Pandemic Lessons: “Essential Caregivers Act” Can’t Wait. A Merciful, Bipartisan Bill for a Voiceless Population

Published in RINewsToday on January 19, 2026

As COVID-19 spread rapidly across the country in March 2020—entering nursing homes largely through community transmission and staff movement—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued guidance calling for nationwide visitor bans in nursing homes. These strict restrictions barred all visitors and non-essential health care personnel, with limited exceptions for hospice care.

According to March 29, 2025 article, “Changes in Federal and State Policies on Visitation Restrictions in Nursing Homes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” published in the Journal of Applied Gerontology, 31 states enacted statewide indoor visitation bans through executive orders between March 9 and April 6, 2020, and the end dates were between 6/15/2020 and 3/24/2021. CMS would later relax its guidance, permitting indoor visitation when facilities reported no new COVID-19 cases for 14 days and community positivity rates were low.

Charlie Galligan, a licensed criminal defense investigator in Rhode Island, knows firsthand the toll those restrictions took. He and his wife, Kerry, provided daily care for his parents for 13 years—his father, Jack, who died from Alzheimer’s disease in 2022, and his mother, Audrey, who lives with a traumatic brain injury. Balancing work with caregiving became the catalyst that pushed Galligan to lobby Congress to prevent the prolonged and unnecessary isolation of nursing home residents during future pandemics, including advocating for policies that allow designated family caregivers to visit.

“Long-term care lockdowns continued well after humane safety measures were established and family caregivers had been vaccinated,” Galligan claimed, noting that countless residents died alone as a result. “Daughters were forced to say goodbye to mothers with Alzheimer’s over FaceTime—often staring at their phones as exhausted staff struggled to provide even minimal connection.”

A Legislative Effort Revisited

The initial legislative proposal—the Essential Caregivers Act (H.R. 3733)—was introduced in June 2021 to reaffirm and enforce the right of nursing home residents to receive visits from family and friends during declared emergencies. When that proposal stalled due to the absence of a Senate companion bill, a second attempt followed the next year with the introduction of S. 4280/ H.R. 8331.  Political insiders say that these bills stalled due to the legislative process, timing, and competing priorities not because Congress rejected the process. Most recently, the Essential Caregivers Act of 2025 was reintroduced last month.

On Dec. 16, 2025, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and U.S. Representative Claudia Tenney (R-NY) introduced bipartisan legislation in their respective chambers to prevent a repeat of the prolonged isolation and reduced care nursing home residents faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and U.S. Representative John B. Larson (D-CT) joined them in cosponsoring the Essential Caregivers Act.

The Senate bill, S. 3492, currently with seven cosponsors, was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. That same day, the companion measure, H.R. 6766, with 35 cosponsors, was introduced in the House and referred to the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

“Our movement to enact the Essential Caregivers Act is not led by professionals or lobbyists,” Galligan said. “We are simply a determined group of family caregivers—primarily brilliant, tenacious women from across the country, and one token guy from Rhode Island—who love our mothers and fathers and refuse to accept silence and separation as acceptable standards of care.”

Congressional Supporters Call for Passage

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, we experienced how dangerous and inhumane it is to isolate seniors and vulnerable patients from the people who care for them the most, say Rep. Tenney, in a statement announcing the introduction of the bill.  “Families were locked out, residents declined rapidly, and farm to many suffered alone,” she said.

“The Essential Caregivers Act ensures that this never happens again,” says Rep. Tenney, noting that they are loved ones, not visitors.  “They are caregivers, advocates, and lifelines. This bipartisan legislation protects dignity, safeguards patient rights, and makes sure compassion and comment sense guide our response during an future emergency,” she adds.

Sen. Blumenthal emphasized the bill’s bipartisan intent. “By allowing at least one designated essential caregiver to have safe, in-person access to their loved ones during an emergency, our legislation ensures that residents will never again face the devastating isolation experienced by so many during COVID-19,” he said.

Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, a cosponsor of the Senate bill, echoed that sentiment. “We want to keep people safe from germs, but we also want to keep them connected—because isolation can take a real toll on health,” Reed said. “Essential Caregivers Act would ensure that even during limited visitation, residents can still have in-person contact with a loved one.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has expressed support and is on a waiting list to cosponsor it – cosponsors are being added in bipartisan pairs. “Loneliness can take a real toll on residents of long-term care facilities,” he said. “This legislation recognizes the critical role loved ones play in supporting residents’ well-being, even during public health emergencies.”

Not yet committed to cosponsoring are Rhode Island’s two Representatives

At press time, Rep. Gabe Amo, had not yet committed to cosponsoring the bill. “I am reviewing the Essential Caregivers Act of 2025,” Amo said. “Family caregivers are the backbone of our long-term care system, and I remain committed to advancing policies that support patients, caregivers, families, and health care providers.”

Like his House colleague, Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI), has not yet committed to sponsoring the bill. Magaziner acknowledges the importance of allowing nursing home residents access to their loved ones and is open to considering the legislation. However, he is also working to understand what safeguards would be in place to ensure resident safety during emergencies, according to Noah Boucher, the lawmaker’s communications director.

The Nuts and Bolts

Recognizing that family members are essential to residents’ care and well-being, S. 3492 and H.R. 6766 aim to prevent the emotional, psychological, and physical harm caused by prolonged separation during public health emergencies.  This bill strikes a balance protecting public health while safeguarding the wellness of residents.

The Essential Caregivers Act requires nursing facilities receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding to participate. It guarantees that at least one designated essential caregiver may access a resident during periods of restricted visitation, provided the caregiver follows the same safety protocols as facility staff. If a resident is unable to designate a caregiver, a representative may do so on the resident’s behalf.

The legislation also affirms caregivers’ rights to advocate for residents, participate in care planning, and ensure residents’ civil rights are protected. Additional provisions address roommate rights, as well as exemptions for end-of-life and compassionate care.

Facilities must provide written justification if caregiver access is denied, with appeals overseen by state survey agencies.

The bill has been endorsed by the AARP and Consumer Voice.

Rhode Island Advocates Call for Passage

Calling for passage of the legislation, Rhode Island Long-Term Care Ombudsman Lori Light said the COVID-19 pandemic made painfully clear how critical family caregivers are to residents’ health, safety, and well-being.

“During extended lockdowns, we witnessed firsthand the profound impact isolation had on residents, including increased depression, anxiety, cognitive decline, weight loss, and loss of engagement in daily life. For many residents, family members are not simply visitors—they are essential partners in care – they provide emotional support, help residents communicate their needs, notice subtle changes in medical conditions, and advocate when something doesn’t seem right. When access was cut off, residents lost a vital layer of protection and connection. The lessons we learned during COVID-19 must guide future policy decisions,” Light said. “No resident should ever again experience prolonged isolation from the people who know them best,” said Light.

According to Deb Burton, MS, executive director of RI Elder, the isolation imposed on long-term care residents during the pandemic was devastating. While infection control was essential, she said, the complete separation of residents from their families caused profound and lasting harm. Burton, a gerontologist, noted that residents experienced rapid physical, cognitive, and emotional decline.

“Families endured anguish knowing their loved ones were frightened, confused, and alone during the most vulnerable moments of their lives. Family members are not simply visitors—they truly are essential caregivers. They provide a familiar face, a steady hand to hold, and an understanding of a resident’s routines, preferences, and communication needs. This is especially true for individuals living with dementia or other forms of memory loss, for whom familiarity and connection are critical to well-being and safety,” Burton said.

Comments from the American Health Care Association 

While expressing support for family involvement, the nursing home industry has raised concerns about certain provisions of the bill.

From Holly Harmon, senior vice president of quality, regulatory, and clinical services at the American Health Care Association: “While we wholeheartedly support family members taking an active role in their loved one’s care, there are certain provisions of this bill where we have concerns. Mainly, we believe each situation, including public health emergencies, requires a collaborative process among public health officials and stakeholders to determine the most appropriate way to keep residents safe and loved ones connected, rather than implementing a blanket, inflexible process for all situations. We hope to work with lawmakers to make improvements to these proposals as the engagement of loved ones is critical to our residents’ wellbeing.

