House Report 115-316 - CONTROL UNLAWFUL FUGITIVE FELONS ACT OF 2017

[House Report 115-316]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-316

======================================================================

CONTROL UNLAWFUL FUGITIVE FELONS ACT OF 2017

_______

September 21, 2017.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Brady of Texas, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the
following

R E P O R T

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 2792]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2792) to amend the Social Security Act to make
certain revisions to provisions limiting payment of benefits to
fugitive felons under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the Social
Security Act, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.

CONTENTS

Page
I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND...........................................2
A. Purpose and Summary................................. 2
B. Background and Need for Legislation................. 2
C. Legislative History................................. 3
II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL..........................................3
Section 1: Short Title................................. 3
Section 2: Revisions to Provisions Limiting Payments of
Benefits to Fugitive Felons Under Title XVI of the
Social Security Act................................ 4
III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE...........................................7
IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL......................................10
A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects............. 10
B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax
Expenditures Budget Authority...................... 10
C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office............................................. 10
V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE......16
A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations.... 16
B. Statement of General Performance Goals and
Objectives......................................... 16
C. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates........... 16
D. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and
Limited Tariff Benefits............................ 16
E. Duplication of Federal Programs..................... 16
F. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings................. 17
VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED...........17
VII. DISSENTING VIEWS................................................28

The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act
of 2017''.

SEC. 2. REVISIONS TO PROVISIONS LIMITING PAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO
FUGITIVE FELONS UNDER TITLE XVI OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT.

(a) Fugitive Felon Warrant Requirement.--Section 1611(e)(4)(A)(i) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(4)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``fleeing to avoid'' and inserting ``the
subject of an arrest warrant for the purpose of'';
(2) by striking ``the place from which the person flees'' the
first place it appears and inserting ``the jurisdiction issuing
the warrant''; and
(3) by striking ``the place from which the person flees'' the
second place it appears and inserting ``the jurisdiction''.
(b) Probation and Parole Warrant Requirement.--Section
1611(e)(4)(A)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(4)(A)(ii)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(ii) the subject of an arrest warrant for violating a
condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State
law.''.
(c) Disclosure.--Section 1611(e)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1382(e)(5)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``any recipient of'' and inserting ``any
individual who is a recipient of (or would be such a recipient
but for the application of paragraph (4)(A))''; and
(2) by striking ``the recipient'' each place it appears and
inserting ``the individual''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall be
effective with respect to benefits payable for months that begin on or
after January 1, 2021.

I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND

A. Purpose and Summary

H.R. 2792, as amended, the ``Control Unlawful Fugitive
Felons Act,'' as ordered reported by the Committee on Ways and
Means on September 13, 2017, amends the Social Security Act to
make certain revisions to provisions limiting payment of
benefits to fugitive felons under title XVI.

B. Background and Need for Legislation

Under the 1996 welfare reform law, fugitive felons and
probation and parole violators were made ineligible for
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Similar provisions
were also included in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and
some housing assistance programs.
In addition to being an important program integrity
measure, this policy had the added benefit of helping law
enforcement find thousands of criminals who had been evading
the law. A 2007 report by the Social Security Administration's
(SSA) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that ``the
impact of this program reaches beyond Social Security to local
communities across the United States. OIG efforts contributed
to over 59,000 arrests since the program's inception in
1996.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General,
Semiannual Report to Congress, April 1, 2007-September 30, 2007, Page
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, a series of court cases during the mid- to late-
2000's determined that SSA's enforcement of the law was too
broad, primarily questioning SSA's interpretation of ``actively
fleeing''. As a result of these cases, SSA only discontinues
benefits to those who have escaped from prison or are avoiding
imprisonment, significantly reducing the impact of the policy.
H.R. 2792 restores the original intent of the 1996 law,
revising current law to discontinue benefits for individuals
who are ``the subject of an arrest warrant . . .'' compared to
the previous language of ``fleeing to avoid'' arrest, which was
the main legal challenge.
H.R. 2792 applies only to felony charges, or a crime
carrying a minimum term of one or more years in prison. This
policy does not intend to punish individuals convicted of
misdemeanors, such as outstanding parking tickets.
As a result of the court cases, SSA is now required to
provide additional notice to individuals and the opportunity
for them to establish ``good cause'' for not suspending
benefits, protecting SSI recipients. If SSI benefits are
suspended incorrectly, SSA has processes in place to restore
benefits quickly.

C. Legislative History

Background

H.R. 2792, the ``Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act,''
was introduced on June 6, 2017, by Representative Kristi Noem
and Representative Sam Johnson, and was referred to the
Committee on Ways and Means.

Committee hearings

On June 3, 2015, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human
Resources held the hearing titled, ``Protecting the Safety Net
from Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.''

Committee action

The Committee on Ways and Means marked up H.R. 2792, the
``Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act,'' on September 13,
2017. The bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives, as amended, by a roll call vote of 23 yeas to
14 nays.

II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

Section 1: Short Title

PRESENT LAW

No provision.

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

This Act may be cited as ``Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons
Act of 2017''.

REASON FOR CHANGE

The Committee believes that the short title accurately
reflects the policy actions included in the legislation.

EFFECTIVE DATE

These provisions are effective upon enactment.

Section 2: Revisions to Provisions Limiting Payments of Benefits to
Fugitive Felons Under Title XVI of the Social Security Act

(A) FUGITIVE FELON WARRANT REQUIREMENTS

PRESENT LAW

Under current law, a person is not eligible for
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits during any month in
which the person is ``fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody
or confinement after conviction'' for a crime which is a
felony, or in a state that does not classify crimes as
felonies, punishable by death or imprisonment of more than one
year (commonly referred to as the fugitive felon
prohibition).\2\ A similar prohibition exists for Social
Security Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OADSI)
benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act\3\ and
Special Benefits for World War II Veterans (SVB) under Title
VIII of the Act\4\ and for a person serving as a representative
payee for a beneficiary under any program administered by the
Social Security Administration (SSA).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Section 1614(e)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1382(e)(4)(A)].
\3\Section 202(x)(1)(A)(iv) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C.
Sec. 402(x)(1)(A)(iv)].
\4\Section 804(a)(2) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1004(a)(2)].
\5\Sections 1631(a)(2)(B)(iii)(V) [for SSI], 205(j)(2)(C)(i)(V)
[for OASDI], and 807(d)(1)(E) [for SVB] of the Social Security Act [42
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1683(a)(2)(B)(iii)(V), 405(j)(2)(C)(i)(V), and
807(d)(1)(E)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to April 1, 2009, the SSA interpreted this provision
to prohibit benefits to any person for whom an arrest warrant
for a felony was active, regardless of whether or not there was
any evidence or indication that the person was fleeing.
Pursuant to the class-action settlement agreement in Martinez
v. Astrue,\6\ the SSA, effective April 1, 2009, adopted the
present policy of only applying the fugitive felon prohibition
in SSI, OASDI, SVB, and representative payee cases in which a
person has a felony arrest warrant for one of the following
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Uniform Offense
Classification Codes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Martinez v. Astrue, No. 08-CV-4735 CW (N.D. Cal. 2009). In an
earlier case, Fowlkes v. Adamec [432 F.3d 90 (2d. Cir. 2005)], the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the SSA's
interpretation of the fugitive felon prohibition was inconsistent with
the statute because the SSA's policy did not require any finding that
the person was fleeing from prosecution or punishment and that under
the statute ``benefits may be suspended only as of the date of a
warrant or order issued by a court or other authorized tribunal on the
basis of a finding that an individual has fled or was fleeing from
justice.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4901: escape from custody;
4902: flight to avoid prosecution or
confinement; and
4999: flight-escape.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Social Security Administration, Program Operations Manual System
(POMS), GN 02613.860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

This subsection would change the fugitive felon provision
for SSI payments and SSI representative payees only by removing
all references to a person fleeing to avoid prosecution or
punishment. Under this subsection, a person would be ineligible
for SSI benefits (or to serve as an SSI representative payee)
if the person was subject to an arrest warrant for a crime that
is a felony, or in a state that does not classify crimes as
felonies, punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one
year, regardless of any consideration of whether or not the
person was fleeing. This subsection would essentially codify
the SSA's policy in effect before the Martinez settlement.

