[Senate Hearing 117-690]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       S. Hrg. 117-690

                    POLICY OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING SSI

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE
                               
                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, 
                      PENSIONS, AND FAMILY POLICY

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 21, 2021

                               __________

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                    
                                   
            Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance

                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-679 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

                      RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          JOHN CORNYN, Texas
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado          PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania   TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         STEVE DAINES, Montana
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       TODD YOUNG, Indiana
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts      BEN SASSE, Nebraska
                                     JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming

                    Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director

                Gregg Richard, Republican Staff Director

                                 ______

      Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

                     SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Chairman

RON WYDEN, Oregon                    TODD YOUNG, Indiana
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado          ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania   BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
                                     BEN SASSE, Nebraska

                                  (II)
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Brown, Hon. Sherrod, a U.S. Senator from Ohio, chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy, 
  Committee on Finance...........................................     1
Young, Hon. Todd, a U.S. Senator from Indiana....................     3
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon......................     5

                               WITNESSES

Curda, Elizabeth, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income 
  Security, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.....     6
Evangelista, Stephen, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Retirement and 
  Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, 
  MD.............................................................     8
Ives-Rublee, Mia, director, Disability Justice Initiative, Center 
  for American Progress, Washington, DC..........................     9
Romig, Kathleen, senior policy analyst, Center on Budget and 
  Policy Priorities, Washington, DC..............................    11

               ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL

Brown, Hon. Sherrod:
    Opening statement............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................    25
Curda, Elizabeth:
    Testimony....................................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
    Responses to questions from subcommittee members.............    32
Evangelista, Stephen:
    Testimony....................................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Responses to questions from subcommittee members.............    44
Ives-Rublee, Mia:
    Testimony....................................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    63
    Responses to questions from subcommittee members.............    65
Romig, Kathleen:
    Testimony....................................................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    66
    Responses to questions from subcommittee members.............    68
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
    Opening statement............................................     5
Young, Hon. Todd:
    Opening statement............................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................    77

                             Communications

AARP.............................................................    79
Access Living 



Aging and Disability Resource Center of the North................    83
Alexander, Julie.................................................    83
The Arc..........................................................    84
Life Works, The Arc of Cowlitz County, WA........................    84
The Arc Michigan.................................................    85
The Arc of New Jersey............................................    86
The Arc of Oklahoma..............................................    87
Arnold, Connie...................................................    88
Bachechi, Brenda.................................................    89
Baruch, Nurit....................................................    89
Bayer, Jodi......................................................    90
Bedell, Dawn E...................................................    92
Bernard, Danielle E..............................................    93
Bestor, Kathleen A...............................................    93
Blake, Christopher...............................................    94
Bradbury, Samuel Ray.............................................    94
Carroll, Kathryn.................................................    95
Casanova, Tori...................................................    96
Center for Fiscal Equity.........................................    96
The Century Foundation...........................................    99
Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy..............................   102
Close, Bridget...................................................   103
Community Legal Aid Society, Inc.................................   103
Community Legal Services of Philadelphia.........................   104
Connolly, Felicitas P............................................   105
Crawford County Special Olympics of Pennsylvania.................   107
Damiano, Joseph Michael..........................................   108
Davis, Diane.....................................................   108
Disario, Michele.................................................   109
Downes, Kathleen.................................................   109
Easterseals New Jersey...........................................   110
Eiblum, Andrea, M.S., LCPC.......................................   111
Ford, Nancy K....................................................   111
Frantonius, Judith, R.N., M.S., PNP..............................   112
Gathro, Mollie Katherine.........................................   112
Gensheimer, Emily................................................   116
Grace, Emma......................................................   117
Graham, Alan Kyle................................................   118
Graham, Michael Jacob............................................   118
Grammer, Stephen.................................................   119
Greater Hartford Legal Aid, New Haven Legal Assistance 
  Association, and Connecticut Legal Services....................   120
Harp, Morgana....................................................   121
Homeless Advocacy Project........................................   122
Hunziker, Kristi L...............................................   125
Johnson, Carrissa M..............................................   126
Johnson, Jennifer, Ph.D..........................................   126
Justice in Aging.................................................   127
Kelly, Carolyn Bates.............................................   129
Kerr, Kaitlin A..................................................   129
Laier, Cristy....................................................   131
Lancellotta, John J..............................................   131
League of Women Voters of Franklin County, MA....................   133
Legal Aid Justice Center.........................................   134
Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School......................   135
Lellity, io......................................................   136
Lloyd, Hope......................................................   137
Los Angeles LGBT Center..........................................   137
Lucchesi, Krista.................................................   139
Lynn, Gary.......................................................   139
McPhail, Jessica.................................................   140
McSweeney-Glynn, Fiona...........................................   140
Melkova, Zoya....................................................   141
Miles, Ivy.......................................................   141
Momentum.........................................................   142
National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys..........................   143
National Association of Benefits and Work Incentives Specialists.   144
National Association of Disability Representatives...............   146
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare......   147
National Council on Independent Living...........................   148
National Down Syndrome Congress..................................   150
Neese, Selena....................................................   151
Owen, Madelein Michelle..........................................   151
Paniccioli, Louis................................................   153
Paone, Mary......................................................   154
Patera, Shyla....................................................   154
Perret, Yvonne M., M.A., MSW, LCSW-C.............................   156
Pronin, Arthur...................................................   156
Reilly, Kerrie...................................................   157
Richter, Louis...................................................   158
Rocke, Miriam....................................................   158
Rodriguez, Erika.................................................   159
Rose, Jodee......................................................   159
Saafir, Ahmed....................................................   160
Senti, Steve S...................................................   161
Slatin, Mark.....................................................   162
Slimp, Charlene..................................................   163
Special Needs Alliance...........................................   164
Smith, Judith....................................................   166
Snell, William...................................................   166
Social Security Works............................................   167
SourceAmerica and National Council of SourceAmerica Employers 



SPAN Parent Advocacy Network and Family Voices New Jersey........   177
Steglinski, Alin.................................................   177
Stillwell, Katera................................................   178
Sullivan, Diane..................................................   179
Sunrise Movement PDX.............................................   179
Supportive Housing Providers Association.........................   180
Thomas, Jan......................................................   181
Thomas, Melissa M................................................   181
Thresholds.......................................................   182
Toro, Destiny....................................................   183
Troxell, Richard R...............................................   184
Turnage, Heather K...............................................   185
Tzedek DC........................................................   186
United Spinal Association........................................   191
Watkins, Willard F., Jr..........................................   192
Wember, Carolyn D................................................   192
Whitney, Joannah L...............................................   193
Wilks, Turlach...................................................   196
Wilson, Barbara B., LCSW, EDPNA..................................   198
Wilson, Cassie...................................................   199
Zarrabi, Leona Belle.............................................   201

 
                    POLICY OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING SSI

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2021

                           U.S. Senate,    
               Subcommittee on Social Security,    
                       Pensions, and Family Policy,
                                      Committee on Finance,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:50 p.m., 
via Webex, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sherrod 
Brown (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Wyden, Casey, Lankford, and Young.
    Also present: Democratic staff: Chad Bolt, Legislative 
Advisor for Senator Brown. Republican staff: Beth Nelson, 
Health Policy Director for Senator Young.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHERROD BROWN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 
OHIO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, PENSIONS, AND 
              FAMILY POLICY, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

    Senator Brown. Thank you all. I am sorry for starting a 
couple of minutes late, with the vote. I call this meeting to 
order. Senator Young, thank you, ranking member of the 
subcommittee, for working with us to schedule this hearing. I 
appreciate the professionalism and competence of your staff and 
Chad Bolt in my office. Working with all of you was really 
helpful. Thanks.
    Thanks to Chairman Wyden for being part of this, helping to 
lead these efforts to protect and strengthen this critical part 
of our Social Security system.
    Today's hearing on Supplemental Security Income, SSI, is 
long overdue. This is the first hearing on SSI in the Senate's 
Finance Committee since--well, almost before Todd Young was 
born, since 1998; before I was in the Senate, for sure. That 
would be almost a quarter of a century ago. There has not been 
a hearing in Congress specifically about increasing benefits on 
eligibility since the Reagan administration. In fact, that 1987 
Ways and Means hearing called SSI, quote, ``the forgotten 
safety net.''
    It was a fitting title then, and it would be an even more 
fitting title now, given the decades of neglect that have hurt 
millions of Americans. Nearly 8 million people with 
disabilities and seniors rely on SSI to meet their basic 
needs--8 million people in our great country. The program's 
rules are needlessly complex, leaving seniors and other 
Americans facing a maze of very complicated and sometimes 
extraordinary rules at difficult times in their lives, and 
making it challenging for the Social Security Administration to 
administer. We will hear more about that from our witnesses 
today.
    Even worse, SSI's eligibility rules are even more outdated 
and illogical than they already were in 1987. When the program 
was created by Congress 50 years ago, in 1972, its purpose was 
clear. To quote: ``To ensure the Nation's aged, blind, and 
disabled people would no longer have to subsist on below-
poverty level incomes.''
    Now the opposite is true. The program's eligibility rules 
literally have not been updated in decades--in many cases, not 
even for inflation. They now force millions of disabled and 
older Americans to live well below the poverty line, and punish 
them for any of their own efforts to build a little financial 
security.
    We want to incent people to do a little better. Under this 
program, they lose money when they do. They are punished if 
they try to save for an emergency. They are punished if they 
try to find a part-time job. They are punished if they accept 
food or shelter from generous family and community members. 
And, maybe most remarkably, they are even punished if they 
marry.
    It makes no sense, particularly when these Americans are 
treated to constant lectures about the value of work and self-
sufficiency. We are told over and over by some politicians that 
``personal responsibility,'' quote/unquote, is a central 
American value. Yet if someone who relies on SSI saves even $1 
more than the $2,000 threshold, they lose their benefits. It 
sends a pretty absurd message. SSI's outdated rules make it 
impossible for beneficiaries to live with dignity.
    Last year I talked with an Ohioan from Ottawa County--a 
very small county, Ottawa County--named Dorothy Gackstatter. 
Her son's benefits got a hit when an insurance policy she had 
in his name grew in value. She said, ``It never should have 
happened. I felt it was unjust.'' She was of course right.
    Make no mistake: poverty in America is a policy choice, a 
policy by us. It is up to this committee and this Congress to 
finally make a different choice. There are millions of seniors 
and people with disabilities who are living in poverty right 
now, not because of their own choices--but because of ours.
    That is why, earlier this year, I introduced the SSI 
Restoration Act with 20 cosponsors, including six Senators from 
this committee. That bill would finally increase SSI benefit 
levels to the Federal poverty level and simplify and update the 
eligibility rules, so that these Americans are no longer 
punished for trying to build a better life for themselves.
    Recent analysis from the Urban Institute tells us that the 
reforms in this bill would lift 3.3 million people out of 
poverty. It would cut poverty among SSI beneficiaries in half. 
The bill is supported by more than 100 national organizations, 
including AARP, AFL-CIO, and the National Women's Law Center. 
And even J.P. Morgan Chase--which I know well from chairing the 
Senate Banking and Housing Committee--supports increasing SSI's 
asset limits.
    When you get the AFL-CIO and J.P. Morgan on the same page, 
you just may be on to something. We created SSI nearly a half-
century ago as a key part of our Social Security system--one of 
the bedrocks of our society. People know that if they or a 
loved one needs it, it will be there. It's just like the 
promise of Social Security.
    For 30 years we have been breaking that promise. Now is the 
time for Congress to finally do right by the 8 million 
Americans relying on SSI who have been forgotten for far too 
long. Now is the time to finally restore this critical part of 
our Social Security system back to its real intent.
    I have worked with Senator Schumer and Senator Wyden to 
ensure that, at least, long-overdue updates to SSI are included 
in the Family Infrastructure package we are pulling together.
    Before I turn to Senator Young, I want to thank the 
hundreds of SSI beneficiaries who are following this hearing. 
You have shared your stories on Twitter with the Demolish 
Disabled Poverty hashtag. Thank you for that. You have written 
to this subcommittee about what improving SSI would mean to you 
and your families. Thank you for sharing those stories.
    I want you to know I am listening. This subcommittee is 
listening. Senator Young is listening. I am really sorry it has 
taken this long for voices to be heard in Washington. That will 
change.
    Senator Young, ranking member of the subcommittee, thank 
you for joining us.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Brown appears in the 
appendix.]

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 
                  A U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

    Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing, for your leadership, and for members of your staff 
working with mine to get everything ready for today.
    I appreciate this opportunity to discuss and review the 
Supplemental Security Income program--or SSI. Now more than 
ever, how every taxpayer dollar is spent really matters. And 
programs that don't achieve results have to be fixed. The SSI 
program needs examination to ensure it is achieving its 
intended goals in a fiscally responsible manner.
    Is the program functioning as Congress and taxpayers expect 
and those with disabilities deserve? We cannot continue to just 
``spend more'' and hope it helps. We need to review the 
program's effectiveness so we can ensure taxpayer resources are 
properly targeted.
    The goal of the SSI program is to provide assistance to 
elderly and disabled individuals who have limited financial 
resources. It is intended, as the Social Security 
Administration identifies, as a program of last resort, and 
beneficiaries do not rely solely on SSI benefits to live.
    Although SSI was created with the elderly low-income in 
mind, today it primarily benefits nonelderly disabled adults 
and children. The total number of beneficiaries has grown from 
4.8 million in 1990, to 6.6 million in 2000, to 7.8 million 
today. In turn, SSI spending has risen from $33 billion in 2000 
to an estimated $61 billion in 2021. SSI and Social Security 
Disability Insurance have been on the Government Accountability 
Office's ``high-risk'' list since 2003.
    GAO states that, quote, ``Management attention and efforts 
are needed across the government to ensure that disability 
programs provide benefits in a timely manner, reflect current 
ideas about disability, and achieve positive employment 
outcomes,'' unquote.
    The Social Security Administration struggles to ensure 
current recipients remain qualified for these programs. SSI 
continues to have a higher overpayment rate than other SSA 
programs. That is an unfair burden to taxpayers as well as SSI 
recipients who incorrectly receive funds they may have to 
repay.
    While SSI faces challenges in administration, labor force 
participation remains a pressing policy challenge. Our economy 
is feeling its impact acutely as we emerge from the COVID-19 
pandemic. Disability and health-related issues have been top 
contributors to declines in labor force participation among 
people in their prime working years--causing both increased 
poverty rates and the perpetuation of poor health for many 
Americans. This is why we need to focus on creating more job 
opportunities for working-age Americans with disabilities.
    However, the current patchwork of safety-net programs for 
low-income Americans facing disabilities or health issues is 
flawed. Many of these people are productive individuals with 
the potential to make valuable contributions to their 
communities through work. And many wish to pursue benefits from 
the dignity of work, to the extent that they are able to do so.
    Without work, however, many will fall into poverty and may 
never again see the social and economic benefits associated 
with employment. In having this discussion today--our first 
this Congress in this subcommittee--we would be remiss not to 
acknowledge that some of our Nation's most important Federal 
programs, including programs administered by SSA, are financed 
through dedicated revenue sources and managed through trust 
funds.
    Several of the largest trust funds are heading towards 
insolvency--worsened by the pandemic. According to the most 
recent Social Security trustees' report, the combined Old-Age, 
Survivors, and Disability Insurance trust funds will be 
exhausted in 2034--a year earlier than was projected last year.
    This spring, I joined Senator Romney and a group of 
colleagues in reintroducing the Time to Rescue United States' 
Trusts Act, or the TRUST Act, bipartisan legislation which 
would create a process to rescue the endangered Federal trust 
funds and rein in the national debt--and allow Congress to put 
our major Federal programs on a stronger financial footing. If 
we don't act now, the trust funds in these programs will be 
exhausted, leading to significant benefit cuts under current 
law, and America's safety net will be significantly weakened.
    We believe in people, and we believe most people don't want 
to be trapped. SSI should be available for those in need, with 
a goal of preparing as many individuals as possible for a life 
of dignity in the workforce.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these 
topics and examining this program in greater detail today.
    Lastly, I would like to make note of the complete lack of 
committee process for the reconciliation bill being drafted by 
Senate and House Democrats. My Republican colleagues on this 
committee have called for hearings and a markup of any 
reconciliation provisions in this committee's jurisdiction. 
Americans deserve an open and transparent process.
    With that, I thank the witnesses for being here today, and 
I look forward to hearing their testimony.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Young appears in the 
appendix.]
    Senator Brown. Senator Young, thank you.
    Before introducing the four witnesses and hearing their 
testimony, I wanted to introduce--we have been joined by the 
distinguished chair of this committee, Ron Wyden, the senior 
Senator from Oregon, who has led this process and has been 
very, very helpful in encouraging this subcommittee hearing and 
helpful in how we move forward legislatively.
    Senator Wyden, Mr. Chairman, I would love to hear your 
remarks.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, 
                   A U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

    Senator Wyden. Well, Senator Brown, a big thanks to you for 
all of your leadership work in this area--and not just through 
this Congress, but Congress after Congress after Congress.
    People are walking an economic tightrope, balancing their 
food bill against their fuel bill, fuel bill against the rent 
bill. Senator Brown has been there to say that the Federal 
Government has to have a sturdy safety net. So, I so appreciate 
his leadership. And I also see on the screen Senator Young, and 
I look forward to working on this issue as we have tried on so 
many in a bipartisan way.
    Mr. Chairman, you indicated it has been a long time since 
this committee or any committee has taken a close look at this 
absolutely crucial safety net program. Almost 8 million 
Americans rely on Supplemental Security Income, including 
88,000 in my own home State. Ten thousand of them are under the 
age of 18. So, it is time for a crucial update for a program 
that is so important for so many who are so vulnerable.
    Now I will wrap up with just a couple of quick additional 
thoughts. First, I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator 
Brown's bill to update SSI. And I agree the Build Back Better 
plan now under consideration is a very opportune moment to make 
these necessary and essential improvements.
    I also want to thank Chairman Brown and others on the 
Finance Committee for cosponsoring a bill that I have been very 
involved in, the Work Without Worry Act. If it passes, that 
bill will provide needed peace of mind to a lot of individuals 
with disabilities who today face a disincentive to work and be 
in a position to live up to their full potential.
    Today, the law says that young people who receive SSI could 
have their benefits cut if they decide to try to work and make 
an income. In most cases, we are talking about modest benefits 
for people with disabilities, which is, I think it is clear--
and I see our friend Senator Hassan here, who has done so much 
important work for vulnerable people. I think she would be the 
first to agree this is hardly an extravagance. These are 
individuals who should not have to fear if they try to work 
that they are going to lose their benefits they count on to get 
by.
    In addition, I hope we will be able to enact some 
provisions in Senator Brown's bill to update SSI in 
reconciliation, and I am also looking for opportunities to get 
Work Without Worry across the finish line. I also want to 
emphasize, in addition to noting Senator Hassan's terrific work 
in this area, Senator Cassidy is also a cosponsor of Work 
Without Worry.
    So, in the best tradition of the Senate Finance Committee, 
Chairman Brown and Senator Young are bringing Senators 
together. And on the issue of SSI, it is not a close call. It 
is time to update the program and better meet the needs of 
those who find it so crucial.
    Thank you, Chairman Brown.
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, for your 
comments.
    I want to introduce the four witnesses. The introductions 
will be brief, because I think we want to get through this, 
since we started a bit late.
    The four witnesses are Elizabeth Curda, the Director from 
the Government Accountability Office who oversees Federal 
disability programs. Welcome, Ms. Curda.
    Stephen G. Evangelista is the Acting Deputy Commissioner 
for Retirement Policy at the Social Security Administration and 
is responsible for overseeing SSI at SSA. Thank you, Mr. 
Evangelista, for joining us.
    Mia Ives-Rublee is director of the Disability Justice 
Initiative at the Center for American Progress and a former SSI 
beneficiary herself. Ms. Ives-Rublee, it is nice to see you.
    And Kathleen Romig is a senior policy analyst at the Center 
on Budget and Policy Priorities and is the lead expert on 
Social Security and SSI at the Center.
    So we will begin with Ms. Curda. You are recognized for 5 
minutes. Thank you for joining us.

 STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH CURDA, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, 
    AND INCOME SECURITY, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Curda. Chairman Wyden, Chairman Brown, Ranking Member 
Young, and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here 
today to discuss our work on the SSI program.
    SSA has faced longstanding challenges in administering SSI. 
GAO has issued a number of reports with recommendations for how 
SSA might address these challenges. While SSA has taken action 
on many of our recommendations, others remain unimplemented. My 
testimony today describes SSA's challenges with (1) 
incentivizing employment for SSI recipients who wish to work 
and are able; and (2) preventing improper payments to SSI 
recipients, including overpayments.
    My testimony is based primarily on prior GAO reports, as 
well as preliminary results upon review of the Ticket to Work 
program to be issued later this fall. I will discuss work 
incentives for two SSI populations: transition-age youth who 
are 14 to 17 years old, and working-age adults.
    For transition-age youth on SSI, SSA administers work 
incentives and other employment supports for youth moving into 
adulthood. But our work has found that few benefit from these 
incentives. These supports encourage work by allowing 
transition-age youth to keep at least some of their benefits, 
even if they have earnings.
    However, a GAO analysis of SSA data from 2012 to 2015 
showed that less than 1.5 percent of SSI youth benefited from 
these incentives. This may be because SSI youth and their 
families are unaware of or do not understand the work 
incentives, or may fear that their work will negatively affect 
their benefits or eligibility.
    SSA has agreed with and has implemented some of the 
recommendations made pertaining to work incentives for 
transition-age youth. But others remain unimplemented. For 
example, our recommendations for SSA to explore options to 
further connect transition-age youth to employment services 
have not been fully implemented.
    For working-age adults on SSI who are able and wish to 
work, the Ticket to Work program is a voluntary program for 
disability beneficiaries that helps them obtain employment, 
increase earnings, and reduce dependency on benefits. We 
conducted analysis of Ticket where we used statistical 
techniques to match participants with similar nonparticipants 
and compare their employment success with outcomes.
    Our preliminary analysis found that SSI participants had on 
average increased earnings of about $1,600 per year, compared 
to similar non-participants. Further, we found that from 2002 
through 2015, 5 years after participating in Ticket, about 4 
percent of SSI participants had left the disability rolls due 
to earnings from their work compared to 2 percent of similar 
nonparticipants.
    Nonetheless, we also found that 57 percent of SSI Ticket 
participants did not report any earnings at all. Ticket 
participants face a number of disincentives to work such as (1) 
loss of cash and medical benefits; (2) complexity of the rules; 
and (3) fear of overpayments. Overpayments can occur when 
beneficiaries who work do not timely report earnings to SSA, or 
SSA delays in adjusting their benefit amount. Overpayments are 
more common for SSI recipients, and especially those who are 
working.
    SSA estimated that in Fiscal Year 2019, it made 
approximately $4.6 billion in SSI overpayments. We estimate 
that from 2002 through 2015, Ticket participants were twice as 
likely to receive overpayments as similar nonparticipants, and 
that includes both SSI and SSDI participants.
    Overpayments may be especially burdensome to SSI recipients 
because they may not be aware that they were overpaid, and may 
have spent the money. GAO and SSA's Inspector General have made 
recommendations related to overpayments, but challenges remain.
    In April of 2020, we recommended that SSA develop a process 
to measure the effectiveness of its corrective action for 
improper payments. SSA agrees that this priority recommendation 
remains unimplemented. SSA's OIG also reported that SSA has not 
resolved lags in updating beneficiaries reported earnings, 
despite making some progress over the years.
    SSA is taking steps to address overpayments. For Fiscal 
Year 2021, SSA named improving program integrity as a focus 
area, and planned to improve wage reporting. For example, SSA 
now has online tools that allow individuals to make wage 
reports, thus making it easier for recipients to comply with 
reporting requirements.
    In summary, as Congress considers reforms to SSI, 
opportunities exist to encourage work for those who are able 
and want to and reduce the burden of overpayments on SSI 
recipients.
    This completes my prepared statements, and I look forward 
to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Curda appears in the 
appendix.]
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Ms. Curda.
    Mr. Evangelista, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF STEPHEN EVANGELISTA, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 
       RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY POLICY, SOCIAL SECURITY 
                 ADMINISTRATION, BALTIMORE, MD

    Mr. Evangelista. Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Young, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 
discuss the Supplemental Security Income program, or SSI. My 
name is Stephen Evangelista, and I am the Acting Deputy 
Commissioner for Policy and Research at the Social Security 
Administration.
    The SSI program is a vital safety net for people who have 
limited income and resources, and who are elderly or disabled. 
We have administered SSI since the early 1970s when Congress 
created the program to replace several State-run income 
maintenance programs. We currently pay about 8 million people 
Federal SSI benefits every month.
    In Calendar Year 2021, the maximum SSI benefit for a single 
person with no countable income is $794 per month, or about 75 
percent of the Federal poverty line for a one-person household. 
In addition to a monthly cash benefit, SSI eligibility provides 
beneficiaries in many States with automatic eligibility for 
medical assistance, and as a gateway to other State and Federal 
programs such as food assistance.
    To be eligible for SSI, a person must have $2,000 or less 
in countable resources, and a couple must have less $3,000 in 
countable resources. Eligible married couples must have $3,000 
or less. Resources are assets a person can use to support 
themselves such as bank accounts.
    The law excludes dozens of types of resources, some without 
a time limit, others with certain time periods. The law 
requires us to determine a person's eligibility and benefit 
amount for every month, using information we verify with 
independent and collateral sources.
    The more countable income a person has, the less their 
monthly benefits will be. We must also consider the income and 
resources of spouses and parents who live with the beneficiary. 
The law requires us to count cash income and in-kind support 
and maintenance. This support is the value of food given to a 
beneficiary and the value of rent, utilities such as 
electricity bill, and other shelter expenses paid by someone 
else.
    To figure out how much to pay a person in a month, the law 
requires that we exclude various types of income a person 
receives in a month. The law excludes all or part of 86 
specific types of income. Nearly every change in a 
beneficiary's life--moving, a friend giving them groceries, 
picking up a few extra hours at work--can affect the monthly 
SSI benefit.
    We take seriously our responsibility to pay people the 
correct amount of benefits. We have a variety of tools in place 
to identify and correct situations where we are paying people 
too much or too little. We regularly conduct reviews called 
``non-medical redeterminations'' that detect changes in a 
person's situation and ensure that our information is current.
    We provide automated options for beneficiaries to regularly 
report their wages, including an automated telephone system and 
mobile app. And we obtain data exchanges from various private 
and governmental entities to detect when payments are not 
correct. These include information about bank accounts, wages, 
self-
employment, unemployment, Federal pensions, and VA benefits.
    Thank you for holding this hearing and raising awareness of 
the SSI program. During the pandemic, applications for SSI have 
been lower than pre-pandemic levels. We are committed to 
ensuring that everyone who qualifies for SSI benefits receives 
them.
    This year we launched a paid public service announcement 
campaign on TV, radio, and social media. And we have also 
enlisted local community-based organizations across the country 
to help us reach people who may be eligible for SSI. Over 3,000 
groups have committed to helping us identify and assist people 
who are interested in applying for SSI.
    The groups are helping us by either identifying these 
people so we can obtain an application for benefits, or by 
helping the person complete an application for benefits. And we 
have designated employees to work with these groups to review 
the applications and evidence, and obtain applications and 
process the applications provided.
    Finally, we are using our data to identify people who are 
receiving Social Security benefits who may be eligible for 
additional benefits from the SSI program. And we are sending 
these notices to let them know they can apply for SSI. We 
expect to send about 1.4 million of these notices in total by 
June of 2022.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, 
and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Evangelista appears in the 
appendix.]
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Evangelista.
    I rarely comment on witnesses' testimony right after their 
opening statements, but when you said that enrollment is lower 
than during the pandemic, that is really telling, because 
clearly the need is greater. But the difficulty, apparently--
and we will talk more about that.
    Ms. Ives-Rublee, welcome, and we are glad you are joining 
us. Thank you.

  STATEMENT OF MIA IVES-RUBLEE, DIRECTOR, DISABILITY JUSTICE 
    INITIATIVE, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Ives-Rublee. Thank you, Chairman Brown, Ranking Member 
Young, and members of the subcommittee, for the invitation to 
appear before you today. My name is Mia Ives-Rublee, and I am 
the director of the Disability Justice Initiative at the Center 
for American Progress. I am here to speak on behalf of almost 
7.8 million disabled recipients of SSI who rely on the program 
to help keep a roof over their heads.
    Many continue to struggle with the daily living expenses 
and arduous, outdated rules due to the fact that the program 
has had few updates since its creation in 1972. This discussion 
is very personal to me. Although I am now working at a major 
nonpartisan policy institute, I used to rely on Supplemental 
Security Insurance to pay for rent, utilities, gas, and food. 
When I graduated from high school, there were few jobs that 
were accessible to me. Using a wheelchair meant that I could 
not find work in the retail or restaurant industry and many 
other entry-level jobs.
    I was encouraged by Voc Rehab to go to college to gain the 
skills needed to find more accessible, stable employment. But 
that meant at least 4 years without stable income. SSI paid for 
housing and food costs, particularly during the summer when my 
scholarship funds and student aid ran out. Yet the benefit 
level was extremely low, forcing me to max out credit cards and 
take out significant loans to cover my expenses that I am still 
paying today.
    But even after getting my master's degree in 2009, it took 
me almost a year to finally land a full-time job. I was denied 
numerous positions because places did not want to hire me as 
someone in a wheelchair. I was denied opportunities to 
volunteer. By the end, I applied to over 100 jobs in 2009. It 
was not until January 2010 that I was employed by North 
Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Services.
    My time as a rehab counselor showed I was not alone in my 
struggles with the SSI program. I spent 6 years talking to 
disabled clients trying to help them navigate the system. The 
first hurdle was trying to apply to the program. Thousands of 
people die every year waiting for disability benefits as a 
result, or go bankrupt.
    The current application process is so cumbersome it is 
often said that you need a law degree to access disability 
benefits. I have walked client after client through the 
disability process, sending medical documentation and 
statements of disability to the Social Security Office. For 
individuals lucky enough to navigate this application process 
and be found eligible for benefits, most of them still find 
they are unable to afford daily living expenses.
    The current max benefit of $794 per month is just three-
quarters of the Federal poverty line for an individual, and 
does not come anywhere close to covering the average rental 
cost for a one-
bedroom apartment in the United States, which was $1,466 per 
month in July 2021.
    I worked with SSI recipients who frequently experienced 
setbacks due to the stresses of navigating the system. They 
were too ill to work without a stable support system and 
Medicaid coverage, for which SSI made them automatically 
eligible. Many spend hours navigating various other safety net 
programs due to the difficulty of finding affordable housing, 
and food insecurity.
    Current SSI policies are archaic. Benefits are way too low, 
which causes actual harm. While the program used to be the most 
successful antipoverty program for disabled people, it now 
traps them in poverty. Many individuals have no other options 
to support themselves, which forces them into perpetual 
evictions and instability.
    The Biden administration committed to five main changes to 
the SSI program, including increasing the Federal benefit rate, 
raising asset limits, updating the income disregards, 
eliminating the in-kind assistance provisions, and removing 
marriage penalties.
    Through the leadership of Chairman Brown, the SSI 
Restoration Act provides guidance to revitalizing the program. 
The Center for American Progress supports the bill and has 
pushed to ensure SSI is not left behind in the Build Back 
Better reconciliation bill.
    Long-overdue updates to the SSI program could--according to 
the Urban Institute--raise 3.3 million Americans out of 
poverty. Congress has the monumental opportunity right now to 
help communities that have seen significantly high death rates, 
unemployment, and poverty rates over the last few years.
    The program was originally created with the goal of 
ensuring--as President Nixon stated during signing--that the 
Nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have 
to live on below-poverty income.
    You have the chance to help millions by revitalizing the 
SSI program.
    Thank you, and I am open for questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Ives-Rublee appears in the 
appendix.]
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Ms. Ives-Rublee.
    Ms. Romig, welcome. It is good to see you. Thanks for 
joining us.

 STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN ROMIG, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CENTER ON 
          BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Romig. Thank you for having me. Chairman Brown, Ranking 
Member Young, members of the subcommittee, thank you so much 
for the opportunity to testify today.
    As Congress considers economic recovery legislation, it 
should seize the opportunity to update and simplify SSI. As you 
heard from the other witnesses, SSI is woefully out of date. 
Some of the key features have not been updated in decades, 
which leaves many needy people ineligible for benefits, and 
others without enough to meet basic needs.
    SSI also has complex and intrusive rules that are hard for 
SSA to administer and burdensome for beneficiaries. SSI 
shortcomings disproportionately harm people of color, who are 
more likely to meet SSI's medical and financial requirements 
because of persistent health and economic disparities.
    Like the other witnesses, I thank Chairman Brown and others 
on this subcommittee for their leadership in proposing the SSI 
Restoration Act. It would dramatically cut poverty among 
seniors and people with disabilities, give beneficiaries more 
dignity and independence, and improve program integrity. While 
the emerging House bill includes important provisions to 
improve health care for seniors and people with disabilities, 
it does not yet include any provisions to fill in the income 
gap left by inadequate SSI benefits.
    As the reconciliation process moves forward, Congress 
should update this critical program. As others have explained, 
SSI provides monthly cash assistance to 7.8 million people who 
are disabled or elderly and have little income and few assets. 
SSI benefits are very low, and should be raised.
    The maximum Federal benefit is just $794 a month, only 
three-quarters of the Federal poverty line. That leaves about 4 
in 10 SSI beneficiaries in poverty.
    As for SSI's rules, they are outdated and overly 
complicated. SSI's income disregards have been frozen for 
almost 50 years, since SSI was enacted in 1972.
    Beneficiaries who work can only keep $65 of their earnings 
each month, after which their benefits are reduced by $1 for 
every $2 they earn. Those reductions take effect when the total 
income to beneficiaries is still below the poverty line, which 
keeps even working beneficiaries in poverty.
    SSI only allows beneficiaries to keep $20 of any other 
benefits they receive. This includes Social Security benefits, 
which about a third of beneficiaries receive. Those Social 
Security benefits average about $500 per month on paper, but 
SSI beneficiaries may only keep $20 of that sum.
    Likewise, SSI asset limits have been frozen for over 30 
years, since 1989. SSI beneficiaries can keep just $2,000 in 
savings, far less than people need to weather an emergency, let 
alone provide stability or invest in their futures.
    SSI's complicated in-kind support and maintenance rules 
require beneficiaries to disclose any material help that they 
receive from family and friends, whether groceries or a place 
to sleep. Every $1 worth of assistance shrinks their SSI 
benefits by $1. No other Federal program counts in-kind support 
when determining benefit eligibility or levels.
    Finally, SSI's rules penalize beneficiaries who marry one 
another. They receive lower benefits and have lower asset 
limits than if they stayed unmarried.
    The SSI Restoration Act would raise benefits to the poverty 
line, update SSI's income and asset limits as if they had kept 
up with inflation from the start, and repeal the in-kind 
support and maintenance rules and marriage penalties.
    The bill would cut poverty among SSI beneficiaries by more 
than half and lift over 3 million people above the poverty 
line, according to new research from the Urban Institute. It 
would allow beneficiaries to work, marry, save, and accept help 
from their loved ones without the harsh penalties in the 
current system, and it would reduce errors caused by overly 
complex and outdated rules.
    Updating SSI is necessary to ensure that low-income seniors 
and people with disabilities have what they need to afford 
rent, food, and other basic needs. Congress should add SSI 
improvements into the Build Back Better legislation, even if 
the package cannot accommodate the full SSI Restoration Act.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Romig appears in the 
appendix.]
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Ms. Romig. Thank you for the 
insight and the illumination on an issue that just simply is 
not talked about in this society enough, and certainly, as 
Senator Young has acknowledged, not talked about in the halls 
of Congress nearly enough.
    Ms. Romig, let me start with you, your comments about the 
$2,000 and the $3,000, that the asset limits have not changed 
for 30 years. It is just pretty unbelievable. Talk about what a 
difference it can make having emergency savings when it comes 
to achieving any kind of economic stability. Talk that through, 
if you would.
    Ms. Romig. Sure. Well, these limits were set back in the 
1970s, and we have learned a lot about poverty traps since 
then. And we know now that having adequate savings is a really 
important way to bring people out of poverty.
    And when you think about it, it makes sense. If you cannot 
afford to weather an emergency, then you could get stuck in 
poverty. What if you do not have enough money, for example, to 
repair your car? Then you lose your transportation to your job.
    Another reason that savings are so important is to invest 
in your future. If you do not have enough money to do some 
additional job training, then you would miss out on work 
opportunities, as Mia's testimony so eloquently described.
    So we know now that keeping people below a certain level of 
savings literally traps them in poverty. And we know that now 
in a more real way than we did back in the 1970s when these 
limits were first set.
    Senator Brown. Thank you. Talk too, Ms. Romig, about asset 
limits. Are there specific types of resources--I mean, there 
are going to be asset limits we want to raise dramatically, but 
are there certain types of resources that we should be 
excluding, like retirement accounts?
    I mean, if the whole goal is long-term economic security--
and we say that, though we have not acted on it--but if that is 
the case, what kinds of resources should be excluded from the 
asset limit calculation?
    Ms. Romig. Well, a lot has changed since the 1970s. SSI was 
signed into law in 1972. At that point, IRAs did not yet exist. 
401(k)s did not yet exist. Those were established later in the 
1970s. At that point, workers typically would receive a pension 
from their job and were not expecting, necessarily, to save 
toward their own retirement. Now, they are. That expectation 
has changed.
    But SSI continues to penalize people who save for their 
future and try to provide for their older years. And so other 
programs, other low-income programs, including SNAP, exclude 
all retirement savings from their asset limits.
    Senator Brown. Well, how interesting is that, because we do 
not--so few have defined pension benefits now. If that did not 
count against your asset limits, now we have something inferior 
to a defined pension--that is, some kind of 401(k) look-alike--
which counts against your asset limits, and that is a really 
important point you make.
    Ms. Ives-Rublee, you shared your experiences of trying to 
make ends meet on SSI with the sum of $794, which you pointed 
out is not enough to live on. What are the consequences of this 
low benefit level for disability? What would increased benefits 
mean, at least for the Federal poverty level?
    Ms. Ives-Rublee. Yes. Having lived on SSI, I know 
personally, the current SSI benefits are not enough to make 
ends meet. You know, disabled people, like any other 
individuals, need to be able to pay for rent, utilities, food, 
clothing, transportation, and all of the other things that you 
need to be able to survive.
    They also have the added expenses of medical costs, home 
modifications, and other disability-related expenses. The 
National Disability Institute reported that it costs disabled 
people 28 percent more to live at the same standard as their 
peers.
    So when we look at the average rental cost, and when we 
look at it, say in July, it was $1,466, and in August it was 
$1,633, that means that the max benefit of $794 would not even 
cover rent. That means that disabled people spend a good 
portion of their life applying to other safety net programs, 
including section 8, SNAP, and reduced utility programs. You 
know, SSI's beneficiaries are always living on the cusp of 
homelessness or institutionalization, causing significant 
stressors that can negatively affect their health outcomes and 
general well-being.
    Increasing the levels to at least poverty level would give 
many beneficiaries less to worry about, and they could spend 
more time applying to other safety net programs and actually 
focusing on their health and stability.
    Senator Brown. Thank you for that insight. My time has 
expired. I have questions for Ms. Curda and Mr. Evangelista, 
but my time is up, and I will turn to Senator Young.
    Senator Young. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I enjoyed 
hearing from Ms. Romig and Ms. Ives-Rublee. I will be asking a 
question of Mr. Evangelista of the Social Security 
Administration. I would like to dive a bit into SSI benefits 
and the Federal poverty level.
    We have heard in testimony today that current SSI benefits 
are not enough to rent an apartment or raise beneficiaries' 
income above that Federal poverty level. However, the Social 
Security Administration identifies that SSI is intended as 
assistance of last resort.
    SSI takes into account all income resources that an 
individual has or can access, including wages and earnings, 
other types of remuneration, Social Security benefits, 
unemployment compensation, and other forms of income. SSI 
benefit eligibility also excludes consideration of other forms 
of income such as State or locally funded assistance based on 
means, Federal rent subsidies, the value of Supplemental 
Nutritional Assistance, and many other resources.
    In fact, Mr. Evangelista's testimony contained pages of 
exclusions showing 86 current SSI income and resource 
exclusions which are not taken into account in determining 
someone's SSI benefits. So I am just trying to--I am laying the 
foundation for a question. What is the intention of the SSI 
program, Mr. Evangelista? Is this to be a sole source of income 
to a beneficiary for them to live, pay rent, obtain medical 
care, and buy food?
    Mr. Evangelista. Thank you, Senator Young. The goal of the 
SSI program is to be a vital safety net for those who have 
limited income and resources. And the SSI eligibility provides 
a cash benefit, and it also provides sort of a gateway, if you 
will, for other Federal and State benefits such as medical 
assistance.
    Senator Young. Okay, so it is not intended to be a sole 
source of income to a beneficiary?
    Mr. Evangelista. It is a vital safety net for those who 
have limited income and resources, and are either elderly or 
disabled.
    Senator Young. Which would not be a sole source of income? 
Is that accurate?
    Mr. Evangelista. There could be other sources of income, 
but we would have to count other sources of income against the 
benefit for SSI.
    Senator Young. Okay. Thank you.
    What data, Mr. Evangelista, are available from the Social 
Security Administration on the full array of resources that SSI 
beneficiaries would have on average, since measuring their 
income and its relation to the poverty level based solely on 
what they get from SSI seems to be somewhat misleading?
    Mr. Evangelista. Sir, there are many, as I said in my 
testimony--many resource exclusions. Every month, we have to 
evaluate a person's circumstances and look at the changing 
eligibility that they have in terms of their resources, 
including income and their living arrangements.
    In terms of the data, yes, we certainly have data on what 
individuals would have in their records. And again, we have to 
count certain resources. The statute actually contains what 
resources we can exclude and what resources we have to count 
against----
    Senator Young. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Curda, your testimony provides information about the 
Ticket to Work program. This began nearly 20 years ago. It is a 
program that allows SSA to pay service providers to help 
Disability Insurance beneficiaries and SSI recipients to 
achieve employment outcomes. Your testimony identifies 
challenges that still have not been overcome by SSA in trying 
to effectively implement the program. And SSA has perhaps not 
closely followed many recommendations offered by GAO.
    Ms. Curda, what steps could be taken to help ensure that 
SSI recipients who want to work are encouraged to do so?
    Ms. Curda. Thank you for the question. Yes, GAO has been 
calling attention to this issue for several decades--starting 
in 1996 when we published a report on how disability programs 
were lagging in the promotion of Return to Work--and up until 
the present, in terms of our ongoing work looking at the Ticket 
to Work program, which will be issued later this fall.
    But most recently, before that, our 2017 report on 
transition-age youth found that more could be done to connect 
SSI youth to the vocational rehabilitation services. We 
recommended that SSA explore options to increase these 
connections, and we highlighted the Ticket to Work program 
because it is an established program with structures already in 
place to connect adults to the VR services.
    So the idea would be to extend that program, which is 
currently not available to youth. And at the time, SSA 
officials told us that the agency did not have legal authority 
to directly refer SSI youth to VR services. So clarifying or 
establishing that SSA's legal authority exists to direct youth 
to VR providers, or clarifying that they could be eligible for 
the Ticket to Work program, could potentially help create more 
opportunities for youth.
    In our ongoing examination of the Ticket to Work program, 
we identified a number of challenges that SSI recipients face 
in working. And these include, as a number of the witnesses 
have mentioned, fear over loss of cash or medical benefits. And 
for SSI beneficiaries, benefits are generally reduced by $2 for 
every $1 of monthly earnings that exceed $65.
    There can be a fear of overpayments. That can be a barrier 
to participating in employment. In 2018, the Office of the 
Inspector General reported that, of a sample of beneficiaries 
they looked at who earned above the SGA, 79 percent were 
overpaid. And our preliminary work on our Ticket program found 
that Ticket participants were twice as likely to receive an 
overpayment as were nonparticipants.
    And also, just the complexity of work incentives--and a 
number of the witnesses have alluded to this. SSA itself has 
found that the complexity of work rules constitutes a barrier 
to returning to work for beneficiaries, and an administrative 
challenge for SSA.
    Senator Young. I am sorry, Ms. Curda. I am grateful for the 
comprehensive response. I will follow up with some written 
questions. I know there are some other members wanting to ask 
questions.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Senator Young.
    Senator Casey of Pennsylvania is recognized.
    Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Brown, thank you for 
having this hearing. We are grateful you are spotlighting the 
issues that are being raised at the hearing, and grateful for 
your work and that of the ranking member
    I wanted to start with Ms. Ives-Rublee, first of all to say 
how much I appreciate her testimony, but also to assert that 
she has kind of a triple credential. You have been an SSI 
recipient. You have worked for years with people with 
disabilities to secure employment. And you have also been a 
public policy advocate. So I think your qualifications are 
without question, and I wanted to direct my first question to 
you and ask you in particular about SSI policies on employment.
    You have experienced the fear of exceeding the SSI asset 
limit, or the Federal benefit rate limit, and we know that that 
limit right now is $794. A couple of years ago, back in 
December of 2014, as part of the tax bill, we passed the ABLE 
Act, which I was leading at the time with Senator Burr from 
North Carolina.
    We passed into law a provision that created ABLE Accounts, 
almost like the 529 accounts, for disability, just like we have 
had them for higher ed for years, but not until 2014 did we 
have them for disability. And these accounts are one way to 
address this asset limit issue. And now we have over 50,000 
people across the country who have opened these ABLE Accounts 
to be able to accrue assets beyond the $2,000 limit.
    We know that the SSI Restoration Act, Senator Brown's bill, 
which I am a cosponsor of, would also address this concern by 
increasing the asset limit to $10,000. With approximately 26 
percent of the 61 million people with a disability living in 
poverty, we have to address and improve their economic health 
as we consider these issues.
    So my basic question is, what should we do to remove the 
barriers to work, and to incentivize employment?
    Ms. Ives-Rublee. Thanks for asking that question. You know, 
I think that there needs to be an understanding that the income 
disregards and the asset limits do not work outside of each 
other. They work in tandem with each other. And we know that 
the income rules have never changed since the program's 
inception, and we know that the asset limit, the last time it 
was updated was in 1989.
    Now, yes, there are these programs that are available like 
the ABLE Act, like the Earned Income Exclusion. The problem is 
that they exclude a number of individuals who are on SSI. And 
so, they unfortunately do not cover every single recipient who 
may need to utilize those programs.
    So, while they are beneficial, the ABLE Act Accounts, they 
do not work if the individual's disability started after the 
age of 26. There is also a $14,000-a-year limit. It also 
specifically addresses individuals who are getting assistance 
from family members. It is very hard for an individual to save 
any money from their income and put it towards that account 
because, as I said earlier in my testimony, it is just really 
hard to save on that basic income.
    And so, I think what we really need to do is reduce some of 
these archaic rules that make it so hard for individuals to 
understand sort of how to utilize these services, and how to 
navigate the system. Like I said earlier, you kind of have to 
be a lawyer to be able to understand that or the rehabilitation 
counselor who provides you counseling on this.
    So it is very difficult. So, if we can reduce some of these 
rules and increase the income, increase the asset limits, that 
is going to so much reduce some of these overpayment issues, 
and it is going to reduce some of these barriers for 
individuals to feel like they can go to work.
    Senator Casey. Well, thanks very much. We look forward to 
working with you on these issues.
    Mr. Chairman, I am giving back a couple of seconds. Thanks.
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Senator Casey.
    Senator Lankford of Oklahoma is recognized. Welcome.
    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I 
thank all the witnesses. I appreciate your testimony today and 
your engagement.
    Can I just pick up right where Senator Casey just left off, 
right there on what discourages people from actually getting 
back into the workforce, and those income limits? You were just 
talking about the income limits, and they should increase.
    Can I just ask a question, just to be able to continue on 
that same process while we are picking your brain? What should 
those income limits be? If we are talking about an increase in 
an income limit, what should that look like, to what?
    Ms. Ives-Rublee. Yes, thank you for that question. And I 
actually do not have the specific amounts on hand right now. 
But I could send you something to give you a better 
understanding of that.
    Senator Lankford. That is great. Does anyone else--thank 
you, by the way. Does anyone else want to try to jump in? What 
should those income limits be to continue to encourage people? 
Because, again, it is critical when you are actually able to 
work to actually get back to work. You engage in the community. 
You engage in relationships. It helps with your own personal 
well-being, as well as your productivity in the workforce.
    So what should those income limits be?
    Ms. Romig. I am happy to jump in here. The SSI Restoration 
Act, as the name suggests, would restore SSI to its original 
provisions, just indexing them to inflation. And inflation 
since 1972 is about four or five times as high as the 1972 
levels. So that is one way of looking at it, just restoring it 
to 1972 levels.
    But another way of looking at it is thinking about, what do 
we know now that we did not know in 1972? And what are our 
goals now? Do we want to encourage work? Do we want to make 
sure that people who do work can support themselves?
    And I think it is worth considering even a higher income 
threshold, especially as in the Social Security Disability 
Insurance program, there is a period where you can earn an 
unlimited amount. It is called the Trial Work Period, and you 
can test out your ability to work in the labor market without 
any fear of losing benefits, without losing your health-care 
coverage. And I think contemplating other changes like that 
could really encourage people to work--especially young people, 
people who are aging out of the child benefits and getting 
their start in the labor market, giving them that opportunity.
    Senator Lankford. Okay. That is helpful.
    I would say, as I talk to individuals on SSI or SSDI, 
either one, it is very common to hear, ``I would return to 
work, but I'm afraid of losing my health care. This has been 
very helpful. I have a certain set of doctors, a certain set of 
insurance; I am on a pattern here. I would return, except for 
this.''
    That one piece of that proposal, I think, is very 
significant to me. It is also interesting the number of people 
I have talked to who are single, living together with someone 
else who is on benefits, and what I say to them is, ``You've 
been together for years. What's ever kept you from being 
married?'' I am a big proponent of marriage because I love my 
wife, and I am excited and want other people to be able to have 
that kind of joy. I will say, ``What's kept you from being 
married?'' Almost always they'll say, ``I'm afraid of losing 
our benefits. I'm afraid of the income piece of it.''
    So it seems like we are discouraging work, and we are 
discouraging marriage and families and the stability that that 
brings. Does anyone else agree or disagree with that?
    Ms. Romig. Yes, I absolutely agree with that. I mean, we--I 
think it is really important to think about goals. What do we 
want to encourage? Do we want to encourage work? Then we should 
not have rules that penalize work.
    Do we want to encourage marriage? Then we should not have 
rules that penalize marriage. Do we want to encourage savings? 
Then we should not have rules that penalize savings.
    Senator Lankford. Mr. Evangelista, let me ask you a 
question. You have mentioned in your testimony that SSI 
benefits dropped during the pandemic time period, as far as the 
number of people who actually enrolled in that. Is there an 
expectation that there are going to be a lot of people who 
start to enroll after we see the pandemic subside--which, God 
willing, some day we will? So, is that an expectation? If so, 
how are we preparing for that?
    Mr. Evangelista. Good afternoon, Senator Lankford. Thank 
you for your question. We did notice a decrease in the SSI 
applications. And during the pandemic we implemented a 
nationwide outreach strategy to actually reach some of these 
people who we think may be underserved in our communities.
    Some of the things that we are doing right now to address 
these low application rates are, we are expanding our 
collaboration with community organizations, meeting with them 
regularly, hearing about the challenges, and identifying 
solutions.
    We have also launched a paid national public service 
announcement on radio, TV, and social media to actually try to 
get to children with impairments, people with limited incomes. 
We are partnering with these organizations, working with these 
organizations, and they have agreed to assist us in helping to 
take applications from people who are interested in applying 
for SSI, and certainly referring people to us, or referring 
leads to us. We have established designated employees to work 
with these organizations to complete these claims.
    To answer your question, we are in the relatively early 
stages of this, Senator. So we are going to evaluate this very 
closely, and we are hoping to see whether or not there is an 
increase in the SSI application rate moving forward.
    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, may I have 30 seconds to 
ask one additional question?
    Senator Brown. Of course. Yes.
    Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I wanted to ask about kids who are minors, as they are 
transitioning into adulthood. There have been a lot of 
questions about the hearing time, where they have to go through 
the reapplication process.
    I have talked to some of the professionals who work in this 
area, and they have said there is a smaller number of people 
who qualify for post-18-year-old SSI benefits than there are 
when they are a teenager, but it seems to take 2 years to 
actually get to the hearing and go through the process based on 
just the backlog time period.
    Now that could be somewhat dated. Maybe that has changed 
recently with what is happening during the pandemic time 
period. But the simple question is, is there a way, as they are 
transitioning from the minor SSI program into the adult 
program, that they could actually be put on the top of the list 
and get a decision faster than other people who are way into 
the process--since such a small number of people actually 
qualify--so they could get an answer faster? Is that being 
considered?
    Mr. Evangelista. Senator, thank you for your question. I 
would have to take that back to see whether or not that is 
being considered, and perhaps I could provide that for the 
record.
    Senator Lankford. That would be just fine. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the extra minute.
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Senator Lankford. I found it 
fascinating that you said that this penalizes work, it 
penalizes marriage, and Ms. Romig said it penalizes savings. 
And we obviously have work to do.
    Senator Young, if it is okay with you as ranking member, 
why don't you and I take a short second round? I know that 
Senator Cassidy and Senator Hassan and Senator Bennet have 
checked in. I do not think they are here now. But we can have a 
short second round.
    I want to take off on something you said, Senator Young, 
when you asked Ms. Curda a question about enrollment and 
underpayments and overpayments.
    Ms. Curda, would you kind of walk through this. If we 
increased asset limits and eliminated SSI's so-called ``in-kind 
maintenance and support rules,'' which we heard penalize some 
of the poorest SSI beneficiaries for receiving help from loved 
ones to make sure they have enough to eat and a roof over their 
head, would this--you sort of intimated this in response to 
Senator Young's question--would this reduce SSI underpayments 
and overpayments? And if so, can you explain that in some 
detail?
    Ms. Curda. Sure. I mean, it is really just the math. We 
have not done any work on this issue specifically, but it is 
sort of a mathematic truism that if you raise the threshold for 
income and earnings, fewer people would automatically be in an 
overpayment status. But there are some sort of countervailing 
effects that I think you need to keep in mind. You know, on the 
one hand in the short run, of course, fewer would be in that 
overpayment status or underpayment status. But overall the 
program costs are obviously going to increase because what was 
once an overpayment subject to recovery is now a program cost.
    In addition, to the extent that raising or expanding the 
population of individuals who might be eligible for that 
benefit goes, it might also increase the number of SSI 
recipients.
    And then after raising the limits, the improper payments, 
overpayments, underpayments might continue to be an issue if 
the system for determining individual eligibility continues to 
work the same way, with benefits changing as the arrangements 
change. It just may be occurring at a higher level.
    Senator Brown. Thank you. And my only other question, 
then--before turning it over to Senator Young--Ms. Romig, your 
testimony notes that about half of the eligible people are 
currently being left behind by SSI because the application 
process is so difficult to navigate. We have seen the program 
cratering to historic lows during the pandemic, just evidence 
of something unusual right there.
    How concerned are you about these numbers? And what do we 
do to ensure that eligible people are able to access this 
critical program in their time of most dire need?
    Ms. Romig. Yes, this is such an important question, and I 
think the pandemic has brought some focus on a problem that has 
existed really for decades.
    You know, as you noted, during the pandemic, applications 
and awards for SSI are down to historic lows. And that, we 
think, is not because the need is any less--in fact, the need 
is greater as people have been losing jobs and becoming sick 
and sometimes disabled for the long term. But SSA's field 
offices have remained closed to the public for the most part 
since March of 2020. And so that certainly has been a factor 
that has kept applications down.
    There is a problem that really predates all of that as 
well. Several careful studies have looked at who is eligible 
for this program. For example, a few years ago SSA commissioned 
a study from the Institute of Medicine about children with 
mental health disabilities. And it looked across six different 
major diagnoses at low-
income children who had significant disabilities, and whether 
they applied for the program. And they found that about half, 
across all these major diagnoses, even applied for the program.
    Another study on low-birth-weight babies found the same 
thing: roughly half. Another study on adults--again in the 
neighborhood of half did not even apply for the program. And 
then, among people who do apply, only 4 in 10 are awarded 
benefits even after all levels of appeal.
    So it is very difficult to receive these benefits. And Mr. 
Evangelista talked about some of SSA's efforts. I think they 
are starting to take some steps to really improve outreach. I 
think we need to do a lot in terms of simplification. It is 
extraordinarily complicated to apply for SSI, particularly for 
the disability program. I think often people need assistance.
    You know, we were talking about people with a lot of 
barriers: people who have sometimes cognitive impairments; 
people who might have limited education levels; people with 
language barriers. We need to really address all of these 
barriers that people have to applying and give them the 
assistance they need in order to access the program.
    And so, I think there is a lot--while SSA has taken some 
first steps to try to improve outreach, to try to simplify the 
program, and to try to get people the assistance that they 
need, we need to do a lot more. Because there are many people 
who are entitled to these benefits who are not receiving them. 
And that is just as much of a problem, if not more of a 
problem, than overpayments.
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Ms. Romig.
    Senator Young, if you want to take a second round here; 
thank you.
    Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    SSA recently launched a vulnerable population liaison 
program to connect eligible individuals to SSI and to SSDI 
benefits. Following the onset of the pandemic, SSA increased 
outreach to certain groups, recognizing that shutdowns of in-
person service at field offices created heightened barriers to 
access.
    Mr. Evangelista, given the important role SSA field offices 
play in connecting individuals to the benefits they are 
eligible for, when do you anticipate the field offices will 
reopen?
    Mr. Evangelista. Thank you, Senator Young, for your 
question. Since the beginning of the pandemic, our offices have 
been open primarily for in-person appointment-only services. As 
you mentioned, we did have to limit walk-in traffic, or walk-in 
unscheduled visits, to protect the public and protect the 
employees who serve them.
    But we are working on our reentry plans, working in concert 
with the administration, working under the guidance of the 
Centers for Disease Control, and will continue to work through 
that. And while we are doing that, we are going to keep 
focusing on making sure that our services are accessible to 
those who need them through that outreach program I mentioned 
earlier.
    Senator Young. So no projected timeline right now in terms 
of opening the field offices?
    Mr. Evangelista. As I mentioned, we will continue to work 
through our in-office appointments and increase the 
availability there, and we will continue to work through those 
reentry plans in concert with the administration and CDC.
    Senator Young. So you are working on it, but there is no 
projected timeline? Is that accurate?
    Mr. Evangelista. That is accurate. I do not have a time 
frame.
    Senator Young. Thank you. Thank you for your answering the 
question.
    Mr. Evangelista, in response to recent questions from 
Finance Committee staff, SSA officials have said that the 
vulnerable population liaison program is an ongoing initiative 
that SSA will continue to monitor and evaluate to determine its 
overall effectiveness.
    How are you monitoring for effectiveness? What constitutes 
``effectiveness'' for this program? And do you envision this 
VPL as a temporary initiative?
    Mr. Evangelista. Thank you, Senator Young. I think one of 
the things that we are going to assess moving forward is the 
availability of community organizations to help us, their 
access to the community, and their capacity to help us take 
those SSI applications.
    Again, this is an ongoing initiative, and we are going to 
continue to monitor it for its effectiveness to make sure that 
we can reach out to these individuals who could potentially be 
eligible for SSI.
    Senator Young. Will you be using metrics to measure 
effectiveness. If so, what metrics are you using to measure 
success?
    Mr. Evangelista. Thank you for the question. As I mentioned 
earlier, we are in our early stages of doing this. One of the 
metrics that we are going to measure is to see whether or not 
there has been an increase in the SSI application rate. And 
again, we are still early on in the process, but I would say 
that is one of the key metrics that we are going to want to 
measure: is there an increase in the SSI application rate 
moving forward? And that is something that we are going to 
measure.
    Senator Young. Okay. So directionally, would an increase in 
recipients constitute effectiveness? Or does it have to hit 
some threshold before you would say the VPL program is 
effective?
    Mr. Evangelista. That is a great question. I think how I 
would respond is that, certainly all those who apply for VPL 
benefits will not necessarily be approved for benefits. But I 
think right now what we are going to focus on is making sure 
that we are making our services accessible to everyone who is 
interested in applying.
    And then at a certain point, we are going to have to 
determine whether those who have applied were also those we 
were hoping to reach. So it is a little bit early to come to 
those conclusions, but we are certainly going to monitor the 
effectiveness of this outreach.
    Senator Young. Okay. It is unclear to me why it is early to 
come up with success metrics, or at least a preliminary range. 
I think most organizations would come up with success metrics, 
and then if they needed to be changed, a rationale would be 
given for changing the metrics.
    Why is it different at SSA? Or perhaps as a management 
exercise, I am wrong. I am open to being wrong, sir.
    Mr. Evangelista. I thank you for the question. No, I think 
we take these metrics very seriously. We do want to measure the 
effectiveness, and we want to make sure that we are reaching 
the targeted population that we think may be eligible for SSI.
    In terms of the actual metrics, Senator, let me take the 
rest of this question back and see whether or not we could 
provide additional details for the record.
    Senator Young. Okay.
    Just lastly--because I asked it in that fusillade of 
questions--would you just answer ``yes'' or ``no,'' do you 
envision the VPL as a temporary initiative?
    Mr. Evangelista. Right now we are going to consider it as 
an ongoing initiative. Again, we are going to monitor the 
effectiveness in terms of how those employees are going to be 
working with the organizations, taking those claims for SSI. So 
right now, I would consider it an ongoing initiative.
    Senator Young. Okay. It sounds like you are keeping your 
options open.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Senator Young. Thank you to my 
colleagues and to our witnesses for being here today. I just 
want to recount some things we heard on which I think there is 
general agreement, sort of from all of us on the Senate side, 
and in both parties, and from the witnesses.
    Ms. Ives-Rublee told us that SSI beneficiaries are living 
on the cusp of homelessness or institutionalization. I think we 
agree that is shameful, and it underscores the urgency for 
Congress to act.
    Here is what else we heard. Because it is over-complicated 
and full of outdated rules, it discourages work. The income 
disregard thresholds are too low, and the rules are so 
complicated that SSI beneficiaries are afraid to go back to 
work. It discourages savings. The asset limits have not been 
updated, as you all said, by Congress for close to 40 years. 
The $2,000 limit means beneficiaries simply cannot meaningfully 
save for an emergency--a car breaking down, or a number of 
other things. It even discourages marriage. If two SSI 
beneficiaries get married, they receive lower benefits than 
they would if they had stayed unmarried.
    These are problems that have a concrete effect on 
beneficiaries' lives. The rules are so complicated that SSA has 
difficulty administering the program. Our legislation would 
make long-overdue updates and simplify the rules. It is long 
past time that we restore SSI to its original purpose, where we 
restore dignity to the lives of the beneficiaries who rely on 
it.
    Thank you all for being here. Senator Young, thanks for 
your cooperation and that of your staff. The four witnesses, 
all four of you, made major contributions. Thank you so much, 
and the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

                              ----------                              


               Prepared Statement of Hon. Sherrod Brown, 
                        a U.S. Senator From Ohio
I'll call this hearing to order. Thank you, Senator Young, the ranking 
member of this subcommittee, for working with us to schedule this 
hearing. And thank you to Chairman Wyden for being a part of it and 
helping us to lead these efforts to protect and strengthen this 
critical part of our Social Security system.

Today's hearing on Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, is long 
overdue. This is the first hearing on SSI in the Senate Finance 
Committee since 1998--that would be nearly a quarter century ago--and 
there has not been a hearing in Congress specifically about increasing 
benefits or eligibility since the Reagan administration.

In fact, that 1987 Ways and Means hearing called SSI ``the forgotten 
safety net.'' It was a fitting title then and it would be an even more 
fitting title now, given the decades of neglect that has hurt millions 
of Americans.

Nearly 8 million people with disabilities and seniors rely on SSI to 
meet their basic needs. The program's rules are needlessly complicated, 
leaving seniors and other Americans facing a maze of complex and 
sometimes contradictory rules at a difficult time in their lives. And 
they make it challenging for the Social Security Administration to 
administer--which we'll hear more about from our witnesses today.

Even worse, SSI's eligibility rules are even more outdated and 
illogical than they already were in 1987. When the program was created 
by Congress in 1972, its purpose was clear: to ensure ``the Nation's 
aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to subsist on 
below-poverty-level incomes.''

But now the opposite is true. The program's eligibility rules haven't 
been updated in decades--in many cases even for inflation. They now 
force millions of disabled and older Americans to live well below the 
poverty line, and punish them for any of their own efforts to build a 
little financial security.

They're punished if they try to save for an emergency. They're punished 
if they try to find a part-time job. They're punished if they accept 
food or shelter from generous family and community members. They're 
even punished if they're married.

It makes no sense--particularly when these Americans are treated to 
constant lectures about the value of work and self-sufficiency. We're 
told over and over by some politicians that ``personal responsibility'' 
is a central American value. Yet if someone who relies on SSI saves 
even $1 more than $2,000, they lose their benefits.

That sends a pretty absurd message. SSI's outdated rules make it 
impossible for beneficiaries to live with dignity.

Last year I talked with an Ohioan from Ottawa County named Dorothy 
Gackstatter. Her son's benefits took a hit when an insurance policy she 
had in his name grew in value. She told me: ``It should have never 
happened. I felt it was unjust.''

Make no mistake: poverty in America is a policy choice. And it's up to 
this committee and this Congress to finally make a different choice. 
There are millions of seniors and people with disabilities who are 
living in poverty right now, not because of their own choices--but 
because of ours.

That's why earlier this year, I introduced the SSI Restoration Act with 
20 cosponsors, including Senators Wyden, Warren, Menendez, Casey, 
Bennet, and Whitehouse from this committee. That bill would finally 
increase SSI benefit levels to the Federal poverty level, and simplify 
and update the eligibility rules, so that these Americans are no longer 
punished for trying to build a better life for themselves.

Recent analysis from the nonpartisan Urban Institute tells us that the 
reforms in this bill would lift 3.3 million people out of poverty and 
cut poverty among SSI beneficiaries in half.

The bill is supported by more than 100 national organizations, 
including AARP, the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, The Arc, the 
National Women's Law Center, and AFL-CIO. Even J.P. Morgan Chase--which 
I know well from chairing the Senate Banking and Housing Committee--
supports increasing SSI's asset limits.

When you get the AFL-CIO and J.P. Morgan on the same page, I think you 
may be on to something--I don't know if you can get a broader coalition 
than that.

We created SSI nearly a half-century ago as a key part of our Social 
Security system--one of the bedrocks of our society. People know that 
if they or a loved one needs it, it will be there. It's just like the 
promise of Social Security.

For more than 30 years, we've been breaking that promise.

Now is the time for Congress to finally do right by the 8 million 
Americans relying on SSI we've forgotten for far too long. Now is the 
time to finally restore this critical part of our Social Security 
system to its original intent.

I am working with Chairman Wyden and Leader Schumer to ensure that 
long-
overdue updates to SSI are included in the forthcoming family 
infrastructure package we're putting together, and I thank them for 
their support on that.

Before I turn it over to Senator Young, I want to thank the hundreds of 
SSI beneficiaries who are following this hearing. You've shared your 
stories on Twitter with the Demolish Disabled Poverty hashtag, and 
you've written to this subcommittee about what improving SSI would mean 
to you and your families.

I thank you for sharing your stories with us, and I want you to know: 
I'm listening. We are listening. I'm only sorry it's taken this long 
for your voices to be heard here in Washington. That will change.

                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Curda, Director, Education, Workforce, 
         and Income Security, Government Accountability Office

 Supplemental Security Income: SSA Faces Ongoing Challenges With Work 
                    Incentives and Improper Payments

Why GAO Did This Study

    SSI is a Federal assistance program administered by SSA that 
provides cash benefits to certain individuals who are elderly, blind, 
or have a disability. SSI acts as a safety net for individuals who have 
limited resources and little or no other income. As such, SSI is a 
means-tested program. As of July 2021, approximately 71 percent of SSI 
beneficiaries were children or working-age individuals with 
disabilities. SSA faces longstanding challenges related to 
administering SSI and its other disability programs. GAO has issued 
multiple reports with recommendations on how SSA might address these 
challenges.

    This testimony describes SSA's challenges with (1) incentivizing 
employment for SSI recipients who wish to work, and (2) preventing 
improper payments to SSI recipients, including overpayments.

    This statement is based primarily on prior GAO reports issued 
between 2010 and 2021, as well as preliminary observations from an 
ongoing GAO review of the Ticket program. To conduct the work for these 
reports and the ongoing review, GAO used a variety of methods including 
analyzing data; reviewing relevant Federal laws, regulations, and 
guidance; reviewing key agency documents, such as SSA's strategic plan 
and annual SSI stewardship reports; and interviewing experts and SSA 
officials.

What GAO Found

    The Social Security Administration (SSA) has undertaken several 
efforts to encourage employment for individuals with disabilities who 
receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and who would like to work, 
but few benefit from these supports.

        Work incentives and supports for transition-age youth. SSA 
administers work incentives and other employment supports for 
transition-age youth (ages 14 to 17) on SSI. These supports encourage 
work by allowing these youth to keep at least some of their benefits 
even if they have earnings. In 2017, GAO analysis of SSA data from 2012 
to 2015 found that less than 1.5 percent of SSI youth benefited from 
these incentives. According to SSA and other officials, this may be 
because SSI youth and their families are often unaware of or do not 
understand the incentives, and may fear that work will negatively 
affect their benefits or eligibility.

        Work incentives for working-age adults. The Ticket to Work and 
Self- Sufficiency Program (Ticket) is a voluntary program that was 
established to assist individuals with disabilities in obtaining and 
retaining employment, and help reduce dependency on benefits. 
Preliminary GAO analysis of Ticket indicates that SSI recipients 
participated more often than other disability beneficiaries, and 
benefited modestly from the program. GAO analysis of SSA data from 2002 
to 2015 found, 5 years after participating in Ticket, about 4 percent 
of SSI participants had left the disability rolls due to earnings from 
work, compared with 2 percent of nonparticipants who were similar in 
characteristics such as age, disability type, and education. However, 
earnings for SSI Ticket participants remained low. GAO's analysis of 
data from 2002 to 2018 shows that average earnings for SSI Ticket 
participants, 5 years after participating, were $3,940 per year, 
including 57 percent who did not report any earnings at all. GAO's 
preliminary work also indicates that Ticket participants face a number 
of challenges to returning to work, including their primary disabling 
condition, which may not improve sufficiently to allow for full time 
employment, and disincentives to work such as the loss of cash and 
medical benefits.

    Prior and ongoing GAO work has identified issues with SSA's efforts 
to reduce improper payments, including overpayments, to SSI 
beneficiaries in general and beneficiaries who are working in 
particular. Overpayments can occur when beneficiaries who work do not 
timely report earnings to SSA or SSA delays in adjusting their benefit 
amounts. SSA reported that SSI's overpayment rate in fiscal year 2019 
was estimated at 8.13 percent, higher than other SSA programs. Further, 
SSA reported it made approximately $4.6 billion in SSI overpayments in 
fiscal year 2019. Overpayments may have to be repaid, which may be 
burdensome for recipients, especially those who were not aware that 
they were overpaid and already spent the money. While SSA has taken 
steps to reduce overpayments, SSA's Office of Inspector General found 
that SSA had not resolved lags in updating information on 
beneficiaries' earnings. In addition, SSA has not implemented a 2020 
GAO priority recommendation that it develop and implement a process to 
measure the effectiveness of its corrective actions for improper 
payments, including overpayments.

_______________________________________________________________________

    Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Young, and members of the 
subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss our prior and 
ongoing work on the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, 
including the Social Security Administration's (SSA) efforts to 
encourage its beneficiaries to work if able and to correctly pay them 
benefits. SSI is a Federal assistance program administered by SSA that 
provides cash benefits for certain individuals who are elderly, blind, 
or have a disability. SSI acts as a safety net for individuals who have 
limited resources and little or no other income. As of July 2021, 
approximately 71 percent of SSI recipients were children or working-age 
individuals with disabilities. Specifically, during the month of July, 
4.4 million working-age SSI beneficiaries received approximately $2.9 
billion dollars in benefits, with an average monthly payment of about 
$617.\1\ During the same month, 1.1 million child SSI beneficiaries 
received $757 million dollars, with an average monthly benefit of $693. 
According to SSA, in many States, eligibility for SSI also confers 
eligibility for Medicaid benefits.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In addition to setting a Federal benefit standard, Federal law 
also permits individual States to supplement the Federal payment with 
an additional monthly amount. As of May 2020, 44 States and the 
District of Columbia have optional State supplementation programs.
    \2\ According to SSA, in 18 States SSI eligibility does not confer 
automatic eligibility for Medicaid. Also, SSA stated that SSI 
applicants who are not categorically eligible for SSI may be Medicaid-
eligible, depending on State eligibility rules.

    SSA faces longstanding challenges in administering SSI. We have 
issued a number of reports with recommendations for how SSA might 
address these challenges. While SSA has agreed with and taken action on 
many of our recommendations, others have not been implemented. In 
addition, Social Security disability programs are on GAO's High Risk 
List due to persistent workload and other management challenges.\3\ The 
COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2021 has presented unprecedented workload 
challenges as the agency closed its offices to the public and 
transitioned to remote service delivery.\4\ The pandemic also created 
new challenges for SSA, such as in reaching vulnerable populations who 
traditionally rely on SSA's in-person services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ High-Risk Series: Dedicated Leadership Needed to Address 
Limited Progress in Most High-Risk Areas, GAO-21-119SP, https://
www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-119sp (Washington, DC: March 2, 2021).
    \4\ In certain instances, SSA allowed for limited in-office 
appointments for critical services.

    This testimony describes SSA's challenges with (1) incentivizing 
employment for SSI recipients who wish to work, and (2) preventing 
improper payments to SSI recipients, including overpayments when 
earnings exceed allowable thresholds. My testimony is based primarily 
on reports we issued from 2010 to 2021,\5\ as well as preliminary 
observations from our ongoing review of the Ticket to Work and Self-
Sufficiency Program (Ticket to Work or Ticket).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ This statement is also based on an ongoing review of SSA data 
and updates on actions taken to address past GAO recommendations we 
obtained in September 2021 from reviewing SSA reports and guidance. 
Prior GAO reports are cited throughout and include GAO, Supplemental 
Security Income: SSA Has Taken Steps to Prevent and Detect 
Overpayments, but Additional Actions Could Be Taken to Improve 
Oversight, GAO-13-109, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-109 
(Washington, DC: December 14, 2012); Supplemental Security Income: SSA 
Could Strengthen Its Efforts to Encourage Employment for Transition-Age 
Youth, GAO-17-485, https://www.
gao.gov/products/gao-17-485 (Washington, DC: May 17, 2017); Highlights 
of a Forum: Actions That Could Increase Work Participation for Adults 
With Disabilities, GAO-10-812SP, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-
812sp (Washington, DC: July 29, 2010); Payment Integrity: Selected 
Agencies Should Improve Efforts to Evaluate Effectiveness of Corrective 
Actions to Reduce Improper Payments, GAO-20-336, https://www.gao.gov/
products/gao-20-336 (Washington, DC: April 1, 2020); and GAO-21-119SP, 
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-119sp.
    \6\ The Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2018, contains a provision for GAO to study and 
issue a report on the effects of Ticket to Work to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the 
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, and the 
Committee on Finance of the Senate. 164 Cong. Rec. H2707 (March 22, 
2018). We expect to issue a report on the results of this work in fall 
2021.

    We used multiple methodologies to conduct the work for our prior 
reports. We analyzed SSI data; reviewed relevant Federal laws, 
regulations, and guidance; reviewed key agency documents, such as SSA's 
strategic plan and annual SSI stewardship reports; and interviewed SSA 
officials.\7\ In this testimony, we also include preliminary 
observations from our forthcoming report on SSA's Ticket program, a 
voluntary program established to assist individuals with disabilities 
to obtain and retain employment, and reduce their dependency on 
benefits.\8\ That analysis compares outcomes for Ticket participants to 
a statistically matched group of similar nonparticipants using data 
from SSA's Disability Analysis File from 2002 to 2018 matched with 
earnings data from SSA's Master Earnings File.\9\ We assessed the data 
we received by, for example, reviewing relevant documentation and 
interviewing knowledgeable officials, and determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ More information on the scope and methodology of our work is 
contained within each of the published reports.
    \8\ See Pub. L. No. 106-170, Sec. 2(b)(4), 113 Stat. 1860, 1863.
    \9\ Using SSA data, we sought to analyze earnings, benefits, and 
other outcomes of Ticket participants in relation to nonparticipants. 
We used statistical matching methods to construct this comparison group 
of nonparticipants and to adjust for differences between the two 
groups. The resulting comparison group was similar on average to the 
Ticket participants on characteristics that could influence Ticket 
participation such as the primary disabling condition, expectations of 
medical recovery, state of residence, age, gender, and education level. 
These matching methods yielded a comparison group that allowed us to 
analyze outcomes for nonparticipants similar to Ticket participants. 
Comparison group members received similar amounts of disability 
benefits before the participants started services, but on average 
earned $487 less per year than participants before services started.

    We performed the work on which this statement is based in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
                               background
SSI Eligibility
    The SSI program is a means-tested program that was established in 
1972 under title XVI of the Social Security Act and provides payments 
to individuals who are elderly, blind, or have disabilities--both 
adults and children--who meet certain financial eligibility 
requirements.\10\ To determine financial eligibility, SSA staff review 
SSI applications. To be eligible, in 2021, an individual's or married 
couple's monthly countable income had to be less than the monthly 
Federal SSI benefit rate of $794 for an individual and $1,191 for a 
married couple. Further, countable resources (such as financial 
institution accounts) had to be $2,000 or less for individuals and 
$3,000 or less for married couples. SSI recipients are to report 
changes in their income and financial resources to SSA as soon as they 
occur. A penalty may be deducted from the recipient's benefit if the 
report of a change is not made within 10 days after the close of the 
month in which the change occurred.\11\ If income changes are not 
reported in a timely manner, or if the change in income is not 
processed in a timely manner, an improper payment may occur. An 
improper payment is defined as any payment that should not have been 
made or that was made in an incorrect amount (including overpayments 
and underpayments) under statutory, contractual, administrative, or 
other legally applicable requirements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ The SSI program was established by the Social Security 
Amendments of 1972 and became effective in 1974. Pub. L. No. 92-603, 
Sec. 301, 86 Stat. 1329, 1465 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1381-1383f).
    \11\ 20 CFR Sec. Sec. 416.708(c) and (d) and 416.714.
    \12\ 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3351(4).

    SSI also has two sets of medical eligibility requirements to 
determine disability--one for adults (individuals age 18 and older) and 
one for individuals under 18. For adults to be considered disabled, 
they must have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment 
(or combination of impairments) that prevents them from doing any 
substantial gainful activity (SGA) and that has lasted or is expected 
to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months or result in 
death.\13\ While similar to the requirements for adults, the 
requirements for children are that the impairment must cause marked and 
severe functional limitations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Substantial gainful activity, or SGA, describes a level of 
work activity that is both substantial (i.e., involves the performance 
of significant physical or mental activities) and gainful (i.e., the 
kind of work usually done for pay or profit). Generally, work earnings 
of over $1,310 a month are evidence of ability to engage in SGA. If an 
SSI applicant is earning over $1,310 a month, he or she generally would 
not be considered disabled. However, if an SSI recipient is earning 
over $1,310 a month, he or she could continue to be eligible for SSI. 
SSA, Annual Report of the Supplemental Security Income Program 
(Baltimore, MD: May 29, 2020).
    \14\ Individuals under age 18 are considered disabled if they have 
a medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination 
of impairments that causes marked and severe functional limitations, 
and that can be expected to result in death or has lasted or can be 
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. If 
a child is blind, they must meet the same definition of blindness as 
applied to adults. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382c(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Incentives for Transitioning Youth
    As a provider of means-tested benefits, SSA does not provide direct 
employment services to SSI recipients, including transitioning youth 
(ages 14 to 17) on SSI. However, for recipients who want to work, the 
SSI program is designed to support their efforts and reduce their 
reliance on benefits, according to SSA's Annual Report of the 
Supplemental Security Income Program. Federal law provides several work 
incentives and other employment supports to help SSI recipients, 
including youth, enter, reenter, or stay in the workforce. Most 
transition-age youth are also students, and the importance of education 
is emphasized by the primary work incentive for this population, the 
Student Earned Income Exclusion (SEIE), which encourages work, but 
generally requires recipients to attend school to be eligible for the 
exclusion of some of their income when calculating SSI benefits. SSA 
also administers other work incentives and employment supports that are 
available, but not targeted, to transition-age youth.
Ticket to Work Overview
    Ticket was established to assist individuals with disabilities to 
obtain and retain employment, and help reduce dependency on benefits. 
This voluntary program was also designed to provide beneficiaries with 
greater choice in public and private providers of employment services, 
such as job preparation and placement and vocational rehabilitation 
services.\15\ In general, SSI beneficiaries ages 18 through 64 are 
eligible for Ticket.\16\ These beneficiaries may choose whether or not 
to use their tickets, and with which service providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Congressional Research Service, Ticket to Work and Self-
Sufficiency Program: Overview and Current Issues, R41934, (updated 
January 24, 2014).
    \16\ Beneficiaries of SSA's other disability program, Social 
Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and beneficiaries who were 
concurrently eligible for SSI and SSDI, are also generally eligible to 
participate in Ticket. SSDI is a program for disabled individuals that 
provides monthly cash benefits to certain individuals unable to work 
because of disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             ssa faces challenges with work incentives for 
                    ssi recipients who want to work
Few Transition-Age Youth Took Advantage of Available Work Incentives
    As we reported in 2017, SSA administers work incentives and other 
employment supports for transition-age youth on SSI as they move into 
adulthood, but few benefited from these supports.\17\ These supports 
encourage work by allowing transition-age youth to keep at least some 
of their benefits even if they have earnings. The work incentive 
targeted specifically to younger SSI recipients is the Student Earned 
Income Exclusion (SEIE), which allows income to be excluded from 
benefits calculations if a recipient is a student under the age of 22. 
However, less than 1.5 percent of all transition-age youth--and 
generally less than one- half of those with earnings--benefited from 
SEIE in 2012 through 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ GAO-17-485, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-485.

    SSA data also showed that almost no youth benefited from other 
incentives that allow them to exclude earnings used for specific 
purposes. For example, SSA data showed that in 2012 through 2015, no 
transition-age SSI recipients used incentives that allow SSI recipients 
to deduct the cost of certain items necessary to help the individual 
work from the income used to determine their benefit.\18\ Further, no 
more than five individual youths in any given year from 2012 through 
2015 used the work incentive that allows individuals to set aside 
income to meet work goals.\19\ According to SSA and other officials, 
use of these work incentives may be limited because youth and their 
families are often unaware of or do not understand them, and may fear 
that work will negatively affect their benefits or eligibility.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ SSA data for Impairment-Related Work Expenses and Blind Work 
Expenses, both of which allow for the exclusion of certain work-related 
expenses from the income used to determine SSI benefits, showed no 
transition-age SSI youth participated from 2012 through 2015. GAO-17-
485, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-485.
    \19\ The Plan to Achieve Self Support work incentive allows the 
setting aside of income for a specified period of time so that SSI 
recipients may pursue a work goal.
    \20\ Because youth receiving SSI are also generally eligible for 
Medicaid, recipients may fear that losing SSI benefits may result in 
losing health insurance as well. Furthermore, according to SSA 
officials, since most transition-age youth on SSI are receiving 
Medicaid, which covers the vast majority of these expenses, most 
transition-age youth are not able to take advantage of the deductions.

    While SSA has implemented some of the recommendations we have made 
pertaining to work incentives for transition-age youth, others have not 
been implemented. For example, the agency took steps to analyze why 
youth on SSI with earnings did not benefit from SEIE and to improve 
communication about work incentives and rules. However, SSA has not 
fully addressed our recommendations for the agency to work with the 
U.S. Department of Education to determine how many youth on SSI are not 
connected to vocational rehabilitation services and explore options to 
further connect them, such as by expanding Ticket to serve transition-
age youth.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Federal funds administered by the U.S. Department of Education 
support a wide range of services provided by State vocational 
rehabilitation agencies, including: assessments; counseling, guidance, 
referrals, and job placements; vocational and other training; 
transportation; and, in certain circumstances, post secondary education 
and training. Individuals receiving disability benefits, including 
transition-age youth on SSI, are generally presumed eligible for such 
services. GAO-17-485, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSI Beneficiaries Who Participated in Ticket to Work Benefited 
        Modestly, but Challenges Affected Success in the Program
    Our preliminary work on the Ticket program indicates that SSI 
beneficiaries are more likely to participate in Ticket than other types 
of disability beneficiaries, and left the rolls for work at a higher 
rate than similar nonparticipants. From 2002 to 2018, among the Ticket-
eligible population, around 41 percent received only SSI benefits. 
During this same period, SSI-only beneficiaries made up about 59 
percent of Ticket participants who started the program in 2002 through 
2018.\22\ Based on our preliminary analysis of SSA data, 5 years after 
participating in Ticket, SSI beneficiaries had an average increase in 
earnings of about $1,602 per year compared to similar 
nonparticipants.\23\ From 2002 through 2015, 5 years after 
participating in Ticket, about 4 percent of SSI participants had left 
the disability rolls due to earnings from work, compared to 2 percent 
of similar nonparticipants. However, earnings for SSI Ticket 
participants remained low. Our preliminary analysis of data from 2002 
through 2018 shows average earnings for SSI Ticket participants were 
$3,940 per year, including 57 percent who did not report any earnings 
at all, while the average for those who had any earnings was $9,083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Working-age beneficiaries of SSA's other disability program, 
SSDI, and beneficiaries who are dually eligible for SSI and SSDI, 
comprise the remaining share of the Ticket-eligible population and 
participants. Information on Ticket eligibility was included in the 
data we analyzed, and GAO did not make any eligibility determinations 
in carrying out the analysis.
    \23\ These averages also include individuals with no earnings. We 
chose to compare participants at the 5-year Ticket participation mark 
because, according to SSA officials, it can take several years for 
individuals to complete their participation in Ticket and experience 
the benefits of the program. All dollar amounts are inflation adjusted 
to 2020.

    Our preliminary observations from our ongoing work indicate that 
Ticket participants face a number of challenges to returning to work, 
including their primary disabling condition, which may not improve 
sufficiently to allow for full time employment. In addition, in our 
interviews with disability policy experts and program officials, as 
well as in our analysis of prior GAO and SSA reports, we consistently 
identified three key disincentives to work faced by disability 
beneficiaries: (1) loss of cash and medical benefits, (2) fear of 
overpayments, and (3) complexity of rules surrounding work. For 
example, the Social Security Advisory Board stated in its 2017 report 
that the SSI earnings offset effectively imposes a high marginal tax on 
work--$1 for every $2 earned, or 50 percent--that exceeds those of 
other Federal assistance programs.\24\ Additionally, GAO work over the 
past 25 years has reported on the variety of ways that the structure of 
disability benefits, including SSI, discourages work. For example, in 
2010 we found that SSA program rules for receiving benefits--such as 
tying the definition of SGA to income thresholds--can create incentives 
to stay out of the workforce, even when work is possible. Disability 
experts stated that the incentives should be aligned so that work 
becomes the rational choice for individuals with disabilities who can 
do so and not the risky choice.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Social Security Advisory Board, Statement on the Supplemental 
Security Income Program: Work Incentives and Work Supports in the SSI 
Program (July 2017).
    \25\ GAO-10-812SP, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-812sp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ssa faces ongoing issues with efforts to reduce 
                     overpayments to ssi recipients
    Prior and ongoing GAO work has identified issues with SSA's efforts 
to reduce improper payments, including overpayments to beneficiaries, 
which are more common for SSI recipients than other types of SSA 
beneficiaries in general and those who are working in particular. For 
example, in its fiscal year 2020 agency financial report, SSA reported 
that SSI's overpayment rate in fiscal year 2019 was 8.13 percent, which 
was higher than other SSA programs.\26\ Overall, SSA reported that in 
fiscal year 2019 it made approximately $4.6 billion in estimated 
overpayments in the SSI program. Further, based on our preliminary 
analysis of the Ticket program we estimated that, from 2002 through 
2015, Ticket participants were twice as likely to receive overpayments 
as similar nonparticipants.\27\ Thus, the disability beneficiaries who 
have achieved the stated goals of Ticket may receive overpayments, 
which they may have to pay back. Overpayments may be especially 
burdensome if the recipients were not aware that they were overpaid and 
spent the money. According to experts and SSA officials we interviewed, 
fear of overpayments also constitutes a barrier to participating in 
Ticket and employment more broadly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ This includes overpayments for all reasons, including 
earnings. Social Security Administration, Agency Financial Report: 
Fiscal Year 2020, SSA Pub. No. 31-231, November 2020.
    \27\ This analysis was for SSI and SSDI recipients combined; we did 
not disaggregate by program. Our estimates of overpayments were derived 
from historical SSA benefit data that were not designed to track 
overpayments to beneficiaries. Nonetheless, they are the best available 
data on the population of Ticket participants, and provide a reasonable 
measure of the extent to which overpayments occur among them. For the 
purposes of this analysis, we defined an overpayment as a circumstance 
in which an individual received a benefit payment when they were not 
entitled to receive benefits. We did not assess whether individuals 
were entitled to a benefit or how much they were entitled to; rather, 
we relied on SSA data regarding benefits paid and benefits due.

    As our prior work has shown, overpayments may also result because 
eligibility reviews are not conducted in a timely manner, information 
provided to SSA is incomplete or outdated, or errors are made in 
applying complex program rules. According to SSA's Office of the 
Inspector General, working puts people at risk for an overpayment 
because individuals may not report their earnings right away, and when 
they do, SSA may lag in receiving and processing beneficiaries' new 
earnings information.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ SSA Office of the Inspector General, Incorrect Payments to 
Disabled Beneficiaries Who Return to Work, Audit Report No. A-07-17-
50131 (Baltimore, MD: 2018).

    GAO has made a number of recommendations related to this issue, but 
challenges remain.\29\ For example, in April 2020, we reported that 
although SSA developed corrective actions corresponding to the 
identified root causes of improper payments, it did not measure the 
effectiveness of its corrective actions for SSI.\30\ We recommended 
that SSA develop and implement a process, documented in policies and 
procedures, to measure the effectiveness of the agency's corrective 
actions for improper payments; SSA agreed but this priority 
recommendation has not been implemented.\31\ Additionally, despite some 
progress in recent years in addressing overpayments, SSA's Office of 
the Inspector General reported in 2018 that management had not resolved 
lags in updating its information when beneficiaries self report income 
or when SSA receives employer-reported data on earnings.\32\ In its 
annual performance plan for fiscal years 2021-22, SSA named improving 
program integrity as a focus area and planned to address the root 
causes of improper payments by improving wage reporting.\33\ For 
example, SSA now has a way for individuals to report online and through 
a mobile application that allows individuals to make monthly wage 
reports through a computer, smart device, or smartphone. SSA expects 
these tools will help reduce improper SSI payments by making it easier 
for recipients to comply with reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ See, for example, GAO's current list of open priority 
recommendations for SSA, which includes three related to overpayments. 
GAO, Priority Open Recommendations: Social Security Administration, 
GAO-21-430PR, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-430pr (Washington, 
DC: June 3, 2021).
    \30\ GAO-20-336, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-336.
    \31\ GAO-21-430PR, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-430pr.
    \32\ The SSA Office of Inspector General stated in its 2018 report 
that once beneficiaries report their earnings, SSA's processing of that 
information is beyond the beneficiaries' control and they are likely to 
be unaware of the effect on their benefits. They may assume that SSA 
will stop their benefits when appropriate. SSA Office of the Inspector 
General, Incorrect Payments to Disabled Beneficiaries Who Return to 
Work, Audit Report No. A-07-17-50131 (Baltimore, MD: 2018).
    \33\ Social Security Administration. ``Annual Performance Report 
Fiscal Years 2021-2022.''

    Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Young, and members of the 
subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to respond to any questions you may have at this time.

                                 ______
                                 
         Questions Submitted for the Record to Elizabeth Curda
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Sherrod Brown
    Question. If Congress eliminated SSI's so-called ``in-kind 
maintenance and support'' rules--which penalize some of the poorest SSI 
beneficiaries for receiving help from loved ones to make sure they have 
enough to eat and a roof over their heads--do you think that would 
reduce SSI underpayments and overpayments?

    Answer. GAO has not evaluated this issue. However, the Social 
Security Advisory Board noted in its 2015 statement on the Supplemental 
Security Income Program that the in-kind support and maintenance (ISM) 
rules significantly complicate administration and lead to many over- 
and under-payments.\1\ They suggested a thorough reexamination of the 
way SSA adjusts benefits for ISM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Social Security Advisory Board, Statement on the Supplemental 
Security Income Program: The Complexity of In-Kind Support and 
Maintenance, 2015.

    Question. SSI's income limits have not been adjusted for inflation 
since 1972. If those levels were updated for inflation, do you think 
that would reduce underpayments and overpayments in SSI? Would it also 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
encourage more people to work?

    Answer. Research shows that many SSI recipients are reluctant to 
work because they fear losing their benefits. Raising the income limits 
would change the incentives they face and could encourage more 
recipients to work, to the extent that they are able to do so.

    It stands to reason that raising the income limits would, in the 
short run, result in a decline in overpayments due to there being fewer 
people that would reach the income limit. However, overall program 
costs could increase because what was once an overpayment subject to 
recovery is now a program cost. In the long run, the impact on 
underpayments or overpayments is less clear. For example, if raising 
the income limit expands the population of individuals who might be 
eligible for benefits, it might increase the number of SSI recipients. 
Even after raising resource limits, overpayments will likely continue 
to be an issue if the system of determining individual eligibility 
continues to work the same way, with benefits changing as earnings or 
living arrangements change.

    Question. Your testimony says that changes in income are ``not 
processed in a timely manner'' and that ``SSA may lag in receiving and 
processing'' earnings reports and that can result in overpayments. Does 
GAO have an estimate about how many overpayments and underpayments are 
because SSA doesn't have the staff, technology, or capacity to process 
reports in a timely manner?

    Answer. Although GAO has identified lags in updating income 
information as an issue affecting overpayments, we have not estimated 
how staffing, technology challenges, and capacity to process wage 
reports timely impact the amount of overpayments. As we noted in our 
2015 report on SSDI overpayments, SSA's sample size for determining 
improper payments is too small to reliably analyze the root causes of 
overpayments, such as these delays.\2\ We also noted that SSA's process 
for processing work reports had internal control weaknesses that 
increase the risk of overpayments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ GAO, Disability Insurance: SSA Could Do More to Prevent 
Overpayments or Incorrect Waivers to Beneficiaries, GAO-16-34 
(Washington, DC: October 29, 2015).

    Question. You testified before the Social Security Advisory Board 
recently on the challenges facing SSA during the pandemic. 
Specifically, you highlighted that SSA should be analyzing their online 
services and other methods of providing services, especially for low 
income communities with less access to electronic services. Do you 
think reforms such as eliminating in-kind support and maintenance 
penalties and updating SSI's income rules would help SSA provide better 
service to low income beneficiaries who don't have reliable Internet or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
phone access?

    Answer. In prior work,\3\ GAO has reported on the complexity of the 
eligibility rules for SSA's disability programs and highlighted that 
this complexity can make it challenging for customers to complete 
certain processes online. We reported that, according to SSA officials, 
the online application for disability benefits requires claimants to 
provide detailed information on their medical and work histories and to 
navigate through over 10 separate web pages. Although we have not 
analyzed the effect of the specific reforms mentioned, our findings 
suggest reducing complexity and simplifying rules could make the 
program easier for applicants and recipients to navigate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ GAO, Social Security Administration: Long-term Strategy Needed 
to Address Key Management Challenges, GAO-13-459 (Washington, DC: May 
29, 2013). GAO, Social Security Administration: Improvements Needed in 
Facilities Planning and Service Delivery Evaluation, GAO-17-597 
(Washington, DC: July 25, 2017).

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. In SSA's most recent budget justification to Congress, 
there is a proposal backed by SSA to reform the Ticket to Work program, 
including transferring administrative management of the program to the 
Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration.

    Do you believe that there could be efficiencies and better 
beneficiary service gained from transferring administrative management 
of the Ticket to Work program to Labor's Employment and Training 
Administration; and, if you do, could you explain why?

    Answer. GAO has not evaluated this proposal, and therefore cannot 
comment on its potential merits or feasibility.

    Question. Based on GAO's work, what steps could SSA take to reduce 
overpayments in the SSI program?

    Answer. GAO has conducted extensive work on SSA efforts to reduce 
overpayments. Overpayments can pose a financial hardship for 
beneficiaries responsible for repaying the debt, a cost to SSA (when it 
allows a beneficiary to keep overpayments or expends resources to 
recover them), and a loss for taxpayers. Fear of overpayments can be a 
barrier to participating in employment, according to experts and SSA 
officials we interviewed.

    SSA has taken steps towards reducing improper payments, but the 
effectiveness of those steps is unclear. In its annual performance plan 
for fiscal years 2021-22, SSA named improving program integrity as a 
focus area and planned to address the root causes of improper payments 
by improving wage reporting. However, SSA has not measured the 
effectiveness of these efforts. To that end, in April 2020, we 
recommended that SSA develop and implement a process to measure the 
effectiveness of the agency's corrective actions for improper payments 
in the SSI program.\4\ We designated this recommendation as high-
priority. The agency agreed with this recommendation. We believe that 
by developing and implementing a process to measure the effectiveness 
of corrective actions for OASDI and SSI improper payments, SSA will be 
better able to ensure that its actions reduce improper payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ GAO, Payment Integrity: Selected Agencies Should Improve 
Efforts to Evaluate Effectiveness of Corrective Actions to Reduce 
Improper Payments, GAO-20-336 (Washington, DC: April 1, 2020).

    GAO has also conducted work that points to factors that may hinder 
SSA's ability to determine the effectiveness of its corrective 
actions.\5\ Specifically, in 2015, we reported on limitations in SSA's 
sampling process for computing overpayment rates. We recommended that 
SSA increase transparency by providing additional information in its 
public reports about margins of error, confidence intervals, and 
limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ GAO, Disability Insurance: SSA Could Do More to Prevent 
Overpayments or Incorrect Waivers to Beneficiaries, GAO-16-34 
(Washington, DC: October 29, 2015).

    More recently, in our forthcoming report on the Ticket to Work 
program, we estimate that Ticket to Work participants were more than 
twice as likely to receive overpayments 5 years after starting the 
program than nonparticipants. SSA has not focused on overpayments among 
Ticket to Work participants who may assume that, because they are 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
participating in an SSA program, the agency is aware of their earnings.

    Question. Regarding the programmatic changes SSA has made to expand 
outreach and collaboration with groups SSA decides is worthy of 
partnership, many, and perhaps most, outreach partners, such as church 
groups and United Ways, have long records of service to people. Others 
that SSA designates as partners is simply up to SSA, using only 
criteria of whether a group knows people in communities and has 
capacity to process numerous applications for benefits on behalf of 
others.

    One effort SSA is expanding is a ``Third Party SSI Claims Taking 
Campaign.'' SSA is providing training and guidance to these outside 
groups, yet SSA has no controls in monitoring the groups. This raises 
concerns. For example, SSA has training videos for organizations and 
advocacy groups to help people apply for SSI or other benefits, showing 
advocates what information to obtain from potential beneficiaries. That 
information includes personally identifiable information--or PII--of 
potential applicants that an outside organization thinks may be 
eligible for benefits, such as names, Social Security numbers, 
disability information, mailing addresses, incomes, available 
resources, telephone numbers, living arrangements, and more.

    SSA has devoted, since March of this year, 200,000 full-time-
equivalent hours to this effort, and proposes to spend more than a 
million hours more in fiscal year 2022. SSA has been in contact with 
more than 12,000 organizations to promote the effort. And, while well-
intentioned, it is not clear that there are any substantive privacy and 
monitoring guardrails built into SSAs plans. For example, when asked 
about whether SSA assesses data security policies and procedures at 
partner organizations, SSA has said only that ``organizations may have 
their own guidelines for receiving or protecting their clients' PII.'' 
That is hardly reassuring, and risks having SSA-sanctioned ``partner 
organizations'' harvesting PII without protections.

    From a GAO perspective, would you have any concerns about an SSA 
program promoting to outside organizations how to gather PII to use in 
filling out forms for people to send in to SSA, while at the same time 
having SSA know nothing about its partner organization's protocols, if 
any, for safeguarding of PII?

    Answer. GAO has not analyzed this program, but any time a Federal 
agency is asking an outside entity to collect PII on their behalf they 
should be concerned about the protection of that information. In March 
2021, GAO issued its high-risk series update and reiterated the 
importance of agencies addressing the protection of privacy and 
sensitive data, among other cybersecurity challenges. In that update we 
reported that personal privacy hinges on ensuring that databases of PII 
maintained by government agencies or on their behalf are protected both 
from inappropriate access (e.g., data breaches) as well as 
inappropriate use (e.g., for purposes not originally specified when the 
information was collected).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Government Needs to Urgently 
Pursue Critical Actions to Address Major Cybersecurity Challenges, GAO-
21-288 (Washington, DC: March 24, 2021).

    Question. You cite a paper, which was funded by Ms. Romig's 
organization, suggesting that Chairman Brown's SSI legislation could 
lift millions out of poverty, using a proprietary simulation model. And 
Ms. Romig asserts that SSI improvements in question ``would also help 
close racial equity gaps,'' though that assertion is open to question. 
Those two of our witnesses are appearing here today, at least in part, 
to advocate mostly or solely to Democrats in the Senate to include some 
or all of Chairman Brown's legislation in the Democrats' reconciliation 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bill.

    Has SSA or GAO performed any analysis of effects on poverty or 
equity gaps of Chairman Brown's proposed changes to SSI benefits and 
program features, and if not, and given that reconciliation could 
happen at any time in the near future in the Senate, could you provide 
an analysis within 10 days to this subcommittee?

