Nevada lawmakers hear resolution urging Congress to extend Social Security Fairness Act retroactively to 2013

CARSON CITY

The Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections on Thursday heard Assembly Joint Resolution 6, a measure introduced by Assemblymember Bridal Miller that urges Congress to extend the Social Security Fairness Act retroactively to December 2013 so more retired public employees would receive back pay. The committee took testimony from unions and retired public employees in support and from citizen callers and advocacy groups opposed; no committee vote was recorded at the hearing.

AJR 6 seeks to expand the reach of the federal Social Security Fairness Act, which repealed two provisions known as the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) that reduced Social Security benefits for some public employees. Miller told the committee the resolution would "urge Congress to enact legislation to extend the Social Security Fairness Act to retroactively apply from December 2013 forward," and that doing so would increase one-time payments for some retirees.

Why it matters: Supporters said the repeal of GPO and WEP corrected a decades-old penalty applied to teachers, firefighters, police officers and other government employees who paid into both Social Security and a public pension. Opponents warned of the proposaland similar retroactivity requestsincreasing federal costs and accelerating pressure on the Social Security trust fund.

What presenters said

Assemblymember Bridal Miller (D-Clark County) opened the presentation by explaining how GPO and WEP reduced benefits for people who had both a pension and Social Security credits. Miller cited her own Social Security statement and said the current repeal applies retroactively to February 2023 forward, but AJR 6 would ask Congress to push that start date back to December 2013. "This would allow Social Security beneficiaries to receive even more backdated payments of their duly earned Social Security benefits," Miller said during her presentation.

Miller summarized numbers often cited by supporters: she said the repeal restored spousal benefits for about nine out of 10 public employees who had lost them, that more than 2,000,000 government employees and retirees across the U.S. are affected by the former rules, and that the average back payment for benefits beginning February 2023 equates to roughly $4,320 for a single person. She also referenced an estimate she gave to the committee that, for some Nevadans who had been collecting both a pension and Social Security since 2013, the retroactive window AJR 6 proposes could represent "roughly $47,000 in return payments." (Assemblymember Miller presented these figures to explain the magnitude of potential back pay; the committee record does not include a formal statewide cost estimate prepared for AJR 6.)

Supporters who testified in person included representatives of educator and public-employee groups. Dawn Etcheverry, president of the Nevada State Education Association, described years of advocacy by Nevada educators and said the January repeal was a "day not one of us will forget." Alexander Marks of NSEA said tens of thousands of Nevadans had seen their benefits reduced by the prior rules and urged the state to support federal retroactivity. Terry Laird and Lynn Ballatore, leaders of the Retired Public Employees of Nevada (RPEN/ARPEN), described the measure as an effort to restore benefits long withheld from public servants.

Opposition and fiscal concerns

Several callers opposed the resolution or urged caution. Janine Hansen, state president of Nevada Families for Freedom, told the committee the Congressional Budget Office had produced a cost estimate tied to the Social Security Fairness Act and said the figure for the federal cost between 2024 and 2034 was substantial; she warned committee members to consider federal solvency and intergenerational effects. Multiple callers referenced the Social Security Administration's long-term solvency projections and the potential budgetary consequences of making the repeal retroactive to an earlier date.

The sponsor's response and committee action

Miller acknowledged concerns about Social Security's long-term financing and said those concerns were well known, but she framed AJR 6 as a request that Congress consider fairness for public employees who were legally taxed for benefits they were later denied. The resolution also specifically requests that a copy of AJR 6 be transmitted to the president and to Nevada's congressional delegation if the state legislature adopts it.

The committee took public testimony for and against AJR 6 and then closed the hearing; no formal motion or committee vote on the resolution was recorded during the hearing.

Ending

The committee record shows robust public engagement on AJR 6, with union leaders and retired public employees urging retroactivity and several callers raising federal cost and solvency concerns. The committee closed the AJR 6 hearing and proceeded to other agenda items without recording a formal vote on the resolution.