(B) PROBATION AND PAROLE WARRANT REQUIREMENT

PRESENT LAW

Under current law, a person is not eligible for SSI, OASDI,
or SVB benefits during any month in which the person is
``violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under
federal or state law.''\8\ This prohibition also applies to a
person serving as an SSI representative payee, but not a
representative payee for any other Social Security program.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Sections 1611(e)(4)(A)(ii) [for SSI], 202(x)(1)(A)(v) [for
OASDI], and 804(a)(3) [for SVB] of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1382(e)(4)(A)(ii), 404(x)(1)(A)(v), and 1004(a)(3)].
\9\Section 1631(a)(2)(B)(iii)(V) of the Social Security Act [42
U.S.C. Sec. 1683(a)(2)(B)(iii)(V).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to May 9, 2011, the SSA interpreted this provision to
prohibit the payment of benefits to a person solely due to the
presence of a warrant for one of the following NCIC Uniform
Offense Classification Codes:
5011: parole violation;
5012: probation violation;
8101: juvenile offenders--abscond while on
parole;
8102: juvenile offenders--abscond while on
probation;
9999: with an offense charge symbol of
probation or parole violation;
``blank:'' with an offense charge symbol of
probation or parole violation; and
any other four-digit code, except 4901,
4902, or 4999, with an offense charge symbol of
probation or parole violation.
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
held in Clark v. Astrue that the SSA policy of suspending
benefits solely due to the presence of a warrant for a
probation or parole violation was inconsistent with the
probation and parole violation suspension provisions of the
Social Security Act because the mere presence of a warrant is
not evidence that a probation or parole violation has actually
occurred.\10\ Pursuant to the Clark decision, on May 9, 2011,
the SSA stopped its practice of suspending benefits solely on
the basis of a probation or parole violation warrant.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Clark v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2010).
\11\Social Security Administration, Program Operations Manual
System (POMS), GN 02615.100.
\12\Sections 1611(e)(5) [for SSI] and 202(x)(3)(C) [for OASDI] of
the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1382(e)(5) and
402(x)(3)(C)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

This subsection would change the probation and parole
violation suspension provision for SSI benefits and SSI
representative payees only. The requirement that a person be
violating a condition of his or her probation or parole to be
ineligible for benefits would be changed to the requirement
that the person merely have a warrant for a probation or parole
violation. This subsection would essentially codify the SSA's
policy in effect before the Clark decision.

PRESENT LAW

Under current law, the SSA is required to disclose to any
federal, state, or local law enforcement officer, upon request
and if the location or apprehension of the beneficiary is
within the officer's official duties, the current address,
Social Security Number, and photograph (if applicable) of an
individual receiving SSI or OASDI benefits. This disclosure is
to be made if the officer notifies the SSA that the beneficiary
is (1) fleeing to avoid prosecution or custody after conviction
for a crime that is a felony (or in a state that does not
classify crimes as felonies, punishable by death or
imprisonment of more than one year) or (2) violating a
condition of his or her probation or parole.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Section 1611(e)(5) [for SSI] and 202(x)(3)(C) [for OASDI] of
the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1382(e)(5) and
402(x)(3)(C)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

This subsection would expand this provision to require the
SSA to also disclose to law enforcement the current address,
Social Security Number, and photograph (if applicable) of an
individual who would be receiving SSI benefits if not for the
fugitive felon or probation and parole prohibitions.

REASON FOR CHANGE

The Committee believes that these provisions will restore
the original intent of The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, to discontinue
Supplemental Security Income benefits for individuals who are
``the subject of an arrest warrant'' compared to the previous
language of ``fleeing to avoid'' arrest.
The original intent emphasized that assistance through the
SSI program is intended for the aged, blind, and disabled, and
that those with outstanding arrest warrants for a felony or
probation or parole violators should not be supported through
federal benefits. These measures aim to improve cooperation
between states, SSA, and law enforcement officials in locating
and apprehending these individuals.
It makes little sense to the Committee to limit the scope
of this common sense restriction to only those who are actively
on the run from law enforcement, and to not apply it as well to
those who may no longer be actively on the run because they
have successfully evaded law enforcement and their
responsibilities under the law.
H.R. 2792 prohibits SSI benefits to any individual who is
the subject of: (1) an outstanding arrest warrant for a felony,
or (2) an outstanding arrest warrant for violating a condition
of prohibition or parole imposed under federal or state law.
These provisions only apply to felony charges, or a crime
carrying a minimum term of one or more years in prison. It is
not the intent of this policy to punish individuals convicted
of misdemeanors.
In addition, the Committee expects SSA to continue and
improve certain aspects of the implementation of this
provision. Currently, SSA provides an ``advance notice'' to
recipients containing information on why SSA is suspending
payments and where, why, when the warrant was issued. This
allows the individuals to use the period of time before
payments are suspended to resolve the matter and to protest the
decision to suspend payments. During this protest, the
individual may also apply to SSA for a ``good cause'' exception
to the suspension, adding an additional layer of protections
for SSI recipients. Specifically, SSA may continue SSI payments
to an individual whose criminal offense was non-violent and not
drug related, not charged with a felony crime since the warrant
was issued, and if law enforcement reports it will not act on
the warrant. In addition, if recipients meet the above criteria
and lacks the mental capacity to resolve the warrant, which
includes, but is not limited to, those in a nursing home or
mental treatment facility, SSA may continue to provide SSI
payments without any disruption.
If for some reason Social Security benefits are denied due
to incorrect information, payments can be immediately restored
once the affected individual resolves any outstanding issues
with their local Social Security Administration field office.
Recipients may also then be eligible for an underpayment,
correcting for any missed payments.

EFFECTIVE DATE

These provisions are effective on January 1, 2021.

