What to know about the House push to expand some Social Security benefits

WASHINGTON -- The House is expected to try next week to pass a Social Security-related bill to ensure benefits for workers who are also eligible for other pensions despite a surprise move by hard-right Freedom Caucus leaders to derail the effort.

It’s a quick turnaround to salvage what had been a bipartisan effort to pass the bill during what’s now the lame-duck post-election period of the Congress.

Here’s what’s going on:

The measure that would repeal the so-called “government pensions offset” has been gaining support in the House — a robust 300 lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have signed on to it.

The bill summary says the government pensions offset “in various instances reduces Social Security benefits for spouses, widows, and widowers who also receive government pensions of their own.”

The bill would repeal that provision and reinstate full Social Security benefits.

To force the legislation forward, the sponsors of the bill, 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 House lawmakers to dislodge the bill from committee and send it to the floor for a vote.

The move is often seem as an affront to House leaders, particularly the House speaker and the majority leader who determine the floor schedule.

But Spanberger and Graves — who both did not seek reelection — had little to lose. Besides, Johnson backed the bill before becoming speaker.

Two leaders of the conservative House Freedom Caucus intervened when the rest of Congress was away from Capitol Hill, mostly in home states for Election Day.

The Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., and former chair Rep. Bob Goode, R-Va., used a routine pro forma session of the House on Tuesday to swiftly table part of the measure.

The Freedom Caucus tends to block new spending. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would add some $196 billion to the federal deficit over a decade.

Graves said that’s the amount people are missing out on without reinstating full Social Security benefits.

In tabling the legislation the conservatives actually set back its procedural rule, but not the bill itself.

The legislation is expected to move forward with a House vote anyway, possibly in the week ahead.

That said, passage will now be tougher, requiring a supermajority threshold rather than a simple majority as had been planned under the rule that the Freedom Caucus leaders turned back.

The summary says the legislation, if approved, would repeal the provisions that reduce Social Security benefits for individuals who receive other benefits, such as a pension from a state or local government.

It says the bill also eliminates the so-called “windfall elimination provision” that “in some instances reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who also receive a pension or disability benefit from an employer that did not withhold Social Security taxes.”

If it passes the House, it’s unclear if 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 are effective for benefits payable after December 2023.