What you should know about the House's effort to expand some Social Security benefits

WASHINGTON— The House of Representatives is expected to try to pass a Social Security bill next 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 turnaround to salvage what was a bipartisan effort to pass the law while the post-congressional election period is now a lame duck.

Here's what's going on:

The measure, which would repeal the so-called “state pension equalization,” is gaining support in the House of Representatives – a whopping 300 lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have approved it.

The bill's summary states that state pension equalization “in various cases reduces Social Security benefits for spouses, widows and widowers who also receive state pensions themselves.”

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

To advance 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 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 the majority leader, who sets session times.

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

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 Tuesday to quickly advance part of the measure.

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.

By presenting the law, the Conservatives have actually withdrawn its procedural rules, but not the bill itself.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.

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

The summary states that if passed, the bill would repeal provisions that reduce Social Security benefits for people who receive other benefits, such as a pension from a state or local government.

It says the bill also removes 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.”

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.