III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the following statement is made concerning the
vote of the Committee on Ways and Means during the markup
consideration of H.R. 2792, the ``Control Unlawful Fugitive
Felons Act,'' on September 13, 2017.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered by
Chairman Brady and adopted by voice vote (with a quorum being
present).
The amendment by Rep. Sewell to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to H.R. 2792, which would require SSI payments
be made to those with felony arrest warrants or parole/
probation violations unless the Commissioner could certify that
no one with a felony arrest warrant for court fees, supervision
fees, or monetary fines would be impacted, was not agreed to by
a roll call vote of 22 nays to 15 yeas (with a quorum being
present). The vote was as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brady........................ ....... X ......... Mr. Neal........... X ....... .........
Mr. Johnson...................... ....... X ......... Mr. Levin.......... X ....... .........
Mr. Nunes........................ ....... X ......... Mr. Lewis.......... X ....... .........
Mr. Tiberi....................... ....... ....... ......... Mr. Doggett........ X ....... .........
Mr. Reichert..................... ....... X ......... Mr. Thompson....... X ....... .........
Mr. Roskam....................... ....... X ......... Mr. Larson......... ....... ....... .........
Mr. Buchanan..................... ....... X ......... Mr. Blumenauer..... X ....... .........
Mr. Smith (NE)................... ....... X ......... Mr. Kind........... X ....... .........
Ms. Jenkins...................... ....... X ......... Mr. Pascrell....... X ....... .........
Mr. Paulsen...................... ....... X ......... Mr. Crowley........ X ....... .........
Mr. Marchant..................... ....... X ......... Mr. Davis.......... X ....... .........
Ms. Black........................ ....... ....... ......... Ms. Sanchez........ X ....... .........
Mr. Reed......................... ....... X ......... Mr. Higgins........ X ....... .........
Mr. Kelly........................ ....... X ......... Ms. Sewell......... X ....... .........
Mr. Renacci...................... ....... X ......... Ms. DelBene........ X ....... .........
Mr. Meehan....................... ....... X ......... Ms. Chu............ X ....... .........
Ms. Noem......................... ....... X .........
Mr. Holding...................... ....... X .........
Mr. Smith (MO)................... ....... X .........
Mr. Rice......................... ....... X .........
Mr. Schweikert................... ....... X .........
Ms. Walorski..................... ....... X .........
Mr. Curbelo...................... ....... X .........
Mr. Bishop....................... ....... X .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The amendment by Mr. Davis to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to H.R. 2792, which would require SSI payments
be made to those with felony arrest warrants or parole/
probation violations unless the Commissioner could certify that
there will be no effects on race or ethnicity, was not agreed
to by a roll call vote of 22 nays to 15 yeas (with a quorum
being present). The vote was as follows:

The amendment by Mr. Crowley to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to H.R. 2792, which would require SSI payments
be made to those with felony arrest warrants or parole/
probation violations unless the Commissioner could certify that
no one would be at risk of becoming homeless due to the
implementation of the provision, was not agreed to by a roll
call vote of 22 nays to 15 yeas (with a quorum being present).
The vote was as follows:

The amendment offered by Ms. Chu to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to H.R. 2792, which would require SSI
payments be made to those with felony arrest warrants or
parole/probation violations unless the Commissioner could
certify that no one with a felony arrest warrant who has
dementia or other cognitive impairments would be impacted, was
not agreed to by a roll call vote of 22 nays to 15 yeas (with a
quorum being present). The vote was as follows:

The bill, H.R. 2792, was ordered favorably reported to the
House of Representatives as amended by a roll call vote of 23
yeas to 14 nays (with a quorum being present). The vote was as
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brady........................ X ....... ......... Mr. Neal........... ....... X .........
Mr. Johnson...................... X ....... ......... Mr. Levin.......... ....... X .........
Mr. Nunes........................ X ....... ......... Mr. Lewis.......... ....... X .........
Mr. Tiberi....................... ....... ....... ......... Mr. Doggett........ ....... X .........
Mr. Reichert..................... X ....... ......... Mr. Thompson....... ....... X .........
Mr. Roskam....................... X ....... ......... Mr. Larson......... ....... ....... .........
Mr. Buchanan..................... X ....... ......... Mr. Blumenauer..... ....... X .........
Mr. Smith (NE)................... X ....... ......... Mr. Kind........... X ....... .........
Ms. Jenkins...................... X ....... ......... Mr. Pascrell....... ....... X .........
Mr. Paulsen...................... X ....... ......... Mr. Crowley........ ....... X .........
Mr. Marchant..................... X ....... ......... Mr. Davis.......... ....... X .........
Ms. Black........................ ....... ....... ......... Ms. Sanchez........ ....... X .........
Mr. Reed......................... X ....... ......... Mr. Higgins........ ....... X .........
Mr. Kelly........................ X ....... ......... Ms. Sewell......... ....... X .........
Mr. Renacci...................... X ....... ......... Ms. DelBene........ ....... X .........
Mr. Meehan....................... X ....... ......... Ms. Chu............ ....... X .........
Ms. Noem......................... X ....... .........
Mr. Holding...................... X ....... .........
Mr. Smith (MO)................... X ....... .........
Mr. Rice......................... X ....... .........
Mr. Schweikert................... X ....... .........
Ms. Walorski..................... X ....... .........
Mr. Curbelo...................... X ....... .........
Mr. Bishop....................... X ....... .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL

A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects

In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statement is made
concerning the effects on the budget of the bill, H.R. 2792, as
reported. The Committee agrees with the estimate prepared by
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is included below.

B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures Budget
Authority

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that the
bill involves no new or increased budget authority. The
Committee states further that the bill involves no new or
increased tax expenditures.

C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate
prepared by the CBO, the following statement by CBO is
provided.

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 20, 2017.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2792, the Control
Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Noah
Meyerson.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.

H.R. 2792--Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017

Summary: H.R. 2792 would, beginning in calendar year 2021,
expand the number of people who are considered ``fugitive
felons'' and who would therefore be ineligible for benefits
under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2792 would decrease direct
spending by about $2.1 billion over the 2018-2027 period;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting the bill
would not affect revenues.
CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not
increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of
the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 2792 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effects of H.R. 2792 are shown in the following
table. The effects of this legislation fall within budget
functions 550 (health) and 600 (income security).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2017-2022 2017-2027
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCREASES OR DECREASES (-) IN DIRECT SPENDING

Supplemental Security Income:
Estimated Budget Authority................... 0 0 0 0 -200 -280 -290 -300 -340 -370 -410 -480 -2,190
Estimated Outlays............................ 0 0 0 0 -200 -280 -290 -300 -340 -370 -410 -480 -2,190

Medicaid:
Estimated Budget Authority................... 0 0 0 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 130
Estimated Outlays............................ 0 0 0 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 130

Total:
Estimated Budget Authority............... 0 0 0 0 -190 -260 -270 -280 -320 -350 -390 -450 -2,060
Estimated Outlays........................ 0 0 0 0 -190 -260 -270 -280 -320 -350 -390 -450 -2,060
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis of estimate: The Social Security Administration (SSA)
currently withholds SSI payments for recipients who are
considered fleeing felons (people for whom there is an active
arrest warrant for ``crimes of flight''). H.R. 2792 would
expand the groups of people ineligible to receive payments to
those who have an active arrest warrant for a felony or for a
parole or probation violation.
Under the Social Security Act, a person is not eligible for
SSI payments during any month in which the person is ``fleeing
to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after
conviction'' for a crime that is a felony or during any month
in which the person is ``violating a condition of probation or
parole imposed under federal or state law.'' SSA originally
interpreted this provision to prohibit payments to any
recipients with an active arrest warrant for a felony or for a
violation of parole or probation. Following two court cases
(Martinez v. Astrue in 2009 and Clark v. Astrue in 2010), SSA
adjusted its policies and now suspends payments only when the
warrant is for ``crimes of flight,'' such as escape from
custody or flight to avoid prosecution. (Similar prohibitions
on payment exist for Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability
Insurance; H.R. 2792 would not affect those programs.)
H.R. 2792 would amend the Social Security Act to
essentially reinstate, for SSI recipients, the policy of
suspending benefits for all people with active warrants for
felonies or violations of probation or parole. The bill would
take effect in calendar year 2021.
Based on data provided by SSA about the number of payments
that were withheld when SSA prohibited payment to all people
with the relevant types of arrest warrants and the number that
are withheld under current policy, CBO estimates that the bill
would reduce the SSI monthly caseload by roughly 30,000
recipients. CBO projects that the affected individuals would
lose federal payments that are, on average, 10 percent higher
than the average federal SSI payment. The withheld monthly
benefits would average about $700 in 2022. On that basis, CBO
estimates that total federal SSI payments would be reduced by
$2.2 billion over the 2018-2027 period.
Most SSI recipients are automatically eligible for
Medicaid, which is a joint federal-state program that pays for
health care services for low-income individuals. Under H.R.
2792, individuals who would no longer receive their SSI
benefits also would stop receiving Medicaid benefits under
their eligibility for SSI. However many of those people would
be eligible for other reasons. CBO estimates that about three
quarters of the people who would stop receiving SSI benefits
under H.R. 2792 would be able to retain their Medicaid
eligibility under other criteria that have the same average
federal matching rate as for those who are eligible for SSI
(about 57 percent). Therefore, CBO does not expect any change
in federal Medicaid spending for the most of the individuals
who stop receiving SSI benefits under the bill. Of the
remaining one quarter of people affected by the bill, CBO
estimates that most would gain eligibility through the
Affordable Care Act's optional state expansion of Medicaid
coverage. At least 90 percent of the cost for people in that
eligibility group is paid for by the federal government. The
additional federal costs for those people would be larger than
the federal savings generated from the small number of people
who would not be able to qualify for Medicaid under other
criteria and would thus lose all access to Medicaid under the
bill. CBO estimates that, on net, federal Medicaid spending
would increase by $130 million over the 2018-2027 period.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table.

