Blog
Discharge Petition on WEP-GPO Repeal Bill
Roughly 28 percent of state and local government employees across the U.S. are not covered by Social Security.
By: Tony Roda, Williams & JensenBack in the spring, April 16 to be precise, the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Social Security held a hearing to examine the Social Security penalties known as the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), which affect workers who earn both a Social Security benefit and a pension from work that was not covered by Social Security. This hearing by the Ways and Means Committee was the second such hearing devoted to the topic in this Congress and marked the most attention WEP and GPO have received in Congress in decades. Yet here we are in the final few months of the Congress and there has not been any action on the issue.
As a reminder, WEP reduces your Social Security benefit if you also earn a retirement benefit from non-Social Security employment. Roughly 28 percent of state and local government employees across the U.S. are not covered by Social Security. Many of these workers also will separately earn a Social Security benefit, particularly those in public safety and education, whose work schedules often allow them to hold a second job that is covered by Social Security. GPO reduces Social Security dependent benefits (spousal or widow(er)) for those who receive a non-Social Security covered pension.
Following the April 16 hearing the Committee's majority Republicans released a press statement emphasizing three key points:
• Social Security has the data to improve WEP and GPO for retirees.
• Social Security is currently facing fiscal challenges.
• Solutions impacting four percent of beneficiaries, i.e., those affected by WEP and GPO, will in turn affect 100 percent of beneficiaries.
Emphasizing the third point, Ways and Means Committee Member Greg Steube (R-FL) said the following:
"We recognize that all beneficiaries deserve fair treatment. The Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset were put in place over forty years ago with the intention to prevent preferential treatment for workers with employment exempt from Social Security. This policy impacts about 4 percent of Social Security beneficiaries, but any changes made by Congress to the Social Security Trust Fund affects 100 percent of Social Security beneficiaries.”
This argument is taken from the theoretical to the practical when it is viewed in terms of cost to the Social Security system. The legislation to fully repeal the WEP and GPO penalties (H.R. 82) has been estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at a cost of $196 billion over 10 years to the Social Security trust fund. Further, full repeal would accelerate the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund by six months. Given this, it has been my conclusion that the most viable path forward in Congress is not full repeal, but formulaic changes to both WEP and GPO.
However, frustration has boiled over in the last few weeks. Tired of inaction on a bill that has enormous support (H.R. 82 has 329 current cosponsors), the bill's chief sponsors, Reps. Garret Graves (R-LA) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), have led the charge to use the House rules to discharge the bill from the Ways and Means Committee and bring it to the full House for an up or down vote. On September 19, the cosigners of the discharge petition reached the magic number of 218, a simple majority in the House, which discharges the Committee and triggers expedited consideration in the full House. Under the discharge petition rules, the House vote would take place in the post-election, lame-duck session. A motion to proceed to the bill would have to pass, and then the vote on H.R. 82 would occur. This would be an historic vote on an issue that has been simmering for decades.
It's unclear how the House Leadership and the Ways and Means Committee will approach the vote. Any party leadership and committee of jurisdiction strongly oppose having their ability to set the legislative calendar circumvented. The Leadership and Committee may urge a no vote on the motion to proceed based on the policy rationale that the bill's $196 billion price tag is not offset. Interestingly, the previous Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee's Social Security Subcommittee and now current Ranking Member, Rep. John Larson (D-CT), recently cautioned his colleagues against supporting the bill, stating that, “If an item is not paid for, that impacts the Trust Fund directly, and that's my concern.” Congressman Larson has his own comprehensive Social Security reform legislation, H.R. 4583, which would repeal WEP and GPO for five years, paying for repeal and other changes by raising the income cap on taxable earnings for Social Security.
In an effort to muddy the waters and peel votes away from H.R. 82, the Ways and Means Committee could report alternative legislation to instead modify the underlying formulas of WEP and GPO. This legislation might contain a revenue offset, giving cover to those Members unsure about voting for full repeal without paying for it. Votes on such an alternative bill or bills could be held on the same day the House considers H.R. 82, thereby creating confusion and controversy among the Members.
In considering their vote, House Members also may examine the possible aftermath of full repeal. Will a future Congress, possibly in the throes of negotiating a comprehensive Social Security reform bill, simply reinstate similar or identical WEP and GPO offsets, or seek to cover all state and local government employees in the Social Security program, a proposal commonly referred to as mandatory Social Security. Mandatory Social Security coverage is a proposal that NCPERS opposes. Both changes would generate new revenue in the Social Security system that could be used for benefit increases.
Clearly, the full story has not been told on H.R. 82 in the House, and certainly not in the Senate. Sixty votes are needed in order to cut off debate on the Senate floor. The Senate repeal bill, S. 597, introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), has 62 cosponsors, but three are from California. How is that possible? The late Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) cosponsored the bill prior to her passing, as have both current California Senators. In any event, you can see that the margin in the Senate is razor thin and there is cause for concern that some of the cosponsors may not support the bill without a cost offset.
Please be assured that NCPERS will pay close attention to the continuing WEP-GPO debate and will keep its members apprised of any significant developments. Be sure to join us in Washington, DC for the 2025 Legislative Conference & Policy Day to get the latest on legislation impacting public pensions.
Tony Roda is a partner at the Washington, D.C. law and lobbying firm Williams & Jensen, where he specializes in legislative, regulatory, and fiduciary matters affecting state and local pension plans. He represents the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems and state-wide, county, and municipal pension plans in California, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. Tony has an undergraduate degree in government and politics from the University of Maryland, J.D. from the Catholic University of America, and LL.M (tax law) from the Georgetown University Law Center.
Comments
There have been no comments made on this article. Why not be the first and add your own comment using the form below.
Leave a comment
Please complete the form below to submit a comment on this article. A valid email address is required to submit a comment though it will not be displayed on the site.
HTML has been disabled but if you wish to add any hyperlinks or text formatting you can use any of the following codes: [B]bold text[/B], [I]italic text[/I], [U]underlined text[/U], [S]
strike through text[/S], [URL]http://www.yourlink.com[/URL], [URL=http//www.yourlink.com]your text[/URL]