“Despite our caregivers doing everything they could to step in for family members during the pandemic, we were deeply concerned about the prolonged isolation of our residents. Public health officials were put between a rock and a hard place on how to best protect those in long term care, and due to the vicious nature of the virus on our resident population, it was determined best to restrict visitors and social interactions. Nursing homes were required to follow these restrictions until March 2021, and even then, CMS and CDC had strict guidelines due to the ongoing spread of the virus.

“The best way to prevent this global tragedy again is for officials to prioritize long term care residents and staff during public health emergencies, so that they can remain protected, active, and engaged with their loved ones and the community.”

A Final Note…

The best way to prevent another tragedy is to prioritize long-term care residents and staff during public health emergencies, so they can remain protected, active, and connected to loved ones. We must learn from the painful lessons of COVID-19. No one should be forced to decline alone, grieve alone, or die alone because of a lack of clear policy, RIElder’s Burton added. She noted that the Essential Caregivers Act ensures that in the next public health emergency” when it could be any one of us in a facility” we will not be separated from the person who knows us best and stands ready to advocate for us.

Caregiver Galligan remains hopeful. “This is simply a merciful bill for a voiceless population”, he said.

(updated 1-21-26)

43 Days to Reauthorize the Older Americans Act

Published in RINewsToday on August 18, 2025

The clock is ticking. Funding for the Older Americans Act (OAA) is currently secured only through September 30, 2025—that’s just 43 days away. Unless Congress acts to reauthorize the law or approve new appropriations before the start of FY 2026 on October 1, funding could lapse. A bipartisan effort must be made on Capitol Hill to ensure both reauthorization and the FY 2026 budget are addressed, avoiding any interruption in services for America’s older adults.

Last reauthorized in 2020, the OAA expired during the 118th Congress. S. 4776, spearheaded by Sen. Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the committee’s ranking member, passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year. However, the House failed to pass a companion measure due to unrelated political disagreements.

Two months ago, Chairman Cassidy and nine co-sponsors reintroduced the OAA Reauthorization Act of 2025. The 91-page bill, S. 2120, would renew funding and strengthen services for older Americans. It was referred to the Senate HELP Committee the day it was introduced, where hearings, markups, and a committee vote are expected. If approved, it will move to the full Senate for consideration. As of press time, a companion bill had not yet been introduced in the House.

Chairman Cassidy’s co-sponsors include Senators Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY, Rick Scott (R-FL), chair of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), and Susan Collins (R-ME).

Since its passage in 1965, the OAA has provided vital nutrition, social, and health services to millions of seniors. The legislation was originally sponsored by Rep. John E. Fogarty (D-RI) in the House and Sen. Lister Hill (D-AL) in the Senate, and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 14, 1965.

Strengthening Programs for the Future

Although S. 2120 closely mirrors last year’s S. 4776, there are notable differences. The legislation would reauthorize OAA programs through FY 2030 and increase funding by 18% over the next four years. It also includes measures to promote innovation, strengthen program integrity, and provide better support for family caregivers and direct care workers. The bill aims to improve services for Tribal elders and older adults with disabilities, ensuring these populations can remain active and supported in their communities.

One key provision strengthens the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program (LTCOP). The bill would establish a full-time National Director position and require the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study of state ombudsman programs. This study would assess program effectiveness, staffing challenges, recommendations for improvement, and the adequacy of current staff-to-bed ratios. The legislation also calls for updated training standards for long-term care ombudsman volunteers.

The National Family Caregiver Support Program would also be expanded. The bill encourages easier access to caregiver services, removes barriers to obtaining help, and ensures supports are both accessible and practical. It specifically requires trauma-informed services and elder abuse prevention programs to be available, helping caregivers better manage challenges in their roles.

On elder abuse prevention, S. 2120 authorizes a clearinghouse for best practices, focusing on legal and protective services to strengthen state ombudsman programs, adult protective services, and related legal supports.

Bipartisan Support and Legislative Momentum

“The Older Americans Act is crucial in helping American seniors live healthy and independent lives in the settings they choose,” said Chairman Cassidy. “This legislation strengthens these programs, ensuring they meet the needs of older Americans now and in the future,” he says.

