[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 121 (Thursday, July 23, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H5182-H5186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REMOVING BARRIERS TO WORK FOR DISABLED AMERICANS ACT
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
1438, I call up the bill (H.R. 8884) to amend title II of the Social
Security Act to reauthorize demonstration authority for the disability
insurance program, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1438, in lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Ways and Means, printed in the bill, an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
at 119-34 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 8884
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Removing Barriers to Work
for Disabled Americans Act''.
SEC. 2. TEMPORARY REAUTHORIZATION OF DISABILITY INSURANCE
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AUTHORITY.
(a) Termination Date.--Section 234(d)(2) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 434(d)(2)) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2021, and the authority to carry out such
projects shall terminate on December 31, 2022'' and inserting
``December 31, 2030, and the authority to carry out such
projects shall terminate on December 31, 2031''.
(b) Authority to Waive Compliance With Benefits
Requirements.--Section 234(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 434(c))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``December 30, 2021'' and inserting
``December 31, 2030'';
(2) by striking ``90 days'' and inserting ``120 days''; and
(3) by inserting after ``the expected annual and total
costs,'' the following: ``evaluation metrics to be used with
respect to the experiment or demonstration project,''.
[[Page H5183]]
(c) Expenditure.--Section 201(k) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
401(k)) is amended to read as follows:
``(k) Administrative expenditures for experiments and
demonstration projects under section 234 shall be paid from
funds made available for the administration of this title.
Benefits payable to or on behalf of individuals by reason of
participation in experiments and demonstration projects under
section 234 shall be made from the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund or the Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Fund, as determined appropriate by the
Commissioner of Social Security.''.
(d) Limitation.--Section 234(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
434(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking the ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) that the total income of an individual will not be
reduced due to the individual's participation in an
experiment or demonstration project.''.
(e) Technical Amendments.--Section 234 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 434) is further amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``subsection'' and
inserting ``section''; and
(2) by striking subsection (f).
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2027.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu) each will control 30 minutes.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
General Leave
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on this bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8884, the Removing Barriers to
Work for Disabled Americans Act, introduced by our colleague from
Georgia, Representative Austin Scott.
Many Americans that are living with disabilities want to enter the
workforce and seek gainful employment. In fact, an estimated 60 percent
of Americans who receive benefits under the Social Security Disability
Insurance program have stated a desire to return to work. Yet less than
1 percent leave the disability insurance program each year for a job.
That is a gigantic gap between the number of disabled Americans who
want to work and the number who successfully return to work.
The Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act seeks to
shrink that gap by simply restoring the Social Security
Administration's authority to test drive solutions that can empower
more of our fellow Americans to get back to work.
Up until 2022, the SSA had such authority to run demonstration
projects on improving work outcomes. With that authority expired and
with so many disabled Americans still unable to successfully navigate
the current program, we have to find a better way forward.
In fact, some of the challenges cited for why so few SSDI
beneficiaries successfully return to the workforce are confusing rules
of the road for eligibility, that and a fear of overpayments and
benefit cliffs.
Just so we do not forget why we should be focused on this issue, at a
hearing of the Ways and Means Social Security and Work and Welfare
Subcommittees in September, we heard from a witness, a former
beneficiary, about how the work he found helped give his life real
purpose and a different outlook. He was talking about the dignity of
work, and that is what this bill will help deliver.
Representative Scott has been a long-time--and I would say long-time,
tireless champion for Purple Heart veterans. Many of them wish to
return to work but cannot afford the severe restrictions placed on
their work status. I commend Mr. Scott for expanding his bill to allow
the SSA's demonstration authority for so many impacted individuals,
including blind Americans. He has identified a commonsense solution and
is fighting to see it come to pass, just as it did through the Ways and
Means Committee with bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when Americans are dealing with skyrocketing
prices and vulnerable populations like seniors and people with
disabilities are struggling to get help with their Social Security
benefits because this administration has created a customer service
crisis through reckless staffing cuts, it is shameful that Republicans
have chosen to bring H.R. 8884 to the floor. This bill won't lower
costs, won't improve customer service, and won't make it easier for
people with disabilities to access the benefits they have earned.