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 2792 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2017-2022 2017-2027
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact................... 0 0 0 0 -190 -260 -270 -280 -320 -350 -390 -450 -2,060
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO
estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2792
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Noah Meyerson (SSI)
and Andrea Noda (Medicaid); Impact on state, local, and tribal
governments: Zachary Byrum; Impact on the private sector: Paige
Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE

A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee made findings and
recommendations that are reflected in this report.

B. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, Committee establishes the
following performance related goals and objectives for this
legislation: To limit the paying of benefits to fugitive felons
under Title XVI (Supplemental Security Income) of the Social
Security Act.

C. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates

This information is provided in accordance with section 423
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-
4). The Committee has determined that the bill does not contain
Federal mandates on the private sector. The Committee has
determined that the bill does not impose a Federal
intergovernmental mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments.

D. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits

With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed
the provisions of the bill, and states that the provisions of
the bill do not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits within the meaning of the
rule.

E. Duplication of Federal Programs

In compliance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that no
provision of the bill establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program; (2) a program included in any report
from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant
to section 21 of Public Law 111-139; or (3) a program related
to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance, published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Pub. L. No. 95-220, as amended by Pub. L. No.
98-169).

F. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

In compliance with Sec. 3(i) of H. Res. 5 (115th Congress),
the following statement is made concerning directed rule
makings: The Committee advises that the bill requires no
directed rulemakings within the meaning of such section.

VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

* * * * * * *
TITLE XVI--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND
DISABLED

* * * * * * *

Part A--Determination of Benefits

ELIGIBILITY FOR AND AMOUNT OF BENEFITS

Definition of Eligible Individual

Sec. 1611. (a)(1) Each aged, blind, or disabled individual
who does not have an eligible spouse and--
(A) whose income, other than income excluded pursuant
to section 1612(b), is at a rate of not more than
$1,752 (or, if greater, the amount determined under
section 1617) for the calendar year 1974 or any
calendar year thereafter, and
(B) whose resources, other than resources excluded
pursuant to section 1613(a), are not more than (i) in
case such individual has a spouse with whom he is
living, the applicable amount determined under
paragraph (3)(A), or (ii) in case such individual has
no spouse with whom he is living, the applicable amount
determined under paragraph (3)(B),
shall be an eligible individual for purposes of this title.
(2) Each aged, blind, or disabled individual who has an
eligible spouse and
(A) whose income (together with the income of such
spouse), other than income excluded pursuant to section
1612(b), is at a rate of not more than $2,628 (or, if
greater, the amount determined under section 1617) for
the calendar year 1974, or any calendar year
thereafter, and
(B) whose resources (together with the resources of
such spouse), other than resources excluded pursuant to
section 1613(a), are not more than the applicable
amount determined under paragraph (3)(A),
shall be an eligible individual for purposes of this title.
(3)(A) The dollar amount referred to in clause (i) of
paragraph (1)(B), and in paragraph (2)(B), shall be $2,250
prior to January 1, 1985, and shall be increased to $2,400 on
January 1, 1985, to $2,550 on January 1, 1986, to $2,700 on
January 1, 1987, to $2,850 on January 1, 1988, and to $3,000 on
January 1, 1989.
(B) The dollar amount referred to in clause (ii) of paragraph
(1)(B), shall be $1,500 prior to January 1, 1985, and shall be
increased to $1,600 on January 1, 1985, to $1,700 on January 1,
1986, to $1,800 on January 1, 1987, to $1,900 on January 1,
1988, and to $2,000 on January 1, 1989.

Amounts of Benefits

(b)(1) The benefit under this title for an individual who
does not have an eligible spouse shall be payable at the rate
of $1,752 (or, if greater, the amount determined under section
1617) for the calendar year 1974 and any calendar year
thereafter, reduced by the amount of income, not excluded
pursuant to section 1612(b), of such individual.
(2) The benefit under this title for an individual who has an
eligible spouse shall be payable at the rate of $2,628 (or, if
greater, the amount determined under section 1617) for the
calendar year 1974 and any calendar year thereafter, reduced by
the amount of income, not excluded pursuant to section 1612(b),
of such individual and spouse.