Sen. Scott also underscored the urgency of passing S. 2120 in a released statement. “I’m proud to help lead this bipartisan legislation to strengthen support for America’s older adults and reaffirm our commitment to helping them enjoy their golden years with dignity and independence,” he said. “As Chair of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, I understand how essential it is that more than 59 million older Americans have access to critical services made possible through the Older Americans Act. Our seniors have spent their lives building and serving this country, and this bill is one way we ensure they continue to be supported, respected, and valued,” he added.

“The OAA has been a lifeline for American seniors since its passage over half a century ago,” said Sen. Gillibrand in a statement on June 18. “This landmark legislation helps our nation’s seniors thrive by supporting programs that provide nutrition assistance, home-delivered and congregate meals, transportation, caregiver support, disease prevention, and more. We owe it to seniors to continue funding these programs so they can age with dignity and respect. As ranking member of the Senate Aging Committee, I am firmly committed to getting this bill passed with bipartisan support.”

Sen. Sanders’s statement echoed that message, highlighting the broad scope of OAA-funded services: “The Older Americans Act provides federal funding for many essential programs, including combating loneliness and isolation, job training, protections from abuse, rides to the doctor and grocery store, disease prevention, caregiver support, and help for older adults to live independently at home. Not only does the Act save lives and ease human suffering, it saves money. We can waste billions on emergency room visits and unnecessary hospital stays, or we can provide seniors with the resources they need to live healthier, more dignified lives.”

“The failure to reauthorize the OAA in 2024 had tragic consequences in 2025. One in particular was the elimination of the Administration of Community Living which runs OAA programs.  Also proposals (since rejected) to end funding for Adult Protective Services and ombudsman programs. When you are in legislative limbo bad stuff can happen. It’s time for that to end,” says Robert “Bob” Blancato, serving as National Coordinator of the bipartisan 3,000-member Elder Justice Coalition, the Executive Director of the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs and National Coordinator of the Defeat Malnutrition.

Advocacy and the Call to Action

National advocacy groups—including Consumer Voice, Argentum, the National Council on Aging, the National Association of Development Organizations, USAging, and the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs—are urging swift passage of S. 2120. These organizations stress that delaying re-authorization would put millions of vulnerable seniors at risk of losing essential supports.

With the many benefits the OAA delivers to Rhode Island’s older adults—and considering that the late Rep. John Fogarty of Rhode Island played a pivotal role in securing passage of the original legislation in 1965—it is only fitting that the state’s current senators take a leading role today. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) should cosponsor S. 2120 and work closely with their Senate colleagues to ensure its passage. Since there is currently no companion measure in the House, Rhode Island’s Representatives Seth Magaziner and Gabe Amo must take the initiative—by urging their colleagues to introduce one, or by stepping forward themselves to lead the effort.

Congress must act before September 30 to prevent a lapse in funding. The well-being of millions of older Americans—and their ability to age in place at home with dignity — depends on it.

Historic Social Security Legislation Awaits President’s Signature

Published in RINewsToday on Dec. 30, 2024

After 40 years, a polarized Congress actually worked together on behalf of millions of Americans with public pensions to push through bipartisan legislation repealing two Social Security provisions that would benefit these individuals. Just past midnight in the early hours of Saturday, on Dec. 21, 2024, the U.S. Senate took up S. 597, a companion measure to H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act, repealing unpopular WEP (Windfall Elimination Provision) & GPO (Government Pension Offset) provisions titles in the Social Security program.   

The House had overwhelmingly passed H.R. 82, introduced last month introduced by Reps. Garret Graves (R-Louisiana) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA).

The Senate companion measure, authored by U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH), overwhelmingly passed without amendment, by a Yea-Nay vote, 76-20 (with Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL), JD Vance (R-Ohio), Joe Manchin (I-WV) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) not voting) and now goes to President Biden to be signed into law. At press time, H.R. 82 has not been signed and the President has until Dec. 31 to sign or veto the bill.

Before the historic Senate vote, at a Dec. 16 meeting with Patrick Yoes, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), and Executive Director Jim Pasco met with President-elect Donald J. Trump at his home in Mar-a-Lago, President elect Donald Trump announced his support for the upper chambers’ passage of the “Social Security Fairness Act”— the “FOP’s top priority.”

