Recent meetings with both Democratic and Republican staff members of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security produced some new information concerning proposed government pension offset (GPO) and windfall elimination provision (WEP) bills.

In mid-May, legislative staff with the National Education Association, a CPRS National Partner, met with Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, to discuss the Social Security Fairness Act of 2007 (H.R. 82),which would repeal GPO and WEP. According to staff, Rangel was asked to co-sponsor H.R. 82, as he has done with previous repeal bills. Apparently, Rangel indicated that he would consider it, although, as chairman, he doesn't like to sign onto legislation. Rangel also indicated during the meeting that he would like to figure out a way to get the bill passed, but first they have to figure out a way to pay for it, particularly since Democrats have committed the House to operating under PAY-GO rules. Rangel reportedly suggested that the subcommittee might hold a hearing on H.R. 82 sometime in the fall.

In addition, according to staff, there are some members who continue to raise questions about double-dipping, as well as the need to consider GPO/WEP relief in the context of overall Social Security reform. There are also some members who have an interest in a partial fix.

Democratic staff said the subject of mandatory coverage has not surfaced, but could if members get serious about GPO/WEP reform and try to identify sources of funds that would cover the $60 billion cost. Staff went on to say that CPRS has done a very good job of educating members about the problems that would occur if mandatory coverage were to be imposed. The message, as always, is that we need to build on this by maintaining a consistent education effort with Congress.

Republican staff indicated that Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, will soon reintroduce a version of the WEP reform bill that he has proposed in previous sessions of Congress. The formula, staff said, will be the same, and any changes would be in the language involving the Social Security Administration. When asked about the bill's prospects, the answer was, in effect, that it has, at best, a very slim chance of passage, primarily because, if it reached the House floor, it would have H.R. 82 amended onto it.