The House of Representatives is pushing forward a bill to expand Social Security benefits. Here’s what you should know.

The House of Representatives is expected to try to pass a Social Security bill this week to ensure benefits for workers who are also eligible for other pensions, although far-right leaders of the Freedom Caucus have surprisingly tried to scuttle the effort .

It’s a quick about-face to salvage a bipartisan effort to pass legislation called the Social Security Fairness Act in what is now a lame congressional post-election period.

What is the Social Security Fairness Act?

According to the Social Security Administration website, the Social Security Fairness Act would repeal the so-called “Government Pensions Offset” (GPO), which reduces Social Security spousal or widower benefits for those who receive unfunded pensions.

The summary also states that the bill also eliminates the so-called “windfall elimination provision,” which “in some cases reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who also receive a pension or disability benefit from an employer that has not withheld Social Security taxes.” “

Such pensions are paid by employers—typically state and local governments or employers outside the U.S.—that do not withhold Social Security taxes from their employees’ salaries.

“The GPO reduces the spousal or widower’s pension by two-thirds of the monthly unfunded pension and may offset part or all of an individual’s spousal/widower pension depending on the amount of the unfunded pension,” according to SSA.gov.

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

For example, under the GPO, an individual with a $900 Social Security spousal benefit who also has a $1,000 unfunded benefit would have their Social Security benefit reduced by $667, or two-thirds of the unfunded benefit amount. This leaves them with a remaining spousal benefit of $233.

If the GPO measure is repealed, the same person would be entitled to the full amount of the $900 spousal benefit without any compensatory reduction.

Does the bill have bipartisan support?

Yes, the bill was introduced by a Republican, Rep. Garrett Graves of Louisiana, and a Democrat, Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, and has garnered support in the House of Representatives. A total of 300 representatives, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have signed it.

Other groups have also supported the bill, such as the National Association of Counties, which represents county governments. This group says eliminating the GPO would help county governments recruit workers even though many of them are suffering from labor shortages.

What happened to the bill?

To advance legislation this fall, the bill’s sponsors, Reps. Graves and Spanberger, used a rarely successful process called a dismissal motion.

They collected the required at least 218 signatures from House Democrats to move the bill out of committee and bring it to a vote.

The move is often seen as an affront to House leaders, particularly the House speaker and majority leader, who set the session schedule.

But Spanberger and Graves — neither of whom was seeking reelection — had little to lose. Additionally, Johnson supported the bill before becoming speaker.

Did the House Freedom Caucus block the Social Security bill?

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

Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., and former chairman Rep. Bob Goode, R-Va., used a routine pro forma House session on Nov. 5 to quickly pass part of the measure to present.

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

Graves said that’s the amount people will miss out on without restoring full Social Security benefits.

But by submitting the law, the Conservatives have actually withdrawn its procedural rules, but not the bill itself.

The bill is expected to advance through a House vote anyway, possibly next week.

Could the Social Security Fairness Act still be passed?

Yes, but passage will now be more difficult, requiring a supermajority rather than a simple majority as was envisioned under the rule that Freedom Caucus leaders backtracked on.

If passed by the House, it is unclear whether the bill will have enough support to be approved by the Senate. But the large margin in the House suggests potentially broad support.

It would then end up on President Joe Biden’s desk. If signed into law, the summary says the changes will take effect for benefits payable after December 2023.