PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Sánchez, Linda T. [D-CA-38] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10235 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10235 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10235 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10235 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-02 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill would change how Social Security calculates survivor benefits for widows and widowers, including qualifying divorced spouses. It would offer an alternative calculation combining the survivor’s own retirement or disability benefit with the deceased person’s benefit calculation amount. The alternative would use 75 percent of that combined amount, subject to a cap and existing statutory exceptions, when it produces the higher survivor benefit.
Except as provided in subsection (k)(5), subsection (q), and subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, such widow’s insurance benefit for each month shall be equal to the greater of— (i) the primary insurance amount (as determined for purposes of this subsection after application of subparagraphs (B) and (C)) of such deceased individual; or (ii) subject to paragraph (9), in the case of a fully insured widow or surviving divorced wife, 75 percent of the sum of any old-age or disability insurance benefit for which the widow or the surviving divorced wife is entitled for such month and the primary insurance amount (as determined for purposes of this subsection after application of subparagraphs (B) and (C)) of such deceased individual.
Except as provided in subsection (k)(5), subsection (q), and subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, such widower’s insurance benefit for each month shall be equal to the greater of— (i) the primary insurance amount (as determined for purposes of this subsection after application of subparagraphs (B) and (C)) of such deceased individual; or (ii) subject to paragraph (9), in the case of a fully insured widower or surviving divorced husband, 75 percent of the sum of any old-age or disability insurance benefit for which the widower or the surviving divorced husband is entitled for such month and the primary insurance amount (as determined for purposes of this subsection after application of subparagraphs (B) and (C)) of such deceased individual.
For purposes of paragraph (2)(A)(ii), the amount determined under such paragraph shall not exceed the primary insurance amount for such month of a hypothetical individual
Section 1 would name the legislation the Protecting Our Widows and Widowers in Retirement Act, or POWR Act.
This Act may be cited as the Protecting Our Widows and Widowers in Retirement Act or the POWR Act.
For a fully insured widow or surviving divorced wife, the proposed monthly calculation would compare the deceased person’s primary insurance amount—a benefit calculation amount—with the capped 75-percent alternative and use the greater amount. The deceased person’s amount would remain subject to adjustments under existing subparagraphs (B) and (C), and the calculation would retain exceptions under subsections (k)(5) and (q) and subparagraph (D). Those existing rules and the meaning of fully insured are not reproduced.
Except as provided in subsection (k)(5), subsection (q), and subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, such widow’s insurance benefit for each month shall be equal to the greater of— (i) the primary insurance amount (as determined for purposes of this subsection after application of subparagraphs (B) and (C)) of such deceased individual; or (ii) subject to paragraph (9), in the case of a fully insured widow or surviving divorced wife, 75 percent of the sum of any old-age or disability insurance benefit for which the widow or the surviving divorced wife is entitled for such month and the primary insurance amount (as determined for purposes of this subsection after application of subparagraphs (B) and (C)) of such deceased individual.
The bill would apply the same greater-of calculation to fully insured widowers and surviving divorced husbands, with corresponding adjustments, exceptions, and a cap on the 75-percent alternative.
Except as provided in subsection (k)(5), subsection (q), and subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, such widower’s insurance benefit for each month shall be equal to the greater of— (i) the primary insurance amount (as determined for purposes of this subsection after application of subparagraphs (B) and (C)) of such deceased individual; or (ii) subject to paragraph (9), in the case of a fully insured widower or surviving divorced husband, 75 percent of the sum of any old-age or disability insurance benefit for which the widower or the surviving divorced husband is entitled for such month and the primary insurance amount (as determined for purposes of this subsection after application of subparagraphs (B) and (C)) of such deceased individual.
For both groups, the cap would apply to the 75-percent alternative. It would equal the primary insurance amount of a hypothetical worker who reached early retirement age and became entitled to retirement benefits in the month the deceased person first became entitled to retirement or disability benefits, or died before becoming entitled. The hypothetical worker’s credited earnings would be tied to the national average wage index for each applicable year. The supplied text prints the multiplier as “11/3,” leaving its intended formatting uncertain.
(9) For purposes of paragraph (2)(A)(ii), the amount determined under such paragraph shall not exceed the primary insurance amount for such month of a hypothetical individual— (A) who became entitled to old-age insurance benefits upon attaining early retirement age during the month in which the deceased individual referred to in paragraph (1) became entitled to old-age or disability insurance benefits, or died (before becoming entitled to such benefits); and (B) to whom wages and self-employment income were credited in each of such hypothetical individual’s elapsed years (within the meaning of section 215(b)(2)(B)(iii)) in an amount equal to 11/3 of the national average wage index (as described in section 209(k)(1)) for each such year.
The bill would also delete paragraph (1)(D) from both survivor-benefit subsections, renumber subsequent subparagraphs, and remove passages concerning entitlement to retirement benefits. Because the full deleted passages are not supplied, these changes do not establish the complete resulting eligibility or benefit-coordination rules.
(iii) by striking subparagraph (D); (iv) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and (v) in the flush matter following subparagraph (E)(ii), as so redesignated, by striking becomes entitled to an old-age insurance benefit and all that follows through such deceased individual,
(iii) by striking subparagraph (D); (iv) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and (v) in the flush matter following subparagraph (E)(ii), as so redesignated, by striking or becomes entitled to an old-age insurance benefit and all that follows through such deceased individual,
For Supplemental Security Income eligibility and payment calculations, the bill would limit the Social Security benefit amount counted as income to what the person would receive under the law in effect the day before enactment. This would prevent increases above that baseline from being counted for those purposes.
(b) Holding SSI beneficiaries harmless For purposes of determining the income of an individual to establish eligibility for, and the amount of, benefits payable under title XVI of the Social Security Act, the amount of any benefit to which the individual is entitled under title II of such Act shall be deemed not to exceed the amount of the benefit that would be determined for such individual under such title as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act.
The proposed amendments would apply to widow’s and widower’s insurance benefits payable for January 2027 and later months.
(c) Effective date The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to widow’s and widower’s insurance benefits payable for months after December 2026.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 10, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on September 2, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-10T15:14:45Z. 2026-09-02: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2026-09-02: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-02. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out beyond the policy’s intended beneficiaries was identified in the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 10, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI