House Passes It 232-188 - Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez Suffer Embarrassing Defeat
The House of Representatives took a decisive step this week to empower Americans with disabilities who want to work.
House lawmakers passed legislation that renews the Social Security Administration’s ability to test practical reforms and remove the bureaucratic traps that keep too many people on the sidelines.
H.R. 8884, the Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act, sponsored by Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., cleared the House by a vote of 232-188.
The measure now moves to the Senate, where it has been referred to the Committee on Finance.
At its core, the bill reauthorizes the Social Security Administration’s authority to conduct demonstration projects under the Social Security Disability Insurance program through December 31, 2030, with projects able to run until the end of 2031.
That authority expired in 2022.
The projects allow the SSA to temporarily test changes in program rules designed to encourage beneficiaries who are able and willing to return to the workforce.
Participation is strictly voluntary, and the legislation requires that no participant see a reduction in their total income.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., underscored the urgent need for the bill during floor debate.
“With over 60 percent of Social Security Disability Insurance recipients expressing an interest in returning to the workforce but less than one percent leaving the program because of a successful return to work each year, the Social Security Administration’s complex rules and regulations are clearly failing to deliver for too many Americans,” Smith said.
“Giving the SSA the authority to test innovative ways to better help disabled Americans pursue gainful employment is pure common sense, and this legislation goes a step further to ensure participation in any new system is both voluntary and will not reduce a beneficiary’s total income,” Smith added.
Smith further noted the “gigantic gap” between those who want to work and those who successfully do so under current rules.
Fear of benefit cliffs, overpayments, and confusing eligibility requirements often discourage people from trying.
The bill restores a proven tool—demonstration authority—that previously allowed the SSA to experiment with better approaches without locking in permanent policy changes until results are known.
The importance of this legislation cannot be overstated.
For decades, the disability insurance program has operated with rigid rules that, however well-intentioned, create powerful disincentives to work.
Many beneficiaries report wanting employment and the independence it brings, yet the system’s structure can punish efforts to earn income by threatening the loss of benefits or creating administrative nightmares.
By reauthorizing carefully designed, voluntary demonstration projects with clear evaluation metrics and income protections, H.R. 8884 prioritizes opportunity over dependency.
This is classic conservative reform: expand pathways to self-reliance, test what works, protect individuals from harm during the testing process, and reject the notion that government benefits should permanently sideline capable people.
It affirms the dignity of work while recognizing that disability does not equal inability.
Expanding the authority to include more individuals, including blind Americans, further strengthens the measure’s reach.
The bill advanced with bipartisan support in the Ways and Means Committee and drew some Democratic votes on the House floor, reflecting broad recognition that the current system falls short.
Yet Republican leadership drove the effort, focusing on practical solutions rather than expanded entitlements or permanent rule changes without evidence.
Next, the Senate must consider and pass the legislation before it can reach President Trump’s desk.
Supporters hope the upper chamber will move quickly, recognizing that restoring this demonstration authority is a low-cost, high-impact step that respects both fiscal responsibility and individual aspiration.
Once enacted, the SSA would regain the flexibility to design and evaluate projects aimed at improving work outcomes, with reporting requirements ensuring transparency and accountability.
NYC Affordable Housing Nonprofit: City Mandates ‘Absolutely Killing’ Organization
One of New York City’s longtime affordable housing advocates is sounding an alarm about the growing financial and regulatory pressures facing organizations trying to provide lower-cost housing.
Her frustration is particularly notable because she operates the kind of mission-driven nonprofit housing model that city progressives have frequently championed as an alternative to traditional landlords.
Ismene Speliotis, executive director of the Mutual Housing Association of New York, or MHANY, says New York City’s numerous housing requirements are placing an increasingly difficult financial burden on her nonprofit.
After 35 years working in affordable housing, however, she says the combination of city mandates, rising insurance costs, housing court problems and difficult tenant situations is becoming increasingly unsustainable.
Her account provides a glimpse at how policies intended to protect tenants can create significant costs even for nonprofit organizations dedicated to keeping rents affordable.
“These unfunded mandates are absolutely killing me,” Speliotis said. “They’re killing me.”
Speliotis is not a conventional private landlord, but instead runs a nonprofit organization focused on providing affordable housing to New Yorkers.
She has also supported policies favored by socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani, including testifying in favor of legislation requiring a “living wage” and benefits for certain construction workers.
Speliotis said one example of the financial burden involves the city’s lead-paint requirements.
During the mid-1990s, MHANY used city assistance to completely renovate an older building, with Speliotis saying the work was extensive enough that virtually everything inside had been removed.
“There were no walls,” she said.
Despite that renovation, Speliotis said the building remains subject to lead testing requirements because of its age.
“It doesn’t matter,” she said. “Any building before X date gets tested for lead — $150 to $200 per unit.”
Fire protection requirements represent another substantial expense.
Speliotis said MHANY’s smaller buildings are required to have both sprinkler systems and centralized fire monitoring, which she estimates costs between $7,000 and $10,000 annually for each building.
“When you burn toast, the Fire Department comes,” Speliotis said. “When you burn toast a second time, the Fire Department comes again. If they come three times, it’s a $1,000 fine. It’s not fightable.”
Smoke detectors have created another recurring problem because some residents remove the devices after becoming frustrated by alarms.
The missing detectors can then become a violation attributed to the property owner rather than the tenant, The Real Deal reported.
With an upcoming inspection from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Speliotis said she recently purchased another 500 detectors.
“I have 9 million smoke detectors,” she joked, “and a fire escape.”
Even equipment installed for safety can create unexpected expenses.
Speliotis recalled an incident in which a seventh-floor tenant hung laundry from a sprinkler, causing the system to activate and release water throughout the property.
“Ruins the entire building,” she said. “Four hundred thousand dollars in damage.”
MHANY filed an insurance claim following the incident, but Speliotis said the organization’s insurance premiums were already increasing.
Another major frustration involves supportive housing residents referred through New York City’s Human Resources Administration.
Speliotis said some tenants with serious mental health problems can decline the support services specifically funded to assist them, leaving housing providers with limited options when problems develop.
“Even though you have an entire program funded to support them, they don’t have to answer their door,” Speliotis said.
“I have people with enormous mental illnesses, and they’re in housing court,” she continued. “I call the service provider: ‘Why aren’t you helping Mrs. Smith?’ They say, ‘We can’t make her.'”
May you like
Speliotis believes residents placed in supportive housing should agree to participate in available services as a condition of remaining in those programs.
Her experience highlights a broader challenge confronting New York City’s housing system: regulations designed to protect residents also carry costs that must ultimately be absorbed somewhere, and Speliotis says even nonprofit affordable housing providers are reaching the point where those expenses are becoming increasingly difficult to bear.