Instead, it opens the door to cutting those benefits while making SSA's
customer service crisis even worse.
H.R. 8884, the Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act,
aims to remove barriers to employment faced by individuals receiving
Social Security Disability Insurance, or SSDI, benefits. It tries to do
this by authorizing the Social Security Administration to conduct
demonstration projects designed to test program changes that may
encourage work.
Let me be clear that Democrats strongly support the goal of reducing
unnecessary barriers for disabled Americans who want to explore
returning to work. Over the years, Democrats many times have supported
giving SSA this demonstration authority. However, the bill before us
today tries to accomplish this worthwhile goal in the worst possible
way.
Instead of protecting beneficiaries, it hands the Trump
administration broad new authority to experiment with Social Security
disability benefits with virtually no meaningful guardrails.
First, let me be clear about what Social Security disability benefits
are for. SSDI supports some of the most vulnerable Americans who have
severe and long-lasting medical impairments that prevent them from
being able to work at a level needed to financially support themselves.
SSDI is an earned benefit, with the average beneficiary having worked
and paid into the system for 22 years before becoming disabled. It also
has stringent eligibility criteria. To qualify, applicants must provide
extensive medical evidence and undergo a rigorous eligibility
determination process. Many applicants are initially denied and must
appeal a process that often takes a year or more. Even after all levels
of appeal, SSA typically finds only about one in three applicants
eligible. SSDI benefits are extremely low, at an average of about
$20,000 a year.
{time} 0920
Most SSDI beneficiaries could not survive without these monthly
payments, and that is why we must ensure that any potential change to
the program does not put those benefits at risk. Yet, this bill
explicitly leaves that possibility on the table. Rather than protecting
earned disability benefits, it gives the administration broad
discretion to test policies that could reduce them.
This isn't some abstract policy debate. Here is what this could look
like in the real world.
Picture this: You have been on Social Security disability for the
past 10 years after a devastating car accident rendered you unable to
work and support yourself. Your monthly SSDI check isn't much, but it
is the reason you can pay your bills and keep food on the table. Then,
one day, the Social Security Administration contacts you about an
opportunity that sounds promising--a demonstration program that will
make it easier for you to get a part-time job while remaining on SSDI.
This sounds great to you because it could mean some extra income for
you and your family. You sign up and start working only to realize that
you are no better off financially because for every dollar you make at
your new job, you lose a dollar in SSDI benefits.
After a few months, the demands of the new job start taking a toll on
your health, and it becomes clear that it isn't sustainable. You
contact SSA to revoke your participation in the demonstration so that
you can start receiving your full SSDI benefit amount
[[Page H5184]]
again, but SSA doesn't reinstate your benefits right away.
Two weeks later, you still have to call SSA's 1-800 number every day,
trying to get your benefits back. Every time, you are on hold for more
than an hour. Even when you do get through to a staff member, they say
there is a backlog. No one can tell you when you will get your check.
Rent is due in a few days. You don't have the money. You feel
desperate.
That is exactly the kind of outcome this bill fails to protect. Here
is why. The problem is simple. This bill only guarantees that an
individual's total income will not be reduced due to participation in a
demonstration project. That deceptive phrasing does not guarantee that
your Social Security disability benefits won't be cut or reduced
because you are earning money at a part-time job.
These are two very different things. The empty promise of no
reduction in total income leaves the administration with enormous
discretion over people's earned benefits.
This isn't a hypothetical concern. The Trump administration has
repeatedly tried to cut disability benefits and make it harder for
disabled Americans to qualify. They have shown us exactly what they
want to do given the opportunity.
During the first Trump administration, President Trump repeatedly
tried to throw disabled people off their benefits by making it harder
to qualify and subjecting them to more frequent continuing disability
reviews. He proposed a budget plan that tried to slash disability
benefits by $50 billion over 10 years, and a key part of that plan was
to push beneficiaries into demonstration programs.
No past demonstrations had indicated that savings of any level, let
alone $50 billion, could be possible without punitive measures to cut
beneficiaries who can't return to work.
Just last year, the Trump administration was reportedly considering a
plan to eliminate age as a factor in deciding whether someone is unable
to work and eligible for SSDI, which could have blocked an estimated
750,000 people from receiving benefits. Thankfully, this plan was
dropped after enormous public outcry, but that shouldn't be enough to
convince us that this administration isn't still gunning to slash
benefits.
An administration that has a track record of trying to cut Americans'
earned disability benefits should not be given any new authority to
conduct open-ended experiments that could reduce benefits.
This couldn't come at a worse time. Thanks to the administration
cutting over 7,000 staff at Social Security, our constituents are
waiting for hours on the phone and facing extremely long backlogs when
trying to get their issues resolved.
SSDI beneficiaries rely on their benefits every month to make ends
meet. They can't afford delays or roadblocks to getting the full amount
of the benefits they have earned.
To make matters worse, this bill would require any new demonstration
programs to be funded by SSA's operating budget, the same budget that
supports the agency's customer service. In other words, this bill asks
SSA to take money away from serving the public to run experiments that
could jeopardize people's disability benefits.
When the Ways and Means Committee marked up this bill last month,
Ranking Member John Larson offered a commonsense amendment that would
have addressed these concerns by requiring demonstration projects to be
funded not by SSA's customer service budget but by the SSDI trust
funds, and by adding guardrails to what the Trump administration might
do with the demonstration authority.
Those guardrails included ensuring that no one would see their
benefits, not just total income but actual benefits, reduced due to
participation in a demonstration.
The amendment would also have ensured that no demonstration could be
used to deny eligibility for new SSDI applicants and would have
required the SSA to provide notice and public comments on the details
of any planned demonstrations.
These were basic protections to ensure that people with disabilities
couldn't lose their earned benefits simply for participating in a
demonstration project, yet every Republican voted this down.
If Republicans truly cared about making life better for people on
Social Security disability benefits, we would be discussing bills to
increase monthly benefits, fix the appeals process so people with
disabilities aren't waiting years to get approved for benefits, and fix
customer service at SSA by undoing this administration's disastrous
staffing cuts.
Instead, Republicans have brought us a bill that gives the Trump
administration new authority to experiment with Social Security
disability benefits while failing to protect the very people it claims
to help. People with disabilities deserve certainty, not experiments
with the benefits they have earned.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), the sponsor
of this legislation.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the first thing I will do
is thank Chairman Smith and his staff for working with me to get this
piece of legislation to the floor. I also thank the many bipartisan
cosponsors of the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act.
Mr. Speaker, I want Americans to know how this piece of legislation
originated. I was taking a young man, a marine, hunting several years
ago. That marine stepped on a pressure plate and lost both legs. We
were having a discussion as we were in the vehicle headed to the farm
that we were going to hunt, and I asked him if there were things that
we could help him with.
We had a candid conversation. He said that he wanted to go back to
work. He worked at the local auto parts store and wanted to work more
hours, but if he made $1 more than, at that time, the $1,100 a month,
he would lose 100 percent of his Social Security benefits.
{time} 0930
Here, we have a young, combat-wounded man who lost both legs and
wants to work. Let me tell you something: If you want to help a
disabled veteran, let them get out of the house and go back to work.
Let them. This doesn't force anybody to do anything. It is voluntary.
The idea that if a combat-wounded veteran wants to go back to work
and they make $1 more than some imaginary number, then their family has
less money at the end of the month than if they didn't work is
ridiculous. So we wrote the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act. I have
had broad bipartisan support for that bill, but I have not been able to
get it through and signed into law.
