Administration of Oath of Office

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Congress must address the challenges facing Social Security. Unfortunately, the Social Security Fairness Act fails on all counts and doesn't even come close to living up to its name.

Let's start with the flawed benefit calculation this legislation seeks to return to. The government pension offset, or GPO, and the windfall elimination provision, or WEP, were enacted to fix serious problems in how Social Security benefits were calculated. Before the WEP existed, individuals with mixed careers in public and private sectors often received more in Social Security benefits than they were entitled to receive.

Imagine two people, each earning $85,000 annually in their respective primary jobs. One worked in the private sector and paid into Social Security, but the other person worked in the public sector, contributing to a State pension fund instead of Social Security. Both earned an additional $10,000 a year from the side job that did pay into Social Security. Without WEP, the public sector workers would receive Social Security benefits as though they were a low-income earner, based solely on their $10,000 in side income. This miscalculation would grant them overly generous Social Security benefits on top of their public pension and act contrary to and against the interests of other Social Security beneficiaries.

The GPO addresses a similar issue with spousal benefits. It ensures that spousal benefits are adjusted to reflect income from public pensions, preventing unfair overpayments under Social Security.

The WEP and the GPO are far from perfect. They are very imperfect. They were enacted at a time when Congress lacked access to the full data needed to make precise adjustments, but they were designed to fix real problems, and they do exactly that. If Congress repeals these provisions without replacing them with a better system, we will revert to a broken model that unfairly rewards some at the expense of others-- and that is not ideal.

But let's talk about what this bill would mean for the solvency of Social Security.

Social Security is already on a dangerously unsustainable path. The trust fund, which has been raided time and time again by Congress, is projected to run out of money in the next decade, which would lead to across-the-board benefit cuts. This bill would not fix that. In fact, this bill would accelerate that crisis.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the GPO and WEP would cost $196 billion over the next 10 years. It would push Social Security's insolvency up by 6 to 8 months, making an already dire situation worse. Congress must focus on solutions that strengthen Social Security's financial health, not hasten its collapse.

Look, there is just no reason--certainly no legitimate reason--to force a vote on this issue right now before we have an administration that will prioritize meaningful, fiscally responsible reform. Republicans should focus on advancing solutions that align with our principles. We have an incoming Republican Senate majority and an incoming Republican President. We should stick to the principles that have gotten us elected and reelected.

This bill is fundamentally unfair. It is unfair to the vast majority of Americans who have paid into Social Security their entire working lives. About 96 percent of the workforce contributes to Social Security. They rely on it as an important part of their retirement security. This bill would force those workers--96 percent of them in America--to subsidize overly generous benefits for the 4 percent of the workforce--those who do not participate in Social Security--and, instead, contribute to noncovered pensions. Most State employees already pay into Social Security and would be harmed, not helped, by this legislation. The Social Security Fairness Act would reward a small minority at the expense of the vast majority of American taxpayers. That is not fair.

When we look at the overwhelming majority--96 percent--those who would be harmed by this--it is not fair to take something away from them to move up by 6 to 8 months the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund just to address the other 4 percent. Now, that is not to say that those 4 percent don't need to be addressed in some way, but the way that this bill does it isn't fair, and it is unsafe.

Look, the challenges of Social Security require solutions that prevent further mismanagement. The Social Security Fairness Act--a somewhat Orwellian name as I think about it--would take us back to a broken system, push the trust fund even closer to insolvency than it is already, and unfairly shift costs onto hard-working Americans.

I have been in this Chamber before when this body has voted to raid the Social Security trust fund. I have raised the alarm, and it has happened anyway. It is unpleasant; it is not an experience I care to revisit. But never have I seen us raid that fund to this degree--to the tune of almost $200 billion. This is reckless, but it is worse than that; it is cruel.

We need real solutions that address the root causes of these challenges. Repealing the GPO and the WEP without fixing the underlying issues would be a step backward--a huge, painful step backward--and profoundly unfair. Congress has a responsibility to address Social Security's flaws with clarity and with courage. I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed legislation and commit to reforms that serve all Americans, not just a select few.

To reiterate, there is no reason why we have to rush this. This particular problem was many decades in the making. We can fix it. We can fix it responsibly. We don't have to rush it.

I implore my colleagues: You don't have to do this. We can fix this next year and fix it the right way. I ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to proceed. Vote on Motion to Proceed

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source