    Answer. GAO has not performed such analyses. Although the resource 
and technical requirements to conduct these analyses would not be 
possible in 10 days, we could provide unpublished technical assistance 
in which we review the data, methods and key conclusions from the 
analyses by the Urban Institute \7\ and the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities.\8\ This would require coordination and cooperation with 
those two organizations as the two available papers on the topic do not 
contain methodological details regarding how the estimates were 
computed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Boyens, Chantel, Danielle Kwon, Elaine Maag, and Jack 
Smalligan. ``How Four Proposals to Reform Supplemental Security Income 
Would Reduce Poverty,'' Urban Institute, September 6, 2021, https://
www.urban.org/research/publication/how-four-proposals-reform-
supplemental-security-income-would-reduce-poverty.
    \8\ Romig, Kathleen and Sam Washington, Policymakers Should Expand 
and Simplify Supplemental Security Income, Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, June 30, 2021, https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-
security/policymakers-should-expand-and-simplify-supplemental-security-
income.

                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr.
    Question. The Ticket to Work program, passed in 1999, was designed 
to be an incentive for SSI recipients to return to work. For the past 2 
decades, however, usage of the Ticket program has been notoriously 
low--in the low single digits of percentage of SSI recipients. 
Recipients also complain to our office that the Ticket program is 
complicated. What recommendations do you have to incentivize SSI 
recipients to work? I would appreciate recommendations related to the 
Ticket program and to new ideas for incentives.

    Answer. Our forthcoming report on Ticket to Work examines specific 
barriers to participation in Ticket to Work, such as loss of cash and 
medical benefits, fear of overpayments, and the complexity of program 
rules. Our report also highlights the need for SSA to address the issue 
of overpayments. Specifically, according to SSA's Office of the 
Inspector General, working is a risk factor for overpayments. We 
estimate that Ticket to Work participants were more than twice as 
likely to receive overpayments 5 years after starting the program than 
nonparticipants. SSA has not focused on overpayments among Ticket to 
Work participants who may assume that because they are participating in 
an SSA program, the agency is aware of their earnings or attempts to 
work. Even if participants report earnings timely, it can take months 
for SSA to process the information, after which they may present a 
Ticket participant with a bill for overpayments. This can be very 
challenging for individuals who were not aware they were being overpaid 
and already spent the money. Moreover, according to experts and SSA 
officials we interviewed, fear of overpayments also constitutes a 
barrier to participating in Ticket and employment more generally.

    GAO has also made recommendations related to improving employment 
outcomes for transition-age SSI youth. In 2017, we reported that few 
transition-age SSI youth benefited from work incentives.\9\ We 
recommended that SSA work with the U.S. Department of Education to 
determine how many youth on SSI are not connected to vocational 
rehabilitation services and explore options to further connect them, 
such as by expanding Ticket to serve transition-age youth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ GAO, Supplemental Security Income: SSA Could Strengthen Its 
Efforts to Encourage Employment for Transition-Age Youth, GAO-17-485 
(Washington, DC: May 17, 2017).

    More broadly, GAO work over the past 25 years has reported on the 
variety of ways that the structure of SSI benefits discourages work. 
First, work incentive provisions are complex and difficult to 
understand, making them difficult to implement.\10\ Further, the work 
incentives do not allay the fear of losing medical coverage and other 
Federal and State assistance that beneficiaries who return to work may 
face. For example, SSI beneficiaries may lose Medicaid benefits when 
their earnings exceed a certain level. To protect health-care 
eligibility and cash benefits, some beneficiaries may decline to seek 
or choose to limit employment. In addition, the eligibility 
determination process concentrates on applicants' incapacities.\11\ GAO 
has also pointed to the lengthy disability determination process as a 
deterrent to work.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ GAO, SSA Disability: Program Redesign Necessary to Encourage 
Return to Work, GAO/HEHS-96-62 (Washington, DC: April 24, 1996).
    \11\ GAO, SSA Disability: Other Programs May Provide Lessons for 
Improving Return-to-Work Efforts, GAO/T-HEHS-00-151 (Washington, DC: 
July 13, 2000).
    \12\ GAO, Social Security: Disability Programs Lag in Promoting 
Return to Work, GAO/T-HEHS-96-147 (Washington, DC: June 5, 1996).

    GAO has reported on proposals that could mitigate these 
disincentives.\13\ These include but are not limited to the options 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ GAO, Social Security's Future: Answers to Key Questions, GAO-
16-75SP (Washington, DC: October 2015).

    Adopting a partial disability system. DI and SSI are limited to 
individuals with disabilities that generally prevent them from working. 
In contrast to this generally all-or-nothing approach, a partial 
disability benefit recognizes that some individuals with disabilities 
can still work, but have lower earning potential and may need financial 
support to make up for lost earnings. Policymakers could adopt a 
partial disability system--like that of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs--that uses a predetermined schedule or medical listings to 
assign a percent disability rating to a person. These ratings determine 
the amount of cash benefits a person receives. Although cash benefits 
would be lower for those with less-severe disabilities, this option may 
increase the overall number of people with disabilities eligible for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
disability benefits and increase program complexity.

    Making the program more flexible by reducing or temporarily 
suspending benefits when a beneficiary is able to work and restoring 
the benefits when earnings decline. This would allow people with 
disabilities to choose when and how much to work according to their 
health condition, work opportunities, and abilities. Advocates of this 
option believe it would provide disability beneficiaries a greater 
incentive to work than other approaches SSA has tested.

    Intervening early to help people with disabilities remain in the 
workforce. To help people with disabilities remain in the workforce, 
Federal agencies could partner to provide financial support, vocational 
rehabilitation, and health benefits directly to individuals before they 
apply for disability benefits or for those who voluntarily suspend 
their disability benefit applications. Several proposals call for SSA, 
in partnership with other Federal agencies, to test early-intervention 
strategies to acquire the evidence needed to assess their merits.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. James Lankford
    Question. In your testimony, you discuss preliminary findings that 
the Ticket-to-Work Program participants left the SSI rolls for work at 
a higher rate than non-participants. However, you also note that 
earnings for SSI Ticket-to-Work participants remain low and there are 
still three key disincentives to working, including: (1) loss of cash 
and medical benefits; (2) fear of overpayments; and (3) complexity of 
rules surrounding work.

    Based on your work at GAO and other GAO findings, what are ways 
that we can restructure the SSI program to better incentivize and 
support work for those who are able to do so?

    Answer. GAO work over the past 25 years has reported on the variety 
of ways that the structure of SSI benefits discourages work. First, 
work incentive provisions are complex and difficult to understand, 
making them difficult to implement.\14\ Further, the work incentives do 
not allay the fear of losing medical coverage and other Federal and 
State assistance that beneficiaries who return to work may face. For 
example, SSI beneficiaries may lose Medicaid benefits when their 
earnings exceed a certain level. To protect health-care eligibility and 
cash benefits, some beneficiaries may decline to seek or choose to 
limit employment. In addition, the eligibility determination process 
concentrates on applicants' incapacities.\15\ GAO has also pointed to 
the lengthy disability determination process as a deterrent to 
work.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ GAO, SSA Disability: Program Redesign Necessary to Encourage 
Return to Work, GAO/HEHS-96-62 (Washington, DC: April 24, 1996).
    \15\ GAO, SSA Disability: Other Programs May Provide Lessons for 
Improving Return-to-Work Efforts, GAO/T-HEHS-00-151 (Washington, DC: 
July 13, 2000).
    \16\ GAO, Social Security: Disability Programs Lag in Promoting 
Return to Work, GAO/T-HEHS-96-147 (Washington, DC: June 5, 1996).

    GAO has reported on proposals that could mitigate these 
disincentives.\17\ These include but are not limited to the options 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ GAO, Social Security's Future: Answers to Key Questions, GAO-
16-75SP (Washington, DC: October 2015).

    Adopting a partial disability system. DI and SSI are limited to 
individuals with disabilities that generally prevent them from working. 
In contrast to this generally all-or-nothing approach, a partial 
disability benefit recognizes that some individuals with disabilities 
can still work, but have lower earning potential and may need financial 
support to make up for lost earnings. Policymakers could adopt a 
partial disability system--like that of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs--that uses a predetermined schedule or medical listings to 
assign a percent disability rating to a person. These ratings determine 
the amount of cash benefits a person receives. Although cash benefits 
would be lower for those with less-severe disabilities, this option may 
increase the overall number of people with disabilities eligible for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
disability benefits and increase program complexity.

    Making the program more flexible by reducing or temporarily 
suspending benefits when a beneficiary is able to work and restoring 
the benefits when earnings decline. This would allow people with 
disabilities to choose when and how much to work according to their 
health condition, work opportunities, and abilities. Advocates of this 
option believe it would provide disability beneficiaries a greater 
incentive to work than other approaches SSA has tested.

    Intervening early to help people with disabilities remain in the 
workforce. To help people with disabilities remain in the workforce, 
Federal agencies could partner to provide financial support, vocational 
rehabilitation, and health benefits directly to individuals before they 
apply for disability benefits or for those who voluntarily suspend 
their disability benefit applications. Several proposals call for SSA, 
in partnership with other Federal agencies, to test early-intervention 
strategies to acquire the evidence needed to assess their merits.

                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Stephen Evangelista, Acting Deputy Commissioner, 
    Retirement and Disability Policy, Social Security Administration
    Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Young, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. My name is Stephen 
Evangelista. I am the Social Security Administration's (SSA's) Acting 
Deputy Commissioner for Retirement and Disability Policy.
                the supplemental security income program
    Congress enacted the SSI program in 1972 to replace the varied 
Federal-State programs of Old-Age Assistance, Aid to the Blind, and Aid 
to the Permanently and Totally Disabled in the 50 States and the 
District of Columbia. In 1974, the SSI program began paying benefits. 
About 8 million people currently receive monthly Federal SSI benefits, 
and we expect to pay about $56 billion in Federal SSI benefits in total 
this fiscal year.

    The program provides monthly benefits to people who are blind, 
disabled, or at least age 65, and who also have limited income and 
resources. SSI is a vital lifeline that enables beneficiaries to meet 
their basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. The maximum Federal 
monthly benefit amount in 2021 is $794 for individuals (about 75 
percent of the Federal, individual poverty line) and $1,191 for couples 
where both individuals are eligible for the program.

    The States can--and in some cases must--provide supplemental 
benefits to residents who are eligible for SSI. In 12 States, we 
determine on behalf of the State whether SSI beneficiaries are eligible 
for these State supplements and pay the appropriate amount of the State 
supplement, using the criteria set forth in an agreement we reach with 
that State. There is an administrative fee associated with this 
practice to reimburse our costs to administer these payments on the 
State's behalf.

    The SSI program requirements are complex and many in number. The 
law requires us to determine a person's eligibility for SSI benefits 
every month, using information verified from independent and collateral 
sources. This determination does not only consider all of the income 
and resources that the beneficiary or applicant has or can access, but 
also considers the income and resources of spouses, parents (of child 
beneficiaries under 18), and sponsors (of certain noncitizen 
beneficiaries) who live in the household.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ We are also required to consider the income and resources of a 
sponsor even if the sponsor doesn't live with the beneficiary.

    Eligibility for and the amount of SSI benefits depend on a person's 
countable income. The Social Security Act defines income broadly and 
requires us to count more than 20 types of income, such as wages, self-
employment, and pensions, as well as support and maintenance provided 
``in-kind,'' which can include the provision of food or the payment of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
all or some of a person's household expenses.

    The law distinguishes between income that is ``earned'' and income 
that is ``unearned,'' and applies different basic exclusions to each 
type. Earned income includes wages and self-employment, and unearned 
income includes pensions, in-kind support and maintenance, and 
interest.

    We exclude up to $20 of a person's unearned income. If a person has 
less than $20 in unearned income, we apply the remainder of this 
exclusion to their earned income. We then exclude $65 plus one-half of 
the remainder of earned income. The $20 and $65 monthly exclusions were 
established by legislation enacted in 1981 and have not been increased 
since.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Public Law 97-35.

    The Social Security Act and other Federal laws further exclude from 
counting some or all of over 86 other types of income, including 
assistance based on need, advance refundable tax credits, disaster 
assistance, earned income of students of a certain age, certain 
payments for participation in clinical trials, various payments Tribes 
provide their members, and payments in reparation for Nazi genocide or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
certain eugenics programs. Attached is a list of these exclusions.

    Eligibility also depends on a person's countable resources. The 
Social Security Act allows someone to own up to $2,000 in resources and 
a couple to own up to $3,000 in resources in order to be eligible for 
SSI. When resources exceed these limits, the person or couple are 
ineligible for SSI. The $2,000 and $3,000 limits were established by 
legislation enacted in 1984 and have not been increased since 1989.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Public Law 98-369.

    The Social Security Act also provides specific procedures for 
evaluating certain resources, such as a home, burial expenses, the cash 
surrender value of life insurance, and trusts. The Social Security Act 
and Federal law further exclude some or all of the value of dozens of 
other types of resources, some indefinitely and others for only a 
certain period. Finally, the law requires us to consider a person's 
resources for the 3-year period before he or she filed for SSI in order 
to determine whether the applicant sold or disposed of any assets for 
less than fair market value, which can result in a period of 
ineligibility for SSI. Attached is a list of the SSI resource 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
exclusions.

    In addition to income and resources, the law requires us to 
consider a host of other factors in determining whether a person is 
eligible for SSI and the amount of benefits he or she will receive. 
People who reside in a hospital operated by a State are not eligible, 
whereas those who reside in a private hospital are eligible, although 
their monthly benefit may be capped at $30 per month if Medical 
Assistance is paying a substantial portion of their care. Individuals 
are not eligible for SSI benefits if they fail to apply for other 
benefits for which they may be eligible, are fleeing to avoid 
prosecution or confinement for a felony, or are violating a condition 
of probation or parole. Most people who reside outside the United 
States are not eligible,\4\ but students or the children of American 
service members temporarily abroad remain eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Residents of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
are eligible for SSI. However, residents of Guam, American Samoa, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands are not 
eligible.

    The rules concerning eligibility for people who are noncitizens are 
particularly complex, requiring us to, for example, evaluate a person's 
current immigration status and prior statuses and when they were 
attained, as well as the person's work history and in some cases the 
work history of a parent or spouse.
                 helping people who are facing barriers
    We are committed to ensuring that all people who qualify for these 
crucial benefits receive them. During the pandemic, applications for 
SSI benefits are lower than their pre-pandemic levels. We have 
implemented targeted strategies to reach people who are at risk, 
including low income individuals, those with limited English 
proficiency, those facing homelessness, and those with mental illness. 
Specifically, our efforts have included a robust, nationwide 
communications strategy, expanding our collaboration with community-
based groups that assist people facing barriers to service, and 
outreach to current Social Security beneficiaries who may be eligible 
for additional benefits under the SSI program.

    As part of our efforts, we hold regular meetings with partner 
groups and organizations to identify ongoing challenges in reaching 
people who are facing barriers in obtaining benefits from the SSI 
program and potential solutions for overcoming those challenges. As a 
result of these conversations, we launched a paid national public 
service announcement campaign on TV, radio, and social media, with 
emphasis on children with disabilities.

    The Social Security Act requires SSA to engage in outreach to 
children who may be eligible for SSI. To increase awareness about SSI 
children's benefits, we ran TV and radio ads with instructions on how 
to apply for benefits. We also developed social media advertising 
focused on SSI children's benefits. We began partnering with national 
and local third-party groups to share an outreach toolkit through their 
networks.

    We have enlisted the help of local, community-based organizations 
across the country to reach people who may be eligible for SSI. Over 
three thousand groups have committed to help us identify and assist 
people who are interested in applying for SSI, by either giving us 
information sufficient to establish a lead or protective filing for the 
person (which establishes a filing date in the event an application 
cannot be immediately filed, thus protecting against loss of benefits), 
or by helping the person complete an application for benefits. We 
trained these organizations on how to do this work, and we designated 
nearly 650 employees in our field offices to serve as liaisons for 
these organizations. These field office liaisons answer the 
organizations' questions, secure applications based on the leads and 
protective writings the organizations provide, and develop, review the 
application and evidence, and process the applications the 
organizations submit.

    In December 2020, we started mailing notices informing certain 
people who receive Social Security benefits that they may be eligible 
for SSI benefits, as the Social Security benefits they are receiving 
are below the SSI maximum. We expect to send a total of about 1.4 
million notices by the end of June 2022. After completing the final 
evaluation of this mailer campaign, we plan to assess whether or not 
this mailing campaign should become a regular activity.
                     administrative simplifications
    The vast majority of the requirements for the SSI program are 
prescribed in statute--including the amount of benefits, what types of 
income and resources count, which types don't, and how much income and 
resources to exclude. We continuously work to improve our 
administration of the SSI program, such as by simplifying our 
operational policies and regulations where we have the authority to do 
so. I want to take this opportunity to highlight an example of one of 
our efforts.

    We are working to streamline our policies related to temporarily 
institutionalized (TI) claimants. When an SSI beneficiary resides for 
an entire month in a medical treatment facility and Medical Assistance 
is paying for a substantial portion of his or her care, his or her SSI 
benefits are reduced to at most $30 per month. Beneficiaries can 
continue to receive their regular SSI benefits for stays in a facility 
of less than 90 consecutive days, provided the beneficiary requests to 
receive the benefits and a physician certifies the stay as temporary. 
We are looking to simplify this process by creating a prescribed form 
to collect the necessary information from the physician. We are also 
developing a demonstration project, the ``TI Benefits Demonstration 
Project,'' to assess the effect of automatically providing these 
temporary benefits without the recipient requesting or physician 
certifying.
                           program integrity
    We take seriously our responsibilities to ensure eligible 
individuals receive the benefits to which they are entitled, and to 
safeguard the integrity of benefit programs to better serve recipients. 
We utilize dedicated program integrity (PI) funding to conduct 
continuing disability reviews to ensure that only beneficiaries who 
still qualify to receive benefits under the Social Security and SSI 
programs continue to receive them. For the SSI program, we also perform 
non-medical redeterminations to determine whether beneficiaries 
continue to meet the program's income and resource limits and other 
eligibility requirements.

    To help beneficiaries quickly report income to help ensure accurate 
benefit payments we provide automated options for wage reporting, 
including an automated telephone system and a mobile application.

    We also obtain data from various private and government entities to 
detect when payments are not correct, including data about bank 
accounts, wages, self-
employment, Federal pensions, Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, 
deaths, beneficiaries who have been admitted to certain medical 
facilities, travel outside the United States and deportations, and 
incarcerations.
                               conclusion
    Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I look forward to 
answering any questions you may have.
                 attachment--current program exclusions
Earned Income Exclusions
      Any refund of Federal income taxes received under section 32 of 
the Internal Revenue Code (relating to earned income tax credit (EITC)) 
and any payment received under section 3507 of the Internal Revenue 
Code (relating to advance payment of EITC);

      Amounts received pursuant to the Making Work Pay tax credit set 
forth in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

      Any refundable child tax credit;

      The first $30 of earned income in a quarter if it is infrequent 
or irregular, that is: (1) if it is received only once in a calendar 
quarter from a single source and is not also received in the month 
immediately preceding or the month immediately following the month of 
receipt regardless of whether or not these payments occur in different 
calendar quarters; or (2) if its receipt cannot reasonably be expected;

      Up to $1,930 per month but not more than $7,770 in a calendar 
year received by a blind or disabled recipient who is a working student 
under age 22 and regularly attending school;

      Any portion of the monthly $20 exclusion not used to exclude 
unearned income;

      $65 of earned income in a month;

      Amounts used to pay impairment-related work expenses if a 
recipient is disabled (but not blind) and under age 65 or is disabled 
(but not blind) and receiving SSI (or disability payments under a 
former State plan) before age 65;

      One-half of remaining earned income in a month;

      Earned income used to meet any expenses reasonably attributable 
to the earning of the income if the recipient is blind and under age 65 
or if he or she received SSI as a blind person prior to age 65;

      Any earned income received and used to fulfill an approved plan 
to achieve self-support if the recipient is blind or disabled and under 
age 65 or is blind or disabled and received SSI as a blind or disabled 
individual in the month before he or she attained age 65;

      Cash or in-kind income provided under an AmeriCorps program;

      Any earned income deposited into either a Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families (TANF) or ``Assets for Independence Act'' Individual 
Development Account (IDA).
Unearned Income Exclusions
      Any public agency's refund of taxes on real property or food;

      Assistance based on need wholly funded by a State or one of its 
political subdivisions. This exclusion includes State supplementation 
of Federal SSI benefits but does not include payments under a Federal/
State grant program such as TANF;

      Any portion of a grant, scholarship, fellowship, or gift to an 
individual used for paying tuition, fees, or other necessary 
educational expenses;

      Food raised by a household if it is consumed by that household;

      Assistance received under the Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act and assistance provided under any Federal statute 
because of a catastrophe that the President of the United States 
declares to be a major disaster;

      Assistance received under a program for flood mitigation 
activities;

      The first $60 of unearned income in a quarter if it is 
infrequent or irregular, that is: (1) if it is received only once in a 
calendar quarter from a single source and is not also received in the 
month immediately preceding or the month immediately following the 
month of receipt regardless of whether or not these payments occur in 
different calendar quarters; or (2) if its receipt cannot reasonably be 
expected;

      Any unearned income received and used to fulfill an approved 
plan to achieve self-support if the recipient is blind or disabled and 
under age 65, or if the recipient is blind or disabled and received SSI 
as a blind or disabled individual in the month before he or she 
attained age 65;

      Periodic payments made by a State under a program established 
before July 1, 1973 and based solely on the recipient's length of 
residence and attainment of age 65;

      Payments for providing foster care to an ineligible child placed 
in the recipient's home by a public or private nonprofit child 
placement or child care agency;

      Any interest earned on excluded burial funds and any 
appreciation in the value of an excluded burial arrangement left to 
accumulate and become part of the separately identifiable burial fund;

      Certain support and maintenance assistance provided in the form 
of home energy assistance;

      One-third of support payments made by an absent parent if the 
recipient is a child;

      The first $20 of unearned income in a month other than income in 
the form of in-kind support and maintenance received in the household 
of another and income based on need;

      The value of any assistance paid with respect to a dwelling unit 
under the United States Housing Act of 1937, the National Housing Act, 
section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, title V 
of the Housing Act of 1949, or section 202(h) of the Housing Act of 
1959;

      Any interest accrued on and left to accumulate as part of the 
value of an excluded burial space purchase agreement (effective April 
1, 1990) and any interest earned on the value of nonexcludable burial 
funds and burial space purchase agreements is excluded from income 
(effective July 1, 2004);

      The value of any commercial transportation ticket for travel by 
a recipient or his or her spouse among the 50 States, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and 
the Northern Mariana Islands that is received as a gift and is not 
converted to cash;

      Payments received from a fund established by a State to aid 
victims of crime;

      State-provided pensions to aged, blind, or disabled veterans (or 
their spouses);

      Relocation assistance provided by a State or local government 
that is comparable to assistance provided under title II of the Uniform 
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 
1970;

      Hostile fire pay received from one of the uniformed services 
pursuant to 37 U.S.C. 310 and other kinds of additional pay received by 
military personnel in a combat zone;

      Interest or other earnings on a dedicated account excluded from 
resources;

      In-kind gifts not converted to cash and the first $2,000 
annually of cash gifts made by tax-exempt organizations, such as the 
Make-A-Wish Foundation, to, or for the benefit of, individuals under 
age 18 with life-threatening conditions;

      Payments made under the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 
1998;

      Up to $2,000 per calendar year in compensation for participating 
in clinical trials researching treatment of rare diseases and 
conditions;

      TANF funds made available to an SSI recipient as part of an IDA;

      Amounts received from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation 
Fund set forth in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

      Amounts received by Medicaid recipients from the ``Incentives 
for Prevention of Chronic Diseases in Medicaid'' program established by 
the Affordable Care Act of 2010;

      Payments to Indian landowners made in accordance with the Cobell 
et al. v. Salazar et al. lawsuit settlement as ratified by the Claims 
Resettlement Act of 2010;

      Refundable tax credits (or advance payment of such credits);

      Deposits made by a participating individual or a sponsoring 
nonprofit organization or State or local government into an IDA under 
the Assets for Independence Act IDA demonstration project and interest 
earned on these deposits;

      Unearned income excluded by other Federal laws. See Federal 
Regulations Appendix to Subpart K 20 CFR 416;

      Generally, all interest and dividend income earned on countable 
resources;

      Lump sum payments made under the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (the EEOCIP Act), including 
reimbursement for medical expenses, are excluded from income for SSI 
purposes;

      Contributions to an Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) 
account are excluded for the account's beneficiary. In addition, 
interest and dividends accrued by and retained within an ABLE account 
are also excluded;

      Payments made by a State program intended to compensate 
individuals who had been sterilized under the authority of a State;

      Many Federal laws in addition to the Social Security Act provide 
for the exclusion of assistance received in the form of food, housing 
and utilities, educational and employment benefits, or benefits derived 
from being a member of a Native American Tribe.
Resource Exclusions
      The home in which an individual has ownership interest and that 
serves as the individual's principal place of residence (including the 
land appertaining thereto);

      Household goods and personal effects;

      One automobile if used for transportation for the recipient or a 
member of the recipient's household;

      Property used in a trade or business that is essential to self-
support;

      Up to $6,000 of nonbusiness property that is essential to self-
support;

      Resources of a blind or disabled individual that are necessary 
to fulfill an approved plan to achieve self-support;

      Stock in regional or village corporations held by natives of 
Alaska during the 20-year period in which the stock is inalienable 
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act;

      Life insurance owned by an individual (and spouse, if any) 
provided that all life insurance on any person does not exceed a face 
value of $1,500;

      Restricted allotted Indian lands;

      Disaster relief assistance;

      Assistance received under a program for flood mitigation 
activities;

      Burial spaces and certain funds up to $1,500 for burial 
expenses;

      SSI or Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance retroactive 
payments for 9 months following the month of receipt;

      The value of any assistance paid with respect to a dwelling unit 
under the United States Housing Act of 1937, the National Housing Act, 
section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, title V 
of the Housing Act of 1949, or section 202(h) of the Housing Act of 
1959;

      Refunds of Federal income taxes and advances made by an employer 
relating to an EITC for 12 months following the month of receipt;

      One-time economic recovery payment received under the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, for the month of receipt and the 
following 9 months;

      Amounts received pursuant to the Making Work Pay tax credit set 
forth in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for the 
month of receipt and the following 12 months;

      Amounts received from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation 
Fund set forth in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

      Refundable child tax credit for 12 months following the month of 
receipt;

      Refundable tax credits or advance payment of such credits for 12 
months following the month of receipt;

      Grants, scholarships, fellowships, or gifts to be used for 
tuition or educational fees for 9 months following the month of 
receipt;

      Payments received as compensation for replacement or repair of 
losses, damages, or theft for 9 months following the month of receipt;

      Relocation assistance from a State or local government for 9 
months following the month of receipt;

      Payments made from State-provided pensions to aged, blind, or 
disabled veterans or their spouses;

      Dedicated financial institution accounts for disabled children;

      In-kind gifts not converted to cash and the first $2,000 
annually of cash gifts made by tax-exempt organizations, such as the 
Make-A-Wish Foundation, to, or for the benefit of, individuals under 
age 18 with life-threatening conditions;

      Up to $2,000 per calendar year in compensation for participating 
in clinical trials researching treatment of rare diseases and 
conditions;

      Amounts received by Medicaid recipients from the ``Incentives 
for Prevention of Chronic Diseases in Medicaid'' program established by 
the Affordable Care Act of 2010;

      Payments to Indian landowners made in accordance with the Cobell 
et al. v. Salazar et al. lawsuit settlement, as ratified by the Claims 
Resettlement Act of 2010 (for 12 months following the month of 
receipt);

      Payments made under the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 
1998;

      Amounts deposited into either a TANF or Assets for Independence 
Act IDA, including matching funds and interest earned on such amounts;

      Certain trusts (e.g., those established by will or certain 
Medicaid trusts that will repay the State, upon the death of the 
recipient, for the costs of medical assistance provided to that 
individual);

      Payments or benefits provided under a Federal statute other than 
title XVI of the Social Security Act where exclusion is provided by 
such statute;

      Up to $100,000 held in a qualified ABLE account.Furthermore, any 
distribution from an ABLE account for a qualified disability expense 
that is not housing-related is excluded from resources in the month it 
is used or in a month for which it is intended to be used for such 
expenses; and

      Payments made by a State program intended to compensate 
individuals who had been sterilized under the authority of a State.

                                 ______
                                 
       Questions Submitted for the Record to Stephen Evangelista
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
    Question. In August 2021, SSA reversed its ruling in determining 
that the Federal Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) would not be counted 
toward eligibility or payment amount for SSI purposes. While that is a 
positive development, it may have come too late for many struggling 
families who lost their SSI payments due to receiving one of the three 
EIPs. It is imperative that SSA restore SSI payments to individuals who 
had their payments reduced or eliminated due to the old policy, and to 
notify SSI claimants the change in policy as expeditiously as possible.

    The following questions are to gauge SSA's progress in both tasks:

    How many SSI recipients had their payments reduced or lost SSI 
eligibility altogether due to receiving the EIP(s)? How many SSI 
claimants were denied SSI payments due to receiving the EIP(s)?

    As of October 1st, how many SSI recipients have had their payments 
restored?

    When is the agency expected to restore all SSI payments to the 
remaining SSI recipients?

    What is the agency doing to notify SSI recipients and claimants who 
do not have a mailing address (i.e., those who are homeless)?

    How is the agency monitoring its progress of restoring SSI payments 
to individuals affected?

    How is the agency monitoring its progress of notifying eligible SSI 
claimants of the recent change in policy?

    Answer. Since the EIP program was established, our policy has been 
to exclude EIPs as income and as a resource when determining a person's 
eligibility for SSI benefits and the amount of their monthly benefits.

    The following timeline shows how we have excluded EIPs from 
counting as a resource since the EIP program was established in April 
2020:

        April 2020--The EIP program started in April 2020. We 
instructed our technicians to exclude EIPs from counting as income when 
received, and to exclude EIPs from counting as a resource for up to 12 
months starting with the month after the EIP was received.

        April 2021--Before the one-year resource exclusion period 
expired on the first EIPs that were paid in April 2020, we instructed 
our field offices to defer taking action to deny or suspend benefits in 
any case where counting a retained EIP as a resource would have 
resulted in a person being ineligible for SSI. We instituted this pause 
while we evaluated whether EIPs are excludable disaster assistance 
under the Social Security Act.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Please see section C.1 of EM-20014 SEN REV 2 at https://
secure.ssa.gov/apps10/reference.nsf/links/06042021092805AM.

        July 2021--We issued the instructions you referenced, which 
instructed our field offices to exclude retained EIPs from counting as 
a resource indefinitely.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Please see EM-20014 REV 5, the most recent version of these 
instructions, at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/reference.nsf/links/
06032022080040AM. The July 2021 version has been archived and is no 
longer available on SSA's public website.

    Since we have excluded retained EIPs as a resource since the EIP 
program was established, we have no plans to notify applicants or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
recipients of the July 2021 instructions.

    Question. Preventing improper payments--both under-payments and 
over-
payments--received significant attention in the hearing. Both Social 
Security retirement and disability as well as Supplemental Security 
Income are challenging programs to administer. Given the numerous ways 
monthly SSI benefits need to be adjusted, section 824 of the Bipartisan 
Budget Act of 2015 (Use of Electronic Payroll Data to Improve Program 
Administration) was regarded as a game changer for getting SSA the 
timely data needed to prevent improper payments related to earnings. My 
understanding is that implementing that provision has been a long and 
winding road. Please provide a detailed explanation of the challenges 
and obstacles to full implementation of section 824 and the plan for 
getting the job done.

    Answer. Section 824 authorizes SSA to establish information 
exchanges with payroll data providers to efficiently administer the 
Social Security Disability (SSDI) and SSI programs. In order to 
implement this new and unique authority, we had to contract with a 
vendor, conduct extensive planning and analysis, create new systems and 
new forms (to obtain a person's authorization for SSA to obtain their 
wage and employment data from a payroll data provider, and to record 
that permission electronically), create a new database to store the 
wage and employment data we receive from the vendor, and update our 
SSDI and SSI systems so they can automatically use this data.

    In FY 2022, we developed the enhancements that will allow our 
systems to automatically use the wage and employment data we receive 
from the vendor. In FY 2023, we plan to develop automated notices that 
will inform beneficiaries when they can stop reporting to us their 
wages from an employer (because we are receiving wage and employment 
information for that employer from the vendor). This systems 
enhancement, along with rulemaking (as needed), should be the last 
major milestones to complete before we will be able to implement 824.

    We will keep you apprised of our progress in implementing section 
824.

    Question. Some of discussion in the hearing concerned the many 
perceived penalties in SSI policy: the marriage penalty, the savings 
penalty, and the work penalty. Policymakers could benefit from new 
ideas and data on how to overcome these policy flaws. One intriguing 
idea is The Ultimate Demonstration, which according the Final Report of 
the Post-Entitlement Earnings Simplification Demonstration Technical 
Experts Panel Meeting, ``would test a policy that allowed beneficiaries 
to earn any amount without affecting their benefits or entitlement 
status.'' My understanding is that The Ultimate Demonstration is 
currently considered a demonstration for SSDI. Could it not also be 
used to study a similar policy change for SSI--that is, eliminate the 
50 percent tax on benefits for any monthly earnings over $85?

    Answer. Section 1110 provides demonstration authority to study such 
a policy change for SSI. Please note however that SSI beneficiaries can 
become entitled to SSDI benefits over time as they work and earn 
quarters of coverage, and so such a study may have complications: as 
participants in such a study work and become entitled to SSDI benefits, 
they would be subject to SSDI earnings rules because our authority to 
initiate this demonstration for SSDI under section 234 of the Social 
Security Act expired last year. Subjecting participants to two sets of 
rules regarding earnings could affect the results of the study.

    Our SSDI demonstration authority to carry out projects under 
section 234 sunsets after December 31, 2022. We are interested in 
working with Congress to extend section 234 authority in order to 
provide sufficient time to conduct new and ongoing demonstrations. For 
a list of our current projects, please refer to https://www.
ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/demos.htm.

    Question. ABLE accounts were discussed at the hearing and it was 
noted that the accounts do not help those with impairments that began 
after age 26. Does SSA have data on the number of SSI recipients who 
are ineligible for ABLE accounts due to the age 26 requirement? Of the 
SSI recipients who are eligible for ABLE Accounts, does SSA have data 
on how many have not opened an ABLE account?

    Answer. We are not able to provide the specific data you requested 
because we do not determine the exact date when SSI applicants became 
disabled when it is not needed. The earliest a person can be eligible 
for SSI is the month in which they file an application, so we determine 
whether the applicant is disabled as of that month, unless we need to 
determine the specific date because the person is also potentially 
eligible for SSDI or other disability benefits under the Social 
Security program.

    While we cannot determine how many recipients are ineligible for 
ABLE accounts solely due to the age requirement, we can provide some 
data on the population of SSI recipients and those who have ABLE 
accounts. There are about 5.45 million SSI recipients who receive 
benefits because they have a disability. Of the nearly 3.5 million SSI 
recipients who have a disability onset date in our records that is 
earlier than their 26th birthday, 39,861 have an ABLE account. An 
additional 4,659 SSI recipients have an ABLE account and their onset 
date in our records is on or after their 26th birthday.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Data as of October 2021.

    Question. What information or assistance does SSA provide to people 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
receiving SSI who are eligible for ABLE accounts?

    Answer. We have updated several of our publications with 
information on ABLE accounts, and provide ABLE account information on 
our website, blog, and social media accounts. We developed a new youth 
website (https://www.ssa.gov/youth/) and materials that provide 
information about ABLE accounts as well as other important information 
for SSI youth. Every year we mail a notice and publication to the 
representative payees of SSI recipients who are age 14 through age 17 
to provide information on resources that may be helpful as the 
recipient transitions into adulthood. This publication includes 
information on the ABLE program.\4\ Finally, if a recipient asks, we 
will explain how owning an ABLE account can affect their eligibility 
for SSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ This publication, ``What You Need To Know About Your 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) When You Turn 18,'' is available at 
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-11005.pdf.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Sherrod Brown
    Question. Your testimony discusses the different income and all of 
the different forms of assets that the agency analyzes to determine SSI 
eligibility. Are these outdated rules, in-kind maintenance and support, 
resource limits, and all of the different income limits, part of what 
makes it so expensive to administer SSI? And would updating these rules 
simplify and reduce SSA's administrative burden?

    Answer. The complex requirements of the SSI program, which I 
described in my testimony, contribute to the cost of administering the 
SSI program. To determine a beneficiary's eligibility and benefit 
amount for each month, we must consider their living arrangements, 
income, and resources--as well as the income and resources of parents, 
spouses, and certain other people who live with the beneficiary--all of 
which can change from month to month.

    We can provide technical assistance on a proposal you may have in 
this space. Any administrative savings and burden reduction would 
depend on the proposal specifics.

    We are working to simplify SSI policies and procedures where we 
can. For example, OMB is currently reviewing a draft SSA Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking to stop counting as ``in-kind support and 
maintenance'' (a type of countable income in the SSI program) when 
someone pays for an SSI beneficiary's food expenses or gives an SSI 
beneficiary food.

    Question. Would updating the earned and unearned income disregards, 
and increasing the resource limit. Would those changes make SSI easier 
and cheaper for SSA to implement? How much money would SSA save if 
Congress got rid of or updated these archaic rules?

    Answer. The administrative savings and the extent to which it would 
reduce SSA's administrative burden would depend on the specifics of the 
proposal. We can provide technical assistance on any proposal you may 
have.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. Ms. Ives-Rublee's testimony mentions that ``The current 
max benefit of $794 per month is just three-quarters of the Federal 
poverty line for an individual and does not come anywhere close to 
covering even the average rental costs of a one-bedroom apartment in 
any State in the United States.'' Ms. Romig's testimony identifies that 
``SSI benefits alone have never been large enough to raise 
beneficiaries' income above the Federal poverty line.''

    However, as the Social Security Administration identifies (e.g., 
https://www.ssa.
gov/OACT/ssir/SSI17/III_ProgramDescription.html), SSI is intended as 
``assistance of last resort.'' SSI takes into account all income and 
resources that an individual has or can access, including wages and 
earnings, other types of remuneration, Social Security benefits, 
unemployment compensation and other forms of income. SSI benefit 
eligibility also excludes consideration of other forms of income such 
as State or locally funded assistance based on needs, Federal rent 
subsidies, the value of supplemental nutritional assistance and many 
other resources. In fact, Mr. Evangelista's testimony contains pages of 
exclusions, showing roughly 85 current SSI income and resource 
exclusions, which are not taken into account in determining someone's 
SSI benefit.

    Is it the intention of the SSI program to be a sole source of 
income to a beneficiary for them to live, pay rent, obtain medical 
care, and buy food?

    Answer. The purpose of the SSI program is to provide basic 
financial support to people who are 65 or older, blind, or disabled, 
and whose income and resources are below certain limits. Congress also 
incorporated into the SSI program coordination with other benefits, as 
SSI eligibility often provides a beneficiary with automatic eligibility 
to other Federal programs, such as Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

    Question. Please provide data on the full array of resources that 
SSI beneficiaries have on average for each major type of recipient 
(disabled under 18; disabled 18-64; disabled 65 or older; aged) in each 
year over the period 2009-2020, since measuring their income and its 
relation to the poverty level based solely on what they get from SSI 
seems to be very misleading.

    Answer. Please see Attachment A for this information.

    Question. Your testimony identifies that SSA now has a way for 
individuals to report wages online and through a mobile application, 
which are tools that are expected not only to reduce improper payments 
in SSI but also make it easier and less problematic for recipients to 
fulfill reporting requirements.

    Could you expand on that and on the promise of a more efficient 
reporting system, since in the past beneficiaries often had 
difficulties fulfilling reporting requirements using sluggish mail 
services, and sometimes felt a disincentive to their work efforts out 
of fear that the clumsiness of the reporting systems could reduce or 
end benefits even if the beneficiary wasn't doing anything wrong?

    Answer. We provide several automated tools that allow SSI 
beneficiaries and their parents, spouses, and representative payees to 
report wages to us. These tools include an automated telephone system, 
a mobile application, and an online application that is available by 
creating a my Social Security account. When people report their wages 
with these tools, the wage information they provide directly updates 
our records and the person receives a receipt proving that they 
successfully reported their wages.

    Question. In response to GAO's recommendation that SSA improve how 
it measures the effectiveness of corrective actions to reduce improper 
payments (including SSI), SSA indicated it is arduous and difficult to 
isolate the impact of its corrective actions. Please explain why it is 
difficult to isolate the effect of SSA corrective actions? What steps 
or resources are required to better measure the impact of corrective 
actions?

    Answer. We take this issue seriously and are exploring ways to 
implement GAO's recommendation. Given the scope and complexity of our 
programs, it is difficult to isolate the specific effects of a 
particular corrective action. For example, we might assess an 
overpayment after obtaining an SSI beneficiary's bank information, but 
it is difficult for us to say with certainty what portion of that 
overpayment resulted from that bank account verification process.

    Question. In Ms. Curda's testimony, she acknowledged the work SSA 
has done to implement previous GAO recommendations specific to work 
incentives for 
transition-age youth; however, there is more work to be done. Without 
appropriate education and communication, we may miss opportunities to 
promote work incentives and other supports, reduce fear and confusion, 
and potentially reduce dependence of transition-age youth on SSI 
benefits.

    Does SSA have adequate procedures in place to easily communicate 
information on work incentives and how work effects benefits and 
eligibility to youth and their families?

    Answer. We continuously explore ways that we can better communicate 
information about work incentives and how work affects benefits and 
eligibility for all our beneficiaries, including transition-age youth 
and their caregivers. Our approach is to provide information many times 
and through multiple channels, in order to reach as many beneficiaries 
as possible in whatever way is most convenient for them.

    We require staff to discuss with recipients relevant work 
incentives, including those available to youth and their families. Our 
written correspondence also includes relevant information, such as 
information about the ChooseWork \5\ site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://choosework.ssa.gov/.

    In addition to our efforts with staff, we prioritize services to 
youth in the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance (WIPA) \6\ 
referrals from the Ticket to Work Help Line (Help Line). The Help Line 
refers any youth between the ages of 14 and 25, or their 
representative, to a WIPA for services if the caller expresses an 
interest in receiving information about work incentives, regardless of 
their employment status. WIPA providers must prioritize working with 
the youth once they receive the referral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.ssa.gov/work/WIPA.html.

    Our informational brochure, What You Need To Know About Your 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) When You Turn 18, \7\ is sent to 
youth and their caregivers, and provides relevant information to fill 
knowledge gaps regarding the age-18 redetermination, SSA work 
incentives that primarily affect youth, and common programs and 
services the family and youth may find helpful, such as vocational 
rehabilitation and the Department of Education's Parent Centers. We 
have also developed a new youth website (https://www.ssa.gov/youth/) 
and materials geared to youth and their family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-11005.pdf.

    The shifting needs of, and resources for, youth necessitate 
continual attention to changes that can affect available resources. 
Each year we reevaluate what information should be included in the 
brochure and, in August 2021, we issued an updated brochure. We sent 
the brochure to approximately 337,920 youth who are between the ages of 
14 and 17 and who receive SSI (327,473 English notices and 10,447 
Spanish notices). These brochures can be found at: https://www.ssa.gov/
pubs/EN-05-11005.pdf (English) and https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ES-05-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10915.pdf (Spanish).

    We have also increased use of social media to reach youth. Our 
Ticket to Work Blog includes articles aimed at helping youth transition 
from school to the workforce, e.g., https://choosework.ssa.gov/blog/
2021-08-26-preparing-for-work-life-skills
-for-young-adults and https://choosework.ssa.gov/blog/2021-06-24-
helping-young-adults-plan-for-the-future. Information on work 
incentives is also provided through Twitter \8\ and on our Facebook \9\ 
page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://twitter.com/socialsecurity/.
    \9\ https://www.facebook.com/socialsecurity.

    Question. Does SSA have a way to connect transition-age youth on 
SSI to State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agencies that provide 
training and employment services under the VR State Grants program 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
administered by the Department of Education?

    Answer. The Social Security Act precludes us from referring youth 
to Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) outside of demonstration projects; 
this includes agencies that provide services under the VR State Grants 
program administered by the Department of Education.

    Additionally, the costs and benefits of increasing access to VR are 
highly dependent on specific legislation. Since no legislation has been 
enacted, all actions taken so far have had negligible costs or 
benefits.

    To connect transition-age youth to Department of Education-funded 
VR agencies, we looked at indirect ways of referring youth to VR, such 
as referring them to other agencies. However, if the ultimate purpose 
is to refer to VR, then it is not allowed.

    We continue to work with the Department of Education on the Federal 
Partners in Transition group and other relevant agencies to determine 
how we can work together. In addition, we have taken multiple steps to 
explore options to increase connections to VR agencies and services:

        Request for Information (RFI)--To gather information from 
external stakeholders, we published an RFI on Strategies to Improve 
Adult Outcomes for Youth Receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
in the Federal Register. This RFI explicitly asked about ways to 
connect youth receiving SSI with VR and about options for programs like 
a Ticket to Work for youth.

        Demonstration Projects--
            Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI (PROMISE)--
PROMISE is a joint pilot demonstration project with the Department of 
Education (ED), Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor. 
The goal of PROMISE is to test interventions that improve the health, 
education, and post-school outcomes of children who receive SSI 
resulting in long-term reductions in the child's reliance on SSI. In 
addition to providing support for youth education and employment 
outcomes, we also hope to improve family or household outcomes through 
improved services and supports, such as education and job training for 
parents. As a part of this project, ED's Office of Special Education 
and Rehabilitation Services awarded cooperative agreements to States to 
provide services. The ED-funded sites ceased serving youth and their 
families in 2019. The 60-month survey closed in late FY 2021 and we 
expect to receive the final impact analysis in FY 2022.

            Ohio Direct Referral Demonstration (ODRD)--In January 
2020 we started enrollment in a small pilot demonstration in Ohio to 
test the effectiveness of providing direct referrals to vocational 
rehabilitation services for age 18 and 19 year-olds who are, or may 
become, SSI or Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiaries. Due 
to the COVID-19 pandemic and local shutdowns, the recruiting for the 
ODRD was paused in early March 2020. ODRD resumed recruitment in July 
2020. We expect it will take several years for us to evaluate final 
outcomes, since vocational rehabilitation services last on average 
about 24 months.

        Research Contracts--In 2020 we executed two blanket purchase 
agreement contracts to gather key information from researchers to 
identify evidence and recommendations to design regulatory and policy 
changes to support employment for youth and disabilities and synthesize 
available evidence on the effect of community-based services and 
supports for transition-age youth with disabilities. This initiative 
has helped us in identifying policy improvements, future research 
opportunities, and opportunities for additional outreach and education 
for employers that hire people with disabilities.

    Question. As the 2020 Annual Report of the Supplemental Security 
Income (SSI) Program identifies: ``Under section 231 of the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, SSA 
must submit a report on the SSI program to the President and Congress 
no later than May 30 of each year.'' The 2020 Annual Report was 
delivered to Congress on May 29, 2020. It appears that the 2021 Annual 
Report has not yet been delivered to Congress, counter to what is 
called for in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996. Meanwhile, congressional Democrats are 
advocating that structural changes be made to the SSI program and be 
included in a partisan reconciliation bill. This is being done in the 
context of Congress not having benefit of the 2021 Annual Report of the 
SSI program, which is long overdue. Lateness of the Annual Report is 
occurring in a year in which, also, trustees reports on the financial 
challenges of the Social Security Old-Age and Survivor Insurance and 
Disability Insurance trust funds were delayed relative to their 
statutory due date for the longest period in modern history.

    Please identify when Congress can expect the 2021 Annual Report of 
the SSI program, and explain why it is taking the Social Security 
Administration such a long time to report on the SSI program, 
especially in light of section 231 of the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

    Answer. We issued the 2021 SSI Annual Report on October 29, 
2021.\10\ We agree that Congress should receive timely updates on 
program status. The SSI Annual Report is supported by the same 
demographic, labor participation, and other assumptions that support 
the Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and 
Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds (the 
Trustees Report), which as you note, was delayed in 2021. The SSI 
Annual Report incorporated the updated assumptions from the Trustees 
Report, which was released August 31, 2021.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ The report is available at https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ssir/
SSI21/index.html.
    \11\ The report is available at https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2021/
index.html.

    Question. Both Ms. Romig and Ms. Ives-Rublee cite a paper, which 
was funded by Ms. Romig's organization, suggesting that Chairman 
Brown's SSI legislation could lift millions out of poverty, using a 
proprietary simulation model. And Ms. Romig asserts that SSI 
improvements in question ``would also help close racial equity gaps,'' 
though that assertion is open to question. Those two of our witnesses 
are appearing here today, at least in part, to advocate mostly or 
solely to Democrats in the Senate to include some or all of Chairman 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown's legislation in the Democrats' reconciliation bill.

    Has SSA or GAO performed any analysis of effects on poverty or 
equity gaps of Chairman Brown's proposed changes to SSI benefits and 
program features, and if not, and given that reconciliation could 
happen at any time in the near future in the Senate, could you provide 
an analysis within 10 days to this subcommittee?

    Answer. We used our Modelling Income in the Near Term (MINT) model 
to analyze the effects on poverty or equity gaps of some of the major 
components of Chairman Brown's bill. Below, we list the components that 
we are able to model. We were also limited to analyzing the effects for 
the SSI aged 65 or older population.

    Please see the Attachment B. The first table shows the effects on 
reducing poverty in 2030 for the population ages 65 and older. The MINT 
estimates show that the proposal would reduce the number in poverty by 
1.5 million in 2030. The overall poverty rate, according to estimates, 
would decline from 6 percent without the proposal to 4 percent with the 
proposal. The table shows that largest estimated effect would be for 
the Black or African American, non-Hispanic population (a 53-percent 
reduction in the number in poverty in 2030 due to the proposal). The 
estimated decline in the poverty rate in 2030 by race and ethnicity 
would be: 4 percentage points for Hispanic or Latino, any race, from 13 
percent to 9 percent; 1 percentage point for White, non-Hispanic from 4 
percent to 3 percent; 5 percentage points for Black or African 
American, non-Hispanic population, from 10 percent to 5 percent; and 3 
percentage points for all other races, non-Hispanic, from 13 percent to 
10 percent.

    The second table shows the results in 2050 for the population ages 
65 and older. The MINT estimates show that the proposal would reduce 
the number in poverty by 1.7 million in 2050. The overall poverty rate, 
according to estimates, would decline from 7 percent without the 
proposal to 5 percent with the proposal. The table shows that largest 
estimated effect is for the Black or African American, non-
Hispanic population (a 46-percent reduction in the number in poverty 
due to the proposal). The estimated decline in the poverty rate in 2050 
by race and ethnicity would be: 3 percentage points for Hispanic or 
Latino, any race, from 12 percent to 9 percent; 1 percentage point for 
White, non-Hispanic from 4 percent to 3 percent; 5 percentage points 
for Black or African American, non-Hispanic population, from 11 percent 
to 6 percent; and 1 percentage points for all other races, non-
Hispanic, from 13 percent to 12 percent.

    Both tables also show that the proposal is estimated to reduce 
equity gaps by age, education, and marital status.