We went back, under Chairman Smith's leadership and with his team,
and looked at other ways to do this. This authority was there, up to
and until 2022, I believe. President Biden had it and could have done
it. Other Presidents have had the ability to do it. We are simply
asking that we do the same thing, give the same authority that we have
had in the past so that we can do pilot projects.
It doesn't force anybody to do anything. It gives people who are
currently receiving Social Security disability benefits the ability to
go back to work if they voluntarily choose to, in order to have a
little more money at the end of the month instead of less. That is what
it does.
I don't understand the objection from the other side in allowing
people to go back to work and not lose 100 percent of their government
benefits. It is something that we, as Republicans, have pressed for
across a wide range of benefits, and that is to get rid of the cliff.
We are not trying to force anybody to do anything. We are simply
giving people the ability to go back to work, not lose 100 percent of
their Social Security benefits, and have more money left over at the
end of the month.
After my conversation with that young man, that young marine, that
warrior, I honestly couldn't believe it. I came to D.C., and I met with
the lawyers. I said, this can't be right. This defies logic. We went
through the law. The lawyers told me he was right, and we wrote the
bill.
[[Page H5185]]
I am going to tell you, I am disappointed that my Democratic
colleagues are taking the position on the floor that they have with
this. We want people to be able to go back to work. This originated
with a marine who stepped on a pressure plate, lost both legs, and
wants to go back to work. If they go back to work, they lose 100
percent of their Social Security benefits if they make $1 more than
this imaginary threshold, which is not enough for them to live on.
I think this is a wonderful piece of legislation. I thank the
chairman and his staff for helping us find a way to solve this problem.
I think the President will do a pilot project--if you give him the
authority--that will be very close to the Purple Heart Freedom to Work
Act.
Purple Heart Day is coming up August 7. It will be wonderful for us
to get this across the finish line and be able to do it on that day for
them. I hope my colleagues, in a very bipartisan manner, will support
H.R. 8884 and help us remove the barriers to work for disabled
Americans.
The same things that will work for our wounded warriors will also
work for other Americans, if they choose, if they want, if they
volunteer, if they voluntarily want to go back to work and make a
little extra money, and not lose 100 percent of their Social Security
benefits.
The Purple Heart Freedom to Work, I think it will work for a lot of
Americans. We, as Republicans, believe work is good. We know there are
a lot of people that are on Social Security disability that want to go
back to work. It is voluntary. They will always have more money. They
will not have any less money if this is done.
Again, I hope my colleagues, in a very bipartisan manner, will
support H.R. 8884.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Helping Purple Heart recipients find employment is wonderful and
laudable. There is nothing in H.R. 8884 that requires SSA to test the
Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act. It is not mentioned in the underlying
bill at all.
At a Ways and Means Committee markup, Ranking Member Larson asked the
majority if SSA had shared information on what demonstration projects
it had planned. They said: No. Trust us.
In fact, when the bill was considered at the Rules Committee a few
weeks ago, Ranking Member McGovern made a motion to add a new section
to the rule that would have provided for immediate consideration of
Representative Scott's Purple Heart bill on the House floor.
Republicans all voted ``no'' on this motion, including Representative
Scott himself.
If Republicans want to do the Purple Heart bill, let's vote on that
bill, not on H.R. 8884, which doesn't even mention Purple Heart
recipients.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Chu for
her leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that you can measure the greatness of a
society by how well it treats its old, how well it treats its young,
and how well it treats those who have difficulties caring for
themselves, through no fault of their own, yet need help from other
elements of society.
If this bill is an indication of how we value our most vulnerable
citizens, then we are not in good shape. Instead of going after
billionaire tax cheats or ultrawealthy tax evaders, my Republican
colleagues are advancing a bill that purports to remove barriers to
work for disabled Americans.