Period for Determination of Benefits

(c)(1) An individual's eligibility for a benefit under this
title for a month shall be determined on the basis of the
individual's (and eligible spouse's, if any) income, resources,
and other relevant characteristics in such month, and, except
as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6), the
amount of such benefit shall be determined for such month on
the basis of income and other characteristics in the first or,
if the Commissioner of Social Security so determines, second
month preceding such month. Eligibility for and the amount of
such benefits shall be redetermined at such time or times as
may be provided by the Commissioner of Social Security.
(2) The amount of such benefit for the month in which an
application for benefits becomes effective (or, if the
Commissioner of Social Security so determines, for such month
and the following month) and for any month immediately
following a month of ineligibility for such benefits (or, if
the Commissioner of Social Security so determines, for such
month and the following month) shall--
(A) be determined on the basis of the income of the
individual and the eligible spouse, if any, of such
individual and other relevant circumstances in such
month; and
(B) in the case of the first month following a period
of ineligibility in which eligibility is restored after
the first day of such month, bear the same ratio to the
amount of the benefit which would have been payable to
such individual if eligibility had been restored on the
first day of such month as the number of days in such
month including and following the date of restoration
of eligibility bears to the total number of days in
such month.
(3) For purposes of this subsection, an increase in the
benefit amount payable under title II (over the amount payable
in the preceding month, or, at the election of the Commissioner
of Social Security, the second preceding month) to an
individual receiving benefits under this title shall be
included in the income used to determine the benefit under this
title of such individual for any month which is--
(A) the first month in which the benefit amount
payable to such individual under this title is
increased pursuant to section 1617, or
(B) at the election of the Commissioner of Social
Security, the month immediately following such month.
(4)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), if the Commissioner of
Social Security determines that reliable information is
currently available with respect to the income and other
circumstances of an individual for a month (including
information with respect to a class of which such individual is
a member and information with respect to scheduled cost-of-
living adjustments under other benefit programs), the benefit
amount of such individual under this title for such month may
be determined on the basis of such information.
(B) The Commissioner of Social Security shall prescribe by
regulation the circumstances in which information with respect
to an event may be taken into account pursuant to subparagraph
(A) in determining benefit amounts under this title.
(5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), any income which
is paid to or on behalf of an individual in any month pursuant
to (A) a State program funded under part A of title IV, (B)
section 472 of this Act (relating to foster care assistance),
(C) section 412(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(relating to assistance for refugees), (D) section 501(a) of
Public Law 96-422 (relating to assistance for Cuban and Haitian
entrants), or (E) the Act of November 2, 1921 (42 Stat. 208),
as amended (relating to assistance furnished by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs), shall be taken into account in determining the
amount of the benefit under this title of such individual (and
his eligible spouse, if any) only for that month, and shall not
be taken into account in determining the amount of the benefit
for any other month.
(6) The dollar amount in effect under subsection (b) as a
result of any increase in benefits under this title by reason
of section 1617 shall be used to determine the value of any in-
kind support and maintenance required to be taken into account
in determining the benefit payable under this title to an
individual (and the eligible spouse, if any, of the individual)
for the 1st 2 months for which the increase in benefits
applies.
(7) For purposes of this subsection, an application of an
individual for benefits under this title shall be effective on
the later of--
(A) the first day of the month following the date
such application is filed, or
(B) the first day of the month following the date
such individual becomes eligible for such benefits with
respect to such application.
(8) The Commissioner of Social Security may waive the
limitations specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
subsection (e)(1) on an individual's eligibility and benefit
amount for a month (to the extent either such limitation is
applicable by reason of such individual's presence throughout
such month in a hospital, extended care facility, nursing home,
or intermediate care facility) if such waiver would promote the
individual's removal from such institution or facility. Upon
waiver of such limitations, the Commissioner of Social Security
shall apply, to the month preceding the month of removal, or,
if the Commissioner of Social Security so determines, the two
months preceding the month of removal, the benefit rate that is
appropriate to such individual's living arrangement subsequent
to his removal from such institution or facility.
(9)(A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), any
nonrecurring income which is paid to an individual in the first
month of any period of eligibility shall be taken into account
in determining the amount of the benefit under this title of
such individual (and his eligible spouse, if any) only for that
month, and shall not be taken into account in determining the
amount of the benefit for any other month.
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), payments to an
individual in varying amounts from the same or similar source
for the same or similar purpose shall not be considered to be
nonrecurring income.
(10) For purposes of this subsection, remuneration for
service performed as a member of a uniformed service may be
treated as received in the month in which it was earned, if the
Commissioner of Social Security determines that such treatment
would promote the economical and efficient administration of
the program authorized by this title.

Special Limits on Gross Income

(d) The Commissioner of Social Security may prescribe the
circumstances under which, consistently with the purposes of
this title, the gross income from a trade or business
(including farming) will be considered sufficiently large to
make an individual ineligible for benefits under this title.
For purposes of this subsection, the term ``gross income'' has
the same meaning as when used in chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954.

Limitation on Eligibility of Certain Individuals

(e)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B), (C), (D),
(E), and (G), no person shall be an eligible individual or
eligible spouse for purposes of this title with respect to any
month if throughout such month he is an inmate of a public
institution.
(B) In any case where an eligible individual or his eligible
spouse (if any) is, throughout any month (subject to
subparagraph (G)), in a medical treatment facility receiving
payments (with respect to such individual or spouse) under a
State plan approved under title XIX, or an eligible individual
is a child described in section 1614(f)(2)(B), or, in the case
of an eligible individual who is a child under the age of 18,
receiving payments (with respect to such individual) under any
health insurance policy issued by a private provider of such
insurance the benefit under this title for such individual for
such month shall be payable (subject to subparagraph (E))--
(i) at a rate not in excess of $360 per year (reduced
by the amount of any income not excluded pursuant to
section 1612(b)) in the case of an individual who does
not have an eligible spouse;
(ii) in the case of an individual who has an eligible
spouse, if only one of them is in such a facility
throughout such month, at a rate not in excess of the
sum of--
(I) the rate of $360 per year (reduced by the
amount of any income, not excluded pursuant to
section 1612(b), of the one who is in such
facility), and
(II) the applicable rate specified in
subsection (b)(1) (reduced by the amount of any
income, not excluded pursuant to section
1612(b), of the other); and
(iii) at a rate not in excess of $720 per year
(reduced by the amount of any income not excluded
pursuant to section 1612(b)) in the case of an
individual who has an eligible spouse, if both of them
are in such a facility throughout such month.
For purposes of this subsection, a medical treatment facility
that provides services described in section 1917(c)(1)(C) shall
be considered to be receiving payments with respect to an
individual under a State plan approved under title XIX during
any period of ineligibility of such individual provided for
under the State plan pursuant to section 1917(c).
(C) As used in subparagraph (A), the term ``public
institution'' does not include a publicly operated community
residence which serves no more than 16 residents.
(D) A person may be an eligible individual or eligible spouse
for purposes of this title with respect to any month throughout
which he is a resident of a public emergency shelter for the
homeless (as defined in regulations which shall be prescribed
by the Commissioner of Social Security); except that no person
shall be an eligible individual or eligible spouse by reason of
this subparagraph more than 6 months in any 9-month period.
(E) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), any individual
who--
(i)(I) is an inmate of a public institution, the
primary purpose of which is the provision of medical or
psychiatric care, throughout any month as described in
subparagraph (A), or
(II) is in a medical treatment facility throughout
any month as described in subparagraph (B),
(ii) was eligible under section 1619(a) or (b) for
the month preceding such month, and
(iii) under an agreement of the public institution or
the medical treatment facility is permitted to retain
any benefit payable by reason of this subparagraph,
may be an eligible individual or eligible spouse for purposes
of this title (and entitled to a benefit determined on the
basis of the rate applicable under subsection (b)) for the
month referred to in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i) and,
if such subclause still applies, for the succeeding month.
(F) An individual who is an eligible individual or an
eligible spouse for a month by reason of subparagraph (E) shall
not be treated as being eligible under section 1619(a) or (b)
for such month for purposes of clause (ii) of such
subparagraph.
(G) A person may be an eligible individual or eligible spouse
for purposes of this title, and subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall
not apply, with respect to any particular month throughout
which he or she is an inmate of a public institution the
primary purpose of which is the provision of medical or
psychiatric care, or is in a medical treatment facility
receiving payments (with respect to such individual or spouse)
under a State plan approved under title XIX or, in the case of
an individual who is a child under the age of 18, under any
health insurance policy issued by a private provider of such
insurance, if it is determined in accordance with subparagraph
(H) or (J) that--
(i) such person's stay in that institution or
facility (or in that institution or facility and one or
more other such institutions or facilities during a
continuous period of institutionalization) is likely
(as certified by a physician) not to exceed 3 months,
and the particular month involved is one of the first 3
months throughout which such person is in such an
institution or facility during a continuous period of
institutionalization; and
(ii) such person needs to continue to maintain and
provide for the expenses of the home or living
arrangement to which he or she may return upon leaving
the institution or facility.
The benefit of any person under this title (including State
supplementation if any) for each month to which this
subparagraph applies shall be payable, without interruption of
benefit payments and on the date the benefit involved is
regularly due, at the rate that was applicable to such person
in the month prior to the first month throughout which he or
she is in the institution or facility.
(H) The Commissioner of Social Security shall establish
procedures for the determinations required by clauses (i) and
(ii) of subparagraph (G), and may enter into agreements for
making such determinations (or for providing information or
assistance in connection with the making of such
determinations) with appropriate State and local public and
private agencies and organizations. Such procedures and
agreements shall include the provision of appropriate
assistance to individuals who, because of their physical or
mental condition, are limited in their ability to furnish the
information needed in connection with the making of such
determinations.
(I)(i) The Commissioner shall enter into an agreement, with
any interested State or local institution comprising a jail,
prison, penal institution, or correctional facility, or with
any other interested State or local institution a purpose of
which is to confine individuals as described in section
202(x)(1)(A)(ii), under which--
(I) the institution shall provide to the
Commissioner, on a monthly basis and in a manner
specified by the Commissioner, the first, middle, and
last names, social security account numbersor taxpayer
identification numbers, prison assigned inmate numbers,
last known addresses, dates of birth, confinement
commencement dates, dates of release or anticipated
dates of release, dates of work release, and, to the
extent available to the institution, such other
identifying information concerning the inmates of the
institution as the Commissioner may require for the
purpose of carrying out this paragraph and clause (iv)
of this subparagraph and the other provisions of this
title; and
(II) the Commissioner shall pay to any such
institution, with respect to each individual who
receives in the month preceding the first month
throughout which such individual is an inmate of the
jail, prison, penal institution, or correctional
facility that furnishes information respecting such
individual pursuant to subclause (I), or is confined in
the institution (that so furnishes such information) as
described in section 202(x)(1)(A)(ii), a benefit under
this title for such preceding month, and who is
determined by the Commissioner to be ineligible for
benefits under this title by reason of confinement
based on the information provided by such institution,
$400 (subject to reduction under clause (ii)) if the
institution furnishes the information described in
subclause (I) to the Commissioner within 30 days after
the date such individual becomes an inmate of such
institution, or $200 (subject to reduction under clause
(ii)) if the institution furnishes such information
after 30 days after such date but within 90 days after
such date.
(ii) The dollar amounts specified in clause (i)(II) shall be
reduced by 50 percent if the Commissioner is also required to
make a payment to the institution with respect to the same
individual under an agreement entered into under section
202(x)(3)(B).
(iii) The Commissioner shall provide, on a reimbursable
basis, information obtained pursuant to agreements entered into
under clause (i) to any Federal or federally-assisted cash,
food, or medical assistance program for eligibility and other
administrative purposes under such program, for statistical and
research activities conducted by Federal and State agencies,
and to the Secretary of the Treasury for the purposes of tax
administration, debt collection, and identifying, preventing,
and recovering improper payments under federally funded
programs.
(iv) Payments to institutions required by clause (i)(II)
shall be made from funds otherwise available for the payment of
benefits under this title and shall be treated as direct
spending for purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(v)(I) The Commissioner may disclose information received
pursuant to this paragraph to any officer, employee, agent, or
contractor of the Department of the Treasury whose official
duties require such information to assist in the
identification, prevention, and recovery of improper payments
or in the collection of delinquent debts owed to the United
States, including payments certified by the head of an
executive, judicial, or legislative paying agency, and payments
made to individuals whose eligibility, or continuing
eligibility, to participate in a Federal program (including
those administered by a State or political subdivision thereof)
is being reviewed.
(II) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 552a of title
5, United States Code, or any other provision of Federal or
State law, the Secretary of the Treasury may compare
information disclosed under subclause (I) with any other
personally identifiable information derived from a Federal
system of records or similar records maintained by a Federal
contractor, a Federal grantee, or an entity administering a
Federal program or activity and may redisclose such comparison
of information to any paying or administering agency and to the
head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the head of any State
agency charged with the administration of prisons with respect
to inmates whom the Secretary of the Treasury has determined
may have been issued, or facilitated in the issuance of, an
improper payment.
(III) The comparison of information disclosed under subclause
(I) shall not be considered a matching program for purposes of
section 552a of title 5, United States Code.
(J) For the purpose of carrying out this paragraph, the
Commissioner of Social Security shall conduct periodic computer
matches with data maintained by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services under title XVIII or XIX. The Secretary shall
furnish to the Commissioner, in such form and manner and under
such terms as the Commissioner and the Secretary shall mutually
agree, such information as the Commissioner may request for
this purpose. Information obtained pursuant to such a match may
be substituted for the physician's certification otherwise
required under subparagraph (G)(i).
(2) No person shall be an eligible individual or eligible
spouse for purposes of this title if, after notice to such
person by the Commissioner of Social Security that it is likely
that such person is eligible for any payments of the type
enumerated in section 1612(a)(2)(B), such person fails within
30 days to take all appropriate steps to apply for and (if
eligible) obtain any such payments.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the criteria
being used by the Commissioner of Social Security in
determining when a husband and wife are to be considered two
eligible individuals for purposes of this title and when they
are to be considered an eligible individual with an eligible
spouse, the State agency administering or supervising the
administration of a State plan under any other program under
this Act may (in the administration of such plan) treat a
husband and wife living in the same medical treatment facility
described in paragraph (1)(B) as though they were an eligible
individual with his or her eligible spouse for purposes of this
title (rather than two eligible individuals), after they have
continuously lived in the same such facility for 6 months, if
treating such husband and wife as two eligible individuals
would prevent either of them from receiving benefits or
assistance under such plan or reduce the amount thereof.
(4)(A) No person shall be considered an eligible individual
or eligible spouse for purposes of this title with respect to
any month if during such month the person is--
(i) [fleeing to avoid] the subject of an arrest
warrant for the purpose of prosecution, or custody or
confinement after conviction, under the laws of [the
place from which the person flees] the jurisdiction
issuing the warrant, for a crime, or an attempt to
commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of
[the place from which the person flees] the
jurisdiction, or, in jurisdictions that do not define
crimes as felonies, is punishable by death or
imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year regardless of
the actual sentence imposed; or
[(ii) violating a condition of probation or parole
imposed under Federal or State law.]
(ii) the subject of an arrest warrant for violating a
condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal
or State law.
(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Commissioner shall,
for good cause shown, treat the person referred to in
subparagraph (A) as an eligible individual or eligible spouse
if the Commissioner determines that--
(i) a court of competent jurisdiction has found the
person not guilty of the criminal offense, dismissed
the charges relating to the criminal offense, vacated
the warrant for arrest of the person for the criminal
offense, or issued any similar exonerating order (or
taken similar exonerating action), or
(ii) the person was erroneously implicated in
connection with the criminal offense by reason of
identity fraud.
(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Commissioner may,
for good cause shown based on mitigating circumstances, treat
the person referred to in subparagraph (A) as an eligible
individual or eligible spouse if the Commissioner determines
that--
(i) the offense described in subparagraph (A)(i) or
underlying the imposition of the probation or parole
described in subparagraph (A)(ii) was nonviolent and
not drug-related, and
(ii) in the case of a person who is not considered an
eligible individual or eligible spouse pursuant to
subparagraph (A)(ii), the action that resulted in the
violation of a condition of probation or parole was
nonviolent and not drug-related.
(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (other than
section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section
1106(c) of this Act), the Commissioner shall furnish any
Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, upon the
written request of the officer, with the current address,
Social Security number, and photograph (if applicable) of [any
recipient of] any individual who is a recipient of (or would be
such a recipient but for the application of paragraph (4)(A))
benefits under this title, if the officer furnishes the
Commissioner with the name of [the recipient] the individual,
and other identifying information as reasonably required by the
Commissioner to establish the unique identity of [the
recipient] the individual, and notifies the Commissioner that--
(A) [the recipient] the individual is described in
clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (4)(A); and
(B) the location or apprehension of [the recipient]
the individual is within the officer's official duties.