Earlier this year, Collins and Brown had called on Senate leadership to immediately bring their legislation, which had 62 Senate co-sponsors—above the margin needed for passage—to the Senate floor for a vote. Collins held the first Senate hearing on this policy in 2003 as Chair of the Senate Government Affairs Committee. She, along with the late Senator Dianne Feinstein, first introduced the Social Security Fairness Act in 2005. 

Their bipartisan efforts pushed the legislative Social Security fix across the goal line, at the end of the second session of the 118th Congress.  For Brown, who lost his bid for re-election in November, passage of S. 597 was a bitter sweet moment for him as he leaves the U.S. Senate after serving as a U.S. senator from Ohio since 2007. 

In a Nutshell… 

According to Graves, WEP reduces the earned Social Security benefits of an individual who also receives a public pension from a job not covered by Social Security.  This financially impacts educators who do not earn Social Security in public schools but who work part-time or during the summer in jobs covered by Social Security, who have reduced benefits, even though they pay into the system just like others, Graves says.

Likewise, the GPO affects the spousal benefits of people who work as federal, state, or local government employees — including police officers, firefighters, and educators — if the job is not covered by Social Security. The GPO reduces by two-thirds the benefit received by surviving spouses who also collect a government pension, added Graves. 

According to the National Education Association (NEA), more than 2.8 million public sector employees in 26 states were impacted by GPO and WEP. Educators were affected in 15 of those states, because they pay into their state pension system, but not into Social Security, says NEA. 

The WEP currently impacts approximately 2 million Social Security beneficiaries, and the GPO impacts nearly 800,000 retirees.

Rally calls for passage of H.R. 82, gets Majority Senate Leader’s attention

Before Congress left Capitol Hill for recess, Graves and Spanberger, the primary sponsors of H.R. 82, had filed a discharge petition for their Social Security Fairness Act — which secured the required 218 signatures needed  to force a floor vote in the U.S. House. On Nov. 12, 2024,  a bipartisan majority voted 327 to 74, under suspension of rules to pass the legislation, sending it to the upper legislative chamber for consideration.

A week before the Senate vote on Dec. 21th, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association along with unions representing fire fighters, teachers, police officers and other public service workers rallied at 11:30 a.m., at the Upper Senate Park at the U.S. Capitol, in pouring rain outside the Capitol, calling for passage of H.R. 82. Joining the rally, Majority Senate leader Chuck Schumer.  “I’m here to tell you all today – we are going to call a vote on repealing WEP and GPO,” he said, calling the two Social Security titles “unfair and un-American.”  

 After the rally, Graves quickly issued this statement:  “The Senate Majority Leader has called for a vote on our bill H.R. 82 – provided he gets the necessary 60 votes to get it to the floor. More than 60 Senators support our Social Security Fairness Act. In the House we have led the effort for years to build the winning coalition, resulting in the most cosponsored bill – the most popular bill – in the Congress. We defied the odds and fought back sneak attacks to successfully complete a discharge petition that resulted in the first vote in history to repeal the WEP and GPO. The heavy lifting is done. The path to victory could not be clearer. A WEP-GPO repeal could be in the stockings of millions of public service retirees this Christmas. Pass H.R. 82 now,” he said.   

GOP lawmakers express concerns over financial impact

In response to a request from Chuck Grassley, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had provided the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee with its legislative analysis. The findings showed that the elimination of the WEP and GPO, as specified in H.R. 82, would permanently increase outlays for scheduled Social Security benefits—that is, the amounts that the program would pay if it continued to pay benefits as scheduled under current law, regardless of whether the program’s two trust funds had sufficient balances to cover those payments. That increase in Social Security benefits would drive the program’s spending even further above its revenues than it is already projected to be under current law. CBO estimates that the changes will cost nearly $ 200 billion over a 10-year period.

Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID), Grassley (R-IA), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) and 16 other Republican Senators opposed passage, expressing strong concerns about the bill’s cost. This apprehension reinforced by the recently released CBO analysis.

Citing a CBO analysis of S. 82, the Republican Senators were concerned that the legislative proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund by an additional $200 billion during the next decade, moving up the insolvency date by six months.