    There are some important limitations to our SSI analysis using 
MINT:

        MINT projects SSI-related information as part of the household 
income and poverty calculations. Some SSI rules cannot be fully modeled 
in MINT, but we believe our analysis provides useful estimates of the 
potential effects.

        We could only model the effect of five of 12 total provisions 
in the proposal (see below).

        We could only analyze the SSI aged age 65 and older.

        The poverty rate estimates for current law and the proposal 
are higher than they would be if we could include SSI State 
supplemental payments. We hope to add the SSI State supplemental 
payments in a future model update.

        We needed to make assumptions about behavioral responses 
because not everyone who is eligible will claim SSI benefits. In 
addition to the amount of benefits, we considered other factors when 
determining the probability that a person would participate in the 
program, such as age, sex, marital status, and whether the person 
previously received SSI benefits.

                              Attachment A

Objective

    We received the following request from Ranking Member Todd Young in 
the questions for the record for the Senate Finance Subcommittee on 
Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy hearing on Supplemental 
Security Income held on September 21, 2021.

    ``Please provide data on the full array of resources that SSI 
beneficiaries have on average for each major type of recipient 
(disabled under 18; disabled 18-64; disabled 65 or older; aged) in each 
year over the period 2009-2020, since measuring their income and its 
relation to the poverty level based solely on what they get from SSI 
seems to be very misleading.''

How did SSA develop this request?

    The sample data for this study were collected for title XVI (SSI) 
Stewardship reviews, which we use to measure the accuracy of the 
benefits we paid, for fiscal years 2009-2020. There are 16,243 records 
in total, amounting to approximately 1,000 per year. For some 
calculations, we summarize data over 3-year periods, creating four 
groups from 2009-2020.

    Each record includes the age group and the type of master record 
for the recipient. Age groups include aged (ages 65+), adult (ages 18-
64), and child (under 18). The types of master record for the adult and 
aged groups are the same: ``individual'' or ``individual with an 
eligible or ineligible spouse.'' Because of the way the data are 
structured in the database, we cannot break the data down by type of 
spouse. The types of master record for the child age groups include 
``child living with both parents,'' ``child living with one parent,'' 
and ``child alone.'' Where reported in the findings, the calculations 
for ``child living with one or both parent(s)'' includes all the data 
for the ``living with both parents'' and ``living with one parent'' 
categories (also denoted in the findings with ``**''). Note that the 
``child alone'' category is not reported in the central tendency 
charts, due to the small sample size (n < 100) for this category when 
broken down in 3-year increments. Although the ``child alone'' category 
is not individually broken out, we do include these records in the 
overall child group. Below, Table 1 shows the counts of the records by 
age and type of master records in the dataset used for analysis.

    For each record, we have provided both the liquid and non-liquid 
resources for the month reported. The liquid and non-liquid resources 
in the data are the countable resources that the individual had in the 
record at the time of sampling. The records we have are for those 
recipients who were in payment status during that month, and those 
whose countable resources were over the limit will result in an 
overpayment. The liquid and non-liquid resources in the record include 
both the resources owned by the recipient as well as the deemed to the 
recipient. Because of the nature of the eQA database, the liquid and 
non-liquid amounts cannot be further broken down by SSI recipient and 
deemor. We report on the liquid and non-liquid resources individually, 
as well as the sum of the resources (or the total resources in the 
record at the time). For the years in question, we report two measures 
of central tendency: the mean and the median.

What records were used for SSA analysis?

                                Table 1: The Counts of the Records in the Dataset
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Type of
             Age Group                 Master     2009-2011    2012-2014    2015-2017    2018-2020   Grand Total
                                       Record
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult                                                  2,684        2,494        2,494        2,490       10,162
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Individual        2,082        1,961        2,007        1,998        8,048
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Individual          602          533          487          492        2,114
                                           with
                                    eligible or
                                     ineligible
                                         spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aged                                                     600          559          531          517        2,207
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Individual          445          417          404          365        1,631
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Individual          155          142          127          152          576
                                           with
                                    eligible or
                                     ineligible
                                         spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child                                                  1,069        1,031          928          846        3,874
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Child          438          399          347          352        1,536
                                    living with
                                           both
                                        parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Child          559          572          529          446        2,106
                                    living with
                                     one parent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Child          997          971          876          798        3,642
                                    living with
                                    one or both
                                    parent(s) *
                                              *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Child Alone           72           60           52           48          232
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total                                            4,353        4,084        3,953        3,853       16,243
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What did SSA find? (See table information at bottom of each chart.)


       Table 2: The Mean of the Sum of Liquid and Non-Liquid Resources for  All Age Groups in the Dataset
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Type of Master
                  Age Group                       Record       2009-2011    2012-2014    2015-2017    2018-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult                                                           $2,282.06    $2,666.17    $2,007.77    $2,397.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual    $2,090.44    $2,888.05    $2,155.73    $2,275.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual    $2,944.78    $1,849.84    $2,398.02    $2,892.72
                                               with eligible
                                               or ineligible
                                                      spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aged                                                            $4,712.59    $3,104.09    $3,660.69    $4,260.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual    $3,474.89    $2,030.52    $2,811.52    $4,522.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual    $8,265.96    $6,256.74    $6,361.98    $3,633.17
                                               with eligible
                                               or ineligible
                                                      spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child                                                           $2,335.50    $2,281.90    $2,745.09    $4,083.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living    $2,041.93    $2,270.86    $4,217.43    $3,339.63
                                                   with both
                                                     parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living    $2,214.59    $1,773.38    $1,486.15    $2,474.04
                                                    with one
                                                      parent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living    $2,183.73    $1,977.80    $2,568.06    $2,855.86
                                                 with one or
                                                        both
                                                 parent(s)**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                 Table 3: The Mean of All Non-Liquid Resources for All Age Groups in the Dataset
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Type of Master
                  Age Group                       Record       2009-2011    2012-2014    2015-2017    2018-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult                                                           $1,526.46    $1,053.48    $1,198.44    $1,262.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual    $1,293.91    $1,137.05    $1,291.05    $1,220.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual    $2,330.73      $746.00      $816.75    $1,431.75
                                               with eligible
                                               or ineligible
                                                      spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aged                                                            $3,822.21    $2,249.06    $2,637.20    $2,861.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual    $2,591.12    $1,334.59    $1,751.93    $3,021.93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual    $7,356.61    $4,934.50    $5,453.34    $2,476.05
                                               with eligible
                                               or ineligible
                                                      spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child                                                           $1,363.62    $1,240.94    $1,220.56    $2,500.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living    $1,376.10      $978.60    $1,888.23    $1,473.63
                                                   with both
                                                     parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living    $1,314.70    $1,025.01      $464.69    $1,198.79
                                                    with one
                                                      parent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living    $1,341.67    $1,005.94    $1,028.58    $1,320.07
                                                 with one or
                                              both parent(s)
                                                         ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                   Table 4: The Mean of All Liquid Resources for All Age Groups in the Dataset
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Type of Master
                  Age Group                       Record       2009-2011    2012-2014    2015-2017    2018-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult                                                             $755.60    $1,612.70      $809.34    $1,135.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual      $796.52    $1,751.00      $864.68    $1,054.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual      $614.05    $1,103.84      $581.26    $1,460.97
                                               with eligible
                                               or ineligible
                                                      spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aged                                                              $890.38      $855.03    $1,023.49    $1,399.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual      $883.77      $695.93    $1,059.59    $1,500.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual      $909.35    $1,322.23      $908.65    $1,157.13
                                               with eligible
                                               or ineligible
                                                      spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child                                                             $971.88    $1,040.97    $1,524.53    $1,583.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living      $665.82    $1,292.26    $2,329.20    $1,866.00
                                                   with both
                                                     parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living      $889.89      $748.37    $1,021.46    $1,275.25
                                                    with one
                                                      parent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living      $797.06      $971.87    $1,539.48    $1,535.83
                                                 with one or
                                              both parent(s)
                                                          **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



      Table 5: The Median of the Sum of Liquid and Non-Liquid Resources for PAll Age Groups in the Dataset
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Type of Master
                  Age Group                       Record       2009-2011    2012-2014    2015-2017    2018-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult                                                             $391.77      $433.11      $382.61      $476.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual      $378.03      $417.79      $365.20      $432.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual      $420.15      $538.00      $429.19      $652.61
                                               with eligible
                                               or ineligible
                                                      spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aged                                                            $1,030.00      $788.69      $826.60      $689.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual    $1,033.86      $720.04      $809.48      $655.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual    $1,006.18    $1,076.90      $917.33      $868.08
                                               with eligible
                                               or ineligible
                                                      spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child                                                             $445.55      $606.33      $648.34      $630.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living      $643.39      $880.00      $885.75      $768.78
                                                   with both
                                                     parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living      $334.70      $361.83      $441.34      $536.27
                                                    with one
                                                      parent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living      $423.30      $590.00      $614.53      $629.74
                                                 with one or
                                                        both
                                                 parent(s)**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                Table 6: The Median of All Non-Liquid Resources for All Age Groups in the Dataset
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Type of Master
                  Age Group                       Record       2009-2011    2012-2014    2015-2017    2018-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult                                                               $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
                                               with eligible
                                               or ineligible
                                                      spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aged                                                                $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
                                               with eligible
                                               or ineligible
                                                      spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child                                                               $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
                                                   with both
                                                     parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
                                                    with one
                                                      parent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
                                                 with one or
                                              both parent(s)
                                                          **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that for each 3-year interval more than 50% of records reflect $0.00 as the value for non-liquid resources.


                  Table 7: The Median of All Liquid Resources for All Age Groups in the Dataset
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Type of Master
                  Age Group                       Record       2009-2011    2012-2014    2015-2017    2018-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Adult-----------------------------------------------------  ------$116.62------$181.58------$138.70------$188.33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual      $112.61      $175.96      $134.07      $186.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual      $128.64      $219.39      $169.34      $200.62
                                               with eligible
                                               or ineligible
                                                      spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aged                                                              $400.13      $405.16      $400.29      $406.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual      $351.02      $343.53      $385.65      $370.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Individual      $554.37      $586.28      $504.09      $530.96
                                               with eligible
                                               or ineligible
                                                      spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child                                                             $175.31      $274.14      $317.77      $338.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living      $198.33      $468.75      $422.53      $417.57
                                                   with both
                                                     parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living      $126.46      $139.94      $223.75      $243.07
                                                    with one
                                                      parent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Child living      $166.97      $265.14      $309.80      $340.53
                                                 with one or
                                              both parent(s)
                                                          **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trends
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2121.004


.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2121.005


.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2121.006


.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2121.007


.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2121.008


                            .epsAttachment B

PROPOSAL: SSI Restoration Act of 2021 (5 provisions modeled starting in 
        2022)

                                          1. Projected Effects of Proposal on Official Poverty Measure in 2030
                                                              Population: Aged 65 or older
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Official poverty rate           Number of population in poverty (in thousands)      Percent change
               Characteristics               ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ in the number in
                                              Without proposal    With proposal   Without proposal    With proposal        Change            poverty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                       6%                4%             4,296             2,756            -1,539              -35%
Sex
    Female                                                  6%                4%             2,375             1,507              -868              -36%
    Male                                                    6%                4%             1,921             1,249              -671              -34%
Race/Ethnicity
    Hispanic or Latino, any race                           13%                9%               979               676              -302              -30%
    White, non-Hispanic                                     4%                3%             2,015             1,280              -735              -36%
    Black or African American, non-Hispanic                10%                5%               701               327              -374              -53%
    All other races, non-Hispanic                          13%               10%               601               473              -127              -21%
Country of birth
    United States                                           4%                2%             2,504             1,387            -1,116              -44%
    Other countries                                        15%               11%             1,792             1,369              -422              -23%
Age
    65-69                                                   8%                5%             1,567               992              -574              -36%
    70-79                                                   6%                4%             2,051             1,294              -757              -36%
    80-89                                                   4%                3%               603               416              -187              -31%
    90 or older                                             3%                2%                75                54               -21              -28%
Marital status
    Married                                                 3%                2%             1,122               911              -211              -18%
    Divorced                                               10%                7%             1,255               846              -408              -32%
    Widowed                                                 7%                4%               947               565              -381              -40%
    Never married                                          19%                8%               973               435              -537              -55%
Highest education level
    Graduate                                                2%                1%               168               123               -44              -26%
    Bachelor                                                3%                2%               413               308              -105              -25%
    Associate                                               4%                3%               663               437              -225              -34%
    High School                                             7%                4%             1,842             1,125              -717              -38%
    Less Than High School                                  20%               12%             1,211               764              -446              -36%
Current-law Social Security benefit type
    Retired worker only                                     4%                3%             2,038             1,174              -864              -42%
    Widow(er) (includes dually entitled)                    4%                2%               464               251              -212              -45%
    Spousal (includes dually entitled)                      3%                2%               182               131               -50              -27%
    Disabled worker only                                   14%                8%                96                54               -42              -44%
    None                                                   29%               22%             1,515             1,146              -369              -24%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          2. Projected Effects of Proposal on Official Poverty Measure in 2050
                                                              Population: Aged 65 or older
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Official poverty rate           Number of population in poverty (in thousands)      Percent change
               Characteristics               ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ in the number in
                                              Without proposal    With proposal   Without proposal    With proposal        Change            poverty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                       7%                5%             5,957             4,252            -1,705              -28%
Sex
    Female                                                  7%                5%             3,302             2,367              -935              -28%
    Male                                                    7%                5%             2,655             1,884              -770              -29%
Race/Ethnicity
    Hispanic or Latino, any race                           12%                9%             1,949             1,487              -461              -23%
    White, non-Hispanic                                     4%                3%             2,071             1,374              -696              -33%
    Black or African American, non-Hispanic                11%                6%               905               480              -424              -46%
    All other races, non-Hispanic                          13%               12%             1,033               910              -122              -11%
Country of birth
    United States                                           4%                2%             2,534             1,395            -1,139              -44%
    Other countries                                        15%               13%             3,423             2,857              -565              -16%
Age
    65-69                                                  10%                7%             2,014             1,432              -581              -28%
    70-79                                                   7%                6%             2,465             1,831              -633              -25%
    80-89                                                   5%                4%             1,202               809              -392              -32%
    90 or older                                             4%                2%               277               179               -97              -35%
Marital status
    Married                                                 4%                3%             1,594             1,326              -268              -16%
    Divorced                                                9%                6%             1,348               967              -380              -28%
    Widowed                                                 9%                6%             1,381             1,020              -361              -26%
    Never married                                          16%                9%             1,633               938              -694              -42%
Highest education level
    Graduate                                                3%                2%               314               281               -33              -10%
    Bachelor                                                3%                3%               655               567               -87              -13%
    Associate                                               4%                3%               742               542              -199              -26%
    High School                                            10%                6%             2,450             1,600              -850              -34%
    Less Than High School                                  21%               14%             1,796             1,261              -534              -29%
Current-law Social Security benefit type
    Retired worker only                                     4%                2%             2,323             1,357              -965              -41%
    Widow(er) (includes dually entitled)                    4%                2%               416               237              -178              -42%
    Spousal (includes dually entitled)                      3%                2%               180               114               -65              -36%
    Disabled worker only                                    6%                4%                44                29               -14              -34%
    None                                                   39%               33%             2,995             2,514              -480              -16%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr.
    Question. In April 2021, the National Consumer Law Center and 
Justice in Aging released a report titled: ``Mismatched and Mistaken: 
How the Use of an Inaccurate Private Database Results In SSI Recipients 
Unjustly Losing Benefits.'' \12\ The report describes how SSA's 
reliance on data from Accurint for Government (a database operated by 
LexisNexis) to determine whether SSI recipients had unreported real 
estate is causing some recipients to be removed from the program in 
error. The report describes instances of recipients receiving letters 
suspending their benefits or assessing an overpayment based on 
inaccurate documentation, problems that most acutely affect communities 
of color. What is the Social Security Administration doing to ensure 
accurate reporting of assets of recipients when using agency datasets 
and/or external data sources, and how is the agency working to protect 
beneficiaries from being penalized or losing benefits because of 
inaccurate data?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/credit_reports/
RptMismatchedFINAL041421.pdf.

    Answer. Before we take an action to reduce or suspend a person's 
SSI benefits based on information we receive from a third party, we 
first confirm the accuracy of the information by contacting the subject 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the report.

    Regarding our use of the Accurint database specifically, we 
recently updated our policy instructions to further clarify that non-
home real property ownership information obtained from Accurint is only 
a lead, and that our field offices must verify that a person owns the 
property before counting it.\13\ We also added additional procedures 
for verifying whether a person owns a property identified through 
Accurint. That process is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Please see POMS SI 01140.100 at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/
poms.nsf/lnx/0501140
100.

        Our field office staff first asks the person if they own the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
property;

        If the person denies owning the property, the field office 
must contact an appropriate local government office (e.g., property tax 
office) to obtain the property owner's name.

        If the owner's name matches the person's name, then our field 
office will also ask the government office if there are any co-owners 
and the address where the property's tax bill is sent.

        If the government office does not provide this additional 
information, then our field office will determine that the person does 
not own the property.

        If the government office provides this additional information 
but it does not match information in our records (e.g., the co-owner's 
name does not match the name we have in file for the person's spouse), 
then our field office will determine that the person does not own the 
property.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. James Lankford
    Question. According to the Social Security Administration, 
historically, about one third of children lose their SSI eligibility 
following their age-18 redeterminations. I've been told that, in some 
cases, these redeterminations can take place up to 2 years after the 
individual's 18th birthday. For some, this means, they receive benefits 
for far longer than they're actually eligible.

    As asked during the hearing, has SSA ever considered prioritizing 
age-18 redeterminations to better ensure benefits only go to those who 
are eligible?

    Answer. We take the requirement to conduct age-18 redeterminations 
for all children who are receiving SSI based on a disability 
seriously.\14\ Our approach to handling our medical continuing 
disability review (CDR) workload, which includes age-18 
redeterminations,\15\ balances completing a mix of required reviews 
with those that optimize program savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ See section 1614(a)(3)(H) of the Social Security Act.
    \15\ We often refer to these age-18 redeterminations as ``age-18 
CDRs.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question. Does SSA have a backlog of age-18 redeterminations?

    Answer. The number of pending age-18 redeterminations increased 
from 81,000 in October 2020 to 85,000 in October 2021.

    Question. If so, how does SSA plan to address this to ensure 
improper payments are not issued?

    Answer. In FYs 2020 and 2021, we completed fewer SSI non-medical 
redeterminations and medical CDRs due to pandemic- driven service 
delivery challenges.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          SSI Redeterminations         Medical CDRs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 21                                 2,367,000                  511,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 20                                 2,153,000                  463,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    For FY 2022, we expect to complete 2.3 million SSI non-medical 
redeterminations and 621,000 medical CDRs.

    Question. Social Security relies on Continuing Disability Reviews 
(CDRs) to determine and confirm eligibility for disability benefits. 
According to SSA's website, CDRs are conducted every 3 years, or every 
five to 7 years depending on the severity of the condition. I 
understand that during the pandemic, SSA had to put a lot of services 
and operations on hold, including CDRs.

    What is SSA's plan to eliminate any existing CDR backlog and ensure 
that all applicants receiving SSI are eligible for benefits?

    Answer. During a critical time in the pandemic, we temporarily 
deferred certain workloads, like medical CDRs, so that we could 
prioritize service to the public and maintain beneficiaries' payments 
and health care. We are working to restore our program integrity 
workloads to our pre-pandemic levels and anticipate eliminating the CDR 
backlog in 2023. We will continue to assess our progress toward 
eliminating this backlog.

    Question. It's my understanding that the Social Security 
Administration is required to submit an Annual Report on the 
Supplemental Security Income Program to Congress every year. 
Specifically, under section 231 of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, this report is to be provided 
to Congress no later than May 30th of each year. Despite this deadline, 
SSA has yet to complete and deliver the 2021 report to Congress.

    When can we expect the 2021 annual report on SSI?

    Why is the Social Security Administration so late to issue this 
report, as well as the 2021 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of 
the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability 
Insurance Trust Funds, which was issued over 4 months past the 
statutory deadline?

    Answer. Please see our response to Ranking Member Young's similar 
question above.

                                 ______
                                 
           Prepared Statement of Mia Ives-Rublee, Director, 
      Disability Justice Initiative, Center for American Progress
    Thank you, Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Young, and members of the 
subcommittee, for the invitation to appear before you today. My name is 
Mia Ives-Rublee, and I am the director of the Disability Justice 
Initiative at the Center for American Progress.

    I am here to speak on behalf of the almost 7.8 million disabled 
recipients of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), who rely on the 
program to help keep a roof over their heads.\1\ Many continue to 
struggle with daily living expenses and arduous outdated rules due to 
the fact that the program has had few updates since its creation in 
1972. This discussion is very personal to me. Although I am now working 
at a major independent nonpartisan policy institute, I used to rely on 
SSI to pay for rent, utilities, gas, and food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Social Security Administration, ``All Federally Administered 
Payments'' (Woodlawn, MD: 2021), available at https://www.ssa.gov/
policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_monthly/2021-08/ssim-2021-08.pdf.

    When I graduated high school, there were few jobs that were 
accessible to me. Using a wheelchair meant that I wasn't able to find 
work in retail, the restaurant industry, and many other entry-level 
jobs. I was encouraged by the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to 
get an education to gain the skills needed to find more accessible 
employment. But that meant at least 4 years without a steady income. I 
applied to student aid and work-study programs. Yet there were no work-
study programs at my school that would take me. SSI paid for housing 
and food costs, particularly during the summer, when my scholarship 
funds and student aid ran out. Yet the benefit level was extremely 
low--around $674 per month--meaning I had to max out credit cards and 
take out significant loans to cover my expenses (bills that I am still 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
paying off today).

    I also got in trouble several times for earning small stipends--
just a few hundred dollars over 3 months--for working at summer camps. 
It created a lot of stress as I tried to keep tabs on my benefits. For 
several months, my benefits got docked because no one explained the 
reporting requirements to me. Yet I couldn't save the small stipends I 
received for fear of hitting the $2,000 asset limit. So often, 
Americans are told to save. Yet SSI recipients are not allowed to have 
more than $2,000 in assets. SSI recipients have no way to save for 
rainy days.

    But even after getting my master's degree in 2009, it took me 
almost a year to finally land a full-time job. I was denied numerous 
entry-level positions because places did not want to hire someone in a 
wheelchair. I was even denied opportunities to volunteer. By the end, I 
had applied to more than 100 jobs in 2009. It wasn't until January 2010 
that I was employed by the North Carolina Division of Vocational 
Rehabilitation Services.

    My time as a rehabilitation counselor showed that I was not alone 
in my struggles with the SSI program. I spent 6 years talking to 
disabled clients, trying to help them navigate the system. Their first 
hurdle around SSI was applying to the program. The average eligibility 
timeline is 3 to 5 months if you get approved during the initial 
application.\2\ If you are denied and have to appeal, the process can 
take several years. Thousands of people die or go bankrupt every year 
waiting for disability benefits as a result. The current application 
process is so cumbersome, it's often said that you need a law degree to 
access disability benefits. I would walk client after client through 
the difficult process, sending medical documentation and statements of 
disability to the Social Security office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Social Security Administration, ``What You Should Know Before 
You Apply for Social Security Disability Benefits,'' available at 
https://www.ssa.gov/disability/Documents/Factsheet-AD.pdf (last 
accessed September 2021).

    For individuals lucky enough to navigate the application process 
and be found eligible for benefits, most recipients find they are 
unable to afford daily living expenses, even with SSI, because benefits 
are so low. The current maximum benefit of $794 per month is just 
three-quarters of the Federal poverty line for an individual and does 
not come anywhere close to covering even the average rental costs of a 
one-bedroom apartment in any State in the United States--which was an 
average of $1,466 per month in July 2021, although in some States, the 
average is much higher--even if an SSI beneficiary were to spend all of 
their benefits on rent.\3\ I worked with SSI recipients who 
continuously returned to Voc Rehab, a setback due to the stressors of 
navigating the system and trying to keep a roof over their heads. I had 
clients I would counsel who talked about how they couldn't afford their 
apartments and so were trying to find ways to work. Yet I'd have to 
advise against it, knowing the effects it could have on their health 
and their benefits. They were too sick and unstable to work. They 
needed the stable income and Medicaid coverage, for which SSI made them 
automatically eligible, to pay for their mental health community 
support services. Yet few had other options due to the lack of 
affordable housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Realtor.com, ``June Rental Data: U.S. Rental Prices Reach 
Highest Point in Two Years,'' available at https://www.realtor.com/
research/june-2021-rent/ (last accessed September 2021).

    Current SSI policies are archaic, and benefits are too low, which 
causes real harm to beneficiaries. While the program used to be the 
most successful anti-poverty program for disabled people, it now forces 
and traps disabled people into poverty. Many of these individuals have 
no other options to support themselves, which forces them into 
perpetual evictions and instability. The Biden administration committed 
to five main changes to the SSI program, including:\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Biden-Harris, ``The Biden Plan for Full Participation and 
Equality for People With Disabilities,'' available at https://
joebiden.com/disabilities/ (last accessed September 2021).

    1. Increasing the Federal benefit rate.
    2. Raising the asset limits.
    3. Updating the income disregards.
    4. Eliminating the in-kind assistance provisions.
    5. Removing marriage penalties.

    Through the leadership of Chairman Brown, S. 2065--the SSI 
Restoration Act--provides guidance to revitalize the program.\5\ The 
Center for American Progress supports the bill and has pushed to ensure 
SSI is not left behind in the Build Back Better reconciliation bill. 
Long-overdue updates to the SSI program could, according to the Urban 
Institute, raise 3.3 million Americans out of poverty.\6\ Congress has 
a monumental opportunity right now to help a community that has seen 
significantly high death, unemployment, and poverty rates over the past 
few years. The program was originally created with the goal of 
ensuring, as a Senate Finance Committee report stated during signing, 
``that the Nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer 
have to live on below poverty incomes.''\7\ You have a chance to help 
millions by revitalizing such a critical program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2021, S. 2065, 
117th Cong., 1st sess. (June 15, 2021), available at https://
www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2065?q=%7B
%22search%22%3A%5B%22Supplemental+Security+Income+Restoration+Act+of+202
1%22%5D%
7D&s=1&r=2.
    \6\ Chantel Boyens and others, ``How Four Proposals to Reform 
Supplemental Security Income Would Reduce Poverty'' (Washington: Urban 
Institute, 2021), available at https://www.urban.
org/research/publication/how-four-proposals-reform-supplemental-
security-income-would-reduce-poverty.
    \7\ U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, 
``Green Book: Background Material and Data on the Programs Within the 
Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, Chapter 3: 
Supplemental Security Income,'' available at https://greenbook-
waysandmeans.house.gov/2018-green-book/chapter-3-supplemental-security-
income (last accessed September 2021).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you.

                                 ______
                                 
         Questions Submitted for the Record to Mia Ives-Rublee
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Sherrod Brown
    Question. Do you think the current SSI income and asset limits keep 
beneficiaries from working? Did you give up opportunities when you were 
on SSI because of how hard it was to understand the rules? Do you think 
other people do?

    Answer. It is a fact that SSI income and asset limits keep 
beneficiaries from working. I have seen that from my own experiences 
and others in the community. The first time I ever worked was for a 
summer job. I did not understand the rules at the time as my parents 
had helped me apply for the program and no one explained them to me. I 
was penalized for earning a few hundred dollars working as a counselor, 
having to pay back the over payment. This ate into my ability to pay 
for food and other daily expenses. After that experience, I made 
explicit efforts not to become employed until I would be able to get a 
full-time job. When I finally did get a full-time job, I spent several 
months attempting to get SSI to stop payments. During my time as a 
vocational rehabilitation counselor, I would often have to have long 
conversations with clients about whether it was worth it for them to 
work part-time. Many of them did not have the ability to work full-time 
due to numerous medical issues. Yet they wanted to do part time work to 
feel like they were a part of the community. However, they were often 
at risk of getting overpaid or losing their health benefits, which was 
based on their SSI eligibility. At times, I had to counsel them not to 
take a part-time job due to these issues.

    Question. SSI application and award rates have hit concerning and 
historic lows during the pandemic--but access barriers to SSI were a 
problem long before COVID-19. In fact, it can be so difficult to 
navigate the SSI application process, it's often said you need a law 
degree to access benefits. What are the consequences of having such a 
burdensome application process for such a critical income assistance 
program? What do you think the agency and Congress should be doing to 
ensure that people who might be eligible for SSI are able to access 
benefits in their time of need?

    Answer. The process is extremely burdensome due to the often overly 
high hurdles individuals must hit to become eligible. Extensive medical 
documentation may not be available for individuals who have little 
access to the health-care system. Individuals may have doctors who may 
not understand the symptoms or be less sympathetic, particularly due to 
their own beliefs and biases. Individuals need to know exactly how 
their disabilities impede their ability to obtain and maintain 
employment. Without a specific understanding of the language reviewers 
are looking for, individuals may have significant disabilities but not 
be deemed eligible. Lastly, long wait periods to become eligible put 
disabled people at significant risk of becoming homeless or going into 
medical emergencies. According to the GAO, 48,000 individuals filed for 
bankruptcy while awaiting appeals. In a ten-year period, 109,725 died 
prior to receiving a final decision on their appeal. The number dying 
during the appeals process has increased over time.

    There are several things that could happen to help decrease the 
burdensome application process for disabled people:

        The application process should be available online.
        SSI needs to increase the amount of caseworkers reviewing 
cases to help reduce wait times.
        Increased funding for navigators.
        Improved communication between vocational rehabilitation 
programs and the social security administration to help with 
processing.

    Question. We know people with disabilities rely on home and 
community-based services in order to live independently instead of in 
nursing homes and other isolating institutions. How do you see SSI and 
these HCBS services fitting together?

    Answer. HCBS is integral for some SSI recipients. My brother is one 
of those individuals. SSI provides him a basic living allowance, 
helping pay for his food, housing, and other living expenses (along 
with other programs since the max benefit is below the poverty line). 
HCBS provides home care for him. An individual is paid to live with 
him, help with his personal needs, cooks, and provides him 
transportation to medical appointments. It also helps to pay for a job 
coach. He works part-time with a job coach, which allows him to work in 
an integrated work setting. My brother would be living in a nursing 
home or group home if it were not for HCBS.

    Question. Current SSI program rules penalize marriage. Do you know 
anyone who hasn't gotten married because of SSI's marriage penalties? 
How big of a problem is this for people with disabilities?

    Answer. I work with many community members who continuously ask me 
when they will be able to get married. My friend, Matthew Cortland, who 
is very open about his previous situation, was unable to get married 
for fear of lowering or losing his benefits if he got married. If 
individuals marry someone on SSI, they risk lowering their income if 
they were receiving it separately. Since max benefit is so low, this 
puts couples at extreme risk of losing their housing and not being able 
to afford everyday necessities. If individuals marry a spouse who is 
earning above the eligibility line, individuals are at risk of not only 
losing their SSI, but also their Medicaid insurance.

                                 ______
                                 
     Prepared Statement of Kathleen Romig, Senior Policy Analyst, 
                 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this timely and 
important topic. My name is Kathleen Romig; I am a senior policy 
analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Center is an 
independent, nonprofit policy institute that conducts research and 
analysis on a range of Federal and State policy issues affecting low- 
and moderate-income individuals and families. Prior to coming to the 
Center, I spent 8 years as a career public servant at the Social 
Security Administration (SSA), and 4 years at the Congressional 
Research Service.

    As Congress considers economic recovery legislation, it should 
seize the opportunity to update and simplify Supplemental Security 
Income (SSI). SSI is woefully out of date. Key features of the program 
haven't been updated in decades. This leaves many needy people 
ineligible for benefits and others without enough resources to meet 
basic needs. SSI also has complex and intrusive rules that are 
difficult for SSA to administer and burdensome for applicants and 
beneficiaries.

    I would like to thank Chairman Brown and Senators Wyden, Casey, and 
Warren for their leadership on the SSI Restoration Act, which would 
update and simplify SSI. It would dramatically cut poverty among 
seniors and people with disabilities, allow beneficiaries more dignity 
and independence, and improve program integrity. The SSI Restoration 
Act gives policymakers a set of options for program improvements that 
could be incorporated into the recovery legislation. While the emerging 
House bill includes important provisions to support the health of 
seniors and people with disabilities, it does not include any 
provisions to fill in the income gap left by inadequate SSI benefits. 
There is still time for the Senate to update this critical program for 
seniors and people with disabilities.
                          ssi benefits are low
    SSI provides monthly cash assistance to 7.8 million people who are 
disabled or elderly and have little income and few assets. There are 
three groups of SSI beneficiaries:

        SSI serves 1.1 million disabled children. SSI is the only cash 
benefit program for families caring for children with disabilities; 
children do not qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance 
benefits based on their own disabilities because they do not have the 
necessary work history. Child SSI benefits are particularly important 
for parents who must reduce their work hours or leave the paid 
workforce to meet their disabled children's needs.

        SSI serves 4.4 million adults with disabilities. Disabled 
adult SSI beneficiaries are held to the same statutory disability 
standard in Social Security Disability Insurance--that is, a severe 
physical or mental impairment that is expected to last 12 months or 
result in death, which makes the applicant unable to perform 
``substantial gainful activity'' (monthly earnings of $1,310 for most 
people, or $2,190 for blind people) anywhere in the national economy.

        SSI also serves 2.3 million seniors. Seniors receiving SSI 
either do not qualify for Social Security benefits, or only very low 
benefits, which SSI supplements.

    SSI benefits are very low and should be raised. The maximum Federal 
benefit is just $794 a month, only three-quarters of the Federal 
poverty line. About 4 in 10 SSI beneficiaries live in poverty. When 
policymakers established SSI, they sought to assure that ``aged, blind, 
and disabled people would no longer have to subsist on below-poverty-
level incomes.''\1\ SSI benefits alone, however, have never been large 
enough to raise beneficiaries' income above the Federal poverty line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ S. Rept. No. 92-1230, Social Security Amendments of 1972, U.S. 
Senate Committee on Finance, September 25, 1972, p. 384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                ssi's rules are outdated and complicated

SSI's rules are outdated and overly complicated.

        SSI's income disregards have been frozen for almost 50 years, 
since SSI was enacted in 1972.

            Beneficiaries who work can only keep $65 of 
their earnings each month, after which benefits are reduced by $1 for 
every $2 earned. Those reductions come into play when working 
beneficiaries' total incomes are still less than the poverty line, 
keeping even working beneficiaries in poverty.
            SSI's treatment of unearned income only allows 
beneficiaries to keep $20 of any other benefits they receive. This 
includes Social Security benefits, which one-third of SSI beneficiaries 
receive. On paper, those Social Security benefits average about $500 
per month, but SSI beneficiaries may only keep $20 of them, after which 
their SSI benefits are reduced dollar-for-dollar.

        SSI's asset limits have been frozen for over 30 years, since 
1989. SSI beneficiaries can keep a mere $2,000 in savings--far less 
than people need to weather an emergency, let alone provide stability 
or invest in their futures.

        SSI's ``in-kind support and maintenance'' rules require 
beneficiaries to disclose any material help that they receive from 
family and friends, whether groceries or a place to sleep. Each $1 
worth of assistance shrinks SSI benefits by $1. No other Federal 
program counts in-kind support when determining benefit eligibility or 
levels. These complex and intrusive rules make SSI more expensive to 
administer and burdensome for applicants and beneficiaries.

        Finally, SSI's rules penalize beneficiaries who marry one 
another. They receive lower benefits and have a lower asset limit than 
if they remained unmarried.

    SSI is expensive to administer because its complex and outdated 
rules require SSA staff to continually monitor beneficiaries' living 
arrangements, incomes, savings, support from family and friends, 
marital status, and more. SSI overpayments happen most frequently when 
beneficiaries' savings rise above $2,000; when their wages exceed $65 
in a month; and when they receive in-kind support from family and 
friends.

    If the rules governing assets, earnings, and in-kind support were 
modernized, SSI would have fewer errors and be less burdensome for both 
beneficiaries and administrators.\2\ SSI benefits make up only 5 
percent of SSA payments, but the program requires 35 percent of the 
agency's budget to administer.\3\ In contrast, SSA spends 20 percent of 
its budget to administer Social Security Disability Insurance, even 
though it has nearly 2 million more beneficiaries than SSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ SSA, Agency Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2020, Payment 
Integrity.
    \3\ ``FY 2021 Congressional Justification,'' Social Security 
Administration, 2020.

    The SSI Restoration Act would raise benefits to the poverty line, 
update SSI's income and asset limits as if they'd been indexed to 
inflation from the beginning, and repeal the program's in-kind support 
and maintenance rules and marriage penalties, in addition to making 
other technical fixes. The bill's major provisions would cut poverty 
among SSI beneficiaries by more than half and lift over 3 million 
people above the poverty line, new research from the Urban Institute 
shows.\4\ It would allow beneficiaries to work, marry, save, and accept 
help from their loved ones without the harsh penalties that exist in 
the current system, and it would reduce errors caused by overly complex 
and outdated rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Chantel Boyens, et al., ``How Four Proposals to Reform 
Supplemental Security Income Would Reduce Poverty,'' Urban Institute, 
September 6, 2021.

    SSI improvements would also help close racial equity gaps. Because 
of persistent health and economic disparities, people of color are 
likelier to meet SSI's medical and financial requirements. As a result, 
most SSI beneficiaries are Black, Latino, and Asian American, though 
White people make up the single largest group. Thus, enhancements to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSI would disproportionately help people of color.

    Updating SSI is necessary to ensure that low-income seniors and 
people with disabilities have the resources they need to afford rent, 
food, and other basic needs. The Senate should take the opportunity to 
add some of these important SSI improvements into the Build Back Better 
legislation, even if the package cannot accommodate the full SSI 
Restoration Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ For a more detailed discussion of the issues raised here, see 
Kathleen Romig and Sam Washington, Policymakers Should Expand and 
Simplify Supplemental Security Income, Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, June 30, 2021.

                                 ______
                                 
          Questions Submitted for the Record to Kathleen Romig
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Sherrod Brown
    Question. Congress made its intent clear in establishing the SSI 
program nearly 50 years ago--stating explicitly that the purpose of the 
program was to ensure that people over 65 and people with disabilities 
would no longer have to live on below-poverty-level incomes. Yet the 
maximum SSI benefit level is only 74 percent of the Federal poverty 
level--just $794/month. Is this enough for people with disabilities or 
seniors to afford to meet basic needs in the U.S. today? How many 
people would be lifted out of poverty by increasing the benefit amount 
to at least the Federal poverty level?

    Answer. SSI benefits are not enough for seniors and people with 
disabilities to meet basic needs in the U.S. today. As you noted, 
maximum monthly SSI benefits are well below the poverty line, leaving 
many recipients with below-poverty income and unable to cover their 
basic living expenses. When policymakers established SSI, they sought 
to assure that ``aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have 
to subsist on below-poverty-level incomes.'' SSI benefits alone, 
however, have never been large enough to raise recipients' income above 
the Federal poverty line. In 2021, as you noted, maximum Federal SSI 
benefits only reach three-quarters of the Federal poverty line for an 
individual.

    Moreover, the official poverty line is too low for people to meet 
basic needs. Official estimates of minimum living costs consistently 
exceed the poverty line by a wide margin; just two parts of a family's 
budget--rent for a modest two-bedroom apartment in a medium-cost 
metropolitan area as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD), and the cost of a minimum nutritionally 
adequate diet as estimated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA)--cost $21,000 in 2018, or 83 percent of the poverty threshold 
for a two-adult family. Surveys also show that most Americans would set 
the poverty line higher than the official poverty line.

    Policymakers should raise SSI's basic benefit at least to the 
poverty level, as the SSI Restoration Act would do. This provision 
alone would lift 2.4 million people above the poverty line, according 
to the Urban Institute.

    Question. While SSI is critical for people of all types of racial 
and ethnic backgrounds, it is especially important to communities of 
color. What does the data tell us about the way SSI impacts racial 
equity gaps?

    Answer. SSI is particularly important for low-income Black, Latino, 
and Asian-American seniors and people with disabilities. Due to 
persistent racial disparities in health-care access and quality--as 
well as in access to food, affordable housing, high-quality schools, 
and economic opportunity--people of color are likelier to become 
disabled. And due to persistent economic disparities, people of color 
are likelier to have incomes below the poverty line. As a result, the 
majority of SSI beneficiaries are African-American, Latino, and Asian-
American. SSI benefits help mitigate these racial disparities in health 
and economic outcomes by providing additional help to seniors and 
people with disabilities who qualify.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2121.001


    .epsWith improvements, the SSI program could reach more seniors and 
people with disabilities, lift more of them above poverty, and reduce 
economic disparities for some of the Nation's most vulnerable 
citizens--and these changes would disproportionately help people of 
color.

    Question. Thirty-five percent of SSA's administrative budget is 
spent on SSI because its outdated rules are difficult and burdensome 
for the agency to administer. What is the administrative burden the 
agency experiences as a result of these burdensome and complex SSI 
program rules? How much could be saved by updating or eliminating these 
outdated rules?

    Answer. SSI is expensive to administer because its complex and 
outdated rules require SSA staff to continually monitor beneficiaries' 
living arrangements, incomes, savings, support from family and friends, 
marital status, and more. Even small changes--working more hours in a 
month, a birthday check, a move--can trigger benefit changes or even 
render a person ineligible for the program. SSI overpayments happen 
most frequently when beneficiaries' savings rise above $2,000; when 
their wages exceed $65 in a month; and when they receive in-kind 
support from family and friends, according to agency data.

    If the rules governing assets, earnings, and in-kind support were 
modernized, SSI would have fewer errors and be less burdensome for both 
beneficiaries and administrators. The extremely low levels of the 
current limits on assets and income mean that beneficiaries with any 
savings or other sources of income exceed them easily. For example, 
reductions due to earned income begin when beneficiaries make just $65 
per month, and nearly every job pays more than that amount. Moreover, 
the low-wage, part-time work that most working SSI recipients can do 
typically has variable pay from month to month, depending on hours and 
other factors.

    Simplifying SSI rules could save administrative costs and free up 
staff time to provide better customer service in other areas. An agency 
study on possible changes to in-kind support and maintenance rules in 
2008 estimated that replacing ISM with a simpler rule for beneficiaries 
who live with others would save about $70 million in administrative 
costs each year. Accounting for inflation as well as the even simpler 
policy to repeal ISM altogether in the SSI Restoration Act, it's likely 
that SSA could save $100 million a year, or $1 billion over 10 years, 
by adopting this single change. Updating the rules governing income and 
assets would lead to even fewer overpayments and more administrative 
savings.

    Question. Your testimony notes that nearly half of eligible people 
are currently being left behind by SSI because the application process 
is so difficult to navigate, and that the program is dropping to 
historic lows during the pandemic. What can Congress do to ensure 
eligible people are able to access this critical program in their time 
of need?

    Answer. There are many ways SSA could improve outreach and access 
to SSI benefits, including:

        Mail notices about SSI to targeted Social Security 
beneficiaries: SSA should mail notices to all Social Security 
beneficiaries with low benefits to encourage them to apply. SSA has 
already piloted \1\ this and dramatically increased SSI awards among 
the low-income elderly who received notices. SSA should bring the pilot 
to scale and expand it to SSDI beneficiaries. The agency should also 
mail notices at age 65 (when early retirees become age-eligible for 
SSI) and periodic reminders for likely eligible Social Security 
beneficiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ssir/SSI19/
V_G_Bibliography.html#99786.

        Design a comprehensive SSI outreach campaign for low-income 
disabled and elderly people who face barriers: Such a program should 
work to include people of color, people for whom English is not a first 
language, those in poverty, those experiencing homelessness, and the 
recently incarcerated. The agency should work with government, private, 
and non-profit organizations that serve these communities and ensure 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that they have the tools they need to assist potential applicants.

        Create a dedicated phone line with a centralized SSI intake 
unit: SSA does not have an online application for child or elderly SSI 
benefits, and only some disabled adults can apply for SSI online. While 
SSA's field operation is closed except for emergencies, most SSI 
applicants must apply over the phone. SSA's 800 number has long wait 
times and high busy rates, and callers often abandon their calls. 
Former SSA executive David Weaver has recommended \2\ that the agency 
set up a separate agency phone number with a centralized SSI intake 
unit to take SSI applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/513711-ssi-awards-for-the-
disabled-lowest-in-20-years-needs-congressional-attention/.

        Accelerate work on SSI online application: The iSSI system 
should be expanded so more people can apply for SSI online. The agency 
should also simplify the online application to better allow applicants 
to fill it out without in-person or telephone assistance from SSA 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
staff.

        Execute a comprehensive outreach plan for child SSI program: 
SSA is legally mandated to reach out to families of children who are 
potentially eligible for SSI, but has not done so. Even before the 
pandemic caused SSI child applications to plummet, the National Academy 
of Sciences found that many potentially eligible children were not 
applying for benefits. SSA should consider data matching (e.g., with 
school districts) to identify potentially eligible children; partnering 
with schools, medical providers, and State agencies to conduct 
outreach; running advertising on traditional and social media; sending 
letters to new parents with their children's Social Security cards 
informing them of SSI (both for specific newborn issues like low birth 
weight, and informing them that SSI may be there for them if their 
children develop health problems); and more.

        Restore SSA's public outreach capacity: In the past, SSA field 
offices did extensive community outreach, building relationships with 
community, business, non-profit, and government organizations. The 
agency also had a robust national communications operation. As its 
operating budget fell over the last decade, SSA significantly reduced 
its public outreach staffing and scope. SSA should restore its outreach 
capacity, with a special focus on reaching the low-income, older, and 
disabled populations whose applications for benefits have fallen most.

    Question. One area of program integrity that gets far less 
attention comparatively is underpayments--which cause individuals and 
families in need to go without the benefits they are due. For example, 
SSA's annual agency financial reports show that some 200,000 children 
per year aren't receiving Social Security benefits they are due, 
because of SSA computer error. What do we know about underpayments to 
SSI beneficiaries? What harm does this cause? And how can we better be 
ensuring that SSI beneficiaries receive the full benefits they are due?

    Answer. The causes of underpayments among current SSI beneficiaries 
are generally due to the same outdated rules as are overpayments. 
Agency data show that the three leading causes of underpayments in SSI 
are in-kind support and maintenance, changes in living arrangements, 
and earnings. As I answered above, updating these rules would go a long 
way in preventing underpayments that increase beneficiary hardship. 
They would also make the program more efficient to administer and free 
up staff time for customer service.

    More broadly, as you point out, there are many people who are 
eligible for SSI payments who are not receiving them. In addition to 
the computer error you point out, there are many low-income Social 
Security beneficiaries who also qualify for SSI, but may not know it or 
may struggle with the complicated application process. SSA could 
identify these people in its data and do targeted outreach. The agency 
could also provide a more streamlined application process and 
assistance for applicants who need it. I describe these options in more 
detail in my response above.

    Another idea, proposed by former SSA executive David Weaver, is to 
create an Office of Beneficiary Advocate at SSA, similar to the 
Taxpayer Advocate at IRS. The Beneficiary Advocate would provide needed 
balance to discussions of administrative issues. Agency leadership, the 
Office of Inspector General are overwhelmingly consumed with improper 
payments and ``waste, fraud, and abuse'' and not service to 
beneficiaries.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. Your testimony says that SSI's rules penalize 
beneficiaries who marry one another. And, your testimony is designed, 
in part, to advocate mostly or solely to Democrats in the Senate to 
include Chairman Brown's SSI legislation in their reconciliation bill.

    Indeed, you conclude by urging the Senate, which in the current 
context means only Senate Democrats, ``to take the opportunity to add 
some of these important improvements into the Build Back Better 
legislation, even if the package cannot accommodate the full'' set of 
Chairman Brown's proposal.

    The reconciliation bill passed by Democrats in the House Ways and 
Means Committee, and Democrat tax proposals under consideration in the 
Senate, include increased and significant marriage penalties in the tax 
code.

    Given your concerns about marriage penalties imposed by SSI rules, 
do you also advocate to the Senate that the bills under consideration 
be changed to reduce or eliminate the significant marriage penalties 
that are built into the Democrats' tax proposals?

    Answer. I am not a tax expert and do not advocate for or against 
the tax proposals in the reconciliation package under consideration.

                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr.
    Question. In your testimony you referenced the complexity of SSI 
rules, errors that are made in determining recipients assets, delays in 
adjusting earnings that recipients report resulting in overpayments and 
subsequently penalties to recipients. What specific changes do you 
recommend regarding reporting earnings and tracking assets? How can 
Congress make the SSI program more efficient and less burdensome for 
recipients and the agency?

    Answer. The changes in the SSI Restoration Act would make SSI more 
efficient and less burdensome for SSI recipients and SSA. SSI is 
expensive to administer because its complex and outdated rules require 
SSA staff to continually monitor beneficiaries' living arrangements, 
incomes, savings, support from family and friends, marital status, and 
more. SSI overpayments happen most frequently when beneficiaries' 
savings rise above $2,000; when their wages exceed $65 in a month; and 
when they receive in-kind support from family and friends.

    If the rules governing assets, earnings, and in-kind support were 
modernized, SSI would have fewer errors and be less burdensome for both 
beneficiaries and administrators. The extremely low levels of the 
current limits on assets and income mean that beneficiaries with any 
savings or other sources of income exceed them easily. For example, 
reductions due to earned income begin when beneficiaries make just $65 
per month, and nearly every job pays more than that amount. Moreover, 
the low-wage, part-time work that most working SSI recipients can do 
typically has variable pay from month to month, depending on hours and 
other factors.

    Simplifying SSI rules could save administrative costs and free up 
staff time to provide better customer service in other areas. An agency 
study on possible changes to in-kind support and maintenance rules in 
2008 estimated that replacing ISM with a simpler rule for beneficiaries 
who live with others would save about $70 million in administrative 
costs each year. Accounting for inflation as well as the even simpler 
policy to repeal ISM altogether in the SSI Restoration Act, it's likely 
that SSA could save $100 million a year, or $1 billion over 10 years, 
by adopting this single change. Updating the rules governing income and 
assets would lead to even fewer overpayments and more administrative 
savings.

    People who meet SSI's income limits (as well as age and disability 
eligibility) typically have little to no assets, according to agency 
research. Policymakers could also consider excluding the value of other 
non-liquid assets that are more difficult for applicants and 
beneficiaries to document and for the agency to verify, such as 
insurance policies, burial plots, and vehicles, to simplify the 
program.

    SSA already uses a data matching program called Access to Financial 
Institutions that can automatically verify applicants' and 
beneficiaries' bank accounts, which is typically where any assets are 
held. The agency could require applicants to attest to the amount of 
their assets, without necessarily requiring complex documentation, and 
then independently verify claims as needed using AFI. This is common 
practice in other low-income programs with resources limits.

    Question. The Ticket to Work program, passed in 1999, was designed 
to be an incentive for SSI recipients to return to work. For the past 2 
decades, however, usage of the Ticket program has been notoriously 
low--in the low single digits of percentage of SSI recipients. 
Recipients also complain to our office that the Ticket program is 
complicated. What recommendations do you have to incentivize SSI 
recipients to work? I would appreciate recommendations related to the 
Ticket program and to new ideas for incentives.

