

   Proponents of the pension offset claim that the offset is justified because survivor benefits were intended to be in lieu of pensions. However, were this logic followed across the board, then people with private pension benefits would be subject to the offset as well. But this is not the case.

   While Social Security benefits of spouses or surviving spouses earning government pensions are reduced by $2 for every $3 earned, Social Security benefits of spouses and surviving spouses earning private pensions are not subject to the offset at all. If retirees on private pensions do not have Social Security benefits subject to offset, why should retirees who work in the public service system?

   Mr. Speaker, the pension offset has created a problem that cries out for reform. It will cause tens of thousands of retired government employees, including many former paraprofessionals, custodians or lunch room workers, to live their retirement years at or near the poverty level.

   My office has received numerous calls, all from widows who are just getting by and desperately need some relief from the pension offset. During the 105th Congress I introduced the Government Pension Offset Repeal bill, H.R. 273. Thanks to the grassroots support for it, it received 183 votes. Today we introduced this bill with 119 cosponsors already, and I look forward with my colleagues to gaining passage of this important reform legislation.

END