In all actuality, H.R. 8884 targets the earned benefits of workers
who qualify for the Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 8884 and urge my colleagues to do
the same, rather than give the Trump administration unfettered
authority to conduct a demonstration program that will ultimately
result in a reduction of benefits for older, severely disabled, and
low-income workers.
The bill under consideration today fails to remove employment
barriers for some of the most financially vulnerable Americans. Past
Social Security Administration demonstration programs have shown these
reemployment initiatives to be unsuccessful in helping beneficiaries
return to work.
Additionally, let us be reminded that the first Trump administration
repeatedly proposed massive cuts to Social Security disability
benefits. Its plans included stripping away benefits from older,
severely disabled workers, making it harder to qualify for benefits and
throwing disabled people off benefits by subjecting them to more
frequent continuing disability reviews, just to name a few.
Alarmingly, President Trump's budgets proposed using SSA
demonstration authority to slash disability benefits by approximately
$50 billion over 10 years.
{time} 0940
Let me say it again. The first Trump administration wanted disability
demonstration authority to slash $50 billion of earned benefits.
Just last year, the Trump administration proposed a rule that would
exact deep cuts to SSDI, particularly for older workers. These are
workers who cannot support themselves due to severe and longstanding
disabilities that impact their ability to work.
Mr. Speaker, with this bill, my Republican colleagues want to grant
the Trump administration unchecked power and authority to conduct
demonstration programs aimed at reducing SSDI benefits.
Just to further imagine, the Trump-created customer service crisis at
SSA due to massive staffing reductions, this bill requires funding for
these demonstrations to be supported out of SSA's operating fund.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, among others, H.R. 8884 is opposed by
the AFL-CIO, Social Security Works, and the National Committee to
Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
The Trump administration has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness
to harm the elderly, the disabled, and the poor, and so I urge my
colleagues to reject this harmful bill in exchange for a more
thoughtful approach to improving employment outcomes for people with
disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we ought to want and should help, not
harm and not hurt those individuals who deserve and need disability
benefits.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and
am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the risk that this bill poses to vulnerable Social
Security disability benefits cannot be overstated. President Trump has
tried time and time again to kick people with disabilities off of their
benefits, including by pushing people into demonstration programs. This
bill would give this administration open-ended authority to do that.
Congress has authorized this kind of SSDI demonstration authority in
the past but only after working with SSA to closely review its intended
projects and their impacts.
In contrast, the current SSA has not disclosed any information on how
it plans to use the SSDI demonstration authority, and Ways and Means
Republicans rejected a Democratic amendment that would have required a
notice and public comment period for any demonstration before it gets
enacted.
The bottom line is that this administration cannot be trusted to not
cut people's benefits. These are earned benefits that people with
disabilities rely on to make ends meet. This bill puts that lifeline in
jeopardy, and that is why this House should reject this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard some amazing arguments on the floor just
now, but one thing that has been crystal clear by the arguments that we
have heard in opposition to this bill which helps veterans is simply
that the Democratic Party is focused on legislative items that allow
them to control Americans.
They want to have 100 percent control over the benefits of Americans.
They don't even want to give them the opportunity to have the dignity
of work. They said it on the floor today.
I can't believe that they would possibly want to say that they know
better for your livelihood than what you do, but that is what the
speakers are
[[Page H5186]]
saying, and that is why they are opposing this bill. That is a shame.
Mr. Speaker, you hear individuals say that it is a risk. The only
risk of this bill is simply that my Democratic colleagues can't have
100 percent control over the benefits of veterans who are disabled.
This bill allows them to give the opportunity to have the dignity of
work and not lose their benefits but to still be able to thrive.
We are focused on the success of the individual, not the fact that
the government can control your livelihood.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage this body to support this great piece of
legislation that Mr. Austin Scott has worked on for some time to
deliver relief for real Americans, for veterans, and not to the
Democratic Party, who wants to control their benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1438, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________