    Answer. Updating SSI's income disregards, as in the SSI Restoration 
Act, would better reward both current and past work among SSI 
beneficiaries. SSI exempts the first $20 per month of unearned income 
when determining a person's eligibility and benefit levels; any income 
above that amount from sources such as Social Security, pensions, 
interest, and child support is subtracted from SSI benefits. Similarly, 
SSA disregards the first $65 per month of earnings; each $1 of earnings 
above that level reduces SSI benefits by 50 cents. These rules begin to 
reduce benefits even when a recipient's income is well below the 
poverty line. The amount of income that SSA disregards when calculating 
SSI benefits has not changed, even to account for inflation, since 
1972. That has increasingly eroded the inflation-adjusted value of 
benefits for SSI recipients who work or receive Social Security or 
other income. For SSI beneficiaries who can work, the stringent 
disregard for earned income significantly diminishes any incentive to 
work. The dollar-for-dollar benefits reduction for non-wage income 
above $20 does little to reward those who receive Social Security based 
on their past work, since the combined benefits that they receive are 
little different than the benefits received by those with no work 
history.

    Policymakers should increase these disregards, which have remained 
frozen for nearly 5 decades, and index them so they automatically rise 
with inflation, as the SSI Restoration Act would do, or index them with 
wages, to keep up with rising living standards. This would better 
reward current work. Increasing the general income exclusion, which 
includes earned Social Security benefits, would better reward past 
work.

    Ticket to Work is outside my area of expertise, but generally, the 
evidence supports targeted employment interventions to beneficiaries 
with residual work capacity and interest in pursuing employment. 
Targeting work interventions, rather than offering a one-size-fits-all 
policy, would allow SSA to tailor interventions to the needs of 
beneficiaries with specific characteristics, and improve their odds of 
success. Evidence supports this approach--for example, SSA's mental 
impairment-based demonstrations resulted in rare employment and 
earnings increases.

    Question. Assessing assets for SSI recipients is complicated, 
including tracking below market housing and food support. What assets 
should be considered when determining initial and on-going eligibility 
for SSI and how should they be reported?

    Answer. Policymakers could simplify which assets are considered 
against its resource limits.

    For example, Congress could consider excluding retirement accounts 
from SSI asset limits. Since SSI was enacted in 1972, Americans have 
relied much more on individual savings to fund their retirement. Over 
the past 4 decades, far fewer workers have traditional pensions at 
work. Instead, policymakers and others encourage them to save for 
retirement on their own. Individual retirement accounts (IRAs) were 
created in 1974 and 401(k)s in 1978. The number of workers 
participating in such ``defined contribution'' retirement plans has 
risen nearly tenfold since the mid-1970s.

    Despite that dramatic shift in retirement income sources, SSI's 
asset test still penalizes low-income seniors and people with 
disabilities who manage to set aside retirement savings. Other 
programs, including SNAP, exclude retirement savings accounts from 
asset limits. Policymakers should exempt retirement savings from the 
SSI asset test, encouraging beneficiaries to save for retirement and 
letting those who accumulate savings benefit from them without losing 
their eligibility for SSI.

    As I discussed in my response above, policymakers could also 
consider excluding the value of other non-liquid assets that are more 
difficult for applicants and beneficiaries to document and for the 
agency to verify, such as insurance policies, burial plots, and 
vehicles, to simplify the program. They could simplify reporting 
requirements and rely more on independent verification of bank accounts 
to reduce burdens on applicants and errors.

    As for non-cash housing and food support (also known as in-kind 
support and maintenance, or ISM), Congress should consider repealing 
reductions based on this kind of support from family and friends. SSI's 
ISM rules require beneficiaries to disclose any material help that they 
receive from family and friends, whether groceries or a place to sleep. 
Each $1 worth of assistance shrinks SSI benefits by $1. No other 
Federal program counts in-kind support when determining benefit 
eligibility or levels. These complex and intrusive rules make SSI more 
expensive to administer and burdensome for applicants and 
beneficiaries.

                                 ______
                                 
              Question Submitted by Hon. Michael F. Bennet
    Question. I want to ask about SSI's earned income exclusion--which, 
like so many aspects of this program, has not been updated in nearly 
half a century. My office hears from constituents with disabilities who 
would like to participate in the workforce on a part-time basis. This 
helps them participate in their communities and to supplement their 
incomes.

    Congress clearly intended for SSI recipients to be able to do part-
time work when it created the earned income rules in 1972. But the 
failure to even adjust these rules for inflation in the intervening 49 
years has all but barred recipients from participating in any work 
activities. At the same time, the program's low benefits level makes it 
all the more difficult for individuals to make ends meet without 
supplementing their SSI benefits with earnings.

    How should we update SSI's earnings exclusion, and what would these 
changes mean for the economic security of individuals with disabilities 
and their families?

    Answer. As you noted, SSI's earned income exclusion has declined 
dramatically in value over the last 5 decades. SSA disregards the first 
$65 per month of earnings; each $1 of earnings above that level reduces 
SSI benefits by 50 cents. Even earnings from part-time work easily 
exceed this earning threshold, and so working beneficiaries have their 
SSI benefits reduced. These rules begin to reduce benefits even when a 
recipient's income is well below the poverty line. The amount of income 
that SSA disregards when calculating SSI benefits has not changed, even 
to account for inflation, since 1972.

    SSI's outdated earnings rules have increasingly eroded the 
inflation-adjusted value of benefits for SSI recipients who work. For 
SSI beneficiaries who can work, the stringent disregard for earned 
income significantly diminishes any incentive to work.

    Policymakers should increase the earned income disregards, which 
have remained frozen for nearly 5 decades, and index them so they 
automatically rise with inflation, as the SSI Restoration Act would do, 
or index them with wages, to keep up with rising living standards. Had 
the disregards been indexed to wages since 1972, the earned income 
disregard would be $493 per month.

    Policymakers should also consider treating Social Security as 
earned income, so that SSI recipients can keep much more of their 
earned Social Security benefits.

    Enabling SSI recipients to keep more of their Social Security 
benefits would improve their economic security and recognize their work 
and contributions to the Social Security system. By law, SSA treats 
Social Security benefits as ``unearned income,'' so it disregards the 
first $20 a month of such income and reduces the SSI benefit, dollar 
for dollar, by anything above that threshold. That means, in effect, 
that Social Security beneficiaries who receive SSI can keep only $20 of 
their Social Security benefit. That $20 figure has not changed since 
SSI's creation nearly 5 decades ago.

    Social Security is by far the most common source of other income 
for SSI recipients. In April 2021, 2.6 million adult SSI recipients 
also received Social Security, representing about 28 percent of 
disabled adult SSI recipients and 57 percent of elderly recipients. 
Their average Social Security benefit was around $500, but SSI 
recipients effectively receive only $20 of that amount, significantly 
diminishing their economic security. If Social Security benefits were 
treated like earned income, an SSI recipient receiving a $500 Social 
Security benefit would receive $262.50 more in benefits per month. For 
many recipients, this change alone would bring total income up to the 
poverty line.

    Social Security income, which people earn by working and 
contributing payroll taxes, could also be considered earned income.

                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Hon. Elizabeth Warren
    Question. SSI is meant to be a lifeline for millions of low-income 
seniors and people with disabilities, but decades-old eligibility rules 
are forcing Americans who rely on SSI to live in poverty. Thus, 
advocates have been calling for long-overdue reforms like increasing 
SSI asset limits, which were included in the SSI Restoration Act that 
Senators Brown, Sanders, and I reintroduced earlier this year, and 
should be included in the reconciliation package that Congress is 
considering.

    How long has it been since key SSI rules were updated, including 
benefit rates, income exclusions, and asset limits? How would reforming 
them as outlined in the SSI Restoration Act help reduce poverty and 
ensure that SSI is reaching and adequately supporting all the Americans 
it should be? How have changing circumstances since these rules were 
first enacted further drive the need for reforms?

    Answer. SSI's rules are outdated:

        SSI's income disregards have been frozen for almost 50 years, 
since SSI was enacted in 1972.

            Beneficiaries who work can only keep $65 of 
their earnings each month, after which benefits are reduced by $1 for 
every $2 earned. Those reductions come into play when working 
beneficiaries' total incomes are still less than the poverty line, 
keeping even working beneficiaries in poverty.
            SSI's treatment of unearned income only allows 
beneficiaries to keep $20 of any other benefits they receive. This 
includes Social Security benefits, which one-third of SSI beneficiaries 
receive. On paper, those Social Security benefits average about $500 
per month, but SSI beneficiaries may only keep $20 of them, after which 
their SSI benefits are reduced dollar-for-dollar.

        SSI's asset limits have been frozen for over 30 years, since 
1989. SSI beneficiaries can keep a mere $2,000 in savings--far less 
than people need to weather an emergency, let alone provide stability 
or invest in their futures.

    Changing circumstances since the program's rules were first enacted 
drives the need for reform. Despite growing recognition by policymakers 
and analysts that assets boost economic security and that public policy 
has helped to fuel a significant racial wealth gap, SSI's limits on 
allowable savings are very restrictive. When they created SSI in 1972, 
the President and Congress set asset limits to let recipients have some 
savings to cover the cost of emergencies. The current limits have not 
been updated for more than 30 years, however, leaving SSI recipients 
vulnerable in the event of an accident, unexpected bill, or other 
expense. These asset limits discourage saving and encourage people to 
dispose of assets they may need to qualify for program benefits.

    SSI recipients can't have more than $2,000 in assets for an 
individual (and $3,000 for a couple), including savings accounts and 
most retirement accounts. Policymakers raised these asset thresholds 
just once (in 1989) since enacting SSI, and that increase only 
partially offset the effects of inflation up to that point. Had asset 
limits been indexed to inflation since 1989, they would be almost twice 
as high as they are today--and had they been indexed since 1972, they'd 
be over four times as high.

    In the years since SSI asset limits were last updated, Federal 
policymakers have given States significant discretion in liberalizing 
asset limits in other low-income programs, and nearly every State has 
used that discretion to liberalize asset limits or eliminate them 
altogether. These programs include SNAP (food stamps), Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program (LIHEAP). All States except Arkansas and Missouri 
have eliminated asset limits in at least one program, and seven--
Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and Ohio--
have eliminated them in all three programs. Families in states with 
more generous asset rules are less likely to cycle on and off SNAP, 
research shows. And the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prohibited States 
from applying asset limits to most Medicaid beneficiaries, including 
children, parents, pregnant women, and adults who became eligible for 
Medicaid under the ACA's Medicaid expansion.

    Low asset limits essentially penalize SSI recipients for saving. 
Since exceeding the limit can cause the loss of not just SSI cash 
benefits but also in some cases Medicaid, housing assistance, and other 
benefits, a prudent recipient will avoid saving too much. Savings and 
assets, however, play an important role in improving economic stability 
and mobility for low-income individuals, a large body of research 
shows.

    In addition to raising asset limits, the SSI Restoration Act also 
proposes to exempt retirement savings from SSI's asset limits, another 
change warranted by changing circumstances. Since SSI was enacted in 
1972, Americans have relied much more on individual savings to fund 
their retirement. Over the past 4 decades, far fewer workers have 
traditional pensions at work. Instead, policymakers and others 
encourage them to save for retirement on their own. Individual 
retirement accounts (IRAs) were created in 1974 and 401(k)s in 1978. 
The number of workers participating in such ``defined contribution'' 
retirement plans has risen nearly tenfold since the mid-1970s.

    Despite that dramatic shift in retirement income sources, SSI's 
asset test still penalizes low-income seniors and people with 
disabilities who manage to set aside retirement savings. Other 
programs, including SNAP, exclude retirement savings accounts from 
asset limits. Policymakers should exempt retirement savings from the 
SSI asset test, encouraging beneficiaries to save for retirement and 
letting those who accumulate savings benefit from them without losing 
their eligibility for SSI.

    Like the asset limit, SSI's general income exclusion and earned 
income exclusion have declined dramatically in value, necessitating 
updates like the ones in the SSI Restoration Act.

    SSI exempts (or ``disregards'') the first $20 per month of unearned 
income when determining a person's eligibility and benefit levels; any 
income above that amount from sources such as Social Security, 
pensions, interest, and child support is subtracted from SSI benefits. 
Similarly, SSA disregards the first $65 per month of earnings; each $1 
of earnings above that level reduces SSI benefits by 50 cents. These 
rules begin to reduce benefits even when a recipient's income is well 
below the poverty line. The amount of income that SSA disregards when 
calculating SSI benefits has not changed, even to account for 
inflation, since 1972. That has increasingly eroded the inflation-
adjusted value of benefits for SSI recipients who work or receive 
Social Security or other income. For SSI beneficiaries who can work, 
the stringent disregard for earned income significantly diminishes any 
incentive to work. The 
dollar-for-dollar benefits reduction for non-wage income above $20 does 
little to reward those who receive Social Security based on their past 
work, since the combined benefits that they receive are little 
different than the benefits received by those with no work history.

    Enabling SSI recipients to keep more of their Social Security 
benefits would improve their economic security and recognize their work 
and contributions to the Social Security system. By law, SSA treats 
Social Security benefits as ``unearned income,'' so it disregards the 
first $20 a month of such income and reduces the SSI benefit, dollar 
for dollar, by anything above that threshold. That means, in effect, 
that Social Security beneficiaries who receive SSI can keep only $20 of 
their Social Security benefit. That $20 figure has not changed since 
SSI's creation nearly 5 decades ago. By contrast, SSA disregards up to 
$65 of earned income and reduces benefits by only 50 cents for every 
dollar earned above that threshold.

    Social Security is by far the most common source of other income 
for SSI recipients. In April 2021, 2.6 million adult SSI recipients 
also received Social Security, representing about 28 percent of 
disabled adult SSI recipients and 57 percent of elderly recipients. 
Their average Social Security benefit was around $500, but SSI 
recipients effectively receive only $20 of that amount, significantly 
diminishing their economic security. If Social Security benefits were 
treated like earned income, an SSI recipient receiving a $500 Social 
Security benefit would receive $262.50 more in benefits per month. For 
many recipients, this change alone would bring total income up to the 
poverty line.

    Social Security income, which people earn by working and 
contributing payroll taxes, should be considered earned income.

    Finally, you asked how the changes in the SSI Restoration Act would 
affect poverty. Key provisions of the SSI Restoration Act together 
would lift 3.3 million people above the poverty line and would cut 
poverty among SSI beneficiaries by more than half, from 36 to 16 
percent, according to the Urban Institute. (The Urban Institute 
analyzed the effects of the proposal using the Supplemental Poverty 
Measure, which accounts for non-cash benefits.)

    Urban's findings include:

        Increasing individual SSI benefits would lift 2.4 million 
people above the poverty line. When policymakers established SSI, they 
sought to ensure that ``aged, blind, and disabled people would no 
longer have to subsist on below-poverty-level incomes.'' But maximum 
Federal monthly SSI benefits are well below the poverty line, leaving 
many beneficiaries impoverished and unable to cover basic living 
expenses. The SSI Restoration Act would raise the individual SSI 
benefit to the official poverty threshold.

        Eliminating SSI's marriage penalty would lift more than 
700,000 people above the poverty line. Two SSI beneficiaries who marry 
one another receive only 150 percent of the individual benefit amount. 
The SSI Restoration Act would allow each member of a married couple to 
instead receive the full amount of the increased individual benefit, 
providing a further benefit enhancement and eliminating a disincentive 
to marry.

        Updating SSI's income disregards would lift nearly 400,000 
people above the poverty line. SSI's rules for those who have other 
sources of income have remained unchanged since the program's creation 
in 1972. Working SSI beneficiaries can earn only $65 per month before 
their SSI benefits are reduced by 50 cents for each additional dollar 
of earnings, which hurts beneficiaries with incomes well below the 
poverty line. The income disregard for unearned income (such as Social 
Security benefits) is even lower: SSI beneficiaries can receive only 
$20 per month before their SSI benefits are reduced dollar for dollar. 
The SSI Restoration Act would raise these amounts to what they would 
have been if they'd been indexed to inflation from the outset, and 
automatically increase them each year.

        Eliminating SSI's ``in-kind support'' rules would lift over 
70,000 people above the poverty line and simplify administration. SSI 
requires beneficiaries to disclose any material help that they receive 
from family and friends, whether groceries or a place to sleep. For 
each $1 worth of assistance, SSI benefits shrink by $1. No other 
Federal program counts in-kind support when determining benefit 
eligibility. These complex and intrusive rules make SSI more expensive 
to administer and burdensome for applicants and beneficiaries. Social 
Security Administration employees, already facing customer service 
challenges due to underfunding \3\ and the pandemic, often identify 
this as one of the most difficult aspects of SSI to administer. The SSI 
Restoration Act would repeal them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.cbpp.org/blog/after-years-of-underinvestment-its-
time-to-rebuild-the-social-security-administration.

    The SSI Restoration Act would also make the important improvement 
of updating SSI's asset limits, along with other smaller changes. SSI's 
current asset limits of $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples 
haven't been updated since 1989 and are far too low, leaving SSI 
beneficiaries vulnerable in the event of an accident, unexpected bill, 
or other expense. If beneficiaries exceed the limit by even a small 
amount--for example, after receiving a gift from a family member--they 
lose eligibility until they spend the savings. The asset limits are 
also out of step with those in other low-income programs, which 
policymakers have liberalized or eliminated. The SSI Restoration Act 
would increase them as if they had been indexed to inflation since 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSI's passage in 1972, and automatically increase them each year.

    The Urban Institute did not model the changes to SSI's asset rules 
because they would have an indirect effect on beneficiaries' income, 
and thus their poverty status. However, the report notes that 
increasing the asset limit ``would further enhance the antipoverty 
impact of these proposals'' by expanding eligibility and improving 
beneficiaries' material circumstances. Updating SSI's asset limit would 
also have a modest cost.

                                 ______
                                 
                Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Young, 
                      a U.S. Senator From Indiana
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss 
and review the Supplemental Security Income program--or SSI.

    Now more than ever, how every taxpayer dollar is spent matters. And 
programs that don't achieve results must be fixed. The SSI program 
needs examination to ensure it is achieving its intended goals in a 
fiscally responsible manner. Is the program functioning as Congress and 
taxpayers expect and those with disabilities deserve?

    We can't continue to just ``spend more'' and hope it helps. We need 
to review the program's effectiveness so we can ensure taxpayer 
resources are properly targeted. The goal of the SSI program is to 
provide assistance to elderly and disabled individuals who have limited 
financial resources. It is intended, as the Social Security 
Administration identifies, as a program of last resort, and 
beneficiaries do not rely solely on SSI benefits to live.

    Although SSI was created with the elderly low-income in mind, today 
it primarily benefits nonelderly disabled adults and children. The 
total number of beneficiaries has grown from 4.8 million in 1990, to 
6.6 million in 2000, to 7.8 million today. In turn, SSI spending has 
risen from $33 billion in 2000 to an estimated $61 billion in 2021.

    SSI and Social Security Disability Insurance have been on the 
Government Accountability ``High Risk'' list since 2003. GAO states 
that, ``management attention and efforts are needed across the 
government to ensure that disability programs provide benefits in a 
timely manner, reflect current ideas about disability, and achieve 
positive employment outcomes.''

    The Social Security Administration struggles to ensure current 
recipients remain qualified for these programs. SSI continues to have a 
higher overpayment rate than other SSA programs. That is an unfair 
burden to taxpayers as well as SSI recipients who incorrectly receive 
funds they may have to repay.

    While SSI faces challenges in administration, labor force 
participation remains a pressing policy challenge. Our economy is 
feeling its impact acutely as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Disability and health-related issues have been top contributors to 
declines in labor force participation among people in their prime 
working years--causing both increased poverty rates and the 
perpetuation of poor health for many Americans.

    This is why we need to focus on creating more job opportunities for 
working-age Americans with disabilities. However, the current patchwork 
of safety-net programs for low-income Americans facing disabilities or 
health issues is flawed. Many of these people are productive 
individuals with the potential to make valuable contributions to their 
communities through work. And many wish to pursue benefits from the 
dignity of work, to the extent they are able to do so. Without work, 
however, many will fall into poverty and may never again see the social 
and economic benefits associated with employment.

    In having this discussion today--our first this Congress in this 
subcommittee--we would be remiss to not acknowledge that some of our 
Nation's most important Federal programs, including programs 
administered by SSA, are financed through dedicated revenue sources and 
managed through trust funds. Several of the largest trust funds are 
heading towards insolvency--worsened by the pandemic.

    According to the most recent Social Security Trustees' Report, the 
combined Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance trust funds will 
be exhausted in 2034--a year earlier than was projected last year.

    This spring, I joined Senator Romney and a group of colleagues in 
reintroducing the Time to Rescue United States' Trusts (TRUST) Act, 
bipartisan legislation which would create a process to rescue the 
endangered Federal trust funds and rein in the national debt--and allow 
Congress to put our major Federal programs on a stronger footing. If we 
don't act now, the trust funds in these programs will be exhausted, 
leading to significant benefit cuts under current law, and America's 
safety net will be significantly weakened.

    We believe in people--and we believe most people don't want to be 
trapped. SSI should be available for those in need--with a goal of 
preparing as many individuals as possible for a life of dignity in the 
workforce. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these topics 
and examining this program in greater detail today.

    Lastly, I would like to make note of the complete lack of committee 
process for the reconciliation bill being drafted by Senate and House 
Democrats. My Republican colleagues on this committee have called for 
hearings and a markup of any reconciliation provisions in this 
jurisdiction. Americans deserve an open and transparent process.

    With that, I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look 
forward to hearing their testimony.

                                 ______
                                 

                             Communications

                              ----------                              


                                  AARP

                            601 E Street, NW

                          Washington, DC 20049

                              202-434-2277

                             1-888-687-2277

                          TTY: 1-877-434-7598

                         https://www.aarp.org/

September 21, 2021

The Honorable Sherrod Brown         The Honorable Todd Young
Chairman                            Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Social Security,    Subcommittee on Social Security,
  Pensions, and Family Policy         Pensions, and Family Policy
Committee on Finance                Committee on Finance
Washington, DC 20510                Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

On behalf of our 38 million members and all older Americans nationwide, 
AARP would like to thank you and the members of the Social Security, 
Pensions, and Family Policy Subcommittee for holding today's important 
hearing on ``Policy Options for Improving SSI.'' We appreciate your 
efforts to examine areas in which Congress can make much-needed 
improvements to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which 
is a critical lifeline for millions of Americans who are most in need.

As you know, SSI provides needs-based financial assistance to 
approximately 7.8 million Americans,\1\ including children, individuals 
with severe disabilities, and those over the age of 65, with very low 
incomes and limited resources. While some states supplement SSI, its 
monthly benefits are extremely modest and, in August 2021, averaged 
only $586 for all individuals and $476 for those age 65 and over.\2\ 
Even the maximum monthly federal benefit in 2021 is only $794 for an 
individual and $1,191 for a couple,\3\ well below the poverty level. 
AARP believes SSI's current maximum benefit levels do not go far enough 
to keep recipients out of poverty, and as such, Congress should 
increase benefits to bring SSI beneficiaries up to the poverty level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Social Security Administration, Monthly Statistical Snapshot, 
August 2021, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/.
    \2\ Ibid.
    \3\ Social Security Administration, SSI Federal Payment Amounts for 
2021, https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSI.html.

In addition, to qualify for SSI, an individual must have assets valued 
at less than $2,000, and for couples, that amount is $3,000. These 
asset limits were set over 30 years ago and have not been adjusted 
since to reflect inflation. As a result, fewer and fewer of those in 
legitimate need, especially those who are older, are able to qualify 
for SSI. AARP believes Congress should increase the current asset 
limits and index those limits to inflation moving forward. Congress 
should also similarly update both the general and earned income 
exclusions for SSI, which have also not kept pace with inflation since 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
they were set in 1981 at $20 and $65 per month, respectively.

Finally, AARP believes that certain SSI rules can also create financial 
hardships for the caregivers of beneficiaries. For example, SSI's 
already modest benefits may be reduced by one-third if a beneficiary 
lives in another person's household and does not pay for all his or her 
food and shelter. Such assistance is considered in-kind support and 
maintenance and is counted as income for SSI purposes. AARP is 
concerned about family caregivers who are struggling to help their 
older parents, spouses and other loved ones remain at home, where they 
want to be. As such, AARP believes Congress should modify SSI's rules 
to support informal caregiving arrangements and eliminate the one-third 
reduction in benefits for recipients living in someone else's household 
and not paying for food or shelter.

Once again, thank you for holding today's important hearing. SSI is 
often cited as ``a program of last resort'' and millions of older 
Americans, children, and those with disabilities and with limited 
resources rely on it for the bare necessities of life. Congress should 
work together to improve and update this program for the future and 
ensure it provides adequate assistance to those who are most in need. 
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, or have your 
staff contact Tom Nicholls of our Government Affairs staff at 
[email protected] or (202) 434-3765.

Sincerely,

Bill Sweeney
Senior Vice President
AARP Government Affairs

                                 ______
                                 
                             Access Living

                          115 W. Chicago Ave.

                         Chicago Illinois 60654

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

Access Living submits this statement for the record for the 
subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving SSI.'' Access 
Living is the Center for Independent Living serving Chicago. We are 
part of the Illinois Network of Centers for Independent Living, the 22 
CILs serving people with disabilities around the state. We provide 
direct services to people with disabilities in the city and lead 
disability systems advocacy work.

The majority of the consumers we serve are low-income people of color, 
many of whom are SSI recipients. Supporting the economic stability of 
our consumers with disabilities is essential for ensuring that they can 
ultimately benefit from the services and programs we provide. For 
example, a core aspect of our work is assisting consumers with 
transitioning out of congregate settings, gaining access to Medicaid 
funded HCBS, and providing transitioning and recently transitioned 
congregate facility residents with peer support and skills training. To 
successfully transition to and thrive in the community, our members 
rely on SSI to pay for food, rent, and other crucial expenses and the 
program desperately needs to be updated.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. The maximum 
benefit is $794 a month, only three fourths of the Federal Poverty 
Level. People on SSI who are married receive even less and people are 
not allowed to save more than $2,000 without losing their benefits. 
Rules about help from family and friends and the amount of earnings or 
other income people can have before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years. SSI was passed to ensure ``that the 
nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live 
on below-poverty incomes'' and because of decades of neglect, it no 
longer fulfills this promise.

People with disabilities often incur high out of pocket medical costs 
that eat up a significant amount of their SSI allowance. However, the 
current standard monthly SSI payment does not account for this hidden 
cost of disability, or the overall cost of living, which has 
significantly increased over time. This reality makes it difficult for 
people with disabilities to make ends meet without taking on another 
job or otherwise seeking other sources of income. However, seeking 
other sources of income may also put a recipient in violation of SSI 
rules, and risk losing their benefits altogether. We need to 
incentivize people's efforts to lift themselves out of poverty, not 
punish them for it.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation, per the SSI Restoration 
Act.

Sincerely,

Angel L. Miles, Ph.D.
Healthcare/Home and Community Based Services Policy Analyst
Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago

                                 ______
                                 
                          Access Living et al.
September 20, 2021

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Re: ``Policy Options for Improving SSI,'' hearing, Tuesday, September 
21, 2021.

Dear Chairman Brown and Subcommittee Members:

The following 20 organizations, which serve and represent thousands of 
Illinois residents who are older adults and people with disabilities, 
jointly write to urge that you include long overdue updates and 
improvements to the Supplemental Security Income (``SSI'') Program in 
the budget reconciliation process now underway:

      Access Living, 115 W. Chicago Ave., Chicago, IL 60654;
      The Arc of Illinois, 9980 190th St., Ste. C, Mokena, IL 60448;
      Disability Resource Center, 77 N. 129th Infantry Drive, Joliet, 
IL 60435;
      Financial Inclusion for All Illinois, 208 S. LaSalle St., Ste. 
1300, Chicago, IL 60603;
      Health and Medicine Policy Research Group, 29 East Madison 
Street, Suite 602, Chicago, IL 60602;
      Heartland Alliance, 208 S. LaSalle St., Ste. 1300, Chicago, IL 
60603;
      Illinois-Iowa Center for Independent Living, 501 11th St., Rock 
Island, IL 61201;
      IMPACT Center for Independent Living, 2735 E. Broadway, Alton, 
IL 62002;
      The Kennedy Forum Illinois, 1543 N. Wells St., Chicago, IL 
60610;
      Lake County Center for Independent Living, 377 N Seymour Avenue, 
Mundelein, IL 60060;
      Legal Action Chicago, 120 S. LaSalle St., Ste. 900, Chicago, IL 
60603;
      Legal Council for Health Justice, 17 N. State St., Ste. 900, 
Chicago, IL 60602;
      Mental Health Summit, 627 W. Fullerton Parkway, Chicago, IL 
60614;
      Metropolitan Family Services, 1 N. Dearborn, Ste. 1000 Chicago, 
IL 60602;
      Progress Center for Independent Living, 7521 Madison St., Forest 
Park, IL 60130;
      Shriver Center on Poverty Law, 67 E. Madison St., Ste. 2108, 
Chicago, IL 60603;
      The Statewide Independent Living Council of Illinois, 1 West Old 
State Capitol Plaza, Ste. 716, Springfield, IL 62701;
      Supportive Housing Providers Association (SHPA), 6 Lawrence 
Square, Springfield, IL 62704;
      Thresholds, 4101 N. Ravenswood Ave., Chicago, IL 60613;
      Woodstock Institute, 67 E. Madison St., Ste. 2108, Chicago, IL 
60603.

In Illinois, nearly 260,000 people rely on SSI to meet their most basic 
needs, including nearly 69,000 Illinoisans age 65 or over.\1\ SSI 
serves thousands of people in every district across Illinois; urban, 
suburban, and rural alike. Including these changes would lift 
approximately 3.3 million people out of poverty nationwide, including 
1.2 million people over age 65 and 1.2 million adults with 
disabilities.\2\ SSI is a crucial but long-neglected safety-net program 
that serves our nation's poorest older adults and people with serious 
disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Illinois Congressional Statistics 2020, available at https://
www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/factsheets/cong_stats/2020/il.pdf (last 
accessed September 20, 2021).
    \2\ ``How Four Proposals To Reform Supplemental Security Income 
Would Reduce Poverty,'' Urban Institute, available at https://
www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/104738/how-four-
proposals-to-reform-supplemental-security-income-would-reduce-
poverty_0_1.pdf (last accessed, September 20, 2021).

SSI is often the sole source of income to pay for the basic needs of 
older adults and individuals living with significant disabilities who 
are supported in their homes by Home and Community Based Services 
(HCBS). SSI benefits must cover housing, food, utilities, clothing, and 
other necessities. While it provides a lifeline to those in need, its 
sub-poverty benefit rate and outdated financial eligibility 
restrictions leave many people struggling to pay rent and meet their 
basic needs. The pandemic and economic crisis has only exacerbated this 
reality. With many SSI limits unchanged for 30 years, updates are vital 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to ensuring well-being and dignity for all Illinoisans.

Bringing SSI into the 21st century will also enable more people to 
access Home and Community Based Services through Medicaid. Without 
adequate income to pay rent and basic living expenses, people cannot 
leave expensive Medicaid-funded institutional care in favor of more 
integrated and less expensive Home and Community Based care. Ensuring 
SSI can more adequately pay for modest costs of living will support the 
use of HCBS.

For these reasons, we urge Congress to take this opportunity to include 
the following long overdue updates to ensure that seniors and people 
with disabilities can live more independent and financially secure 
lives.

1. Increase the Maximum Benefit Level to the Federal Poverty Line

Single adults with no other income receive only $794 per month in SSI. 
This is just 74% of the poverty line. SSI, a program designed to serve 
seniors and people unable to work due to age or disability, should not 
relegate its participants to a sub-poverty struggle to survive.

2. Increase and Index Resource Limits to Enable and Encourage Modest 
                    Savings

Single adults can have no more than $2,000 in countable resources 
before losing eligibility for SSI income completely. Married couples 
are limited to just $3,000 in countable resources. This means for each 
month an individual has $2,001 or more in countable resources, she 
loses the entire $794 monthly benefit. These limits have not changed 
since 1989. These limits must be updated to at least $10,000 for 
individuals and $20,000 for eligible couples so that SSI recipients can 
save for emergencies like a car or home repair without forgoing the 
income they need to pay their regular monthly bills. All households 
encounter unexpected costs and need to be able to save modest amounts 
of money that can be used for an emergency without losing the income 
they need to pay regular monthly bills. Without meaningful ability to 
save, older adults and people with disabilities have often turned to 
high-cost, predatory loans that drive them further into poverty.

3. Update and Index Income Exclusions

The income rules have not been updated since the program's inception in 
1974. Thus, they have lost their real value over time. Just the first 
$20 of unearned income (which includes Social Security Retirement and 
Disability Insurance benefits) is disregarded before a $1 for $1 
reduction is made to the SSI benefit. Only the first $65 of earned 
income is disregarded, and each dollar earned above $65 results in a 
$0.50 reduction in SSI. Raising these exclusions and indexing them will 
enable SSI recipients to supplement their modest SSI benefits when 
possible, further strengthening their economic and overall stability.

4. Eliminate Punitive ``In-Kind Support and Maintenance'' Income Rules

Currently, if a loved one or church helps an SSI recipient in need by 
pitching in to pay rent or buy a bag of groceries, that SSI recipient's 
benefit will be reduced by up to one-third. During the COVID-19 
pandemic, we have seen neighbors and communities come to the assistance 
of people in need; this should be encouraged, not punished. Current In-
Kind Support and Maintenance rules disincentivize mutual aid and pose 
an administrative burden to the Social Security Administration. In-Kind 
Support and Maintenance rules should be eliminated.

We appreciate that there are many important interests seeking inclusion 
in the budget reconciliation package. SSI has been neglected for too 
long. The time is now to ensure that 260,000 Illinois older adults and 
people with disabilities do not remain entrenched in poverty any 
longer.

Sincerely,

Access Living
The Arc of Illinois
Disability Resource Center
Financial Inclusion for All Illinois
Health and Medicine Policy Research Group
Heartland Alliance
Illinois-Iowa Center for Independent Living
IMPACT Center for Independent Living
The Kennedy Forum Illinois
Lake County Center for Independent Living
Legal Action Chicago
Legal Council for Health Justice
Mental Health Summit
Metropolitan Family Services
Progress Center for Independent Living
Shriver Center on Poverty Law
The Statewide Independent Living Council of Illinois
Supportive Housing Providers Association (SHPA)
Thresholds
Woodstock Institute

                                 ______
                                 
           Aging and Disability Resource Center of the North

                          Sawyer County Branch

                             (866) 663-3607

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

The ADRC-N Sawyer County Wisconsin submits this statement for the 
record for the Subcommittee Hearing: Policy Options for Improving SSI. 
ADRCs across the country provide assistance to elders and people with 
disabilities in accessing benefits and long term care programs. Our 
county residents rely on SSI to pay for food, rent, and other crucial 
expenses and the program desperately needs to be updated.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. The maximum 
benefit is $794 a month, only three fourths of the Federal Poverty 
Level. People on SSI who are married receive even less and people are 
not allowed to save more than $2,000 without losing their benefits. 
Rules about help from family and friends and the amount of earnings or 
other income people can have before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years. SSI was passed to ensure ``that the 
nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live 
on below-poverty incomes'' and because of decades of neglect, it no 
longer fulfills this promise.

The current asset rules punish SSI recipients who wish to become more 
independent. A SSI recipient can not save money to purchase or repair a 
vehicle needed for employment. If a recipient is lucky enough to own a 
home s/he cannot save for upkeep and major repairs.

There are not enough low income houses and apartments in rural areas to 
accommodate the needs of elders who rely on SSI as their only income. A 
SSI recipient would need to spend \2/3\ or more of the SSI benefit to 
pay the average (unsubsidized) rent in this county.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Lauri Perlick, Adult Long Term Care Supervisor
ADRC-N Sawyer County Branch Manager and
Information and Assistance Specialist

                                 ______
                                 
                 Statement Submitted by Julie Alexander
I am a person with a disability writing in support of S. 2065/H.R. 
3824. These bills would really help individuals with disabilities have 
enough money to live more adequately in todays economy. Right now SSI 
is set at a monthly benefit that is lower than the poverty level and 
the asset level is very low (under $2,000). People can't save and have 
enough money to pay daily and monthly expenses. Also two people on SSI 
who get married get penalized because there is a reduction in their 
benefits and a financial penalty because they have gotten married. As a 
person with a disability I would really like to see this legislation 
passed so that people with disabilities can contribute to our economy 
and live more productive lives.

Thank you for listening to my comments. Have a nice day.

                                 ______
                                 
                                The Arc

                     1825 K Street, NW, Suite 1200

                          Washington, DC 20006

                                                 September 20, 2021

Chairman Brown
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance

Ranking Member Young
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young,

The Arc of the United States writes to thank you for holding this 
hearing on the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. The Arc is 
the largest national 
community-based organization advocating for people with intellectual 
and developmental disabilities (IDD) and their families. The SSI 
program is particularly important to people with IDD and their 
families; over 20% of SSI beneficiaries are adults or children with an 
intellectual disability, including a disproportionate number of people 
of color with an intellectual disability.

In 1972, SSI was enacted to keep the lowest income adults and children 
with disabilities and older adults from living in poverty. However, due 
to decades of neglect, the program no longer lives up to those ideals 
and leaves peoples with disabilities and older adults trapped in deep 
poverty. Our members encounter major challenges with the $2,000 asset 
limit that prevents individuals from saving. The $65 earned income 
disregard and $20 unearned income disregard discourage SSI 
beneficiaries from working. Many people with IDD do not marry because 
of the marriage penalties that reduce both benefits and asset limits 
for married couples on SSI. Others cannot afford rent and other 
necessary expenses on the sub-poverty benefits. And all of these issues 
are complicated by the penalties for accepting help from family and 
friends.

Chairman Brown's SSI Restoration Act, which we strongly support, would 
address these challenges and make many other needed changes to SSI. We 
thank the Chairman for this legislation and his focus on the needs of 
people with disabilities. These changes to SSI are long overdue. We 
would urge you to include improvements to SSI in the upcoming budget 
reconciliation package or any other legislative vehicle. These 
desperately needed changes would improve the lives of the 8 million 
people with disabilities and seniors who rely on SSI.

Almost 50 years ago, Congress made a commitment to the lowest income 
adults and children with disabilities--that they would not be forced 
live in deep poverty because of their disabilities. We urge you to 
reaffirm this commitment and update SSI.

Sincerely,

Bethany Lilly
Senior Director of Income Policy
The Arc of the United States

                                 ______
                                 
               Life Works, The Arc of Cowlitz County, WA

                          906 New York Street

                           Longview, WA 98632

                          Tel: (360) 577-9093

                          Fax: (360) 577-9137

                      https://www.lifeworkswa.org/

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

Life Works, The Arc of Cowlitz County submits this statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' Life Works provides residential, employment, day services and 
individual family support and advocacy to all individuals with an 
intellectual disability in our county here in Washington State. Our 
members rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. The maximum 
benefit is $794 a month, only three fourths of the Federal Poverty 
Level. People on SSI who are married receive even less and people are 
not allowed to save more than $2,000 without losing their benefits. 
Rules about help from family and friends and the amount of earnings or 
other income people can have before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years.

The lack of progress towards the amount of the benefit and the saving 
cap has created an endless cycle of poverty with very little hope 
towards achieving status and contribution in the community. Families 
and individuals wanting to break out of this cycle of poverty find 
themselves trapped into regulations and support that not only defeats 
their physical efforts but creates an emotional trap that continuously 
impacts them with confusion, desperation, and often serious mental and 
emotional instability. The only way to overcome this circle of 
challenges is start with this legislative victory and allow these 
individuals and families to know that their voices are heard; that they 
are valued as people and that they are supported to be contributing 
members of their communities.

For these reasons, we ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in 
the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

David Hill
Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 
                            The Arc Michigan

                      1325 South Washington Avenue

                        Lansing, Michigan 48910

                             (517) 487-5426

                             1-800-292-7851

                          Fax: (517) 487-0303

                      Website: https://arcmi.org/

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

The Arc Michigan submits this statement for the record for the 
subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving SSI.'' The mission 
of The Arc Michigan is to ensure that people with Developmental 
Disabilities are valued in order that they and their families can 
participate fully in and contribute to their community. It is not 
possible to participate fully in your community or make much of a 
contribution when you do not have enough money to meet your own basic 
needs. Our members rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be 
updated.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. The maximum 
benefit is $794 a month, only three fourths of the Federal Poverty 
Level. People on SSI who are married receive even less and people are 
not allowed to save more than $2,000 without losing their benefits. 
Rules about help from family and friends and the amount of earnings or 
other income people can have before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years.

SSI is intended to pay for food and lodging for an individual, but the 
$794 monthly Federal Benefit Rate no longer meets those most basic of 
needs. It will barely cover rent in most areas of our state (one of the 
least expensive states in the country for rent), and leaves little to 
nothing to cover the other financial obligations of living.

Should someone be fortunate enough to be able to set aside some 
savings, or to inherit even a small amount, they are at risk of losing 
their SSI. Yet the savings that will end their benefits isn't even 
enough to cover the minor emergencies most of us must face, such as 
home repairs or replacing a vehicle. Right now, if you receive SSI in 
Michigan and one of your grandparents leaves you $5,000 in their will, 
you must immediately spend at least $3,000 or find a way to shelter the 
savings. If you end the calendar month with the money in your bank 
account, you will lose your SSI and your SSI Medicaid eligibility.

While our country generally values and encourages the tradition of 
marriage, for people receiving SSI marriage is penalized. If two people 
receiving SSI marry, their monthly benefit rate is reduced to $595.50 
per spouse ($1,191 per couple). If a person on SSI marries a person who 
is not getting SSI, then the income of the person who does not receive 
SSI is ``deemed'' to the SSI recipient and often results in a loss of 
benefits. This leaves the former SSI recipient with no income of their 
own, making them much more vulnerable to abuse, and without the 
financial ability to leave an abusive relationship.

Finally, one of the most important ways to be a contributing member of 
your community is through employment, yet we discourage people 
receiving SSI from even trying employment by immediately reducing their 
benefit if their monthly gross earnings are over the $65 Earned Income 
Exclusion (EIE). Increasing the EIE will allow people to engage in the 
dignity of work without fear.

For these reasons, we ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in 
the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Sherri Boyd
Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 
                         The Arc of New Jersey

                         985 Livingston Avenue

                       North Brunswick, NJ 08902

                             T 732-246-2525

                             F 732-214-1834

                         https://www.arcnj.org/

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

The Arc of New Jersey submits this statement for the record for the 
subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving SSI.'' The Arc of 
New Jersey promotes and protects the human rights of individuals with 
intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and actively supports 
their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout 
their lifetimes. We advocate for many people with IDD who depend on the 
SSI program in order to live in neighborhoods across the state. New 
Jersey has a very high cost of living and those on SSI, if they are 
able to work, can typically only do so on a part-time basis. The 
benefits these individuals receive from SSI make a world of difference 
as these funds help them pay their bills and remain independent and 
living in the community.

Unfortunately, the SSI program has not been updated for a number of 
years and benefits have not kept up with rising costs, especially in 
places like New Jersey where housing costs and other related expenses 
are high. The current maximum benefit of $794 per month is only three 
fourths of the Federal Poverty Level. We hear from many individuals who 
simply can't live on that amount of money and who struggle to pay bills 
from month to month. These are people who require some assistance to 
live independently but who do not require around the clock support. 
Think about all the costs that have gone up, especially since the 
pandemic began, and then imagine receiving a benefit of only $794 per 
month. We hear the struggles people with intellectual and developmental 
disabilities grapple with as they strive to live an independent life 
but who can't make ends meet with such limited funds.

We know that increasing that monthly benefit, even to just the Federal 
Poverty Level, would go a long way toward assisting people with IDD who 
have difficulty meeting their basic needs. The individuals who call our 
office looking for help, they deserve to remain in the community, but 
they need the assistance of the SSI program to be successful. And they 
need that SSI program to reflect current day costs. People depend on 
SSI to have basic economic security, and for many, the program is no 
longer providing that security. For these reasons, we ask Congress to 
include improvements to SSI in the upcoming budget reconciliation 
legislation.

Sincerely,

Thomas Baffuto
Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

The Arc of New Jersey submits this statement for the record for the 
subcommittee hearing on September 21, 2021: ``Policy Options for 
Improving SSI.'' The Arc of New Jersey has a long history of promoting 
and protecting the human rights of individuals with intellectual and 
developmental disabilities (IDD), and we advocate for their full 
inclusion and participation in the community throughout their 
lifetimes.

Many people with IDD for whom we advocate depend on the SSI program. 
Unfortunately, the SSI program has not been updated for many years. In 
addition to complaints about the low monthly maximum benefit of $794 
per month, I am also aware of concerns because individual SSI 
beneficiaries are not permitted to have more than $2,000 in countable 
resources (or $3,000 in resources for a married couple). A countable 
resource includes money in any type of bank account as well as cash. 
Individuals who exceed this resource maximum will either be denied 
eligibility for SSI or, if eligibility had previously been determined, 
their SSI will likely be terminated. This extremely low resource limit 
causes considerable anxiety and frustration. For example, if an 
individual with IDD wants to save money to move from the parent's home 
into an apartment, the landlord will require a significant security 
deposit, equal to one month's rent, and sometimes the requirement is 
for a security deposit of 1\1/2\ month's rent. With rental costs in New 
Jersey being very high, it is not possible to save the amount of money 
needed for the security deposit (and also the first month's rent), 
while also keeping one's resources below the $2,000 maximum.

An additional important concern is related to the COVID relief bills 
that were passed by Congress. We know Social Security has determined 
that many of these payments are ``disaster relief,'' and should not be 
counted as violating income or asset rules. However, we are very 
concerned that there will be confusion on the part of some staff who 
review the resources of SSI beneficiaries, and may determine that an 
individual has exceeded the $2,000 resource limit--even though the 
money in the bank account in excess of $2,000 is disaster relief. We 
fear that some SSI beneficiaries with IDD could be confronted with 
termination from SSI due to that type of error.

An increase in the SSI resource limit to an amount such as $10,000 
would allow individuals with IDD to save for items that are important 
and are consistent with living a full life in the community. In 
addition, we support an increase in the SSI resource limit to $20,000 
for married individuals. A substantial increase in the resource limit 
would also alleviate our concern about the possibility of errors from 
staff who were not fully aware of the disaster-relief rules.

As Congress considers policy options to improve SSI, we are hopeful 
that the very low resource limit for SSI beneficiaries will be 
substantially expanded.

Sincerely,

Beverly Roberts
Director of The Arc of NJ's Mainstreaming Medical Care Program

                                 ______
                                 
                          The Arc of Oklahoma

                        2516 E 71st St., Suite A

                          Tulsa, OK 74136-5531

                              918-582-8272

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

The Arc of Oklahoma submits this statement for the record for the 
subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving SSI.'' The Arc of 
Oklahoma promotes and protects the human rights of individuals with 
intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and actively supports 
their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout 
their lifetimes. Those we serve rely on SSI and the program desperately 
needs to be updated.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. The maximum 
benefit is $794 a month, only three fourths of the Federal Poverty 
Level. People on SSI who are married receive even less and people are 
not allowed to save more than $2,000 without losing their benefits. 
Rules about help from family and friends and the amount of earnings or 
other income people can have before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years.

We believe public policy should encourage rather than inhibit planning 
for financial independence, productivity, and self-determination of 
people with IDD. Instead, SSI leaves people with disabilities and older 
adults trapped in deep poverty, for fear of going over the limits and 
losing benefits. In addition, the SSI marriage penalty continues to be 
a top issue for our state and local People First chapters, made up of 
adults with IDD who act and speak on their own behalf and on behalf of 
their peers who cannot speak for themselves.

For these reasons, we ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in 
the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Lisa Turner
Chief Executive Officer

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Connie Arnold

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Connie Arnold, and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' In the distant past, I relied on the Supplemental Security 
Income (SSI) program to meet my basic living needs before being 
switched over to another childhood disability benefit program. The SSI 
benefit rate and work disincentives have kept myself, and other persons 
with disabilities including seniors, living in poverty for decades. 
This includes persons with disabilities with a higher college 
education. SSI benefits, program rules, work disincentives, resource 
limits are desperately in need of updating. Many of the rules have not 
been changed since SSI was passed in 1972, and it no longer ensures 
``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer 
have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

In 1978 when I was eighteen, I was off to college, but soon learned 
that my life would be limited by SSI rules that kept me from working as 
a result of my need for Medicaid benefits attached to the SSI program. 
The Medicaid benefits were necessary to continue to qualify for 
attendant help for my need to get out of bed, use the restroom, shower, 
dress, eat, and function throughout my day in California. The low rate 
for SSI means that persons with disabilities must obtain subsidized 
housing or stay living with their family for decades because rents are 
higher than SSI benefit payments allow to cover food, clothing, 
shelter, and other necessities in life. SSI benefits' eligibility meant 
and requires keeping bank accounts below the $2,000 limit for 
individuals or lose Medicaid eligibility or undergo draconian SSI 
payback provisions for exceeding resource limits. It means never 
marrying especially for those requiring attendant services. SSI is 
linked to eligibility for Medicaid for healthcare for long-term 
services and supports essential to staying living independently outside 
of my family home or an institution. In my opinion, long-term services 
and supports should be completely de-linked from Medicaid as it is a 
matter of human and civil rights.

Eligibility for Medicaid funded attendant programs impacted decisions 
on accepting or not pursuing job opportunities. Reluctantly, jobs were 
bypassed because of ridiculous benefit exchange calculations and 
acquiring and maintaining employment is difficult itself because of 
ongoing disability discrimination in hiring practices, and as an 
advocate and woman with a significant disability, I applied, but never 
was hired after completing college. Additionally, SSI rules keeps 
persons with disabilities from saving money without forfeiting benefit 
deductions. SSI rules creates threats for losing Medicaid funded 
attendant care with a myriad of detrimental rules to keep track of and 
deal with SSA on an ongoing basis if a person with a significant 
disability accepts a job. SSI program rules made it too scary and 
difficult for myself and many others with severe disabilities to lose 
the income and care we needed if we got a job. The SSI system is 
oppressive, burdensome with complex rules including in-kind support and 
maintenance (ISM), obscene resource limits and asset tests, payback 
provisions for from what is considered an overpayment from the already 
SSI low-income received. SSI program rules and regulations stymies 
individual ambition and opportunities for persons with disabilities to 
risk becoming part of productive mainstream employment. In my own case, 
it has led to working without pay to maintain other critical benefit 
eligibility for long-term services and supports, caused regrets, and 
created dependency on another broken system.

The SSI benefit itself is so low that people can barely afford to live, 
dream, achieve employment, or save for necessities in life due to low 
asset limits, and it often creates lifelong dependency on the public 
system, and SSI improvements must be modernized as part of the work by 
Congress.

I support the comments submitted by the Justice in Aging and other 
disability organizations.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Connie Arnold
Disability Rights Advocate 30+ Years

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Brenda Bachechi
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

I have worked in the California Public School System for 21 years, 
since fall of 2000 (as an educator and administrator). Upon retiring I 
found that I would not have access to my full Social Security benefits, 
even though I paid into Social Security prior to working in California, 
due to the Government offset for pensions. While this was upsetting, as 
I should have access to funds that I earned, it was even more 
disturbing to learn that I would not have access to my husband's social 
security either.