Suspension of Payments to Individuals Who Are Outside the United States

(f)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no
individual (other than a child described in section
1614(a)(1)(B)(ii)) shall be considered an eligible individual
for purposes of this title for any month during all of which
such individual is outside the United States (and no person
shall be considered the eligible spouse of an individual for
purposes of this title with respect to any month during all of
which such person is outside the United States). For purposes
of the preceding sentence, after an individual has been outside
the United States for any period of 30 consecutive days, he
shall be treated as remaining outside the United States until
he has been in the United States for a period of 30 consecutive
days.
(2) For a period of not more than 1 year, the first sentence
of paragraph (1) shall not apply to any individual who--
(A) was eligible to receive a benefit under this
title for the month immediately preceding the first
month during all of which the individual was outside
the United States; and
(B) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Commissioner of Social Security that the absence of the
individual from the United States will be--
(i) for not more than 1 year; and
(ii) for the purpose of conducting studies as
part of an educational program that is--
(I) designed to substantially enhance
the ability of the individual to engage
in gainful employment;
(II) sponsored by a school, college,
or university in the United States; and
(III) not available to the individual
in the United States.

Certain Individuals Deemed To Meet Resources Test

(g) In the case of any individual or any individual and his
spouse (as the case may be) who--
(1) received aid or assistance for December 1973
under a plan of a State approved under title I, X, XIV,
or XVI,
(2) has, since December 31, 1973, continuously
resided in the State under the plan of which he or they
received such aid or assistance for December 1973, and
(3) has, since December 31, 1973, continuously been
(except for periods not in excess of six consecutive
months) an eligible individual or eligible spouse with
respect to whom supplemental security income benefits
are payable,
the resources of such individual or such individual and his
spouse (as the case may be) shall be deemed not to exceed the
amount specified in sections 1611(a)(1)(B) and 1611(a)(2)(B)
during any period that the resources of such individual or such
individual and his spouse (as the case may be) does not exceed
the maximum amount of resources specified in the State plan, as
in effect for October 1972, under which he or they received
such aid or assistance for December 1973.

Certain Individuals Deemed To Meet Income Test

(h) In determining eligibility for, and the amount of,
benefits payable under this section in the case of any
individual or any individual and his spouse (as the case may
be) who--
(1) received aid or assistance for December 1973
under a plan of a State approved under title X or XVI,
(2) is blind under the definition of that term in the
plan, as in effect for October 1972, under which he or
they received such aid or assistance for December 1973,
(3) has, since December 31, 1973, continuously
resided in the State under the plan of which he or they
received such aid or assistance for December 1973, and
(4) has, since December 31, 1973, continuously been
(except for periods not in excess of six consecutive
months) an eligible individual or an eligible spouse
with respect to whom supplemental security income
benefits are payable,
there shall be disregarded an amount equal to the greater of
(A) the maximum amount of any earned or unearned income which
could have been disregarded under the State plan, as in effect
for October 1972, under which he or they received such aid or
assistance for December 1973, and (B) the amount which would be
required to be disregarded under section 1612 without
application of this subsection.

Application and Review Requirements for Certain Individuals

(i) For application and review requirements affecting the
eligibility of certain individuals, see section 1631(j).

* * * * * * *

VII. DISSENTING VIEWS

Over 110 national, state, and local groups representing
seniors, people with disabilities, children, and families have
contacted the Committee to warn us that H.R. 2792 is a cruel
bill that could have catastrophic consequences for some of our
most vulnerable citizens. In addition, civil right groups
strongly oppose the bill because it would magnify the serious
racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities in our criminal
justice system.
We agree that dangerous criminals should not be supported
by public benefits while fleeing justice. However, under
current law, the Social Security Administration (SSA) already
provides regular notification to law enforcement of the
whereabouts of any Social Security or Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) beneficiary who has an outstanding arrest warrant
for an alleged felony or an alleged violation of a condition of
probation or parole. After notification, law enforcement
officials can, and do, use that information to arrest
individuals so that our legal system can determine whether they
are guilty. However, past experience has revealed that, in many
cases, law enforcement officials choose not to arrest these
individuals, despite having their names and addresses, as the
warrants essentially are inactive.
Law enforcement also informs SSA when it is unable to
arrest individuals who are actual fugitives charged with
fleeing or escaping. When they do, SSA terminates benefits.
That is current law.
Despite the title of the bill, the seniors and people with
severe disabilities who would be harmed by this bill are not
felons, as the Chairman acknowledged at our markup. They are
people who have been accused of a felony, or accused of a
parole or probation violation. They have not been tried or
convicted of the offense underlying the warrant. In many
instances, they are not even accused of committing a felony, as
probation can result from a misdemeanor offense alone.
In the United States of America, individuals are innocent
until proven guilty. H.R. 2792 would create a severe new
punishment--loss of basic income--for individuals who have only
been accused of a crime--not tried or convicted--and whom law
enforcement did not seek to arrest after being notified of
their whereabouts and their receipt of Social Security or SSI.
The Majority's only answer to the clear danger that this
bill would cut off the last lifeline for people in nursing
homes, individuals with dementia or other cognitive
impairments, and those at risk of being homeless was to cite
the very limited discretionary authority already in existing
law for the Commissioner of Social Security to hear appeals and
grant exceptions in narrow circumstances. This glib response
ignores SSA's average waiting time of 600 days for appeals
hearings. Also, this policy of ``cut off benefits first, let
them appeal later'' ignores the reality of the people who
receive SSI, many of whom have cognitive impairments and
limited education, and all of whom have no resources to fall
back on as they wait years to have their income restored.
Past experience with this policy was that many vulnerable
individuals who pose no danger to the community, and who often
were not even aware that warrants for long-ago, alleged
offenses still (or ever) existed, lost benefits they needed to
survive. Despite this, the Majority failed to hold a hearing on
H.R. 2792 to examine the problem they are trying to solve or
learn about potentially harmful consequences before moving to
enact this bill.
If the Majority had held a hearing, they would have learned
that, in the past, individuals who lost benefits under this
policy included individuals who had dementia or severe
intellectual disability; who were confined to wheelchairs and
tethered to oxygen tanks; who years ago were charged with theft
of $50; whose arrest warrant related to their own attempted
suicide; whose charge was kicking a staff member at a detention
center when they ran away from an abusive stepfather at age 12;
or were wrongly identified, having a different gender, Social
Security number, and race than the accused individual, yet had
to hire an attorney before SSA would restore benefits. We
believe that a better understanding of the issue would have
resulted in adoption of many of our amendments, particularly
Ms. Chu's amendment to ensure that the policy did not take
effect if it would result in people with dementia and other
cognitive impairments losing their basic income.
Therefore, we opposed H.R. 2792.
Richard E. Neal,
Ranking Member.
----------

Mr. Chairman: On H.R. 2792, I am in full agreement with the
dissenting views of my Democratic colleagues. Had I been
present for the votes on the amendments submitted by my
Democratic colleagues, I would have supported them.
Had I been present for the vote on reporting H.R. 2792 out
of the Committee, I would have voted No.
John B. Larson,
Member of Congress.
ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS

In addition to the overall concerns outlined by the Ranking
Member that H.R. 2792 would harm poor seniors and people with
disabilities, we express deep concerns that this bill: (1)
directly contradicts the constitutional presumption of
innocence; (2) deprives individuals of due process and lowers
the legal standard for deprivation of government benefits based
on a mere accusation rather than conviction; (3) increases the
likelihood of errors in termination of SSI benefits; (4)
magnifies the deep inequities in our criminal justice system
based on race, ethnicity, and income; and (5) decreases the
overall safety of our communities.
H.R. 2792 assumes all individuals accused of a crime and
issued an arrest warrant for a felony or for a violation of a
condition of probation or parole are guilty. This directly
contradicts the constitutional presumption of innocence and
deprives individuals of due process via adjudication of guilt
or innocence based on a simple accusation rather than a
conviction. The conviction--not an accusation of a crime--
should be the predicate for the loss of benefits. The denial of
due process then deprives the individual of government benefits
based on accusations rather than conviction, in direct
contradiction of volumes of case law.
In addition, the denial of due process based on
accusation--rather than conviction--increases the likelihood of
termination errors, which the adjudication process could have
addressed. Multiple federal, state, and organization studies
demonstrate the inaccuracies of criminal justice databases. For
example, a 2016 Minnesota Law Review article focused on the
inaccuracies of criminal justice data bases and noted the lack
of evidence of accurate arrest warrant information in state and
local databases. A 2015 report by the Government Accountability
Office noted that an FBI audit in 2012 found that 10 states had
50% or fewer of their criminal justice records that included
final dispositions and that another FBI audit for 2011-2013
indicated that 12 of the 44 states examined had data systems
that failed federal data accuracy requirements. A 2013 report
by the Legal Action Center focused on problems with criminal
records, including a 2007 study by the Bronx Defenders in which
62% of a random sample of New York State records had at least
one significant error and 32% had multiple errors.
Further, the denial of due process based on accusation
rather than conviction increases the likelihood of harm to
individuals who are racial/ethnic minorities and/or poor, harm
that the adjudication process could have limited The racial and
ethnic biases of the criminal justice system are well-
documented, including the following examples discussed during
Committee markup:
A 2015 report by the Brennan Center for
Justice at New York University School of Law reviewing
research related to racial/ethnic disparities in the
criminal justice system indicated the following:
Although Caucasians are more likely to sell drugs and
equally likely to use drugs, African Americans are
arrested almost four times as often as white
individuals for selling drugs and twice as often for
drug possession; African American and Latino defendants
are more than twice as likely as their white
counterparts to experience pretrial detention; African
American and Latino individuals experience longer
parole and probation periods than their white
counterparts, increasing the likelihood of low-level or
technical violations; and African American and Latino
persons experience greater hardship from criminal
justice collections and fees.
The Sentencing Project released a report
this month showing the Black/White disparities in
juvenile incarceration have grown in recent years.
Black youth were more than five times as likely as
white youth to be detained or committed. According to
this study, in six states (New Jersey, Wisconsin,
Montana, Delaware, Connecticut, and Massachusetts),
black youth were at least ten times as likely to be
held in placement as white youth.
A 2009 National Council on Crime and
Delinquency report found that Native Americans were
admitted to prison over four times and arrested at 1.5
times the rate as whites.
The denial of due process based on accusation--rather than
conviction--also criminalizes poverty. Increasingly, costs
associated with the criminal justice system have escalated
dramatically causing disproportionate harm to individuals with
limited financial resources. No uniform threshold for a felony
exists, giving states wide latitude to define offenses
involving relatively low monetary values as criminal felonies.
A report by the Marshall Project indicated that, although
dozens of states have increased their felony thresholds since
2000 to better capture the cost of goods, 13 states have not
and four of these states--Florida, Massachusetts, Virginia and
New Jersey--have the lowest thresholds in the country defining
felonies as losses of $300 or less--vastly different than the
$2,500 thresholds set in Texas or Wisconsin. Additionally,
individuals on probation for underlying misdemeanor offenses
(e.g., vagrancy, shoplifting, traffic violations) can violate
probation due to inability to pay court fees, restitution, or
fines, resulting in an arrest warrant for an alleged violation
of probation.
Under H.R. 2792, these individuals would lose SSI benefits
due to such alleged violations. In contrast to the Majority's
assurances during markup that only individuals charged with
violent offenses or costly financial theft could have felony
arrest warrants or violations of probation or parole, we remain
deeply alarmed that the classification of small property crimes
or non-payment of fees and fines could easily result in the
loss of SSI benefits to the elderly and disabled without due
process, consistent with the harm caused when SSA terminated
benefits for outstanding arrest warrants in the past.
By denying the right and protections of due process, this
legislation contradicts the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the U.S. Constitution. The deprivation of government benefits
based on accusation rather than conviction also threatens the
safety of our communities by increasing the likelihood of crime
and recidivism. If we terminate vital benefits that
impoverished individuals who are disabled and elderly use for
food and shelter, the probability is great that they will turn
to crime to meet their basic needs, decreasing community safety
by increasing crime.
Despite these concerns, the Majority rejected every and all
amendments to protect vulnerable SSI recipients against
disparate harm based on income or race/ethnicity. Specifically,
the Majority rejected an amendment requiring the Commissioner
of Social Security to certify that the policy will not have a
disparate impact due to race or ethnicity prior to
implementation as well as a separate amendment requiring the
Commissioner of Social Security--prior to implementation--to
certify that the policy will not result in the loss of benefits
for individuals for whom an arrest warrant was issued for
nonpayment of court fees, supervisions, or monetary fines.
Further, the Majority claimed that the very limited
authority given to the Social Security Commissioner under
current law to issue ``good cause exemptions'' was sufficient
to prevent unfair and hardship-inducing loss of benefits. That
authority provides 35 days between notification of intent to
terminate benefits and actual benefit termination for persons
with extremely limited financial resources who are severely
disabled or elderly, and who may no longer live in the
jurisdiction where the warrant was issued. The timeline is
impractical and unfair. Resolving errors within the criminal
justice system is a long-process that typically must be done in
the geographic jurisdiction of the court and necessitates legal
counsel.
In the past when SSA applied the arrest-warrant termination
standard, many affected individuals were unaware of outstanding
arrest warrants in other states, the resolution of which
required travel and long wait times for court dates. Given that
SSI is only available to people who are low-income elderly and
disabled, 35 days is insufficient time for individuals with
limited financial resources, poor health, and mental or
physical impairments to hire counsel and resolve complicated
criminal justice problems, even if the Commissioner were able
to act on all the exemption requests for people unfairly
targeted in a timely manner.
Given these concerns, we strongly oppose H.R. 2792. This
mean-spirited legislation will: (1) deprive government benefits
for poor, elderly, and disabled individuals in direct
contradiction of the constitutional presumption of innocence;
(2) deny these vulnerable adults due process and lower the
legal standard for deprivation of government benefits based on
a mere accusation rather than a conviction; (3) increase the
likelihood of wrongful termination; (4) magnify the deep
inequities in our criminal justice system based on race,
ethnicity, and income; and (5) decrease the overall safety of
our communities. Passing this bill would result in devastating
consequences for the individuals affected and those who love
and care for them.
Danny K. Davis.
Lloyd Doggett.
John Lewis.
Terri Sewell.