On the Senate floor, North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said the bill’s title made it sound like “motherhood and apple pie,” quipping “who could be against Social Security fairness?” But he argued it wasn’t the right approach to address the problem.

However, 29 Republican Senators, including Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), were not concerned about the CBO analysis, voting for passage of the legislative proposal. 

Following the Senate vote, in a video on X, Kennedy stated: “Social Security is not free. People pay into it. The money we “spent” today in this bill – all we did is give it back to the people who earned it. Today was a good day. It was a good day for fairness, it was a good day for the Social Security system, and a good day for the people of Louisiana – even if you aren’t affected by these two unfair provisions of the Social Security Act, all Louisianians I know believe in fairness. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and I think we did the right thing here, and I’m pleased.” 

With the dust settling after the Senate vote, after 40 years of trying to fix a Social Security benefits issue impacting public sector workers, Democratic and Republican lawmakers put aside political differences and finally fixed the pressing policy issue.

Celebrating the historic passage 

Following the Senate vote for passage of H.R. 82, the National Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Fire Fighters, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association, National Education Association, and Peace Officers Research Association of California applauded this legislation being sent to the president’s desk to enhance the fairness of Social Security to public workers. 

U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) commended the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act, legislation he cosponsored to eliminate two policies. “Thousands of Rhode Islanders who receive government pensions but also contributed to Social Security through private-sector employment stand to benefit from the legislation,” he says.

“I’ve worked with my colleague Sherrod Brown for years to pass this legislation in order to ensure that millions of teachers, postal workers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other dedicated civil servants get the benefits they have earned, says U.S. Senator Jack Reed. “I’m glad we were able to finally deliver this correction for millions of hardworking Americans and I’m committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security to ensure all Americans are able to retire with the dignity and financial security they have earned,” he said.

Max Richman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) called for passage of this bill because it because it removes an unfairness in the retirement system by allowing teachers, firefighters, and police officers (among others) and their families to collect Social Security benefits. 

Before the Senate vote, NCPSSM announced its opposition of any amendment that diluted this legislation or cut Social Security benefits in any way — including raising the retirement age.  The Washington, DC-based Social Security advocacy group circulated a letter to all 100 U.S. Senators before the vote on Dec. 21, opposing any efforts to raise the retirement age. 

According to Richtman, nearly 3 million public sector employees are on the verge of being able to receive the Social Security benefits they’ve earned — thanks to the United States Senate. 

“We supported this bill because it removes an unfairness in the system by finally allowing teachers, firefighters, and police officers (among others) and their families to collect full Social Security benefits. Many of our own members and supporters made it clear that they want the WEP & GPO repealed,” says Richtman.

“The Senate vote delivers us to the doorstep of a long-sought goal — to restore fairness to a system that has worked incredibly well for nearly 90 years to provide American workers with basic financial security,” says Richtman. 

According to a statement issued by National Education Association, Martha Karlovetz estimated that these discriminatory laws have cost her more than a hundred thousand dollars since 1995, when she retired from teaching at the Parkway School District outside St. Louis, Missouri. And if her husband had passed away before her, the laws would have meant that Karlovetz would have received only $14 per month in survivor benefits, even though her husband paid Social Security taxes throughout his 40-year career at McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing.

“The repeal of GPO and WEP is truly a historic win for all public employees and their families,” said Karlovetz. “These unfair provisions have taken a great toll. I have lost well over $110,000 in benefits earned in the 15 years I worked and paid into Social Security before becoming a teacher in Missouri, a GPO-WEP state. Now that we have helped achieve this victory, educators like me can breathe easier. For some, this is truly life-changing,” she says.

With the 119th Congress fast approaching, Congressional lawmakers must work together to fix a financially ailing Social Security Program.  Just like they did to pass bipartisan legislation to right a wrong affecting millions of retirees and public sector workers.  

To see Nov. 8 CBO correspondence to Sen. Grassley as to impact of S. 82 on the Social Security program, go to https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-11/60876-HR82.pdf

 To download a CRS report that details Social Security beneficiaries affected by both the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), to https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45845