My husband passed away in November 2019, at age 52 from brain cancer 
(Glioblastoma).

He worked in corporate America his entire life and paid into the Social 
Security system for over 30 years. To have his social security 
benefits, which I should receive as his widow, be impacted by my 
pension is outrageous.

So the current government policy, which impacts workers in 14 states, 
creates a system in which both myself and my husband paid into Social 
Security but I will not receive any assistance in retirement. This 
impacts not only my standard of living but also that of my adult 
children who are in college. Basically, we made a charitable 
contribution to the Social Security system.

I would request that the subcommittee evaluate the current policy so 
that citizens who have paid into our Social Security are recognized and 
receive the appropriate compensation.

Sincerely,

Dr. Brenda Bachechi

                                 ______
                                 
                    Letter Submitted by Nurit Baruch
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

To whom it may concern:

My son developed schizophrenia at the age of 25 after graduating 
university. For him to be independent is crucial for his self esteem 
but because he's paying 70% of his SSI check for a room with no kitchen 
he needs to beg for money to finish the month.

So three things: he should pay only 30% for rent; SSI should adjust to 
cost of living; and the law should change about family and friends 
helping with money.

Thank you for your understanding.

Nurit Baruch

                                 ______
                                 
                     Letter Submitted by Jodi Bayer
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Jodi Bayer and I rely on Supplemental Security Income to 
survive. The program desperately needs to be updated. The name is 
absurd because if you're disabled and SSI is your only source of 
income, it's not supplementing anything, and anyone receiving it 
certainly doesn't feel secure. Many of the rules have not been changed 
since SSI was passed in 1972 and it no longer ensures ``that the 
nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live 
on below-poverty incomes.''

I'm unable to work. I have severe chronic pain due to fibromyalgia, 
peripheral neuropathy and Sjogren's syndrome, which is an autoimmune 
disease. The list of symptoms that I have is much too long to include 
here, so I'll just mention a few: I have severe pain in my muscles 
(fibromyalgia), my nerves (peripheral neuropathy) and my joints 
(Sjogren's syndrome). I have cognitive problems that flare-up, affect 
my concentration and make it difficult to get my thoughts together. 
When I'm speaking to someone, I often have trouble finding the words. 
It took me several days to write this letter. I have hand tremors, so I 
used voice-typing and dictated my thoughts to my computer. I pretty 
much rambled about anything that popped into my head, whether I could 
find the correct words or not. Eventually, I had enough information to 
piece together a coherent and heartfelt letter.

Like most chronic pain patients, I suffer from clinical depression. I'm 
constantly worried about money (or lack of it), which causes so much 
stress and anxiety. Everything has gotten so expensive since the 
pandemic began. It was difficult before, but now it's so much harder to 
survive. There's also the added expense of masks, disinfectants and 
hand sanitizer. On top of that, I live in New Jersey, which is an 
expensive state to live in. It would be nice to be able to buy the 
basic necessities (food, clothing, etc.) without worrying if I can pay 
bills. I would love to get out of debt and save some money. Maybe do 
something fun once in a while.

I would be homeless if it wasn't for my sister, who lets me live in her 
house. However, I lose \1/3\ of my SSI because of that, which I don't 
understand because my housing doesn't cost the government anything. It 
makes no sense. I'm being punished because my sister doesn't want me to 
be homeless. Because SSI is so low, I can't afford to give my sister 
any money, which causes friction with my brother-in-law. The whole 
situation is taking a toll on my mental health, which affects physical 
health by causing flare-ups. Raising the SSI benefit to at least the 
federal poverty level and eliminating the ``in-kind support'' rule 
would be life-changing. Maybe I'd be able to look to the future again, 
instead of constantly worrying about survival in the present, and 
feeling like nobody cares. I'm not living. I'm existing.

The April 16th letter to President Biden and Vice President Harris said 
that if the original $85 income exclusion was indexed to inflation, it 
would be $745 today, so why did you reduce it to $399 in the current 
proposal? It should be at least $500. In today's world, that's not a 
lot of money. To be honest, I have no idea how I would make any extra 
money, but it would be nice to know that I could without being 
punished. Right now, the rules have created a poverty trap. It's both 
depressing and terrifying to know that there's no way out. There's no 
point in even trying because you risk losing what you already have.

Earn some money: benefits cut.
Save over $2,000: benefits cut.
Get married: benefits cut.
Get help from friends or family: benefits cut.

The rules are ridiculous, punitive and cruel! SSI recipients are 
treated with contempt. In our society, the value of a human being is 
often determined by income. SSI recipients are viewed as worthless by 
our fellow citizens and sometimes, even by family and friends. It's so 
hard to keep relationships. My friends have moved on. I couldn't afford 
to go out to dinner, or go away for the weekend or just do something 
fun with the group. They all got married and had kids. But for me, a 
relationship and possibly marriage meant an end to my benefits. What if 
I got married and it didn't work out? Where would that leave me?

My self-esteem is less than zero. I have nothing, I have no one and I'm 
literally trapped by a program that's supposed to help me. I'm grateful 
for SSI because I would certainly be dead without it. However, the 
benefit is much too low and the rules make it impossible to have a 
better life. I feel like I'm being punished for being disabled. I feel 
useless. I can't get a job because I never know how I'm going to feel 
from day-to-day, or even hour-to-hour. I'm constantly in severe pain, 
but it's so much more than that. Will I have full body tremors today? 
Or vertigo? Will I be too exhausted to get out of bed? Will the ``brain 
fog'' act up and affect my comprehension or my ability to speak 
clearly? The list goes on and on. Who's going to hire someone that's so 
unreliable?

The income rules are unnecessarily complicated and punitive. Even the 
programs that are supposedly designed to encourage work and 
independence are bogged down with complex rules and regulations. I'd 
like to find a way to make a little extra money by doing something 
online, but frankly, the time, effort, pain and exhaustion involved 
wouldn't even be worth it because I would be penalized. I would only be 
allowed to keep $85, free and clear. Anything after that, SSI takes 
half of my earnings. If, by some miracle, I started making more than 
the allowable limit, my benefits would be terminated and I'd be right 
back where I started. There's no way to get ahead! What's the point?

So I try to save money by buying things on sale or going to discount 
and dollar stores. I could reduce my expenses if I joined one of those 
Internet companies that give you cash back for shopping through their 
website, but I was told by SSA that it would count as income. Rebates 
or any kind of reimbursement is treated as income. How is it income? 
Money that I spent is being returned to me. It's not free money. They 
are literally returning my money. If I didn't spend it in the first 
place, I wouldn't be getting a dime. It's just like a discount or a 
coupon. The only difference is that discounts happen at the point-of-
sale and rebates/reimbursements are delayed. There needs to be some 
common sense about this kind of thing. I can't understand why credit 
card company rewards and ``cash back'' programs are considered rebates, 
but other kinds of rebates, ``cash-back'' and reimbursements are 
income. Do you realize that you're punishing SSI recipients for saving 
money on a purchase?

Even though I believe the income rules don't make sense, they don't 
affect me at the moment because I don't know how I could possibly make 
extra money, anyway. If I did find a way, even if it was only 100 
dollars a month, it would do so much to raise my self-esteem. Maybe I 
wouldn't feel so expendable and useless. Maybe certain family members 
wouldn't treat me like I was nothing. It's horrible to be viewed with 
contempt because of something you have no control over. But even the 
government treats me like I'm trying to cheat the system or get a 
``free ride''. I don't know why, but in 2017, my case was suddenly 
under review. I was stunned. I had to prove my disabilities all over 
again! The stress caused major symptom flare-ups. SSA sent me to a 
doctor, which I was dreading because their doctors are always very 
skeptical. They're looking for fraud. But after interviewing and 
examining me, she said, ``Why are you here?'' She didn't understand why 
I was being reviewed. Let's be realistic: it's been 30 years. I'm not 
faking and I won't get better. Who would choose a life of forced 
poverty and isolation?

It's horrible to be looked at like you're lazy, crazy or lying. People 
only see me when I'm feeling well enough to go out. They don't 
understand that I have to ``rest up'' before going to the store, and I 
crash as soon as I get home. I even have some family members who don't 
believe me. Just because I went to a BBQ, that doesn't mean I'm fine. 
It's exhausting for me. I go home and crash on the couch for hours, 
with ice packs on one part of my body and a heating pad on another. 
Very often, it takes a couple of days to recover.

I depend on SSI. I would have no income without it. But $573 a month 
only goes so far, and these days, it's not far at all. The SSI program 
started with good intentions, but something has gone horribly wrong. 
It's been broken by decades of neglect and the obvious disdain that so 
many people feel for those of us who need help. It's not working 
anymore. Year after year, prices go up, but benefits don't. For 
decades, no one has cared. If things don't change soon, every person 
whose only source of income is SSI will be hanging on the edge of 
homelessness. We all feel it. We all fear it. There's always money for 
war and tax cuts. Why isn't there ever any money for the disabled and 
the elderly? We need the entire SSI Restoration Act to pass.

      Raise SSI's monthly benefits to 100% of the federal poverty 
level and index them to inflation.

      Eliminate benefit reductions for receiving ``in-kind'' support 
from friends or family.

      Update and index the asset limit to $10,000 for an individual 
and $20,000 for a couple.

      Update and index SSI's income rules to allow at least $500 a 
month from working--the proposed $399 is too low. The original $85 
income exclusion, indexed to inflation, would be $745 today, so why 
only $399? The proposed $123 a month in assistance from other sources 
is disgraceful! That should be higher, especially when you consider the 
fact the elderly would be most affected by that rule.

      Eliminate the marriage penalty and increase the benefit for 
married couples to double the individual rate, to put marriage equality 
within reach for SSI beneficiaries.

By ignoring the problems with the SSI program for decades, you've 
condemned disabled and elderly people to a sub-poverty life. It's time 
to fix it. I'm asking Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation. Thank you for allowing me 
to submit my statement.

Sincerely,

Jodi Bayer

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Dawn E. Bedell
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

               stating my view as a disabled u.s. citizen
September 27, 2021

My name is Dawn E. Bedell of Bay Mills Indian Community raised in 
Chicago most of my life. The last 3 years of my life here has been in 
isolation and fear of what has become of our system.

I grew up on the Northside Uptown area where things were hard without 
proper diagnosis and exposure to unhealthy lifestyles. I'm still in 
treatment for mental illness and A.D.H.D. I received good treatment and 
medical maintenance. I took advantage of resources on the Northside 
that would save my life.

I continue to survive now on the Southside where I learned much about 
being in my own apartment paying market rate rent and where life is 
very unfair on the west and south sides of Chicago. Food deserts, high 
crime, and lack of integrity and poor quality in housing and medical 
care systems are the norm.

I had so many dreams when I came here and now terrified of what I've 
seen in regards of what I've seen. I still keep my networks and health 
care on the Northside but my outreach Threshold team was transferred to 
the area I live in and I am so grateful.

People like me cannot socialize with the likes of active drug addicts 
or those in high-risk lifestyles and it seems because of income we are 
subjected to having to put up with much risk. Bullets, lack of safe 
secure living environments, and housing opportunities are scarce and 
when available placement is usually in areas more violent or far from 
quality health care.

The income we have via SSI has been priced out by rental agencies and 
landlords who often require an individual to have 3 the rent. I was 
fortunate to find a place to be on my own so I could be free from 
roommating with toxic people or others who distracted me from living a 
healthier lifestyle.

It is hard because some things must be sacrificed; an example of that 
would be having to go without hygiene products or cleaning to pay the 
light bill or phone. I often wonder how those who don't have an income 
survive but I look at the news and see the alerts of the increase in 
crime. There so many barriers to overcome; some are very hard such as 
how to continue taking medication if there is no food?

If people are stuck trying to get basic needs met, how then are they 
expected to become self sufficient, even if given health care or 
treatment? Especially if health care is overloaded with cases and 
lacking in resources needed to supply a way to maintain stability 
medically or in housing. I feel terrified most of the time and keep 
busy either with art or learning to sew because I can't afford to buy 
clothes and have physical issues with my hip. I see why people are so 
desperate on this end and it is unfair that many are left to live under 
bridges or other places; it even seems people working in these fields 
are desensitized.

It is not an easy life to be on SSI and losing hope in a system that 
saved your life on the Northside and almost kills you on the Southside. 
My treatment will be ongoing for the rest of my life because I didn't 
choose to live in poverty like Ben Carson says. It is not a mind-set 
when one must endure hardships to keep mental health or physical health 
needs maintained in a culture of profit over people.

My goal here in this email is to express the needs of those disabled 
like me who feel stuck and have lost hope in our systems.

Dawn E. Bedell

                                 ______
                                 
                Letter Submitted by Danielle E. Bernard
United States Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Danielle Bernard, and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I am an advocate and some of my clients rely on SSI and the 
program desperately needs to be updated. Many of the rules have not 
been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 and it no longer ensures 
``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer 
have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

As an advocate, I discuss the limitation of SSI with my middle-class 
friends. These are friends who think that SSI recipients are getting 
rich or gaming the system to collect SSI benefits. I counter their 
emotion with facts. I ask them to imagine buying groceries for 
themselves and their family with just $784 a month and see how rich you 
feel. The amount does not change based on the size of the family. In 
addition, they must pay their rent and utilities out of the same sum. 
Are people really scamming the system to live in poverty?

As an advocate, clients tell me how excited they are that they are 
about to get married. Instead of being excited about this milestone in 
their lives, I feel obligated counsel them on how a marriage may affect 
their SSI income. People still get married, but I do not understand why 
Congress thinks that people's expenses go down simply because they get 
married or that a married couple need less resources because they got 
married. I can only believe that this decision that married people need 
less comes from a place of sexism that we, as a nation, have out grown. 
We can do better than that.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Danielle E. Bernard

                                 ______
                                 
                 Letter Submitted by Kathleen A. Bestor
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

I recently became involved in assisting my 52 year old nephew who has 
been receiving SSI since he turned 18. I am involved because his mother 
is deceased and his father was recently diagnosed with dementia.

The assistance provided to our family by SSI benefits has been life-
saving. How-
ever . . .

I was stunned to discover that the max he can accumulate is $2,000. He 
recently received a large back payment--presumably the result of an 
error on the part of the government but as we have received no 
explanation, it is hard to be sure. That money would be wonderful to 
have available for his care in the future but as near as I can tell, we 
can't save it and it must be spent within 9 months of receipt. He lives 
independently now but has several health problems and will likely 
require full time care at some point. I would love to set that money 
aside so we can be sure he is well cared for when the inevitable 
happens. I was told by one lawyer that it is possible to set up a trust 
to hold the money but she wanted a $6,500 retainer to work on it. 
Didn't seem to me to be a good use of those funds. . . .

I was also stunned to discover that pretty much any monetary help my 
nephew receives from family and friends can be counted against his 
benefits. Honestly, who thinks that is a good idea?

Please support the many changes to this program proposed by its 
sponsors. Surely we can help those least able to help themselves.

Thank you.

Kathleen A. Bestor

                                 ______
                                 
                 Letter Submitted by Christopher Blake
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Living comfortably or living luxuriously? I believe every American 
should be able to afford having a decent, meaningful life, whatever 
that may mean to the person. If you are not willing to do this, then 
meet us halfway and give us the help and assistance needed to work by 
factoring in and understanding the limitations caused by society such 
as transportation and other benefits (including social security).

It forces us to play a difficult balancing act while earning enough 
money without losing benefits. The ABLE account does help with some of 
these issues, but it is only a start. Most of us with disabilities who 
work or want to work are faced with a confusing system that is hard to 
navigate. Some people simply cannot work due to their disability but 
should be able to have the same financial opportunities as everyone 
else and not have no forfeit monies based on said disability. Some 
disabilities affect learning and education that will affect the amount 
of money that person can earn, such as being forced to take minimum 
wage jobs, making a ``comfortable life.''

By this term I mean more than having a roof over our heads, but also 
enough money to have healthy foods in the fridge, decent clothes, the 
ability to pay bills and enjoy a meal out, of perhaps even a vacation--
which I would consider justifiable as ``comfortable.'' It makes it 
nearly impossible to save money in the event of an emergency, or 
something as simple as a home repair or the purchase of a new 
appliance.

The rules and regulations are most confusing for people with 
disabilities, especially when receiving multiple benefits which can 
interact and alter each other. This also hinders a person with a 
disability. With all the benefits that are available, none really 
explain their relationship with each other and how they may tip the 
balance, possibly into a downward spiral. These changes can be both 
positive or negative, but usually this result isn't learned until days, 
weeks, months or even years later.

Many of these lessons I unfortunately learned the hard way. Think of us 
not as a burden, but instead a partner, and if you are able to assist 
us correctly, we can be equal in both the work force and society.

Christopher Blake

                                 ______
                                 
                Letter Submitted by Samuel Ray Bradbury
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Samuel Bradbury and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972.

My story, you can talk about how low benefits are and how hard that 
makes it to afford things, how marriage penalties have hurt you or kept 
you from getting married, how you can't get help from family members 
without it messing up your benefits, or about problems you've had 
working or with asset limits. This was already written as a template 
and is every-bit true, Even if you cant get our monthly payments up to 
the poverty level (I hope you can) could you try to include the other 
common sense changes? Please, I know everyone's vying for the funds, 
but even changing the outdated and (lets be honest) cruel rules to more 
of that of the SSI Restoration Act would be so helpful. Thanks!

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation. Just a P.S. here, think of 
the ``poverty'' level. Okay, we have, we do, live under the ``poverty'' 
level. Under it--as in below it. Come on man, we need a break already. 
Sorry, that was just an after thought.

Sincerely,

Samuel Ray Bradbury

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Kathryn Carroll
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Kathryn Carroll and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I have previously relied on SSI. The program desperately needs 
to be updated. Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was 
passed in 1972 and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, 
blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live on below-
poverty incomes.''

I was born legally blind. My family helped me apply for Social Security 
Insurance (SSI) once I became eligible. I was denied the first time. My 
family helped me apply again, and I was approved. It made sense to me 
that I would need assistance since I was working on getting training 
and equipment from the New York State Commission for the Blind that 
would help future employers overcome their prejudice against hiring me 
for being legally blind. Furthermore, work was difficult to obtain 
without substantial assistance as I would have to rely on poor public 
transit or rides from volunteers to get me to and from a job. This was 
true whether I was still a high school student wanting to make a little 
money or a college student returning home.

It was clear to me from the outset that SSI benefits were hardly 
sufficient to live on. I was only able to pursue higher education with 
the combined resources of the Commission for the Blind, academic 
scholarships, and SSI. Even so, I had to start accruing credit card 
debt.

When I completed by higher education, things were the worst they had 
been. After law school, I had to survive solely on SSI while my credit 
card debt remained, and grew. To provide some context, I was receive 
just under $500 per month in SSI. I was living with one of my parents. 
That same parent today is renting out the same space I occupied in his 
home for $1,200 per month. There is simply no way to survive on SSI. 
Because the benefits are so low, beneficiaries are put in the terrible 
position of trying to eek out an existence while wanting to change our 
life situation but unable bear the loss of the few benefits we get. 
While surviving on SSI, I needed to find a job. But paying for Internet 
service, food, transportation to job interviews and job fairs, and 
maintaining attire appropriate to a professional interview was 
impossible without the charity of other people. If I had to move to 
take a job, I would have been unable to save the money to pay the 
security on an apartment. I was able to make a very small amount of 
money working in a friend's small business ``off the books.'' I had to 
work for an hour just to pay for my para-transit ride to and from the 
business each day.

There are programs to help people transition to work while surviving on 
SSI, but they did not assist me. Being highly educated, I knew I was 
not a top priority for the recipient of my Ticket to Work ``ticket.'' I 
still had to spend the money to travel to meet with them in New York 
City to be assessed for work readiness. I received no connections to 
organizations willing to hire me. It felt like my whole life became a 
tug-of-war between a $495 payment each month and whatever my most in 
arrears expense was with me in the middle. I felt embarrassed.

Today, I am working, but still paying off the credit card debt I 
accrued while surviving on SSI. I am appalled at the level of 
assistance we provide to people we assess to be eligible. If anything, 
we should be ensuring that people's needs are actually met if we expect 
anyone to transition to a life that does not subsist on SSI.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Carroll

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Tori Casanova
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Tori Casanova. I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' My son relies on SSI and the program desperately needs to be 
updated. Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed 
in 1972 and it no longer ensures the nations aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.

My son has severe bipolar disorder and has received SSI since 2014. 
Every day he talks about wanting a job but has been unable to maintain 
employment. His SSI is critically important.

      Increase the SSI amount. SSI should be increased to provide 
enough income for the disabled to live above the poverty line and near 
their families. Currently my son's SSI does not cover housing costs in 
the Bay Area.

      Simplify the law--it is so complex that SSA administrators are 
constantly making errors which are almost impossible to fix. It takes 
an incredible amount of effort on the part of families or others. There 
is huge cost to this complexity. My son currently has $148 being 
erroneously deducted for Medicare. I have made numerous time-consuming 
phone calls and his representative payee has also done so. Each agency 
directs us to another to fix it. This has been going on since January 
with no success. I have binders full of documentation trying to correct 
errors, some which never are corrected.

      Allow others to supplement without penalizing the recipient. I 
should be able to supplement my son's food and housing.

      Do not penalize SSI recipients as severely (50% deduction) for 
working.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Very Respectfully,

Tori Casanova

                                 ______
                                 
                        Center for Fiscal Equity

                      14448 Parkvale Road, Suite 6

                          Rockville, MD 20853

                      [email protected]

                    Statement of Michael G. Bindner

Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young, thank you for the opportunity 
to submit these comments for the record to the Committee on this topic.

Social Security is inadequate. SSI is worse than inadequate. I invite 
any who disagree to limit their spending, including housing, to the 
amounts paid by either program. Anyone without family support--and even 
some with it--are entitled to the full range of welfare benefits. 
Obtaining these is above the capacity of most beneficiaries. The social 
welfare system cannot pick up the slack. To enable the kind of support 
needed, the number of social workers in government agencies would have 
to at least double.

With a higher minimum wage, all wages below the middle management level 
would go up. Some would not need SSI, although people with disabilities 
who cannot work would still not be helped. Please see the attachment 
for a deeper discussion on how a higher minimum wage will impact 
retirees and the disabled. Raising the wage, rather than enlarging the 
trust fund through cost savings should be a no-brainer.

My daughter has Asperger Syndrome and Tourette's. Without a supportive 
work environment, she will require SSI to live independently, except 
SSI is inadequate to do so. Nor would work at the current minimum wage 
or any supportive work. She currently lives with her mother and, 
because I receive SSDI, she gets a monthly benefit. Once she graduates 
high school, if she requires SSI, she will receive less money.

Supportive social welfare benefits on top of SSI are not enough to live 
independently. This forces recipients to seek food from charitable 
donations, as well as housing and other assistance from private social 
welfare agencies like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services. 
While I feel that these agencies may be better able to distribute 
government benefits, those benefits must still be adequate. The state 
should not have to rely on God to meet its financial requirements, 
especially as effective tax rates on the wealthiest among us have 
consistently fallen over the past several decades.

This brings us to the witness list. Catholic Charities, USA, Lutheran 
Social Services, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army and other private 
providers should have been invited to present their views on this most 
important topic. They would certainly have something to say about the 
adequacy of benefits.

The sad fact is that, because of our inadequate support structure, many 
Down Syndrome parents feel that they have little choice than to abort 
their children. Aside from inadequate support services, they have real 
and valid concerns about whether their children can live in dignity 
after they pass. As such, adequate benefits and adult support are a 
central pro-life issue. Those states, like Ohio, who wish to outlaw 
abortion of such children must take a hard look at the level of social 
services and financial support provided to those whose lives they would 
save. It is the height of cruelty to say not to abort such children out 
of one side of their mouths while calling adequate support for these 
children socialism with the other.

If such support is socialism, make the most of it.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Office of Pro-Life Activities 
should also be invited as witnesses on this issue, although this is 
more to put them on record on how higher SSI benefits, childcare 
credits and the child tax credit are essential pro-life issues. There 
should be zero debate on this fact. Support for the measures sought by 
the President should be treated as pro-life and bipartisan. That they 
are not is the tragedy of our political system.

This brings us back to the minimum wage. It is not only essential for 
human dignity; it will also make it easy to fully fund Social Security 
without cutting benefits and raising tax rates. Again, as stated in the 
attachment, higher minimum wages and assumptions about the growth of 
other salaries will alter long-term projections of the viability of the 
system. Automatic cost of living increases for the minimum wage will 
make the future of Social Security, as well as budget balance as a 
whole, even more sustainable. It would also end the problem of a two-
tiered economy.

SSI must go up. So should opportunities for training for recipients, 
both in terms of literacy and occupational therapy. Literacy includes 
both remedial education and English as a Second Language.

Participation in both kinds of training, which is already provided for 
in governmental budgets, must be expanded by increasing tuition 
reimbursements, but also paid. Participants must get a check for going 
and it should be at least at minimum wage levels. This both encourages 
participation (including meeting opportunity costs) and makes receipt 
of SSI (even at higher levels) not a ticket to long-term poverty.

There is a myth that deprivation is an essential incentive to work. 
This is true if you believe in slave labor. Civilized people do not. 
Studies have shown, again and again, that self improvement comes after 
people have an adequate income. Locking people in low wage jobs without 
paying their opportunity costs for something better should not be a 
feature of the strongest economy in the world. Paid training also 
solves the non-existent problem of people losing their jobs because the 
minimum wage increases. Any that are shaken out of the workforce should 
likely not have been working in the first place. We can fix that and 
neuter the argument against higher wages.

Just to be clear, remedial training, like basic elementary and 
secondary education, must be considered a civil right and should be 
delivered (and paid) regardless of immigration status. Not to do so can 
only be called racism. This sounds like an ad hominem attack. If it is, 
make the most of it. Opposing such matters is the sign of a guilty 
conscience and prior bad actions. This is a chance for conversion and 
restitution.

Families of participants should also be paid the Child Tax Credit. This 
payment should come with paid training and be in addition to any other 
benefits. CTC payment should also be an automatic part of Unemployment 
Insurance (as should Medicaid or no-premium coverage in a public option 
for health insurance). Including more automatically is cheaper in terms 
of case work and a way to eliminate TANF and SNAP in favor of more 
dignified benefits.

Any concern that fraud will increase is shameful. We acknowledge there 
is fraud in the system now. Adequacy of benefits will not increase it. 
Rather, it will have the opposite effect. Fewer poor people reduce the 
need to defraud the government, especially in regard to selling Food 
Stamps to be able to buy toilet paper (at 50 cents on the dollar).

As previously mentioned, the President's Budget and now the current 
Budget Resolution, feature a permanent increase in the Child Tax 
Credit, retaining the refundability added as part of the American 
Rescue Plan Act. The CTC is the ultimate in bipartisan legislation. 
Both Republicans and Democrats have added to it, although only now has 
it become refundable for smaller families. It is still not adequate.

Our tax reform plan (which we can provide if you do not already have a 
copy), specifically the Subtraction Value-Added Tax, details how the 
Child Tax Credit can be paid out without turning the Internal Revenue 
Service to society's pay master. Payments through the IRS are a 
temporary expedient, but this is likely too much government for 
Republican members to support on a permanent basis. Distributing 
benefits through other government payments, such as Social Security, 
Unemployment Insurance and TANF training stipends and through wages (as 
an offset to either the subtraction VAT or quarterly payments to the 
IRS) is more likely to stand the test of time.

Funding adequacy is also a concern. Disability Insurance, the Employer 
Contribution to FICA and Supplemental Security Insurance should be 
decoupled from wages and credited on an equal dollar basis. Our first 
attachment explains how this can be done through tax reform. Doing so 
could be funded by consumption taxes in three ways.

Our (Credit) Invoice VAT will increase the competitiveness of our 
exports and protect worker jobs while decreasing employer costs. Our 
Subtraction (Net Business Receipts) VAT is useful if options include 
personal accounts holding employer voting and preferred stock (but in 
no cases should it be invested in the stock market). Our Asset VAT is 
appropriate for funding the repayment of the Social Security Trust 
Fund.

Each of these proposals (which can be used in tandem) burden the entire 
economy, as well as investors, who have had the benefit of worker 
productivity, especially that part of productivity which featured the 
destruction of unions and limiting pay and benefits for all but the top 
10% of households. There are no caps to increase with these taxes and 
they can be adjusted more easily than payroll taxes (which are 
regressive).

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. We are, of 
course, available for direct testimony or to answer questions by 
members and staff.

Attachment--Raising the Minimum Wage to Raise Retirement Income

An increased minimum wage is an essential part of increasing income. 
Earlier this year, Senate Republicans countered the proposal for a $15 
per hour wage with a $10 wage. This would return the current wage to 
the purchasing power it had at the last increase. Let us join hands and 
make this change now and with no phase-in period. From this point 
forward, the wage must be automatically indexed for inflation.

When this is done, the benefits of current retirees should be adjusted 
accordingly. An additional Cost of Living Adjustment is necessary as 
well. Food prices have gone through the roof and current retirees are 
suffering. We cannot wait for an end of the year price adjustment.

Over and above inflation, the minimum wage should reflect increased 
labor productivity. To get to parity with where wages and productivity 
diverged, a $12 per hour wage is necessary. Another way to reward 
workers (and retirees) for productivity gains is to shorten the 
workweek to 32 hours (with 26 hours being considered full time for the 
purpose of benefits). In this case, the wage could be set to $11 per 
hour.

Would these changes cost jobs? Hardly. Low-wage workers are sent home 
when workload is low and required to stay (or not call in) when 
workload is high. Their work is supplemented by work by higher-wage 
workers in high-demand situations, regardless of how much more these 
workers are paid. Unlike salaried workers, low wage workers are never 
allowed to sit or stand around doing nothing. Lower wages would not 
change this.

A statutory wage increase means that employers who do the right thing 
and pay a higher wage are not put at a competitive disadvantage to 
those without scruples. This is the logic behind increasing the child 
tax credit. Without such a credit, workers with children would either 
not be welcome or would, as now, suffer hunger while working.

Higher wages, ideally $18 an hour ($15 was so 2000s), would be 
accompanied by alternative educational opportunities (with pay) so that 
workers who are less productive would be paid the same wage to increase 
both literacy and job skills.

                                 ______
                                 
                         The Century Foundation

                     1 Whitehall Street, 15th Floor

                           New York, NY 10004

                              212-452-7700

                            https://tcf.org/

               Statement of Rebecca Vallas, Senior Fellow

Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young, thank you for convening this 
important and long-overdue hearing on improving and strengthening the 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program--a critical part of our 
safety net for disabled and older Americans which has largely been 
forgotten by federal policymakers for decades. Indeed, the program has 
been forgotten for so long that even today's hearing is historic: The 
most recent Senate hearing focused on SSI was nearly a quarter-century 
ago, in 1998--and the last time the Senate held a hearing examining 
SSI's benefit adequacy and eligibility criteria was in 1987. Notably, 
that hearing was titled ``The Forgotten Safety Net''--and that was more 
than three decades ago.

 Woefully Outdated SSI Rules Now Trap Millions of Beneficiaries in 
                    Poverty

A core component of the nation's Social Security system, SSI is nothing 
short of a lifeline for nearly eight million of the nation's poorest 
seniors and disabled people, including more than one million disabled 
children. When SSI was signed into law by President Nixon in 1972, 
Congress made its intent clear: to assure ``that the nation's aged, 
blind, and disabled people would no longer have to subsist on below-
poverty-level incomes.''\1\ Yet, because this critical program has been 
left to wither on the vine for over 30 years, SSI's outdated program 
rules now assure the opposite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ S. Rept. No. 92-1230, Social Security Amendments of 1972, 
Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate (September 25, 1972), p. 384, 
available at https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/Downey%20
PDFs/Amendments%20to%20the%20Social%20Security%20Act%201969-
1972%20Vol.%203.pdf.

As a former public benefits lawyer who represented low-income seniors 
and people with disabilities for several years prior to a career in 
public policy, I saw firsthand the human consequences of SSI's decades 
of shameful erosion: millions of disabled people and seniors trapped in 
a sub-poverty-level existence by outdated program rules--many of which 
simply haven't been adjusted for inflation due to Congress's failure to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
act.

SSI's meager monthly benefits top out at $794 per month in 2021--just 
three-
quarters of the federal poverty line, and not enough to rent a one-
bedroom apartment in any state in the U.S., even if an individual spent 
100 percent of monthly benefits on rent.\2\ Moreover, income rules that 
have never been adjusted for inflation since the SSI program was signed 
into law nearly 50 years ago further entrench poverty among seniors and 
disabled people and serve to actively discourage work. Similarly, 
archaic ``in-kind support and maintenance'' penalties reduce benefits 
even further for beneficiaries who receive in-kind help from loved ones 
with survival basics such as food or shelter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See ``Priced Out: The Housing Crisis for People with 
Disabilities,'' Technical Assistance Collaborative, available at 
https://www.tacinc.org/resources/priced-out/. 

Meanwhile, SSI's shamefully outdated asset limits--which haven't been 
adjusted for inflation since 1989--penalize savings and prevent 
beneficiaries from having even modest emergency savings to weather an 
unexpected expense or economic shock. And the program's rigid marriage 
penalties functionally put marriage equality out of reach for millions 
of SSI beneficiaries by forcing people to choose between subsistence 
income and marrying the person they love.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ For additional detail, see ``Building Back Better Must Include 
Strengthening SSI'' (The Century Foundation, April 2021), available at 
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/building-back-better-must-include-
strengthening-supplemental-security-income/?agreed=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The SSI Restoration Act Would Dramatically Reduce Poverty and Hardship 
                    Among SSI Beneficiaries

I am enormously grateful to Chairman Brown for his leadership in 
introducing the SSI Restoration Act of 2021. This important 
legislation--which has the support of 20 cosponsors in the Senate, 
including Senate Finance Chair Wyden, as well as more than 115 national 
advocacy organizations across the disability and aging communities--
would finally reverse the decades of erosion brought about by SSI's 
decades of neglect and restore the program to its original intent.

The SSI Restoration Act would increase monthly SSI benefits to the 
federal poverty level; update the program's outdated asset limits for 
inflation, while, importantly, excluding retirement accounts from 
counting against SSI's asset limits; update SSI's income disregards for 
inflation; eliminate the program's archaic in-kind support and 
maintenance penalties; and eliminate SSI's marriage penalties, among 
other important technical changes. These updates would go a long way 
towards reducing needless poverty and hardship among disabled people 
and older adults, with disproportionate benefits for beneficiaries of 
color. According to recent analysis by the Urban Institute, these long-
overdue reforms would bring 3.3 million people out of poverty and cut 
poverty among SSI beneficiaries in half.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ ``How Four Proposals to Reform Supplemental Security Income 
Would Reduce Poverty'' (Urban Institute, September 2021), available at 
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/104738/how-four-
proposals-to-reform-supplemental-security-income-would-reduce-
poverty_0_1.pdf.

Another long-needed update to the SSI program that is important to 
note, in addition to the SSI Restoration Act, is expanding eligibility 
to include residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 
American Samoa--who, under current law, are unjustly excluded from SSI 
eligibility despite being U.S. citizens.

 Voters of All Political Stripes Want to See SSI Brought into the 21st 
                    Century

A recent poll conducted by Data for Progress and The Century Foundation 
\5\ underscores that updating and strengthening SSI is not just the 
right thing to do--it's also overwhelmingly popular among voters of all 
political stripes. Seventy-seven percent of Americans--including 90 
percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans--want to see SSI 
benefits increased to at least the federal poverty level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ ``Voters Overwhelmingly Support Strengthening SSI'' (Data for 
Progress and The Century Foundation, May 2021), available at https://
production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2021/05/27090206/
21.5_1PAGER_SSI_v1.pdf.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2121.002


.epsMeanwhile, seventy-four percent of voters--including 84 percent of 
Democrats and 61 percent of Republicans--want to see the program's 
outdated asset limits raised to $10,000 for an individual and $20,000 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
for a couple.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2121.003


.epsThe other major elements of the SSI Restoration Act are similarly 
popular: 77 percent of American voters want to see SSI's outdated 
income disregards updated for inflation, including 86 percent of 
Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans; 72 percent of voters support 
eliminating in-kind support and maintenance penalties, including 83 
percent of Democrats and 62 of Republicans; and 76 percent of voters 
support eliminating SSI's marriage penalties, including 84 percent of 
Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans.

 ``Build Back Better'' Legislation Offers a Once-in-a-Generation 
                    Opportunity to Update and Strengthen SSI

During the presidential campaign, President Biden pledged that seniors 
and disabled people should never have to live in poverty in America, in 
calling for each of the above-listed SSI reforms as part of his 
disability plan.\6\ Inherent in this important pledge is a reminder 
that poverty in America is a policy choice--and Congress now has before 
it the opportunity to make a different choice for seniors and for 
people with disabilities, by finally bringing this vital component of 
the American safety net into the 21st century. As Congress works with 
the Biden-Harris administration to chart a course to economic recovery 
through upcoming ``Build Back Better'' legislation, the only thing that 
would be more shameful than how long SSI and its beneficiaries have 
already been forgotten would be to leave them behind once again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Joe Biden's Plan for Full Participation and Equality for People 
with Disabilities, available at https://joebiden.com/disabilities.

While updating SSI was already long-overdue well before the COVID-19 
pandemic began, the reforms proposed in the SSI Restoration Act are 
even more urgently needed now as we work to rebuild from a crisis that 
has hit disabled and elderly Americans especially hard. Strengthening 
SSI takes on even greater urgency as COVID-19 ``long-haulers''--many of 
whom may no longer be able to support themselves through work--begin to 
turn to SSI and other fraying components of the disability safety net 
to stay afloat. What's more, since SSI beneficiaries' budgets are 
stretched incredibly thin, boosting SSI benefits would further promote 
economic recovery by putting more money in very low-income consumers' 
pockets. Benefits are generally spent very quickly, pumping money back 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
into the local economy.

Today's historic hearing is a step in the right direction, such that 
the deep and enduring poverty faced by millions of long-forgotten SSI 
beneficiaries no longer remains in the shadows. Now, it's on Congress 
to take long-overdue action to ensure the nearly 8 million disabled and 
older Americans who rely on SSI are finally able to live in dignity and 
meet their basic needs.

I appreciate your commitment to improving the lives of low-income 
disabled people and seniors by updating and strengthening this critical 
component of our Social Security system. Thank you for convening 
today's important hearing and for the opportunity to submit testimony 
for the record.

                                 ______
                                 
                  Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy

                         1431 Elizabeth Avenue

                          Charlotte, NC 28204

                           phone 704-376-1600

                              800-438-1254

                    web: charlottelegaladvocacy.org

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy submits this statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' The Advocacy Center provides civil legal assistance to 
individuals and families living with low income in the Charlotte, NC 
area. Our clients rely on SSI to pay for food, rent, and other crucial 
expenses and the program desperately needs to be updated.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. The maximum 
benefit is $794 a month, only three fourths of the Federal Poverty 
Level. People on SSI who are married receive even less, and people are 
not allowed to save more than $2,000 without losing their benefits. 
Rules about help from family and friends and the amount of earnings or 
other income people can have before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years. SSI was passed to ensure ``that the 
nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live 
on below-poverty incomes'' and because of decades of neglect, it no 
longer fulfills this promise.

Our clients with SSI are unable to live independently, as $794 is not 
enough money to rent an apartment and pay for food and utilities in the 
Charlotte area. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that SSI 
benefits are reduced for people receiving free or lower cost room and 
board. We have represented several clients who were living with friends 
or family when they applied for SSI. Upon being found eligible for 
benefits, they wanted to begin paying rent, or seek housing of their 
own. However, they were unable to do so, because their benefits were 
reduced by one third because of in-kind support. Essentially, they have 
found themselves in a catch-22 where they cannot afford to pay rent but 
also cannot receive an increase in their benefits until they begin 
paying rent. This problem is compounded by the resource limit of 
$2,000. Time and time again, we have encountered clients who were 
unable to afford to find housing because they could not save a first 
month's rent plus a security deposit.

The SSI program must be updated. On behalf of our clients, we ask 
Congress to include improvements to SSI in the upcoming budget 
reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Cassidy Estes-Rogers
Deputy Director, Family Support and Health Care Program

Nicholas Parr
Staff Attorney, Family Support and Health Care Program

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Bridget Close
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

My name is Bridget Close. I married my husband back in 2007. I am 
legally blind with anxiety and depression. I lost my SSI due to 
marriage penalty.

My state of Missouri has a program called blind pension which is funded 
through our state. Even though I'm legally blind, with limited vision, 
staying and remaining qualified for blind pension is quite tricky. The 
positive in being a state funded program, the asset limits are not as 
strict as the federal level of SSI. Plus there is no marriage penalty 
for blind pension.

The challenge lies in qualifying and keeping it. Even though the asset 
limits are more relaxed, the visual qualifications are quite rigid. 
When I applied the first time I got denied.

Blind pension visual qualifications deal with both visual acuity and 
peripheral/field vision. Even though I am considered legally blind, 
visual acuity for blind pension is almost totally blind. However the 
peripheral/field part for me is tricky. My degree of field is somewhat 
low but sometimes it's hard to get an accurate reading for my visual 
situation.

The first time I applied I got denied and had to appeal. It took 
several months but my appeal was accepted in the spring of 2008.

Every few years I have to do a visual examination review. A state 
opthomologist doesn't do the testing but is the deciding vote fore 
eligibility, and it isn't always the same one. I have been denied and 
have already had to appeal once. I did win my appeal, but am afraid one 
time I may not, because I don't think they look at past records when 
I've applied and had hearings in the past. My next hearing is coming up 
in spring of 2022.

I understand another option would be for me to draw survivors benefits 
from one of my deceased parents. My mother died of pancreatic cancer 
back in 2016. She was single and I was her only child period, with a 
disability. I understand in order to be eligible I would have to 
legally divorce my spouse, and just have a civil union.

If SSI was reformed, and the marriage penalty done away with, I could 
discontinue receiving blind pension and no longer go through the 
eligibility process headache every few years. Then go back to receiving 
SSI without having to legally divorce.

In conclusion I just want to say it is inhumane to treat people with 
disabilities the same as regular, able-bodied welfare kings and queens. 
For we did not ask to be born into our situations.

Thank you.

Bridget Close

                                 ______
                                 
                   Community Legal Aid Society, Inc.

                     100 W. 10th Street, Suite 801

                          Wilmington, DE 19801

                         302-575-0660, ext. 215

                              302-575-0663

                            Fax 302-575-0840

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (CLASI) submits these comments for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' CLASI is a statewide, nonprofit law firm whose mission is to 
combat injustice through creative and persistent advocacy on behalf of 
vulnerable and underserved Delawareans. We have represented hundreds of 
vulnerable SSI applicants and recipients over the course of many years. 
CLASI is also Delaware's designated Protection and Advocacy agency for 
individuals with disabilities. I have represented SSI recipients and 
applicants for over thirty years as a legal aid attorney in Minnesota, 
West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Delaware.

Over the course of more than three decades, I have personally witnessed 
the destitution faced by SSI recipients. My clients have frequently had 
to choose between rent and food. That should be unacceptable in this 
country but it all too common for SSI recipients. The federal SSI grant 
of $794 per month forces recipients to make impossible choices and 
accept unfit housing or sleep on the streets or in homeless shelters.

We tell people that they should save for emergencies, but SSI 
recipients are forced to do the opposite. Because the resource limit is 
a paltry $2,000 for individuals and has remained unchanged for over 
thirty years, SSI recipients cannot even try to make plans for 
emergencies--emergencies that they face all too often.

Appallingly low grant amounts, draconian resource limits and cruel 
rules that reduce SSI if friends or relatives try to help recipients by 
providing them food or shelter all contribute to a dehumanizing 
existence.

Every day I work with clients and advocates to help them navigate these 
complex, confusing and ultimately demeaning rules--all to try to ensure 
that my client can get $794 per month. It is heartbreaking. No-one 
chooses to be on SSI.

SSI no longer comes close to fulfilling the promise of providing basic 
supports for the most vulnerable amongst us.

Urgent, substantial reform is needed--NOW. Not in a year, not at some 
distant point in time. Today.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation

John S. Whitelaw
Advocacy Director

                                 ______
                                 
                Community Legal Services of Philadelphia

                          1424 Chestnut Street

                      Philadelphia, PA 19102-2505

                        Telephone: 215-981-3700

                         https://clsphila.org/

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record 
for the subcommittee hearing on ``Policy Options for Improving SSI.'' 
This statement is submitted on behalf of Community Legal Services of 
Philadelphia (CLS).

For more than 50 years, CLS has provided free legal services to address 
the legal needs of low-income Philadelphia residents in civil matters 
affecting their families, health, jobs, homes, and incomes. The 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Unit is a practice group within CLS 
that provides individual representation to disabled people who seek 
benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We advise clients 
and provide representation in appeals relating to disability before the 
Pennsylvania Bureau of Disability Determination, the Social Security 
Office of Hearing Operations, and in federal court. We also assist 
people who lose access to SSI benefits for financial eligibility 
reasons. CLS advocates for SSI policy changes, including by convening 
two national advocacy workgroups that meet regularly with Social 
Security Administration (SSA) senior staff to discuss critical issues 
facing disabled people, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. We 
also work to ensure that underserved communities are able to access tax 
credits through direct representation, litigation, and systemic 
advocacy.

Each year, our team represents 1,100 SSI applicants and recipients, and 
we provide advice and community education to hundreds more. We are 
reminded every day that SSI is a critical component of the American 
safety net. It keeps people housed and connected to medical care. It 
ensures that parents can meet the needs of their disabled children, 
reducing stressors and family separation. It gives family members some 
financial breathing room to recover from disabling trauma and move 
forward with their lives.

The SSI program is lifesaving and life-changing. It is also neglected. 
SSI benefits and program rules have not been updated in decades. The 
SSI program traps disabled people in poverty. It is overly complicated 
and hard to navigate, and we have seen thousands of eligible people 
over the years be unable to qualify due to red tape. The SSI program is 
long overdue for modernization, and we urge Congress to include two 
categories of improvements in the upcoming budget reconciliation 
legislation.

    1.  Ensure that People Receiving SSI Do Not Remain Trapped in 
Poverty. SSI benefits are often only the income supports available to 
disabled people, and they can make the difference between housing 
instability and hunger or the ability to meet basic needs. But the SSI 
program is far from generous. The maximum benefit is only $794 per 
month, and many people receive even less because of program rules. 
Married couples have their benefits reduced quite a bit if both members 
qualify for SSI, even though the costs associated with their 
disabilities are unique and significant. SSI's extremely low asset 
limits prevent people from saving to escape poverty, by design. These 
strict income rules make living with disability so much harder than it 
needs to be for people who, by definition, cannot supplement their 
incomes with much work. The poverty inflicted by the SSI program is 
purely a policy choice, one that Congress must reverse.

    2.  Streamline SSI Financial Eligibility Rules so People Can Stay 
Connected to Benefits. Embedded in the SSI program are complex, 
bureaucratic rules that trip up the most careful SSI recipients. If 
family members help recipients with groceries or an unusually high 
utility bill, recipients can see their (already meager) SSI grants 
slashed by one-third. If recipients receive a few thousand dollars as 
an inheritance and want to save it for community college classes or a 
housing repair, they can be cut off SSI altogether. Even when 
recipients manage to follow SSI rules perfectly, some still face issues 
due to miscommunications or SSA errors. Resolving these issues requires 
administrative appeals, months of time and stress, and SSA staff 
resources that could be better redirected to help claimants. Often, 
these issues are only resolved because lawyers like us get involved--
and there are not enough of us go around. Simplifying the SSI program 
rules by eliminating ``in-kind support and maintenance'' provisions and 
raising asset limits would allow eligible SSI recipients to stay 
connected to benefits while protecting limited government resources.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit this statement. If 
you would like to discuss these comments further, please contact me via 
telephone at (215) 981-3782 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Kristen M. Dama
Managing Attorney, SSI and Medical-Legal Partnership

                                 ______
                                 
               Letter Submitted by Felicitas P. Connolly

October 4, 2021

Chairman Brown
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Ranking Member Young
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young,

I am really grateful that Congress held a hearing on the Supplemental 
Security Income (SSI) program. I am fortunate to be on the ARC email 
list and able to be in the loop on happenings to the SSI program. I 
read your opening statement; Ranking Member Young, the ARC Statement, 
Mia Ives-Rublee's as well as Mr. Stephen Evangelista's Statement for 
the Record. I do agree that changes to the SSI program are long 
overdue.

With this development I want to share my experience in navigating thru 
the program. My daughter has physical and intellectual disabilities and 
is conserved. I shared my experience by writing to then Senator Allen 
K. Simpson in 1996 who was then the Chairman, Finance Committee but did 
not receive a response. I am sharing excerpts from my letter.

I am writing on behalf of families with disabled children to express 
the sentiments that I feel are common among us. This concerns the 
program involving children's welfare and benefits 1 to 18, in 
particular Supplemental Security Income programs. Being a ``welfare'' 
program, the requirements are so stringent and limiting that it makes 
the family a slave to the system. What concerns me most as a parent is 
how the benefits for disabled children, ages 1 to 18 are being handles. 
When a child qualifies and receives SSI benefits, all the income in the 
household is counted towards $2,000 monthly income that a family 
receives, whether earned or unearned.

But in the past, with the income limitation imposed by the SSI welfare 
program, our daughter could not qualify for any benefits under the SSI 
program. However, times and circumstances changed; our family life was 
disrupted by the recession that hit our economy. I am sure that many 
families were greatly affected as we were. We waited almost eight 
months for the application process before my daughter's benefit was 
approved. The experience was a nightmare!

Also, SSI employees should go through a complete, mandatory training on 
how the SSI system works. These employees should be able to explain the 
hows and whys, not just the results. A family should not leave the 
office with as much misunderstanding and confusion of the system as 
when they first came in. I know because I went through this nightmarish 
experience with my own child. The processing time should also be 
speeded up. The ``retrospective accounting'' method should be done away 
with. An income averaging, especially for families whose income 
fluctuate, and annual review of benefits should be adopted. I have done 
some research on the calculation of SSI benefits for children ages one 
to eighteen (enclosed) As can be noted, families whose income fluctuate 
lose out on the $780.00 annual exclusion against earned income. Also, 
why should we penalize the wage earner for disability income. It is 
apparent the earner could not work for no fault of his own plus the 
wage earner has to pay into the program to qualify for state disability 
benefit.

Therefore, I request that Congress and its staff look into this matter, 
especially, SSA Section: 19:43-45; 19:137, 138, and 146. I know parents 
who take care of their child with disabilities will be comforted 
knowing that help is available without going through the bureaucratic 
red tape and an almost hopeless wait. I do believe we represent a large 
segment of the population.

I do relate to the experience described by Mina Ives-Rublee because I 
got into trouble the way she did. At one time, I was working on a 
commission basis. There are times I made over the income limitation and 
ended with overpayment which reduced my daughter's benefit. I did not 
how the program work and that is why I did my own research. SSA 
employees do not explain how income affect the benefits. They claimed 
the procedure is complex and could not be grasped/understood by a 
layman. So, I surprised my case worker reviewing my daughter's case 
when I told her how the benefits are calculated and came up with the 
benefit mount my daughter was getting.

