Which bills in Congress have proposed changing the SSI resource limits and what is their status?
Executive summary
Three distinct streams of legislation in the past two Congresses have explicitly proposed raising Supplemental Security Income (SSI) resource limits: standalone “SSI Savings Penalty Elimination” bills and broader SSI reform measures introduced in both the House and Senate; those measures have been introduced and referred to committees but—based on the available reporting—had not been enacted as of the cited sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What the bills say: concrete increases and mechanics
The most specific proposal documented would raise the SSI resource limits from $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples to much higher amounts—Senate and advocacy summaries describe increases to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for couples, with annual inflation adjustments specified in some texts [1] [6]. Related House language in the “Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2024” updates income exclusions and explicitly amends the Social Security Act’s resource limit language, replacing long-outdated dollar figures with larger amounts indexed after 2024 [2]. The texts and summaries show the legislative goal is to eliminate what sponsors call a “savings penalty” that discourages low-income seniors and people with disabilities from accumulating modest emergency savings [7] [8].
2. Which bills, by name and chamber
The principal named vehicle in 118th and 119th Congress reporting is the “SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act,” introduced in both chambers: a Senate version appears in the 118th Congress listings and new companion bills reappeared in the 119th Congress as S.1234 in the Senate and H.R.2540 in the House [1] [3] [4]. Separately, H.R.7138—the “Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2024”—targets income exclusions and resource limits and was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee when introduced [2].
3. Sponsors and bipartisan posture
Sponsors on these measures span both parties: House sponsors have included Representatives Brian Higgins and Brian Fitzpatrick in earlier drafts, and Representatives Danny Davis and Brian Fitzpatrick led a 2025 House push; on the Senate side sponsors include Sherrod Brown, Bill Cassidy, Catherine Cortez Masto and Ron Wyden as companions or backers—signaling explicit bipartisan, bicameral framing in the available press releases [5] [7] [8] [9].
4. Where the bills stand procedurally (what reporting shows)
Across the cited sources, the legislative status is introduction and referral: the 118th/119th bill texts are posted on Congress.gov (indicating formal introduction), H.R.7138 was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee [2], the H.R.2540 House text shows referral to Ways and Means [3], and S.1234 was read and referred to the Senate Finance Committee [4]. None of the provided sources claim final passage or enactment of these specific asset-limit changes into law, and the Social Security Administration legislative summary does not list an enacted SSI asset‑limit increase among recent signed laws in the time window covered [10].
5. Political context, supporters and counterweights
Support for updating SSI’s asset limits is described as broad and cross‑sector: advocacy organizations (AARP, National Council on Aging, disability groups), think tanks and some businesses—including Microsoft and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—are listed among supporters in sponsors’ press materials, which may reflect an interest in workforce inclusion as well as poverty‑reduction aims [7] [8] [6]. Reporting also situates the push among a wider set of Social Security reforms debated in Congress; budgetary concerns have surfaced in other Social Security coverage, noting that some expansions carry substantial 10‑year deficit effects, an implicit political constraint for any package that would change benefit or eligibility rules [11].
6. What remains uncertain in the record provided
The sources document bill texts, sponsor statements, committee referrals and advocacy endorsements, but they do not provide floor votes, committee reports, or final enactment for the asset‑limit changes; therefore it cannot be asserted from these materials that any of the proposed resource‑limit increases have become law [1] [2] [3] [4] [10]. Likewise, the long‑term cost estimates or Congressional Budget Office scoring for these specific asset-limit proposals are not included in the provided excerpts, so fiscal impact beyond broader Social Security debates is not established here [11].