Here’s what to know about House bill to expand Social Security benefits

The House is expected to try to pass a Social Security-related bill this week 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, called the Social Security Fairness Act, during what’s now the lame-duck post-election period of the Congress.
The Social Security Fairness Act would repeal the so-called “government pensions offset,” or GPO, which reduces Social Security spousal or widow(er) benefits for those who receive noncovered pensions, according to the Social Security Administration’s website. 
The summary also 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.”
Such pensions are paid by employers — typically, state and local governments or non-U.S. employers — that do not withhold Social Security taxes from employee salaries.
“The GPO reduces the spousal or widow(er) benefit by two-thirds of the monthly non-covered pension and can partially, or fully, offset an individual’s spousal/widow(er) benefit, depending on the amount of the non-covered pension,” according to SSA.gov.
The bill would repeal the GPO provision and reinstate full Social Security benefits. 
For instance, under the GPO, an individual with a $900 spousal benefit from Social Security, who also has a $1,000 non-covered pension, would see their Social Security benefit reduced by $667, or two-thirds the non-covered pension amount. That leaves them with a $233 remaining spousal benefit. 
If the GPO measure is repealed, the same individual would be entitled to the entire $900 spousal benefit amount without an offset reduction.
Yes, the bill was introduced by a Republican, Rep. Garrett Graves of Louisiana, and a Democrat, Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, and it has gained support in the House. A robust 300 lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have signed on to it. 
Other groups have also supported the bill, such as the National Association of Counties, which represents county governments. That group says that eliminating the GPO would help county governments recruit workers at a time when many are facing labor shortages. 
To force the legislation forward, the sponsors of the bill, Rep. Graves and Rep. Spanberger, this fall 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 seen 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 Nov. 5 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.
But 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.
Yes, but 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.
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.