The following is what I came up with based on my experience navigating 
the SSI program.

    Fact Sheet on SSI Disability Benefits for Children Ages 1 to 18

    1.  Most families cannot live on $2,000.00 per month income/
resource at today's living standard. That might have been possible in 
the early 1990s.
    2.  Income category should be treated as one type instead of 
classifying it as ``earned'' and ``unearned.'' (Please refer to 
enclosed sample of calculations of benefits.)
    3.  A family is being penalized for unearned income; like state 
disability and disability pensions. One had, in essence, paid for these 
when they are working. Plus, it is not someone's fault not to be able 
to work in this age of downsizing.
    4.  By not averaging income for the year and applying and applying 
the exclusions on the average monthly income, a family loses on the 
annual income exclusion of $780.00. This is especially true when a 
family's income fluctuates on a monthly basis.
    5.  The government will save a lot of manpower, time, and money by 
doing a once-a-year review instead of the monthly reviews and 
calculations. The SSA normally sends out a five-page letter every time 
they review a case. Imagine, how many tons and reams of paper can be 
saved if correspondence would be on an annual basis.
    6.  There are almost five million children under 17 years with 
disability that could be in the same situation as our family. If theses 
cases were renewed annually, the savings of time and manpower can be 
diverted to processing applications. (Please refer to page 78 of the 
government on American with Disabilities issued in 1993.)
    7.  The SSA employees are not adequately trained to respond to 
question raised by families. Depending on who you speak with on the 800 
number, a family could get as many different answers to same question.
    8.  It takes an average of 6 months to a year to completely process 
an SSI disability case. A child has to go through a fine-tooth comb 
before he qualifies for a benefit. So, why not make the benefit once 
qualified a specific amount and leave it at that, especially if the 
disability was considered lifetime.
    9.  It is traumatic enough for a family to have a disabled child to 
raise and take care for. It turns a family's life 360 degrees when it 
happens. The government can show its compassion to help families with 
disabled children by cutting down the bureaucratic red tape.

At the same time, along with the above, the following are my:

 Recommended Areas of Changes on SSI Benefits for Children Ages 1 to 18

    1.  Income Requirement: Increase the income/resource level from the 
current $2,000.00 per month to at least $4,000.00. A family without 
health insurance and allowed only $2,000.00 would be wiped out with a 
day's hospital bill.
    2.  Income Category: Treat all income as one type, then apply the 
exclusions against the total income.
    3.  Deeming of Income: Eliminate deeming of parental income to 
children ages one to eighteen. Once a disabled child qualifies; the 
regulations for amount with a once-a-year review.
    4.  Retrospective Accounting: Eliminate retrospective method of 
accounting; use averaging of income if the income/resource level will 
not be modified. Time and manpower saved on this aspect can be diverted 
to processing applications.
    5.  Income Averaging: As indicated above income averaging will be 
of advantage to families; they will have the benefit of annual income 
exclusion instead of losing out the way the system is today.
    6.  Processing Time: This may be administrative policy, if not, 
shorten the processing to 90 days. In the interim, give the family the 
benefits the disabled child might be entitled to.

I hope that by sharing my experience in navigating the SSI program 
coupled with my ``Fact Sheet on SSI Disability Benefits'' and 
``Recommended Areas of Changes on SSI Benefits'' which are focused 
towards children age one to eighteen; the Committee will take into 
consideration some of my comments/concerns about the SSI program.

Thank you very much in giving me an opportunity to submit a ``Statement 
for the Record.''

Respectfully,

Felicitas P. Connolly

                                 ______
                                 
            Crawford County Special Olympics of Pennsylvania

                          222 Chestnut Street

                          Meadville, PA 16335

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

Special Olympics of Pennsylvania Crawford County (SOPA-CC) submits this 
statement for the record for the Subcommittee Hearing: Policy Options 
for Improving SSI. SOPA-CC works directly with individuals with 
intellectual and/or developmental disabilities, providing programs that 
engage these individuals in health, wellness, and sports training, 
which also combat the deep isolation these individuals encounter. As 
program manager for SOPA-CC I know that many of our participating 
athletes rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. The maximum 
benefit is $794 a month, only three fourths of the Federal Poverty 
Level. People on SSI who are married receive even less and people are 
not allowed to save more than $2,000 without losing their benefits. 
Rules about help from family and friends and the amount of earnings or 
other income people can have before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years.

As an example, our athletes who ``live'' on SSI are often unable to 
purchase appropriate shoes for sports training, and it is not unusual 
for them to wear old sneakers in the deepest part of winter. They are 
also often unable to purchase proper food for a truly healthy diet, and 
usually are forced to live in sub-standard rental properties. Several 
athlete couples were unable to marry although they wanted to because of 
the restrictions. Those who are truly high-functioning are limited in 
the number of hours they can work for fear of losing their SSI 
benefits.

For these reasons, on behalf of my local management team, I ask 
Congress to include improvements to SSI in the upcoming budget 
reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Amara B. Geffen
SOPA-CC Program Manager
814-720-7089
[email protected]

                                 ______
                                 
               Letter Submitted by Joseph Michael Damiano
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Joseph Michael Damiano and I am writing to submit a 
statement for the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options 
for Improving SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to 
be updated. Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was 
passed in 1972 and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, 
blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live on below-
poverty incomes.''

I am a person with a disability who receives SSI and I have been 
engaged to my fiancee for a year and a half. My worry is that if there 
are not improvements for SSI, my benefits could be hindered because of 
the marriage penalty. My mother is my rep payee for the program, and I 
am happy to say I have started working but it is hard for me with the 
asset limits that SSI Imposes to report everything and I am always 
worried I might loose my benefits (depending on the situation).

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Joseph Michal Damiano

                                 ______
                                 
                    Letter Submitted by Diane Davis
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Thank you for this upcoming hearing and for accepting my comment.

I am an SSI disability recipient and receive a small check for SSDI 
retirement. This means that I live well below the poverty line. I speak 
not only for myself but also as a Long-Term Care Ombudsman for the 
County of San Diego.

I have volunteered and advocated for residents at a 99 bed skilled 
nursing facility 20 hours per month more than 10 years. This is 
volunteerism for the elderly and with very little reward.

SSI in long term care. . . . Facilities want private pay. Medical 
Medicare Medicaid residents consistently face eviction and dumping. 
Indigent are not welcome at skilled nursing facilities.

SSI recipients and indigent patients are routinely not accepted from 
hospitals into skilled nursing facilities. More and more SSI recipients 
are becoming homeless. An SSI check is barely enough money to live on 
the street today, let alone find housing. I am 64 years old, disabled 
and this will be my future.

I volunteer now in hope that livable SSI, ombudsman, outreach and 
advocates for low-income seniors and disabled seniors will be available 
to me in the near future.

Please consider updating our SSI system now, it is long overdue. As a 
side note, our federally mandated Long-Term Care Ombudsman program 
needs better funding.

Sincerely,

Diane Davis, LTCO

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Michele Disario
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Michele Disario and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972.

Until recently, I was an active member of my church choir. Another 
choir member gave me a ride home one day and realized that I live with 
my boyfriend. He confronted me about my living situation and told me it 
was a sin. I explained that if we got married one of us would lose our 
SSI benefits.

The current SSI program forces many individuals with disabilities, like 
me, to compromise religious convictions in order to retain SSI benefits 
that help us to survive. As a result, the choir director asked me to 
move home to live with my parents or leave the choir.

I am no longer a member of the choir or the church. I had to make the 
difficult decision to sacrifice my religious beliefs and practices in 
order to comply with SSI, which I rely on to live independently at home 
in the community. For these reasons, I ask Congress to include 
improvements to SSI in the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Michele Disario
Secretary
Oklahoma City People First

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Kathleen Downes
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Kathleen Downes and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

I am 28 years old and I have cerebral palsy and a rare spinal disorder 
called Tarlov cyst disease that causes debilitating chronic pain. I 
depend on Medicaid home care services to get assistance with bathing, 
dressing, catheter care, toileting, and transfers. Strict income and 
asset limits have made it impossible for me to try working as I would 
have to choose between employment and life-sustaining care. People with 
disabilities should not have to live in poverty because of the nature 
of their medical needs. Further, being disabled is crushingly expensive 
and it simply does not make sense to give people with such high 
expenses so little on which to survive.

I would like the opportunity to get married one day, but presently 
people on SSI face a penalty to their benefits if they marry. This is a 
modern-day example of marriage inequality that prevents disabled people 
from marrying those they love.

As a highly educated social worker, patient advocate, and disability 
activist who feels extremely held back by the archaic rules of the 
program, I am begging you to modernize SSI so that I can live a more 
flexible, independent life full of the opportunities that others my age 
have. Improvements on the program would allow me to make better use of 
my education and allow all of us to have a chance at employment without 
surrendering vital benefits.

Please do the right thing. America has the duty and the potential to do 
so much better for its most marginalized groups.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Downes, LMSW

                                 ______
                                 
                         Easterseals New Jersey

                      25 Kennedy Blvd., Suite 600

                        East Brunswick, NJ 08816

                            P: 732-257-6662

                            F: 732-257-7373

                    https://www.easterseals.com/nj/

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

Easterseals New Jersey is a non-profit agency that provides services to 
thousands of New Jerseyans living with disabilities and mental health 
challenges each year. We have been active nationally for over 100 years 
and in New Jersey for more than 70 years. We strongly believe that the 
rules for SSI, many of which have not been updated since 1972, should 
be updated. Much has changed since the SSI was passed, and this program 
needs to be adjusted to meet the needs of disabled Americans living in 
the 21st century.

Currently, the maximum benefit is $794 a month, only three fourths of 
the Federal Poverty Level. People on SSI who are married receive even 
less and people are not allowed to save more than $2,000 without losing 
their benefits. Rules about receiving help from family and friends or 
other income people can earn before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years. SSI was passed to ensure ``that the 
nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live 
on below-poverty incomes'' and because of decades of neglect, this 
program no longer fulfills this promise.

Many of our program participants either receive SSI benefits or will at 
some point. We work tirelessly to help them make ends meet and live 
productive and happy lives. But the outdated rules for maintaining SSI 
eligibility are always in the back of our minds. This is not how this 
program was intended to run, with disabled Americans living on the 
brink of poverty, knowing one misstep could jeopardize their benefits. 
This reality that we deal with every day is proof enough that Congress 
must revisit rules for the SSI program. We must ensure that SSI meets 
the challenges of the modern era and provide the support to Americans 
living with disabilities that the authors of this program intended.

If you or members of your staff have any questions about Easterseals 
New Jersey's perspective on SSI, please contact Jacob Caplan at 
[email protected]. Thank you for your time and attention to 
our thoughts on this critical matter.

                                  * *

        Easterseals is a national 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that 
        has helped children and adults with disabilities and special 
        needs, live better lives for 100 years. Operating in 21 
        counties throughout the state, Easterseals New Jersey offers a 
        variety of disability services to help people with various 
        special needs address life's challenges. Annually, Easterseals 
        New Jersey serves over 5,000 individuals at our over 100 sites 
        with direct services, advocacy, and education. We believe 
        everyone, no matter their circumstance or level of ability, 
        deserves the opportunity to increase their independence and 
        achieve their goals.

Brian Fitzgerald, President and CEO
Jacob Caplan, Advocacy Manager

                                 ______
                                 
             Letter Submitted by Andrea Eiblum, M.S., LCPC
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Andrea Eiblum and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' My clients rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be 
updated. Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed 
in 1972 and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and 
disabled people would no longer have to live on below-
poverty incomes.''

The amount of SSI is below poverty level and my clients have difficulty 
finding housing in Maryland. They also have tremendous difficulty 
paying for medications and groceries with this low monthly amount. The 
SSI amount is currently well under Federal Poverty Level and needs to 
be raised. Resource limits have not been increased since 1984 and only 
$1 over eliminates eligibility/continuation of benefits. Back payments 
must be spent as resources if not spent within 9 months--given how long 
it takes to receive SSI, this is a challenge and should have no limit 
on being counted as resources as these are funds that are due from SSA. 
Please remove In kind support as a deduction for SSI payments. lastly, 
the work incentives are woefully inadequate, deducting either $65 or 
$85 right away from someone's earnings.

For the above reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in 
the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Andrea Eiblum, MS, LCPC
SOAR Program in Carroll County
Springfield Hospital Center

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Nancy K. Ford
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

My name is Nancy Ford, and I am the grandmother, personal caregiver and 
legal guardian for my intellectually disabled grandson. We have lived 
together, and I have cared for him since he was 8 months old. I am 73 
and work full time to support Michael and myself. Retiring isn't an 
option for me because without the income from my job we would be 
homeless. As a constituent I urge you on behalf of myself and all the 
other parents and grandparents with children, young adults, and older 
adults with a disability to support changes to social security and 
supplemental security income guidelines.

Congress needs to ensure that changes increase SSI asset limits, income 
rules, and benefits. This bill would create hope and security for 
people with disabilities. I worry everyday about what will happen to my 
grandson when I pass. Most of us that live with and care for loved ones 
with disabilities worry about what will happen to their loved one when 
they are no longer able to care for them, and what happens when they 
pass on. None of us truly have the means to provide the income that 
will be required to keep their loved one from becoming one of the 
homeless and unsupported individuals in this country. Why? Because 
there are income rules in place that restrict the total assets anyone 
on SSI can have.

SSI prevents us from providing any financial assistance to those on the 
program. If we do, they immediately reduce the maximum payment of 
$794.00 per month based on the amount of assistance that is provided. 
Michael was receiving $794.00 a month but because I must help with 
rent, utilities, food cost and personally pay for any special things he 
requires, he was cut back to $241.85 per month. He was already in the 
below poverty level status receiving the full benefit, now he is 
expected to live on even less, which means I must pay even more of his 
expenses each month. Congress needs to ensure that changes to social 
security and supplemental security allows people to receive help from 
family without being penalized.

Individuals with a disability are discriminated against every day. They 
have few friends, few relationships, and even less support from the 
leaders of this country because they are seen as different. Yes, they 
are different, but they can be just like you and I if given a chance. 
By keeping them in poverty, limiting their ability to support 
themselves by restricting their income and by treating them as if they 
don't really matter, they are being discriminated against by Social 
Security, SSI and this country because they are different. Please help 
us change the rules to provide reasonable income without restriction, 
that will pull them out of poverty and show them that they do matter. 
Please stand up for what is right and make the necessary changes so 
people with disabilities can live out of poverty and disrespect.

Thank you for your time and support.

Nancy K. Ford

                                 ______
                                 
         Letter Submitted by Judith Frantonius, R.N., M.S., PNP
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Greetings, I am a public employee in California through the Regional 
Center system for individuals with disabilities. We do not pay into SS 
but many of us have had previous jobs where we accrue SS credits by 
paying into the SS system. We are penalized if we become public 
employees at a later date. I do not have a pension plan, but my 
employer (Golden Gate Regional Center) pays into my 403(b) plan. So I 
will collect very little SS when I retire, less than half of what I 
earned. Also I believe that we are not able to collect SS from our 
spouses after they die.

So if you become a teacher (or public employee) at later in your 
career, you are penalized twice. As you lose your accrued benefits and 
have not paid enough into your pension or have enough years in teaching 
to offset that loss.

This is my understanding.

I think if we want more qualified public employees, we need to address 
this problem.

Judith Frantonius, R.N., M.S., PNP
Early Start Nurse Specialist
Golden Gate Regional Center

                                 ______
                                 
              Letter Submitted by Mollie Katherine Gathro
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Sherrod Brown and Ranking Member Todd Young,

My name is Mollie Katherine Gathro and I am writing to submit a 
statement for the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options 
for Improving SSI.'' I have personally relied on Supplemental Security 
Income (SSI) disability benefits in order to stay alive, and I can 
assure you that the program desperately requires reform.

I became permanently disabled due to degenerative disk disease of the 
spine at the age of 22 in February of 2010. Three back injuries in the 
span of six years had caused even the otherwise-healthy disks in my 
spine to begin decaying at a more rapid rate than normally occurs in 
the aging process.

A year later, finally accepting that my latest back injury was not 
recovering the way my previous two had, and no longer able to support 
myself by working, I attempted to apply to the Social Security 
Disability Insurance (SSDI) program. I had been working minimum wage 
jobs paying into Social Security all through high school and throughout 
college, so I was shocked to learn that the SSDI program is 
purposefully designed to weed out disabled and chronically ill people 
like me--I had enough work credits from years worked and dollars earned 
to qualify, but I did not have them in enough consecutive time periods 
to qualify. Taking time off for management of my chronic illnesses and 
injuries was penalized. SSDI disability pays based on your income, so 
it is horrifying that the SSDI disability benefit for working minimum 
wage jobs would have been significantly higher than the below the 
poverty line benefit I was forced to rely on by qualifying for 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) instead. If the minimum wage is 
truly the minimum standard fit for one person to live on, why are SSI 
disability benefits so much lower?

First of all, the initial application process was awful. I was 
constantly lied to and given the administrative runaround by Social 
Security Administration employees. I do believe a large part of that is 
not even maliciously intended by the employees in order to save the 
Social Security Administration money, but rather occurs because there 
is such a high rate of turnover at these minimum-wage paperwork-
intensive jobs to the point that the employees themselves do not 
actually know that what they are telling me about my case is untrue. So 
the burden has fallen to me to become an expert in Social Security 
Administration program policies, which is ridiculous.

As a disabled person, I am only alive if the government decides to keep 
me alive. It is not just the Social Security Administration--it is 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food stamps benefits 
managed through the Massachusetts Department of Transitional 
Assistance, it is government-subsidized housing on the basis of 
disability managed through the West Springfield Housing Authority, it 
is dealing with MassHealth (Medicaid in Massachusetts), Medicare, and 
my Commonwealth Care Alliance health insurance company, and it is 
managing my entire medical care team. The amount of paperwork it 
requires to stay alive as a disabled person takes up the equivalent to 
a part-time job's worth of hours of my life. If you count all the hours 
I spend on symptom management waiting to be well enough to manage the 
paperwork, being disabled is quite literally more than a full-time job. 
I have to fight so hard for every dollar, that any improvements you can 
make to the system--from increasing benefits to reducing paperwork 
burdens--have a dramatic ripple effect in making my daily life 
substantially easier to manage. Increasing benefits means I can pay for 
more relief that health insurance does not cover, and reducing 
paperwork means I have to harm my body less to retain my benefits. From 
talking with other disabled people, I know I am far from alone in 
spending almost all of my time on what amounts to ``death by a thousand 
paper cuts.''

It took three appeals of Social Security Administration denials before 
I could even begin receiving SSI benefits in 2013. I had to hire a 
lawyer on the last round who took 60% of my back payment award, despite 
the fact that for my case, the only work he did was to meet with me for 
an hour so I could brief him on the case, write a letter to the Social 
Security Administration to say he was representing me, and then stand 
up next to me in court the day of the hearing; I had done all of the 
hard work by myself already. I could have hired an actor to pretend to 
do all that for thousands of dollars less! When I spoke to him about 
the disproportional payout to workload ratio, he told me that taking on 
comparatively easy, well-organized and straightforward cases like mine 
allowed him to finance his work on complex cases requiring vastly more 
effort on his part. I take comfort in knowing that my money went to 
help some other disabled person get the legal assistance they needed, 
but it absolutely should not be this way. It was very clear that the 
Social Security Administration's denials were not based on the factual 
merits of my case--I am literally two inches shorter now than I was at 
the time of my first back injury, so of course all the muscle 
attachments to my spine are out of alignment causing chronic pain, and 
spinal disk tissue does not ever grow back once it is lost--but rather 
upon my relatively young age of 22 at the time of the disabling injury. 
The Social Security Administration should have had to pay for my 
lawyer's time, rather than taking his payment from my rightfully-owed 
benefits. If the Social Security Administration were held financially 
responsible, it would properly incentivize them to make correct 
decisions the first time around.

My parents divorced in 2008, following my accidental discovery in 
2006--which funnily enough, occurred while I was out of college with my 
first back injury, which eventually triggered the degenerative disk 
disease of the spine that resulted in my total permanent disability--
that my father had used legal loopholes to steal $10,000.00 that I had 
personally saved for college in order to finance his secret double life 
of mistresses, strippers, and Internet porn. His career arc and income 
level had gone down throughout their marriage so that my mother was the 
proverbial breadwinner at that time. They had incurred over $100,000.00 
of medical debt when my mother sustained her own back injury in 1995 on 
a family vacation. It took her over a year to recover enough to work 
again. She also carried the majority of family debt on credit cards 
taken out in her name only, because my parents divided household labor 
so my mother did the shopping and my father paid the bills. 
Unfortunately, this meant even though they were married at the time 
those debts were incurred and they were of provable benefit to the 
entire family, none of the debt in my mother's name only was my 
father's legal responsibility. So my father exploited all of this, as 
Massachusetts is a no-fault divorce state, to screw my mother and I 
over. The terms of their divorce settlement required my mother to pay 
me the $10,000.00 back out of her own pocket. But she had to refinance 
the mortgage on the house in order to buy him out, so if I accepted the 
money, she would lose the house. The rent for the worst studio 
apartment in town was over $600.00 per month back then, not including 
utilities, so that amount of money would not have bought me safe, 
independent living for more than six months when you factor in all the 
other bare minimum basic living costs and my much higher than average 
personal medical expenses. So after the deposit hit my account, I 
immediately wrote a check back to my mother for that $10,000.00. That 
is the only reason I had a place to stay that was not a homeless 
shelter with each subsequent back injury leading up to my total 
permanent disability throughout my college years. All this debt 
eventually led to my mother having to declare bankruptcy a few years 
later. When I confronted my father about the theft, he said he 
``deserved'' my money because as a chronically ill child, I was ``an 
inconvenience'' in his life. I love children and I babysat for years to 
earn a large chunk of that money, but I cannot imagine any circumstance 
in which I would describe having children as remotely ``convenient'' in 
any way! It is all extra laughable, because with my childhood chronic 
illnesses, my mother was always in charge of taking me to doctor's 
appointments, as well as refilling my medications and administering 
them until I was old enough to do so myself, because she was 
professionally employed as a nurse. The only impact my chronic 
illnesses ever had on his daily routine is that he had to cook dinner 
more often when my mother and I went to afternoon appointments that ran 
long. His refusal to acknowledge what he did beyond that initial 
outburst, to apologize, or to actually pay me back is why we are 
estranged to this day.

Then in 2019, I heard through the social media grapevine that my 
estranged father had taken early retirement the previous year; which a 
disabled friend then told me meant that I could now apply to upgrade 
from my own Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits to 
his Retirement, Survivors, And Disability Income (RSDI) disability 
benefits. Essentially, I have moved from being below the Federal 
Poverty Line while on SSI disability benefits to just squeaking by 
above it on RSDI benefits. Currently in 2021, I receive $1,284.00 per 
month on RSDI--while my friends still on SSI disability receive only 
$794.00 per month this year by contrast. It is on my to-do list as soon 
as I recover a bit more from my latest back injury, but I learned this 
year that the Social Security Administration was supposed to contact me 
when my father retired and upgrade me automatically from SSI to RSDI. 
They only gave me RSDI back pay to the date of my application for the 
upgrade, when it should have been to the date of his first Social 
Security early retirement payment over a year earlier. Like I said, I 
have had to become my own expert in the Social Security 
Administration's program policies because the actual Social Security 
Administration employees I have dealt with over the years have either 
been malicious liars or woefully misinformed. If any of you would like 
to call the Social Security Administration and yell at them on my 
behalf, please consider this your open invitation!

In December of 2017, I was lucky enough to have my application for 
subsidized housing on the basis of my disability accepted. I moved into 
my own apartment, thanks to the generosity of a friend of a friend 
loaning me money so I could afford to pay movers (as their initial 
estimate for the job magically tripled when it came time to present me 
with the final bill), which I paid back over the next few months. One 
side effect of disability is that is has shrunk my life down 
massively--so by 2017, I no longer knew anyone locally who was 
physically strong enough or had the free time available to help me move 
in exchange for pizza and beer the way most other Millennials of my 
generation have financed moving in their 20s and 30s. I am incredibly 
lucky to have found community among fellow disabled people in online 
spaces, particularly Twitter, which is how I learned of this 
committee's activities.

I bring up my move because SSI disability benefits so far below the 
poverty line is why I was stuck living with my violently abusive 
younger sister and my enabling mother for so long. When I had to drop 
out of Mount Holyoke College due to my disability in the Spring 2010 
Semester, I also lost my on-campus student housing. I moved home 
thinking it would be temporary until I recovered--as previous back 
injuries in 2006 herniating my L5/S1 disk and in 2008 rupturing my L3/
L4 disk had only taken four or five months to heal each time. I had a 
full semester plus one half-credit class left to finish in order to 
complete my undergraduate degree. So I put myself back in my childhood 
mentality of having to suffer temporarily until I could get free again, 
because despite my sister's violence towards me being publicly known 
for our entire lives, no one ever cared enough to intervene to help me. 
I thought I would recover, finish my degree, then get a job paying well 
enough to be permanently free of my sister's violence and my mother's 
enabling and gaslighting excuses.

I was paying rent to my mother each month that amounted to about 90% of 
my SSI disability benefits, with me usually not having more than 
between $5.00 and $20.00 left at the end of each month after paying the 
health insurance co-pays on all of my medications. There was simply no 
way I could have saved up enough to put down the standard first month, 
last month, and security deposit required to rent my own apartment 
safely away from my sister. My sister hounding my mother that I needed 
to pay rent or go homeless was why I applied for SSI disability 
benefits in the first place, really--she put a ticking clock on it, so 
I could not deny in 2010 that I simply was not healing as fast as I did 
from my previous injuries in 2006 and 2008. From the state of 
Massachusetts, I applied for Emergency Aid To The Elderly, Disabled, 
And Children (EAEDC) and I was granted it immediately while I applied 
for SSI disability. My mother took almost the entirety of my EAEDC 
check every month. After the cost of my prescription medication co-pays 
to my health insurance company and my cell phone bill, I again usually 
had somewhere between $5.00 and $20.00 left over to spend for the 
month. The amount of rent my mother charged me increased in proportion 
with my income, from EAEDC up to SSI disability.

But the fact was that there were three people living in my mother's 
house and my rent, while substantial, did not amount to 33.3% of my 
mother's mortgage payment. So instead of counting what I paid as rent, 
even though we had a written contract like any other landlord and 
tenant would, the Social Security Administration insisted that my 
mother was giving me the gift of lodging while I was paying her rent 
for fun! So the entire time I rented a room from my mother, my SSI 
disability benefits paid out at about half of the maximum individual 
amount. If at any time I had stopped paying rent, my sister would have 
violently evicted me. My mother even insisted that I give her almost 
all of my remaining SSI back pay after the lawyer took his cut in 2013. 
She allowed me to buy a new laptop and cell phone, because mine were 
both dying after being purchased for my 2005 high school graduation and 
they were necessary technology in order to complete the never-ending 
paperwork required to keep my SSI disability benefits payments coming, 
but that was about it. What little remained I used to give my loved 
ones slightly more expensive Christmas gifts than my minuscule budget 
would normally limit me to. Again, it was nowhere near what I would 
have needed in order to finance moving out on my own.

The Social Security Administration's commitment to such tough standards 
for the SSI program is unequivocally why I was stuck living in a 
violently abusive and financially exploitative situation for so long. 
It is perhaps easy to say I should have just gone to a shelter, but I 
do not fit the typical domestic violence mold of having been the victim 
of my romantic partner, so the fine print of many programs kept me from 
qualifying to use them. Additionally, the Social Security 
Administration requires you to have a fixed address because they only 
communicate by paper mail, so moving into shelters, where residence is 
often not guaranteed from one night to the next, would not have been 
viable in terms of keeping the SSI disability benefits keeping me 
alive. And the same is true for health insurance, even under 
MassHealth, which is the Medicaid program in Massachusetts. The highest 
priority in government-subsidized housing is given to disabled people, 
not abuse victims, and yet it still took me over three years from my 
date of application in 2014 to my apartment move-in date in 2017.

Which leads me to the fact that I have simply given up dating even 
though I still long for romantic partnership in my life. If I married a 
fellow disabled man (I use this wording because I am heterosexual), the 
Social Security Administration would cut each of our already-meager SSI 
disability benefits amounts; and if I married an able-bodied man, I 
would lose my SSI disability benefits entirely. After being financially 
coerced into an abusive living situation for so long, I cannot imagine 
willfully surrendering what tiny financial freedom I have to someone 
else, no matter how much I loved them; and I cannot imagine any man who 
truly loved me would honestly expect me to marry him, knowing what 
peace of mind in terms of safety it would cost me. If he turned out to 
be an abuser too, I would never be able to leave for the exact same 
reasons as before. I am not sure that this same penalty applies now 
that I have upgraded from my own SSI disability benefits to my father's 
RSDI benefits, because I could not find the answer researching on my 
own, and as I have said, the word of any given random Social Security 
Administration employee has proven worthless in my experience, so if 
you folks in the Senate know the answer, I would love--pun fully 
intended--to hear back from you!

Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was first created in 
1972 and it no longer ensures its founding mission ``that the nation's 
aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live on below-
poverty incomes.'' Please fix this! When I was reliant on SSI 
disability benefits below the Federal Poverty Line for all those years, 
every month the stress of doing my budget involved both a migraine and 
a crying breakdown on how unlivable my life was. Now that I have RSDI 
disability benefits just slightly higher than the Federal Poverty Line, 
my monthly budget process only involves a migraine. That tiny bit of 
breathing room is something I wish I could give to all the people who 
still rely on SSI disability benefits in order to survive. We deserve 
not to live under crushing financial stress every moment of our lives!

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any further questions 
about my experience with the SSI disability benefits program, or 
anything else I have touched on in my testimony. I am happy to help, 
especially if it will result in meaningful material improvements in the 
lives of my fellow disabled people.

Sincerely,
Mollie Katherine Gathro

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Emily Gensheimer
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Emily Gensheimer and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

Here is my story: I was born with a rare degenerative eye condition 
that has challenged me my whole life. By the time I was 15, I was 
already rendered unable to experience many of the things that prepare 
teenagers for adult life--such as getting a driver's license or working 
my first job. I began applying for SSI when I was 18, but was 
consistently turned down due to falling just short of the threshold for 
legal blindness, and I was denied legal help due to my young age. I 
continued applying year after year, especially as I approached my mid-
20s and desperately needed my own income. Finally, at age 25--months 
before I would have aged off my parents' insurance--I was approved for 
SSI and medicaid, now that my condition had reached ``legally blind'' 
status. Relieved to have finally been approved, I would now learn how 
very limiting being an SSI recipient is.

Now at age 30--and over 4 years on SSI later--I have this to say: Not 
only is the application process for SSI excruciatingly difficult (as my 
highly condensed story above shows), but the $794/mo (max.) that one 
may receive is not enough to live on independently, not in any part of 
this country. I do not live in a costly area, I receive the full SSI 
benefit, and am on food stamps and medicaid--yet I can say with all 
certainty that I couldn't survive on my own with all of these things. I 
currently live with a roommate and am barely scraping by every month. 
$794 will not even cover rent in most cases, much less all additional 
necessities one needs--especially considering that disabled people 
frequently need to afford things that able-bodied people do not.

To add insult to injury, I cannot even save more than $2000 (or have 
assets equaling more than this amount). My plan, in the case of a 
financial emergency, is to simply pray one never happens. ABLE accounts 
may be helpful for some individuals--if legally disabled before the age 
of 26--but come with their own strict limitations. I barely qualify 
myself, but hesitate to open one because they're highly controlling in 
regards to what you're allowed to spend the money on once it's in 
there. Besides that, I don't currently have money to spare for savings 
anyway.

The last nail in the coffin is knowing that if nothing changes, not 
only will I never achieve self-sufficiency in my lifetime, but I will 
never be able to get married. The SSI marriage rules all but guarantee 
that most of us will remain unmarried, less we risk losing our 
benefits. Expecting all disabled individuals to rely on a spouse for 
each and every financial need is not only very unrealistic, but 
encourages unhealthy, potentially abusive relationships to happen. It 
is an all around violation of our rights to marriage equality.

The last thing I would like to mention is that my condition is genetic; 
I have three young nieces who have poor vision, and at least one of 
which seems to be heading in the same direction as me. While we 
obviously hope it never comes to that, I want to know that my niece--
and other children with potential disabilities--will have a system she 
can rely on if she needs to one day. At the rate things are going, 
however, disabled people like myself have been given little hope for a 
better future. We are again and again told that our needs are not a 
priority and that we must wait indefinitely for change, all while the 
cost of living in the country continues to skyrocket. The system, as it 
is now, has been failing us since before I was even born, and will 
force so many of us into homelessness and even death if nothing is done 
about it soon.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Emily Gensheimer

                                 ______
                                 
                     Letter Submitted by Emma Grace
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Emma Grace and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' Although I do not rely on SSI, I can see that the program 
desperately needs to be updated, and want better for disabled people in 
my community. Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was 
passed in 1972 and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, 
blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live on below-
poverty incomes.''

It's fundamentally un-American to bar an entire category of people from 
fulfilling the American dream by restricting their access to marriage 
or healthcare and forcing them to life in poverty if they want to live 
at all. The way SSI is currently set up is tantamount to eugenics--
either disabled people live below the poverty line or they no longer 
have access to stable income and healthcare, when the importance of 
stable income and healthcare to keeping disabled people alive is why we 
created SSI on the first place.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Thank you,

Emma Grace

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Alan Kyle Graham
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Kyle Graham and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I and many of my friends with disabilities rely on SSI and the 
program desperately needs to be updated. Many of the rules have not 
been changed since SSI was passed in 1972.

I want to get married to my fiancee, Jill Swyden. We have been engaged 
for seven years, but I don't want to lose 25% of my Social Security, 
which is $187.50 each month, just because I want to marry Jill. If I 
get married, Jill will lose 50% of her Social Security, which is $375 
each month, and I don't want that to happen. So I want the law to be 
changed, so that there will be no marriage penalty tax for people with 
disabilities.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Kyle Graham
President
Tulsa People First

                                 ______
                                 
                Letter Submitted by Michael Jacob Graham
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy
                    policy options for improving ssi
My name is Michael Graham, I am 23 years old. I currently am on SSI, 
and I am unemployed. I have been on (SSI) Social Security Income since 
I was 18 years old.

I volunteer, holding a position as a Board of Directors member with the 
Arc of King County and also am a member of the Best Buddies Washington 
State advisory board and a participant of Best Buddies. In 2019, I 
graduated from the Transition Academy of Redmond. During my time at the 
Transition Academy, I was involved in Best Buddies to help people like 
me, make friendships and have friends to hang out with. I love being 
part of Best Buddies and it's an honor to help because I love giving 
back to the community and helping people.

I think jobs and the age restriction cap should be lifted. Congress 
needs to ensure that there are changes to SSI that lifts people out of 
poverty. From personal experience I understand what it's like to be 
held back and face setback after setback because of the disability 
income cap. The earnings limit is extremely low and SSI takes money 
back from the payment I received ($794.00 per month). Tell me who can 
live on $794.00 a month? I'll tell you . . . no one can. I know what 
it's like to be on SSI and get stuck trying to figure out how to live 
on that especially in Seattle, Bothell, and Kirkland which are very 
expensive. A one-bedroom apartment can cost an average of $1,400. My 
total monthly cost for rent, utilities (without cable), and food is 
$1,396.5 a month and my total income from SSI was $794.00 but they 
reduced my benefit to $241.85 because they say my expenses are being 
subsidized by my grandmother whom I must live with because I cannot 
afford to live on my own. This is discrimination and clearly shows SSI 
is too low and keeps me and many others in poverty.

Congress needs to ensure that there are increases SSI asset limits, 
income rules, and benefits. Personally, every single month I get 
deducted more and more money. I made $794.00 a month and now I only 
receive $241.85 a month because SSI says my grandma cannot help me pay 
for anything and if she does not help me, I would be homeless and have 
no money, no shelter, and nothing to keep me alive. I need more support 
and SSI says that I cannot get any financial help or they take back 
even more. I cannot even ``rent a room'' from my grandmother because in 
Washington State apartment complexes require everyone living in the 
apartment must sign the lease which then makes me responsible for half 
of the monthly rent, which is more than SSI gives me every month. Which 
means that I am being financially supplemented each month and SSI 
doesn't allow that so then they take away more of the monthly 
allotment.

Congress needs to ensure that people are allowed to receive financial 
help from their family without being penalized. As I stated above SSI 
does not allow any financial assistance from anyone, or you have your 
monthly payment reduced. My Grandmother pays 99% of everything because 
I do not receive enough to meet my needs. I will never get out of 
poverty and never be able to live on my own, if I am not allowed to 
earn an income that doesn't allow SSI to constantly take back money for 
working. What they provide is minimal financial assistance that they 
then pick away at, so they do not have to give me anything.

Thank you for your time.

Michael Jacob Graham

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Stephen Grammer
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Stephen Grammer and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.

I am disabled, and rely on Social Security Income to pay my bills, 
medication that Medicaid doesn't cover, daily living necessities, rent 
and public transportation. This helps me to be able to live 
independently in the community, which is my ADA right to live in the 
least restrictive environment possible. Some of the drawbacks of SSI 
include: If you have a job and make over a certain amount, takes a 
percentage of the earnings. People with disabilities should be able to 
work without being penalized for the amount they receive from their 
job.

Also, if a bank account exceeds $2,000, SSI takes the amount out of 
your monthly check until you pay it off. This is not right, especially 
for disabled individuals. Not allowing bank accounts to exceed $2,000 
hinders individuals' ability to save money--which doesn't allow us to 
prepare for unexpected expenses or emergencies. Even if you have a 
trust fund, you are still in danger. Another issue is that if citizens 
live in low-income-based housing, no matter the amount of money we get 
from Social Security, we still have to put 30 percent of our income 
toward rent. Therefore, we still are not getting enough money to pay 
for what we need to survive safely in the community. There should be a 
set rule for low-income-based rent, so that we can say that people who 
have to live in Section 8 or public housing do not have to pay for 
rent, because SSI went up.

Social Security administration needs to make it easier to report income 
online. Right now, you can either call or go to the office. Sometimes 
when you call to report income, the employees who answer the phone say 
they put the information in the computer, and three months later, SSI 
tries to penalize people for not reporting it, even if they did. If we 
could do this online and get an email confirmation, this would not only 
make things easier for the disabled community, but it also clear up any 
confusion with Social Security about whether or not someone reported 
their income. A suggestion is to assign everyone a worker, so that we 
have a regular email contact, in case some people are not able to 
communicate by phone. This will help clear up confusion, because 
instead of not knowing who to speak with, we would be able to speak to 
the same person.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation. I encourage you to support 
the SSI Restoration Act (S. 2065/H.R. 3824).

Sincerely,

Stephen Grammer

                                 ______
                                 
                       Greater Hartford Legal Aid

                       999 Asylum Ave., 3rd Floor

                           Hartford, CT 06105

                 New Haven Legal Assistance Association

                             205 Orange St.

                          New Haven, CT 06510

                       Connecticut Legal Services

                      62 Washington St., 4th Floor

                          Middletown, CT 06457

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

Greater Hartford Legal Aid, New Haven Legal Assistance Association, and 
Connecticut Legal Services provides civil legal services to low-income 
individuals living in Connecticut. We submit the following statement 
for the record for the Subcommittee hearing on Options for Improving 
SSI. We urge you to modernize the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
program by incorporating the Supplemental Security Income Restoration 
Act (S. 2065) in the budget reconciliation now under consideration in 
the Senate. The income and asset limits for the program, which provides 
critical income to people with no or limited income who are 65 or older 
or have disabilities that often render them unable to work, have not 
been updated since the program was established in 1972. The cost of 
living has increased five and a half times since then. Thus a program 
that was intended to raise the standard of living for people at most 
risk instead confines them to incomes below the poverty level, and an 
asset limit that strongly discourages planning and foresight.

As of December 2019, there were 66,783 people receiving SSI in 
Connecticut. Many of our clients number among them. The cost of living 
in Connecticut can be quite high, particularly in Fairfield, New Haven, 
and Hartford Counties where the majority of the state's SSI recipients 
live. Benefits are limited to $794 per month for an individual or 
$1,191 for a couple, well below the current federal poverty level of 
$1,073 per month for an individual or $1,452 for a couple. Connecticut 
does have a supplement available to recipients of SSI, but this benefit 
is limited to those with high rents and often is not adjusted for the 
cost of living. Even with this supplement, those relying on SSI and the 
state supplement do not receive an income equal to the federal poverty 
level. The program should be revised to provide a monthly benefit level 
to at least 100% of the federal poverty level.

The asset limits for the program are very low, $2,000 for an individual 
and $3,000 for a couple, resulting in hardship for our clients who are 
excluded from the program for each month their assets exceed the 
amount. The program thus discourages savings, even for essential items 
such as for a housing security deposit, a reliable car, or a computer 
and education programs. Thus clients who may receive a modest lump sum 
settlement are forced to forego their SSI benefits each month until 
they are able to ``spend down'' the asset.\1\ Increasing the limits to 
$10,000 per person ($20,000 per couple) would allow recipients to 
accept small legacies, modest lawsuit settlements, or to accumulate 
modest savings to address life's contingencies without jeopardizing 
their monthly income. Additionally, indexing all of these amounts 
(benefit limits, income disregards, and asset limits) to the consumer 
price index to account for inflation would insure that the program 
provides consistent value over the years. It should not take 50 years 
for these amounts to be adjusted to achieve the intended value of the 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Statewide Legal Services, one of our affiliated legal services 
program in the state, recently had a case where a lawsuit filed on 
behalf of a low-income family resulted in a modest settlement of 
$14,000 that threatens to render the child on SSI ineligible for more 
than 12 months, at which point the child would have to reapply for SSI.

SSI purports to allow recipients additional income from other sources 
such as Social Security or a pension, but the income allowed--called a 
disregard--is just $20, which is so low as to be essentially 
meaningless. This amount should be increased to $128 per month, which 
reflects the increased cost of living since 1972. In order to encourage 
SSI recipients who can work despite their disability to return to the 
work force, they are allowed slightly more earned income, but this 
limit is also very low, just $65 per month in addition to the initial 
$20 disregard, plus half of their earnings. In Connecticut, where the 
minimum wage is $13 an hour as of this August, $85 equates to just 6.5 
hours a month. It is very difficult to find an employer willing to 
employ anyone for just 6.5 hours each month. Increasing the earned 
income disregard to $416 would allow people to work 32 hours per month 
at minimum wage or a full day's worth of work each week without 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
penalty.

Any modernization should also simplify the treatment of past-due lump 
sum payments. Lump-sum payments due to children on SSI, under the 
provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996, must currently go to a separate dedicated 
account, which complicates the administrative burden on both the SSA 
and the recipient's family, and makes it more difficult for the family 
to access the funds. It would also eliminate the installment payment 
requirement when past-due SSI benefits exceed three months' worth of 
benefits, which delays the ability for SSI recipients to access the 
money owed to them. In some cases, these installment payments are not 
completed until after the recipient dies. It also extends the period of 
exclusion of certain payments from countable resources from 9 months to 
21 months, allowing recipients to establish a special needs trust or an 
ABLE account that can be used to address their ongoing needs.

A modernization program should also repeal a number of harsh, and 
needlessly punitive, aspects of the program such as the marriage 
penalty, which reduces the effective benefit for a married couple where 
both members receive SSI to 25% less than the amount two unmarried 
individual beneficiaries living together would receive. Removing the 
marriage penalty would have the additional benefit of removing the need 
for the ``holding out'' provision that requires the Social Security 
Administration to determine whether two individuals living together 
should be treated as married for SSI benefit, which places an 
administrative burden on the SSA, and as 1992 SSA report found can have 
``adverse and disturbing effects both with respect to claimants' 
personal privacy and to the administrative process.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Social Security Administration, ``SSI Modernization Project: 
Final Report of the Experts'' (1992). Available at https://www.ssa.gov/
policy/docs/ssb/v55n4/v55n4p22.pdf.

A modernization program should also remove the in-kind maintenance and 
support provision that reduces the benefit rate if the SSI recipient 
receives in-kind food and/or shelter, which makes it difficult for a 
family member to provide shelter to the SSI recipient without adversely 
affecting the recipient's benefits. The provision can also limit the 
effectiveness of special needs trusts established to provide for a 
disabled person's basic needs if that trust is used to provide food or 
shelter. We also recommend repealing the penalty for transferring a 
resource for less than fair market value within 36 months of applying 
for SSI or any time after. The policy assumes that people will give 
away valuable property for the chance to live on a meager monthly 
income. It is insulting to recipients and places a heavy administrative 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
burden on the Social Security Administration for very little benefit.

SSI was established with the laudable goal of raising the standard of 
living for low-income elderly and people with disabilities. However, 
because the value of the benefits has not changed for fifty years, it 
woefully fails to live up to that goal. It is well past time to update 
the program for the twenty-first century, thereby improving the program 
for the people of Connecticut and the nation.

Sincerely,

Alison M. Weir                      John Spilka
Policy Advocate                     Managing Attorney, Disability Unit
Greater Hartford Legal Aid          Connecticut Legal Services
[email protected]                      [email protected]

Shelley White                       Nilda R. Havrilla
Director of Litigation and Advocacy Director of Litigation and Advocacy
New Haven Legal Assistance 
Association                         Connecticut Legal Services
[email protected]                  [email protected]

                                 ______
                                 
                    Letter Submitted by Morgana Harp
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Morgana Harp and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' My mother and several of my friends rely on SSI and the program 
desperately needs to be updated. My spouse and I have also applied only 
to be denied multiple times in the last ten years. Many of the rules 
have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 and it no longer 
ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no 
longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

My spouse and I are both unable to work due to our health conditions. 
Both of us are under 40 and do not have enough work credits, so we have 
applied for SSI in the past and both have been denied. Our lives would 
be much easier if we could work, but objectively speaking neither of us 
can maintain gainful employment. I have never held a job for over 6 
months and usually am let go or forced to resign after a month due to 
my health issues. I have several conditions that, at the time of 
writing, have no cure. They all progressively get worse over time and 
it takes all of my time and energy to attend to my medical needs and 
barely scrape by. Perhaps if it was only one condition that caused my 
limitations, I'd be gainfully employed, but all together my conditions 
ensure that any accommodations I require would go beyond 
``reasonable.'' When I realized in 2010 that I was not well enough to 
work regularly, I applied for SSI. I was young, so I got denied. I have 
kept trying to work, even when my body has made it clear that I'm 
pushing past my limitations. I finally reached a breaking point in 2018 
and was forced to recognize that if I try to work in my current 
condition, I risk dying prematurely. As we have waited for a hearing 
with a judge, we have constantly had to out-run homelessness, moving 
over 20 times across 4 states and 12 towns to try to keep a roof over 
our heads. We finally got into public housing in 2018 but still am 
barely able to afford my bills thanks to the kindness of friends and 
family, most of whom are in similarly dire financial straits. We are a 
burden on our loved ones and it has cost us relationships over the 
years.

My spouse and I got married in 2017 to try to maintain SNAP benefits in 
Wisconsin. If either of us get SSI we will likely have to get divorced 
due to the penalties.

My spouse and I have had an average combined income of $2,000 per year 
from self employment, which is deep poverty and well below the 
thresholds set by the state and federal government. We are surviving 
but we are not thriving, and the longer we stay in this constant state 
of fighting for survival, both of our conditions deteriorate.

Everyone I know who needs SSI or relies on it is constantly one step 
away from disaster and the stress impacts our cognitive functioning and 
often makes our health issues worse. After my last SSI denial, I mused 
that if I weren't so sick, it would be easier to turn to a life of 
crime than keep applying for SSI. That is how desperate this broken 
system is making the people who need it most.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Morgana Harp

                                 ______
                                 
                       Homeless Advocacy Project

                     1429 Walnut Street, 15th Floor

                         Philadelphia, PA 19102

                              215-523-9595

                              215-523-9599

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

The Homeless Advocacy Project submits this statement to be made part of 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' As an organization with over 30 years of experience representing 
homeless individuals and families, we appreciate the Subcommittee's 
consideration of this incredibly important topic and are grateful for 
the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of our organization and 
the people we represent on SSI matters every day.

Homeless Advocacy Project

By way of background, the Homeless Advocacy Project (HAP) is a free 
civil legal services program for adults, unaccompanied youth and 
children experiencing homelessness or at imminent risk of becoming 
homeless in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. HAP's clients reside in 
homeless shelters and abandoned buildings and on the city's streets. 
They frequently suffer from living conditions that hamper their ability 
to navigate the myriad systems--including traditional legal services 
programs--under which they are eligible for supports and services. HAP, 
therefore, engages with clients in places where people experiencing 
homelessness eat, sleep, receive mail or access social services.

HAP annually provides free legal assistance to over 3,000 individuals 
and families. To holistically meet the needs of our clients, HAP 
provides comprehensive legal assistance in a broad range of areas 
including: establishing eligibility for benefits programs such as 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families (TANF), medical assistance and food stamps (SNAP); 
establishing eligibility for Veterans Compensation and Pension 
benefits, and upgrading discharge characterizations; enforcing custody 
and other family law rights; accessing shelter and other supportive 
services; replacing or correcting identity documents; and preserving 
private and subsidized housing eligibility.

Our program is dedicated to eliminating barriers that prevent some of 
our city's poorest and most disenfranchised individuals from securing 
housing stability. To that end, HAP is committed to ensuring that our 
clients access any and all benefits to which they are entitled. For an 
overwhelming number of our clients that means SSI benefits. Too poor to 
sustain housing and too psychiatrically and physically impaired to 
sustain employment, SSI remains the only means by which to secure 
stability. Yet, with a maximum benefit of $794 monthly, housing remains 
elusive even for SSI recipients.

HAP's SOAR SSI Application Project

HAP is approaching the 14th year anniversary of its SOAR Project, which 
is routinely highlighted as one of the most successful SOAR (SSI/SSDI 
Outreach, Access and Recovery--Technical Assistance Initiative) 
projects in the country. Since filing its first SSI disability 
application utilizing its SOAR protocol, HAP has successfully 
represented more than 2,750 disabled individuals, either homeless or at 
risk of homelessness, on their claims for federal SSI disability 
benefits. Since the project's inception, HAP has maintained a 96% 
approval on initial applications. Claims filed outside of HAP's SOAR 
Project are denied a majority of the time and can take more than 2 
years from application until administrative hearing decision with a 
reduced likelihood of success. Not surprisingly, demand for HAP 
representation via SOAR is great.

Given the struggles, traumatic experiences and fragility of 
Philadelphia's homeless population, especially since no other income 
stream is available to them, HAP takes every opportunity to expand the 
reach of its SOAR Project. HAP has utilized the SOAR protocol to secure 
benefits for a variety of populations, including, but not limited to:

      Participants in Housing First programs;
      Extended TANF household heads with a history of unsuccessful 
work attempts;
      The chronic street homeless population with a history of shelter 
resistance;
      Unaccompanied transition-age youth who have aged out, or are 
about to age out, of Philadelphia's child welfare dependency and 
delinquency systems;
      Homeless Veterans who are either ineligible for VA benefits or 
who are navigating--many with HAP legal representation--the protracted 
VA benefits process;
      Criminal justice-involved homeless adults;
      Homeless individuals with Axis I Substance Use Disorders, 
including mothers in treatment programs with their children;
      Disabled children residing with their parents in shelters or 
rapid rehousing programs;
      Homeless adults and youth receiving behavioral health case 
management supports.

