What to know about the House push to expand some Social Security benefits
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives is expected to try to pass a Social Security bill next week to guarantee benefits for workers who also qualify for other pensions, despite a surprise move by far-right Freedom Caucus leaders to halt efforts to derail.
It’s a quick turnaround to salvage a bipartisan effort to pass the bill during what is now Congress’s dull post-election period.
This is what’s going on:
The measure that would repeal so-called “public pension compensation” has gained support in the House of Representatives — a robust 300 lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have signed on.
The bill’s summary states that the compensated government pensions “in several cases reduce Social Security benefits for spouses, widows, and widowers who also receive government pensions themselves.”
The bill would repeal that provision and restore full Social Security benefits.
To push the legislation, the bill’s sponsors, Republican Rep. Garrett Graves of Louisiana and Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, used a rarely successful process called a discharge petition.
They collected the minimum 218 signatures needed from lawmakers to move the bill out of committee and send it to the floor for a vote.
This move often comes across as an insult to the leaders of the House of Representatives, especially the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader who determine the meeting schedule.
But Spanberger and Graves – neither of whom sought re-election – had little to lose. Furthermore, Johnson supported the bill before becoming Speaker.
Two leaders of the conservative House Freedom Caucus intervened as the rest of Congress was away from Capitol Hill, mostly in home states for Election Day.
The chairman of the Freedom Caucus, Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., and former Chairman Rep. Bob Goode, R-Va., used a routine pro forma session of the House of Representatives on Tuesday to quickly introduce part of the measure.
The Freedom Caucus tends to block new spending. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would add about $196 billion to the federal budget deficit over 10 years.
Graves said this is the amount people will lose without restoring full Social Security benefits.
In introducing the legislation, the Conservatives effectively set aside the procedural rule, but not the bill itself.
Regardless, the legislation is expected to move forward with a vote in the House of Representatives, possibly in the coming week.
That said, passage will now be more difficult, requiring a supermajority threshold instead of a simple majority as planned under the rule that Freedom Caucus leaders withdrew.
The summary says the legislation, if approved, would repeal provisions that reduce Social Security benefits for individuals who receive other benefits, such as a state or local government pension.
It says the bill also eliminates the so-called “windfall elimination provision” that “in some cases reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who also receive retirement or disability benefits from an employer that has not withheld Social Security taxes.”
If passed by the House of Representatives, it is unclear whether the bill has enough support to clear the Senate. But the wide margin in the House indicates potentially broad support.
It would then go to President Joe Biden’s desk. If signed into law, the summary says the changes will take effect for benefits paid after December 2023.