While always high, demand for representation through HAP's SOAR Project 
has significantly increased during the current pandemic as SSA field 
offices remained closed and homeless claimants can no longer walk into 
an SSA office for assistance.

The Improvement of SSI

HAP sees daily both the urgent need for SSI benefits as well as SSI's 
inadequacy in meeting the most basic needs of the individuals and 
families we represent. As noted below, with a maximum monthly benefit 
amount far below the federal poverty level combined with regulatory 
limitations that have too long been in place, the SSI program as 
currently implemented ensures that individuals too disabled to work, 
disabled children and older Americans with no other income stream 
remain trapped in unacceptably deep poverty. For HAP's clients, it also 
means protracted and likely unresolvable housing instability. With the 
implementation of long overdue changes, this need not be the case.
Raise Benefit Levels Above the Federal Poverty Line
The 2021 maximum SSI benefit is $794 per month or $9,528 annually. This 
maximum benefit level does not even amount to 75% of the Federal 
Poverty Level for a household of one in 2021. The message and impact 
are clear--SSI is designed to keep Americans over 65 years of age as 
well as disabled adults and youth too disabled to work trapped in a 
cycle of poverty with no means of escape.

Unless they are among the fortunate few who obtain subsidized housing 
where rent is based upon 30% of monthly income, SSI recipients are 
simply unable to maintain any semblance of housing stability. 
Affordable private housing is nonexistent. Room rentals are few, rarely 
licensed or habitable, and routinely unreliable, resulting in cycling 
between rented rooms and homelessness. HAP not uncommonly engages with 
clients who stay in cheap unsanitary motels in the beginning of the 
month when their SSI benefits are received only to return to the street 
when they run out of funds. It is not surprising--although certainly 
disheartening--that since October 1, 2021, HAP assisted more than 43 
chronically homeless persons over 65 years old to obtain verification 
of their benefits from SSA so that they could, hopefully, obtain one of 
the pandemic-funded housing vouchers. Of these homeless individuals, 19 
were more than 70 years of age.
Increase the SSI Asset/Resource Limit
Nowhere does the SSI system appear designed to entrap poor older 
Americans and those individuals too disabled to work within a cycle of 
housing instability and homelessness, than in its asset restrictions. 
The $2,000 countable resource cap for individuals (and $3,000 for 
married couples) has not been increased since 1984, evidencing no 
intention to even feign a reflection of inflation or the realities of 
today.

The impact of this asset cap is especially punishing when individuals 
who have long fought for SSI benefits are finally deemed eligible and 
awarded large retroactive benefit awards. These funds are only exempt 
from counting toward the asset limit for a 9-month period. Rather than 
being permitted to save for future emergencies or events with SSI funds 
they fought to receive and were owed, SSI recipients are required to 
spend down their benefits below this outdated and arbitrary resource 
limit.

This is frequently the case with HAP's SOAR matters where HAP 
successfully advocates for the reopening of prior claims wrongfully 
denied and retroactive benefit awards may be substantial. It is not 
uncommon for advocates in these situations to advise case managers to 
help their clients spend money--purchase clothes, a television and 
otherwise spend funds they would rather save so as to avoid SSA's 
recoupment of benefits due to large overpayments.
 Eliminate In-Kind Maintenance and Support Rules that Reduce SSI 
        Benefits for People Who Receive Shelter, Meals and Groceries 
        from Family and Friends
HAP staff is well aware of the negative impact benefit reductions have 
on the willingness of homeless SSI recipients to leave life on the 
street. With monthly SSI amounts already too low, unsheltered 
individuals refuse to accept services if it means a decrease in their 
monthly benefits. It is just that simple.

SSI recipients who stay with family members or friends typically lose 
one-third of their monthly benefit (approximately $264) due to ``in-
kind'' support and maintenance. This disincentivizes older and disabled 
homeless persons from choosing safer living situations. In fact, HAP is 
currently struggling with this issue regarding SSI recipients who are 
staying at COVID Prevention Sites funded by the city's emergency 
housing agency. These sites are specifically designed to meet a 
critical emergent need--to safely house older and medically fragile 
homeless persons during the pandemic. Despite the wide array of 
services devoted to convincing street homeless persons to come into the 
prevention sites, SSA has started reducing the benefits of those 
individuals who do come in by one-third, raising the likelihood that 
these individuals will leave these safely distanced temporary housing 
options and return to the streets.

SSA has been a staunch supporter of, and partner to, HAP's SOAR Project 
and has spent a good deal of time and effort on reaching vulnerable 
populations, including those experiencing homelessness, during the 
pandemic. HAP suggests that SSA understand the inherent inconsistencies 
in its actions which may well prolong periods of homelessness or 
increase its frequency.

Conclusion

HAP is grateful for the Subcommittee's attention and the long overdue 
consideration of policy options that would significantly improve SSI's 
impact on our vulnerable communities that these benefits are designed 
to support. Should you require any additional information, you may 
reach me directly at 215-523-9595 or mlevy@hap
legal.org.

Respectfully yours,

Michele Levy
Managing Attorney

                                 ______
                                 
                 Letter Submitted by Kristi L. Hunziker
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Kristi Hunziker and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I volunteer in public guardianship, working with adults with 
developmental disabilities. I did try and work professionally in this 
field, but due to paltry renumeration available, could not rely on 
providing guardianship services as my primary source of income. Over 
time, I've had to take fewer and fewer cases. But my concerns are not 
the primary reason I am writing. The real motivator is that the system 
is completely unfair to adults with developmental disabilities. My 
clients rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.'' The 
clients I've had who are severely disabled, and never be able to be 
gainfully employed, are consigned to living on less than $800 a month. 
Even with other government services, such as SNAP benefits and Medicaid 
and Medicare, this is a ridiculously low amount of money. Definitely 
they cannot pay me.

Adults with disabilities have their disabilities for life. They will 
never go away. Probably the main thing, beyond the tiny amount of 
benefits they receive, that troubles me is the rule about earned 
income. Why should an adult with lifelong disabilities be forced to 
give up their social security and all the benefits that go with that--
especially medical--if they want to work? No reason, other than to try 
and force people off of Social Security. This is simply wrong. It is 
unethical. These people will always have these disabilities. My client 
who wants to work would love to work full time and earn real money. But 
he is most definitely intellectually disabled, and never holds down 
even the best job for more than a year or so. But every time he gets 
employed, he tries to work too much, and we are constantly afraid he is 
going to lose his benefits. People don't just lose the social security 
benefit--they lose their medical, they lose their support through state 
government for personal care, subsidized housing, and other supports if 
they need them. Their family loses respite care. None of this should be 
so. The income limit either needs to go away for these individuals, or 
at least be much higher.

Another thing that is completely unreasonable is the $2,000 limit. In 
2021, $2,000 is a lot less than it was in the 1970s! But it is treated 
as if it's a fortune! Another client for whom I am representative 
payee, went over income because I didn't understand the rules well, and 
was trying to transition between banks, and let him go over that limit 
several months in a row. Since then Social Security Administration has 
been withholding part of his SSI every month, and will continue to do 
so for years! How is this right? He has even less than other 
individuals to live on! If he weren't in a special subsidized housing 
situation, he would be homeless. And why should he be forced to pay for 
my mistake? This also is unreasonable. This resource limit needs to be 
increased.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Kristi L. Hunziker, CPG
Washington State #13048

                                 ______
                                 
                Letter Submitted by Carrissa M. Johnson
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

My name is Carrissa Johnson and I work for the Center for Accessible 
Living in Murray Kentucky. I'm also a person with a disability and for 
many years I relied on SSI benefits to survive.

Both myself and my clients find it difficult to live on these benefits. 
Medicaid in particular is a vital piece to receiving benefits no I am 
off benefits now I find it difficult to get the services and supports I 
need without the Medicaid. In addition these benefits are some of the 
lowest and most difficult to survive with. It's very difficult to want 
to improve oneself and living situation knowing you could lose Vital 
supports.

Individuals with disabilities decide to get married and they're both on 
benefits the benefits automatically decrease. A lot of couples have to 
choose between there right to do that and survival.

I ask you to revisit some of these policies and ask yourself would you 
want a family member or a loved one to go through these challenges?

Thank you,

Carrissa M. Johnson, CSW, CNP
Satellite Office Director

                                 ______
                                 
              Letter Submitted by Jennifer Johnson, Ph.D.
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Senators of the Finance Subcommittee on Social Security,

I implore you to review and update some of the social security 
restrictions and rules that have been untouched for decades.

      The last time the asset limit was raised was 1985. Two thousand 
dollars in 1985 was substantially more money than $2,000 in 2021. The 
average rent for an apartment in 1985 was $339, but in 2021 it is 
$1,124.

      The marriage penalty should absolutely be eliminated. If my son 
wants to get married, he absolutely should be able to have that life 
experience. A reduction in livelihood because he gets married is 
discriminatory and inequitable. The assumption is that married couples 
always merge their assets, which is an invalid assumption. Another 
assumption is that expense would be less for 2 people living together 
than separately. My son's need for support services always exceeds what 
he receives in public benefits, and those costs will always increase 
over time not decrease because he chooses to marry. Most importantly, 
in his situation, losing Medicaid would be disastrous. He has multiple 
significant medical conditions that require a great deal of medical 
services and rehabilitative therapy. Marrying shouldn't leave him 
destitute with medical bills.

      Earning limits should be increased. The current maximum a person 
with a disability can earn is $1,260/month. That amounts to less than 
half-time work at a minimum wage job. My son has significant physical 
disabilities that prevent him from doing typical low paying jobs 
(flipping burgers, bagging groceries); however, he wants to go to 
college and law school to become a disability rights lawyer and 
advocate. He can absolutely do work that doesn't require him to use his 
hands. But, he would never be able to work in his chosen field with 
these limits. Disability rights lawyers are forced to work as 
volunteers because they cannot afford to lose Medicaid for healthcare. 
Shouldn't we be thrilled that people with disabilities want to do more 
than sitting around watching TV because of these archaic restrictions? 
Isn't our government charged with helping its citizenry to achieve 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

      The rules that decrease or cuts benefits when a person with a 
disability is working is awful. Why would the US not want to champion 
people with disabilities who are able to work? If my son were able to 
earn a living, even if it means giving up SSDI, he should not have to 
lose his insurance coverage, Medicaid. My son has always had primary 
insurance coverage, but the Medicaid he has has saved us and will save 
him from being bankrupt from his medical care costs. Why should he not 
be able to work and live above the poverty level?

      Why should people with disabilities not be able to enjoy help 
from loved ones? I'm 49 years old and still get some supplemental funds 
from my mother monthly to help me with my son's care costs. That money 
or help with equipment not covered by insurance does NOT mean that my 
son and I are sitting around eating bon bons off silver trays. I drive 
a 19 year old car with 190,000 miles on it so that I can use whatever 
dollars we have after rent and groceries on my son's education, 
therapy, and care. Every dollar we earn is going to his current care or 
trying to plan for his future care. Why does the U.S. not want our 
citizens with disabilities to rise above the poverty level and be able 
to live fuller lives? If my son's aunt or cousin wants to give him some 
money so that he can go to local zoos, should that really deprive him 
of healthcare?

We should be doing everything we can to encourage people with 
disabilities to save for their future, to work as much as they are 
able, and get support from loved ones as needed without fearing that 
they will lose essential benefits like healthcare. How are we different 
from ``less developed nations'' if we are complicit in keeping those 
with disabilities in poverty, homelessness, and without healthcare?

With sincerity and fierce advocacy for my son and all of his disabled 
peers,

Dr. Jennifer Johnson

                                 ______
                                 
                            Justice in Aging

                             1444 I St., NW

                          Washington, DC 20005

September 17, 2021

Chairman Sherrod Brown
Ranking Member Todd Young
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Re: September 21, 2021 Subcommittee Hearing on ``Policy Options for 
Improving SSI''

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young,

This statement is submitted on behalf of Justice in Aging, an advocacy 
organization with the mission of improving the lives of low-income 
older adults. We use the power of law to fight senior poverty by 
securing access to affordable health care, economic security, and the 
courts for older adults with limited resources. We have decades of 
experience with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security 
benefits, with a focus on the needs of low-income beneficiaries and 
populations that have traditionally lacked legal protections such as 
women, people of color, LGBT individuals, and people with limited 
English proficiency. Justice in Aging conducts training and advocacy 
regarding SSI and Social Security benefits, provides technical 
assistance to attorneys and others from across the country on how to 
address problems that arise under these programs, engages with the 
Social Security Administration (SSA) to address issues around agency 
policies and procedures that affect claimants' or beneficiaries' 
abilities to access SSI and/or Social Security benefits, and advocates 
for strong protections to ensure that beneficiaries receive the 
benefits to which they are entitled promptly and without arbitrary 
denial or disruption.

We thank you for holding this hearing on policy options for improving 
SSI, a program that millions of low-income older adults and people with 
disabilities rely on to survive. As Congress explained back when it was 
established in 1972, the program was designed to prevent seniors and 
people with disabilities from having ``to subsist on below-poverty-
level incomes.''\1\ For the approximately 2.3 million older adults age 
65 and up who receive SSI benefits, this program is critical. SSI is 
the reason they are not living in extreme poverty, and allows them to 
pay for shelter, food, or other necessities. Women make up more than 
half of all SSI recipients, but among older adults, women make up over 
60% of those receiving SSI. Older adult women who need SSI include 
widows who have lost a spouse and must now meet their living expenses 
for the coming years (or decades) with much less income; low-income 
older women who are divorced or who never married, had low earnings, 
and did not have the ability to build up their savings for retirement; 
and women who, because they spent years out of the workforce caring for 
family members, do not qualify for significant Social Security 
retirement benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ S. Rept. No. 92-1230, Social Security Amendments of 1972, 
Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate (September 25, 1972), p. 384, 
available at https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/Downey%20
PDFs/Amendments%20to%20the%20Social%20Security%20Act%201969-
1972%20Vol.%203.pdf.

SSI is also a key source of income for older adults of color, who 
experience poverty rates that are twice those of older white adults.\2\ 
This disparity is rooted in the systemic discrimination that people of 
color experience over the course of their lifetimes in the form of 
lower average wages, higher unemployment, and significantly less 
intergenerational wealth. As a result, SSI, which targets assistance to 
the lowest-
income older adults, is an important program in the fight to advance 
equity. Older adults of color who do not have access to significant 
Social Security benefits, individual retirement savings, or familial 
wealth, rely instead on SSI to keep them out of deep poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Juliette Cubanski, Wyatt Koma, Anthony Damico, and Tricia 
Neuman, Kaiser Family Foundation, ``How Many Seniors Live in Poverty'' 
(Nov. 2018), available at https://files.kff.org/attachment/Issue-Brief-
How-Many-Seniors-Live-in-Poverty.

Congress created the SSI program to assist those who, due to age or 
significant disabilities, are unable to meet their basic needs. And 
while SSI is essential to helping extremely low-income older adults 
make ends meet, the program has been neglected for so long that it now 
keeps people in poverty and excludes the very people it was intended to 
help. The current monthly SSI benefit is only $794 per month, leaving 
recipients with income that is less than 75% of the federal poverty 
level. In addition, some of the program rules haven't been changed in 
almost 50 years, so the eligibility requirements do not reflect the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
true cost of living today.

For example, older adults who receive a small amount of Social Security 
retirement or survivors benefits make up half of all of those receiving 
SSI on the basis of age. Despite having some Social Security income, 
SSA only excludes the first $20 of those Social Security benefits 
before their SSI is reduced dollar for dollar. This means that a person 
with a $500 Social Security benefit only receives $314 in SSI as a 
``supplement'' for a total of $814 per month (or $794 plus $20). This 
$20 general income disregard is the same $20 disregard that was 
established the year the program was created in 1972--that is almost 50 
years of neglect, and certainly not a reflection of the cost of living 
in 2021.

Another SSI provision that has not been changed for decades is the 
asset limit. Currently, an individual with more than $2,000 in assets 
is not eligible to receive any SSI benefits at all. That means that 
older adults who have tried to save for retirement or emergencies--to 
replace a broken furnace, for example--must spend their savings down to 
qualify for the sorely needed monthly income that SSI provides. 
Purposefully spending money in order to limit savings is not the type 
of advice that any financial advisor would give to someone trying to 
make good financial decisions, yet it is exactly what the SSI program 
is currently forcing people to do if they need to have enough regular 
income to live.

Other provisions of SSI that we need to address include the marriage 
penalty and the archaic ``in-kind support and maintenance'' rules. With 
regard to marriage, individuals receiving SSI are unfairly penalized if 
they choose to get married. Rather than receiving the full benefit, the 
maximum benefit for a married couple who both receive SSI is only 150% 
of what two single people would receive. In-kind support and 
maintenance (also known as ``ISM'') is another provision that intrudes 
on the private lives of SSI recipients on the basis of incorrect 
assumptions about the ``character'' of low-income families. The ISM 
rules require SSA staff to dig into the personal lives of SSI 
recipients and penalize those who receive help with food or shelter 
from family or friends. For low-income people, including older adults, 
who are already forced to live below the poverty line even when they 
receive the maximum SSI benefit, receiving help with groceries or rent 
is not a trick to ``game'' the system, but critical assistance that 
keeps them housed and fed despite the sub-poverty level benefits they 
get each month.

SSI is in serious need of modernization, and updates to the program are 
long overdue. There are some key ways that we can improve the program 
for older adults. The following are just four examples from the SSI 
Restoration Act, introduced in the Senate this year, which lays out a 
comprehensive set of fixes to the program:

    1.  Increase the benefit level so that people are not left in 
poverty despite receiving SSI benefits.

    2.  Update SSI's income rules so that people can use more of the 
income they receive from other sources to supplement their SSI. As 
mentioned above, the $20 general income disregard has not been changed 
for almost 50 years.

    3.  Eliminate the draconian in-kind support and maintenance rules 
so that people can supplement their SSI benefits with needed support 
from family and friends who are willing and able to assist them.

    4.  Raise SSI's outdated asset limits, which haven't been changed 
since 1989.

These fixes are critically important to ensuring that SSI effectively 
keeps older adults and people with disabilities from living in poverty.

Conclusion

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of older adults and people with 
disabilities, and the millions of others who interact with SSA. We 
stand ready to work with you, other members of Congress, and SSA to 
improve services to the public.

Sincerely,

Tracey Gronniger

                                 ______
                                 
                Letter Submitted by Carolyn Bates Kelly
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Carolyn Bates Kelly and I am writing to submit a statement 
for the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for 
Improving SSI.'' My daughter is intellectually disabled and will rely 
on SSI. The program desperately needs to be updated. Many of the rules 
have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 and it no longer 
ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no 
longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

My daughter recently turned 18 years old and became eligible for SSI 
benefits due to her diagnosis of a rare condition called Smith Lemli 
Opitz Syndrome which results in her intellectual disability and autism. 
The process of applying for SSI benefits has been extremely cumbersome 
and frustrating. And my daughter is one of the lucky ones who has a mom 
with a law degree to help her.

My daughter has not been fully approved for benefits yet, but if she 
is, it is likely that she will receive only $526 per month because our 
family is counted as providing in kind support. She will never be able 
to live on her own or hold a job that will pay above-poverty level 
wages. The current SSI rules are guaranteed to keep her in poverty and 
dependent on family for the rest of her life.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI, 
including raising the monthly payments, streamlining the application 
process and removing the penalties for in kind assistance, in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Bates Kelly

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Kaitlin A. Kerr
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Kaitlin Kerr and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on Medicaid and both that program and SSI desperately 
need to be updated. Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI 
was passed in 1972 and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, 
blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live on below-
poverty incomes.''

I am disabled and on government assistance for my healthcare. My 
partner is my soul mate and up until this past summer and the reform to 
PA's Medicaid buy-in program for disabled workers (MAWD-Medical 
Assistance for Workers with Disabilities) that increased income limits 
and removed asset limits for disabled workers after one year on the 
program . . . we would not have been able to get married at all. 
However, I live in constant fear that, should we marry and my 
conditions progress further and I then needed traditional Medicaid, we 
would have to divorce for me to continue receiving life-sustaining 
health insurance and care.

Getting married, even to another working-class person, would 
immediately disqualify me from this life-saving help. No other person's 
insurance would adequately cover my health needs and costs like the 
programs I am currently reliant on. Without them, I would lose my 
health insurance and possibly financial assistance as well.

Many have wondered why my partner and I don't just do a commitment 
ceremony or have a ``wedding'' but not get legally married. That sounds 
wonderful in theory, but there is legal precedent and a history of 
people losing benefits simply because they ``appear'' to be married. 
Sharing photos of a commitment ceremony or claiming your partner as 
``husband,'' ``wife,'' or ``spouse,'' etc. is enough justification for 
the government to cut off benefits. We now know that if we do these 
things and ``act'' as if we are married (the legal term is ``holding 
out''), I could lose my healthcare. For me, and many like me, this is a 
life-and-death issue. Heartbreakingly, we just can't risk that. See the 
ssa/gov website if you do not believe it is this extreme.

Most people believe that marriage equality exists for everyone in the 
United States at this time. After all, the Supreme Court threw out laws 
banning interracial marriage in 1967. ``Marriage is one of the `basic 
civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival,'' 
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote then. On June 26th of 2015, the Supreme 
Court ruled that couples of the same sex have a constitutional right to 
get married. So why can't disabled individuals get married? We deserve 
the same civil and human rights.

Also embedded in the foundation of our country's laws is the belief 
that disabled people are a burden, which is why we condition the 
receipt of benefits from programs like Medicare and Medicaid on 
crushing poverty, and why we keep millions of disabled Americans from 
marrying. I stand in strong opposition to this draconian withholding of 
the expression of my love in whatever way I choose, and I refuse to beg 
for scraps and ask that I be given permission to simply say I am 
married. While this may be enough for me emotionally, in good 
conscience, I know that I and other disabled people deserve more. Our 
love deserves the security of a legally recognized marriage--one that 
signifies that I am more than a burden; I am a person who loves and is 
worthy of love: the kind whose expression is granted in full faith and 
credit to non-disabled Americans in every state of this country.

I must also reinforce the reality that marriage penalties aren't even 
of financial benefit to the government, and therefore serve no purpose 
other than to keep disabled people in forced poverty. The ``marriage 
penalties'' themselves are easily avoided, but also easily triggered if 
people don't know about them. In a sense, money is only saved by the 
government when disabled people accidentally trigger benefit 
reductions. Since most disabled people simply respond to these rules by 
not marrying, the government ``savings'' from continued marriage 
penalties are never fully realized. Recipients get full benefits by not 
marrying and would get the same full benefits by marrying without 
penalties, if this were the case. The only government savings lost are 
from people who have benefits cut after marriage because they didn't 
know that it would happen.

I hope that whoever is reading this now shares my opinion that the 
simplest, most comprehensive solution to marriage penalties and 
marriage inequality for disabled individuals would be to make marriage 
irrelevant in all cases and to judge eligibility solely on each 
individual's situation. Discouraging disabled people from marrying (or 
even incentivizing them to divorce) may not be the intent of Social 
Security rules and Federal assistance program guidelines, but it is 
certainly the end result.

We must address these injustices, and for these reasons, I beg Congress 
to include improvements to SSI in the upcoming budget reconciliation 
legislation.

Sincerely,

Kaitlin A. Kerr

                                 ______
                                 
                    Letter Submitted by Cristy Laier
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

I am writing to submit a statement for the record for the subcommittee 
hearing ``Policy Options for Improving SSI.'' My 30 year old son relies 
on SSI and the program desperately needs to be improved and updated so 
that he may live his life to the fullest.

SSI no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.'' This 
must be changed.

To provide for our son we need to be able to have enough money to get 
him the help he needs, and to be able to provide for him when we're 
gone. Payments need to increase to cover the myriad of costs associated 
with being completely disabled. And asset limits need to be increased 
or removed.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Cristy Laier
for Matthew Laier

                                 ______
                                 
                Letter Submitted by John J. Lancellotta
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

Greetings! People with disabilities (aged, blind, and disabled) need an 
ability to save some modest funding without risking their eligibility 
for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under a new, yet pending bill--
the SSI Restoration Act proposed in Congress (H.R. 3824/S. 2065).

Because current asset limits are so restrictive under the Federal SSI 
Program--low income seniors and disabled individuals--recipients are 
forced to spend down savings they may have before they are eligible for 
SSI assistance, leaving them with only $2,000 (or $3,000 for couples) 
to help them through any emergencies and everyday situations.

In many cases for example, young adults stricken in their early years 
are relegated to the SSI Program with actually no savings at all in 
view of their early start in the working world or our youth through 
birth defects, acquired diseases or accidents.

Since resource values have not been elevated nor indexed since 1989--
some cases with its 1972 inception--and innocent Disabled people are 
being disqualified for mere and meager savings (i.e., $2,000.00 savings 
or $1,500.00 life insurance policies), passage of the SSI Restoration 
Act--is a necessary start to correct such inequities in our Social 
Security Law.

Our [young and older] disabled citizens need help--not thrown into the 
maze of a bureaucratic bottleneck that leaves them extraordinarily 
dependent on limited benefits or No benefits (actual coverage) at all!

For example, a current set of rules that allows a paltry $1,500 for a 
Burial Contract with only a threshold of $2,000 for basic savings or 
liquid assets. How can any person--particularly a Disabled individual--
run a tiny home, or modest apartment with such limited ability to save 
or fund those every day and needed expenses? It's really shameful!

Also, in many cases, the basic medical plan (Medicaid) does not cover 
certain doctor visits, medical treatments or pharmaceuticals that are 
vitally needed for the Disabled person and are quite costly.

Another limitation for example, is on automobile ownership shows where 
a car (that was gifted or inherited) to the Disabled Young person and 
someone could actually drive for the Disabled individual (for medical/
therapeutic appointments, grocery errands, pharmacy calls, even 
personal visits), its value is locked in at a $4,000. This leaves the 
Disabled person with the challenge of keeping (and maintaining) the low 
valued automobile or risking elimination from the program for anything 
over that low threshold amount--quite crude and cruel!

These few realistic scenarios tells us where inflation and cost of 
living progression takes place annually, costs and values fluctuate 
much differently about those circumstances.

Additionally, the SSI Beneficiary monthly payment is only $794.00 or 
$9,528.00 annually versus the U.S. Government's Poverty Guideline for 
2021 is $1,073.33 per month or $12,880 yearly--this should 
unequivocally be corrected and updated!

Under the so-called, ``Marriage Penalty''--which seems to be the 
unfortunate accurate word--there should be an allowance for the SSI 
Beneficiary say as to permit the Disabled spouse to hold the combined 
(couple) benefit already in law of ($1191.00) as monthly income--
meaning anything split (as in community property) of the non-Disabled 
spouse should and can be designated for that purpose only--this is 
quite fair and balanced.

These are archaic regulations that must be changed and our vulnerable 
Disabled population needs our support.

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program is meant for basic needs 
such as food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities,

Current law requires poor seniors and disabled individuals to spend 
down almost all their (paltry) savings before they qualify for SSI, a 
policy which often further impoverishes them and can make them 
permanently reliant on the federal government.

The asset limits and savings restrictions faced by many disabled 
Americans present a difficult choice between work (in such rare cases), 
living conditions and the loss of benefits. The SSI Restoration Act 
would ease these restrictions and remove many of the disincentives that 
keep disabled citizens from greater participation in our economic life.

The legislation is touted to sensibly update the savings and assets 
which poor seniors and the disabled can retain when qualifying for the 
SSI Program, which encourages greater savings among recipients and 
saving taxpayers money in the long term.

It's pointed out that without the legislation, for example, young 
disabled individuals within current limits can be discourage from 
taking their first job, since first jobs lead to second and third jobs, 
this initial hump can make the difference between a lifetime of 
government assistance and financial independence in such circumstances.

It's believed this would not only reduce hunger and poverty among our 
most vulnerable seniors and disabled people, but could mean they are 
less dependent on government assistance over the long-run because they 
have been allowed to maintain some financial security.

In fact, many individuals and groups feel the bill should be further 
amended to include . . . a waiver in the law about SSI recipients doing 
some form of limited, (part-time) ``community service'' such as serving 
on municipal/state commissions or panels that would be exempt for say 
receiving a small stipend for such pubic service.

Also, when a SSI Beneficiary is over say 50 and has been disabled for 
ten (10) years or more, less regulation should be leveled at the very 
ill individual such as annual revaluations and interrogations. A simple 
form--under penalty--can be mailed to the recipient say every five (5) 
years to assure their adequate needs for Disability insurance.

Advocates plead--the originally proposed bill in its current form--has 
tremendous merit as a basis for those unfortunate recipients that are 
relegated to a non-active lifestyle due to their physical or mental 
disabilities and are further plagued with an almost punishment offset 
to the real meaning of the SSI Program for the Disabled American 
Citizen.

The SSI Restoration Act would also immediately correct another flaw in 
this portion of the SSA regulation that provides an equitable inflation 
adjustment (since this provision is not indexed) with assets. This 
proposal is completely budget neutral!

I humbly urge the Congress to immediately support and enact the SSI 
Restoration Act! Thank You!

Kindest Regards in America--Stay Safe!

Jack Lancellotta

                                 ______
                                 
             League of Women Voters of Franklin County, MA

                              P.O. Box 483

                          Greenfield, MA 01302

                      [email protected]

October 4, 2021

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young,

Approximately 8 million people in the U.S. receive a monthly 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit from the government. Elders, 
adults and children with disabilities, all facing extreme poverty, 
depend on this essential safety net. Thanks to outdated, strict asset 
limits, they are in danger each month of losing that benefit. We're 
asking for your support of S. 2065, the Supplemental Security Income 
Restoration Act of 2021, to correct, finally, the injustice embedded in 
the Social Security Income program as it currently stands.

SSI is a national needs-based public benefit program established in 
1972 to provide assistance to people with limited income and resources 
who are age 65 or older, blind (any age), or disabled (any age). Funded 
through general tax revenues, not Social Security, the SSI program 
provides monthly cash benefits to recipients to meet basic needs for 
food, shelter, and clothing. In 2021, the SSI program provides a 
maximum monthly cash benefit of $794 for an individual and $1191 for a 
couple.

The original financial resource limit was $1,500. In 1974, when the law 
was first enacted, a median apartment in the United States cost $200 a 
month. Someone on SSI could afford the typical first/last and security 
deposit required to rent a decent apartment and still have enough money 
to cover other moving expenses. The median cost of one month's rent in 
2021 is over $1200. Failure to adjust the financial resource limit for 
inflation puts many routine expenses beyond the reach of people 
struggling to live on SSI. The current financial resource limit of 
$2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a couple have not been adjusted 
for inflation since 198--31 years ago. Asset limits that were severe in 
1989 are positively draconian in 2021.

SSI is meant to reduce extreme poverty among the elderly and people 
with disabilities, but its rules are complicated, and it limits 
eligibility for benefits on the basis of not only income, but the 
assets of a family, such as savings and other resources. Asset limits 
are entirely inadequate for our current reality and hamper a family's 
preparedness for a medical emergency or unanticipated expense. Take, 
for example, two items that don't count towards a recipient's asset 
limit: life insurance policies with a combined face value of $1,500 or 
less, and burial funds, valued at $1,500 or less. Not even in the 
eventuality of their death are SSI recipients allowed to maintain 
sufficient resources.

The Social Security Administration monitors these resources through 
periodic audits. In any month that an individual is deemed to have more 
than $2,000 in total financial resources, they must pay back the entire 
SSI income for that month. There are various ways an individual could 
go over the financial resource limit:

      Saving money to pay for a move;

      Saving money for a medical or disability-related expense that 
has a high co-pay;

      Delays in processing checks and online bill payments; and

      Intellectual or mental health disabilities that make record 
keeping tasks more challenging.
Whether the overage is five or five hundred dollars, the penalty is the 
same--100% loss of SSI income for that month. What's more, audits can 
take place a year or more after a recipient has gone over their asset 
limit. Meanwhile, they are unaware they've gone over that limit, which 
can result in several months of overages and additional penalties. Any 
one of us would find it onerous to repay this amount of money, and yet 
somehow SSI recipients, who by definition have special challenges, are 
expected to manage repayment with even more restricted resources!

S. 2065, the Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2021, 
would alleviate these and other draconian SSI restrictions. People on 
SSI could save for life emergencies; they could marry; their family and 
friends could give them birthday gifts or buy them a sack of groceries 
to help out without having to worry about the Social Security 
Administration accusing them of fraud. In short, we could recognize the 
basic humanity of our most vulnerable citizens.

The SSI Restoration Act isn't perfect--it doesn't address how to help 
people who have outstanding penalties. These need to be forgiven if 
recipients are ever to get their heads above water, and therefore we 
urge an amendment to address this before passage of the bill. We do not 
want a two-tiered SSI system: one for those new recipients of the 
program with the full benefit of the bill and another for existing 
recipients who would still struggle to pay off outstanding penalties.

The League of Women Voters of Franklin County, MA strongly supports 
improving the Supplemental Security Income Program to meet the needs of 
our most vulnerable family, friends and neighbors. We urge you to pass 
an amended S. 2065.

League of Women Voters of Franklin County

Marie Gauthier, President
Nicole Moore, Vice President
Marge Michalski, Treasurer
Laura Luker, Secretary
Jean Cherdak, Director
Christine Turner, Director
Joannah Whitney, Director

                                 ______
                                 
                        Legal Aid Justice Center
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Amy Walters, and on behalf of our low-income elderly and 
disabled clients, many of whom continue to live in poverty, the Legal 
Aid Justice Center (LAJC) submits this statement for the record for the 
Subcommittee Hearing: Policy Options for Improving Supplementary 
Security Income (SSI). We urge Congress to update and strengthen the 
SSI program in the upcoming reconciliation package.

LAJC is a statewide organization that provides free legal 
representation to low-
income people throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. We represent and 
provide advice to dozens of SSI recipients each year, and we have seen 
firsthand how outdated and problematic the SSI program can be for our 
clients.

Millions of low-income older adults and people with disabilities rely 
on the SSI program to survive. Though the program was designed to 
prevent seniors and people with disabilities from having ``to subsist 
on below-poverty-level incomes,'' the current minimal monthly benefit 
amount and low asset limits keep beneficiaries in exactly this space--
living well below the poverty line with no opportunity to do better.

Specifically, several SSI provisions are extremely out of date and 
require revision. For example, the program's asset limit is a provision 
that continues to hurt, rather than help, SSI beneficiaries. Currently, 
an individual with even a dollar more than $2,000 in total assets loses 
access to SSI benefits. We have had clients saving for their own 
funeral costs deemed ineligible because they managed to save over 
$2,000. We have had clients deemed ineligible after receiving a one-
time life insurance payment for a relative who passed away, and the 
clients did not spent the money within a month of receipt. We have had 
clients deemed ineligible for the non-functioning vehicles kept on 
their rural property because the client doesn't have the means to pay 
for removal of the vehicles. And the list goes on. This low asset limit 
discourages savings and forces beneficiaries to lack any safety net for 
car or home repairs, medical emergencies, and so forth. Stated 
differently, SSI beneficiaries must purposefully spend money to limit 
savings if they depend on SSI to survive.

The maximum monthly federal benefit in 2021 is $794 for an individual, 
which is only three-quarters of the poverty line. Yet, as a ceiling cap 
for SSI benefits, there is no guarantee that a beneficiary will receive 
the full $794. For SSI to advance the very purpose which it is 
intended, Congress should at the very least increase monthly SSI 
benefits to match the federal poverty line.

Moreover, the SSI program rules are not ``user-friendly'' for elderly 
and disabled individuals, making the program and initial application 
process exceedingly difficult to navigate. The marriage penalty is 
illogical, requiring that the maximum benefit for a married couple who 
both receive SSI is only 150% of what two single people would receive. 
And the ``in-kind support and maintenance'' rules are especially 
problematic--the Social Security Administration (SSA) reduces the 
monthly benefit amount if the beneficiary lives with relatives or 
receives other forms of help from them. This provision intrudes on the 
private lives of SSI recipients on the basis of incorrect assumptions 
about the ``character'' of low-income families. It requires SSA staff 
to dig into the personal lives of SSI recipients, asking about 
everything from meal preparation to holiday gifts to the number of 
nights a guest stays in a household. For low-income people, including 
older adults, who are already forced to live below the poverty line 
even when they receive the maximum SSI benefit, receiving help with 
groceries or rent is not an attempt to ``trick" the system, but rather 
is critical assistance that keeps them housed and fed despite the sub-
poverty level benefits they get each month.

Voting in favor of improving SSI will give beneficiaries the chance to 
live outside of poverty.

Voting in favor of improving SSI will give beneficiaries the 
opportunity to live at or above the poverty line. The income disregards 
will be updated to allow SSI recipients to work modest amounts or marry 
without being penalized. For example, couples will receive their full 
SSI benefit, totaling twice the individual rate, rather than a reduced 
marriage penalty rate. Moreover, low-income seniors and people with 
disabilities who are unable to work long enough to meet all their basic 
needs will be able to save up to $10,000, and couples, up to $20,000, 
for emergencies such as car repairs, new roofs, and other unexpected 
expenses, without losing their entitled benefits. The harsh in-kind 
support and maintenance penalty will be eliminated so that seniors and 
people with disabilities won't lose \1/3\ of their monthly benefits 
when family members or friends offer up a place to stay or to help with 
groceries.

These changes have critically important implications for our clients in 
Virginia and nationally. For these reasons, we ask Congress to include 
improvements to SSI in the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Amy Walters, Senior Attorney

                                 ______
                                 
              Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School
                      Centro De Servicios Legales

                          122 Boylston Street

                      Jamaica Plain, MA 02130-2246

                          TEL: (617) 522-3003

                          FAX: (617) 522-0715

October 5, 2021

Chairman Sherrod Brown
Ranking Member Todd Young
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Re: September 21, 2021 Subcommittee Hearing on ``Policy Options for 
Improving SSI''

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young,

This statement is submitted on behalf of the Safety Net Project, a 
clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School. The Safety 
Net Project has decades of experience representing low-income 
individuals in matters before the Social Security Administration and 
more broadly advocating for individuals living in poverty who need 
access to state and federal safety net programs.

We appreciate the Subcommittee's efforts to explore policy options for 
improving SSI. SSI is meant to help those who are unable to meet their 
basic needs due to age or disability. Unfortunately, the long-neglected 
eligibility standards associated with the program work to exclude many 
who need help to survive, while disincentivizing recipients from 
escaping the cycle of poverty.

The current asset limit is a meager $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 
for couples. This overly restrictive asset cap forces people to spend 
down even modest savings in order to receive desperately needed SSI 
benefits. And despite the constantly increasing cost of living, the 
asset limit has not been adjusted since 1989. Countless times, we have 
seen how SSI's asset restrictions lead to unjust outcomes for our 
clients. We share one example of a recent client who has struggled due 
to the $2,000 asset limit.

Yvonne * is a 63-year-old mother of four and grandmother of five. She 
first became disabled due to chronic symptoms associated with HIV 
during the height of the AIDS epidemic, shortly after watching her 
husband die from the same disease. Later, she suffered a stroke and 
multiple brain aneurysms that affected her cognitive functioning. In 
2016, she received a lump-sum payment of retroactive SSI benefits from 
the Social Security Administration. Shortly after receiving the 
retroactive award, her landlord falsely accused her of property damage 
and tried to evict her.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Name changed to protect client privacy.

Yvonne tried to find new Section 8 housing, but the Boston Housing 
Authority refused her on the basis that the improper eviction showed up 
on a background check. She spent four years working with advocates to 
address the unjust actions of her landlord and remove the eviction from 
her record, unable to locate new affordable housing during that entire 
period. Yvonne knew that once this legal matter was resolved, she would 
need to move. So she saved up some of her SSI retroactive award in 
anticipation of all the costs associated with moving--for example first 
and last month's rent, broker's fees, and a security deposit. 
Unbeknownst to Yvonne, she was not allowed to save up her retroactive 
award for longer than nine months. The Social Security Administration 
now claims that she must pay back over $20,000--years' worth of SSI 
benefits she received while over the asset cap. Yvonne has since moved 
into a new Section 8 apartment. She is now under the $2,000 asset limit 
and barely scrapes by each month; she cannot afford to have her monthly 
benefits reduced to pay back the ``overpaid'' benefits, and is at risk 
of becoming homeless if SSA continues to collect. Yvonne is just one 
example of how SSI's current rules ignore the realities of those living 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in poverty.

The SSI Restoration Act has proposed many reforms, including increasing 
the monthly benefit level to 100% of the federal poverty level and 
increasing the asset limit. We fully support the SSI Restoration Act, 
which would dramatically improve the SSI program, improve the quality 
of life of millions of Americans, and incentivize SSI recipients to 
earn additional income and save up to lift themselves out of poverty.

Respectfully submitted,

Katie Bruck
Equal Justice Works Fellow

Julie McCormack
Clinical Instructor and Director
Safety Net Project

                                 ______
                                 
                     Letter Submitted by io Lellity
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is io Lellity and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

The maximum benefit level of $794 is not enough to live on; as things 
are now, the only housing I've been able to find in my area requires me 
to spend 80% of my income on rent and forgo car ownership. Under these 
conditions I am unable to save or stop worrying about when money and am 
easily crippled by even ten dollar emergencies which can force me to go 
without basic necessities such as soap and toiletries for days or weeks 
at a time. The stress of this makes my disabling conditions worse and 
makes it hard to feel any positivity or hope for my future, especially 
knowing that even if I were to find someone I wanted to spend my life 
with, I would not be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage without 
being penalized and potentially losing some or all of my benefits, even 
if my partner also relied on SSI.

It is very isolating, having rules that prevent me from accepting gifts 
from friends or family, or crowd funding for medical care not covered 
by medicaid, and these rules and asset limits only add to the burden of 
living with my conditions.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

io Lellity

                                 ______
                                 
                     Letter Submitted by Hope Lloyd
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Hope Lloyd and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I have many friends and family members who rely on SSI due to 
their disabilities. The SSI program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and people 
with disabilities would no longer have to live on below-poverty 
incomes.''

As I stated I am writing on behalf of friends and family. Kelley and 
Darrold decided not to marry due to the marriage penalty set by the 
current SSI regulations. People receiving SSI already live below the 
poverty line. They had to choose between lowering their income further 
or to get married. My friend Martha a college graduate who acquired a 
spinal cord injury can only work a few hours per week and forgo raises 
because she needs to keep her SSI to maintain her medical coverage. Due 
to the asset limits, she is also unable to save enough money to 
purchase a wheelchair accessible van. My youngest son Cameron has 
applied for SSI due to having an autism spectrum disorder. He needs 
SSI. Yet being on SSI will mean that we cannot leave him any 
inheritance when we die. We are not rich and the amount will not be 
enough for him to live on. Yet he would lose his SSI, his Medicaid 
Waiver Services and his medical coverage.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Hope Lloyd

                                 ______
                                 
                        Los Angeles LGBT Center

                         1118 N. McCadden Place

                         Los Angeles, CA 90038

                            T: 323-993-7400

                            F: 323-308-4480

                       https://lalgbtcenter.org/

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy
Sherrod Brown
Chair
Todd Young
Ranking Member
Subcommittee Hearing: Policy Options for Improving SSI

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

The Los Angeles LGBT Center submits this statement for the record for 
the subcommittee hearing: Policy Options for Improving Supplemental 
Security Income (SSI). Our members rely on SSI to pay for food, rent, 
and other crucial expenses, and this federal program desperately needs 
to be updated. Modernizing the program should allow for culturally 
competent and gender-affirming conditions for all older adults, 
especially for the LGBT community.

Since 1969, the Los Angeles LGBT Center (Center) has cared for, 
championed, and celebrated LGBT individuals and families in Los Angeles 
and beyond. Today the Center's over 800 employees provide services for 
more LGBT people than any other organization in the world. Our Senior 
Services Program includes Triangle Square and the Ariadne Getty 
Foundation Senior Housing--L.A.'s only affordable housing developments 
(202 units) for LGBT seniors. In addition, our large and fast-growing 
services for older adults help meet many of the life-sustaining needs 
of LGBT people over the age of 50, including food and case management, 
while providing a wide array of life- and health-enriching programs and 
activities that also help end the isolation so many experience. We are 
also training other providers of services for seniors, including 
government agencies like the Veterans Administration, and advocating on 
the behalf of our clients, to help make the world a safer and more 
welcoming place for all LGBT people.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. The maximum 
benefit is $794 a month, only three fourths of the Federal Poverty 
Level. People on SSI who are married receive even less and people are 
not allowed to save more than $2,000 without losing their benefits. 
Rules about help from family and friends and the amount of earnings or 
other income people can have before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years. SSI was passed to ensure ``that the 
nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live 
on below-poverty incomes'' and because of decades of neglect, it no 
longer fulfills this promise.

For older LGBT adults, the challenges are even more profound as we hear 
new cases every day our community members face in trying to find 
culturally competent, safe, and affirming locations to just exist and 
receive equal healthcare. Here are two recent examples:

Due to increasing health complications, a transman in his late 60s, was 
no longer able to live independently. Living on a fixed income and 
public health benefits, the client had difficulty locating a care 
facility to live. Through the assistance of their medical provider, 
they were referred to a long-term care facility that accepted their 
insurance and limited income. The client did not feel comfortable 
sharing their trans-identity with staff out of fear for their physical 
safety. Within a few days of moving into the facility, the client 
struggled with incontinence, requiring the assistance of the care team. 
While changing and assisting to clean the client, one of the aides 
became aware of their trans-identity. Over the course of the next few 
days, the client felt like the staff were coming into their room to 
look at the client unnecessarily. The client was suspicious that the 
aide had told others about their trans-identity. During a separate 
instance when the client needed assistance cleaning, one of the aides 
took a photo of their exposed body parts without consent, stating it 
was ``proof'' that they were a woman.

A transwoman in her mid-70s has been living in a nursing home for 
several years. Having experienced significant sexual and emotional 
abuse throughout her life related to her trans-identity, this client 
limits her contact with other residents and staff. She states that she 
keeps to herself and doesn't talk with others. She reports feelings of 
isolation and loneliness, depression and anxiety. While using a 
bathroom in a common area, a male staff member entered the bathroom, 
cornered her and wouldn't let her leave. She yelled for assistance and 
pleaded for the staff to leave her alone. The male staff sexually 
assaulted her, until she outed herself as a transwomen. The staff 
member back away and let her out of the bathroom. The client, fearful 
of retaliation or future assault, did not share that the assault 
occurred to the management or other staff of the facility. After 
working with a case manager at the Center for several months, she felt 
comfortable disclosing that the assault had occurred. With the support 
of her case manager, they reported the incident to authorities and 
connected her to mental health support for ongoing care.

It is vital that we modernize these antiquated SSI standards to not 
only improve financial hardships, but to allow for standards that allow 
our community members to life in safety and with dignity and not in 
fear of their existence. For these reasons, the Los Angeles LGBT Center 
urges Congress to include improvements to SSI in the upcoming budget 
reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Terra Russell-Slavin
Director of Policy and Community Building

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Krista Lucchesi
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Krista Lucchesi and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' The men and women I serve rely on SSI and the program 
desperately needs to be updated. Many of the rules have not been 
changed since SSI was passed in 1972 and it no longer ensures ``that 
the nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to 
live on below-poverty incomes.''

One day I overheard a gentleman who receives SSI say to his friend ``if 
everything goes ok this month I will have $1.58 left.'' And this was 
only possible because he had received a free bag of groceries. I've 
told that story to other SSI recipients who have said, ``He's lucky! 
Most months I am in the negative.'' I'm not sure if you pay attention 
to every penny you spend, but if not, maybe you can imagine how much 
stress that would add to your life. Plus, being that close to the edge 
each month while knowing you can only have a small amount of money 
saved for whatever life throws at you. And even if you have a family 
member who could help you out of a jam, that will negatively impact 
your benefits.

When we have asked our grocery recipients what they cannot afford to 
purchase because the SSI benefits are limited, they tell us: produce, 
laundry, cleaning supplies, toilet paper, underwear, a bus ticket to 
see a friend, a birthday card for their grandchild. All of these items 
are necessities in their lives that they have to do without because it 
is too hard to stretch their SSI income. Our country cares about its 
citizens and wants them to thrive not just because it is good for them 
but because it is good for all of us.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Krista Lucchesi
Director, Mercy Brown Bag Program

                                 ______
                                 
                     Letter Submitted by Gary Lynn
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Gary Lynn, and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

My SSI is not enough to afford my daily living expenses like food, 
clothing, and have access to affordable transportation. I am a college 
student seeking to earn a Political Science degree. As someone who is a 
disability rights advocate, I believe disabled people have a right to 
earn a livable wage and get married without having their SSI or 
healthcare benefits being cut or taken away. I am fearful and cautious 
about working and making too much money for SSI. I would like to work 
and contribute to the working class while still having SSI benefits as 
a safety net. I am tired of not being treated fairly and the 
possibility of punished or penalized for wanting to work and earn my 
own money as my nondisabled peers.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,
Gary Lynn

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Jessica McPhail
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

I currently live on $834 a month. I receive before COVID $89; after 
COVID aid it is $234 in SNAP food card. Before the food increase I was 
limited to $150 a month for food.

I went to training in San Francisco 2017-2018 through a homeless 
program as I was homeless (while on SSDI) at the time with no 
involvement with law or serious drug use. Through the program I was 
able to gain employment part time never over 20 hours a week and was 
docked payment of $43 per month for making over some income amount 
limit (I had reported the income, but apparently it was not enough) 
that I was not made aware of 1 year after the fact and I was no longer 
receiving the income at the time.

I was also denied housing because I was enrolled in a school training 
program and ended up moving. I am currently trying to find employment 
for 9 hours a week since pay has gone up to $15 an hour in the area I 
now live in (agree the pay raise is much needed for people not on SSI 
or SSDI) so I do not lose medical coverage.

The reason I need employment is so I can end up saving until I have 
enough to cover things like new glasses or a wheelchair that Medicare/
Medicaid does not cover.

Since I have finally secured housing I am mostly left to sit and eat 
and watch limited TV. It would be nice to have a hobby or a pet to 
interact with but the cost is preventive.

The clothing that I have is second hand and sparse. Physical things are 
limited due to pain and this poor diet has left me with weight gain and 
more issues with mobility and job acceptance if I do find a place for 
me to fit in with a 9 hour request schedule. If I do find a job that 
meets the requirements I will face rent increase and food aid 
reductions as I now have income.

I am 47 and I feel like I am at the end of my rope. I am not depressed, 
more perplexed with the situation where I am prohibited from bettering 
my situation.

Thank you for reaching out to the public for input. I am willing to 
work, but it is not a workable situation.

Jessica McPhail

                                 ______
                                 
               Letter Submitted by Fiona McSweeney-Glynn
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Fiona McSweeney-Glynn and I am writing to submit a statement 
for the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for 
Improving SSI.'' My family members, my friends, and my loved ones rely 
on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. Many of the 
rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 and it no 
longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled people 
would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

I've been fighting for my own SSI approval since February of 2020. I 
have been rejected so many times, I've lost count. My first rejection 
letter was the most memorable, as SSA specified that I was rejected 
because I had indicated on my SSI application, which I spent four 
months painstakingly filling out with the help of my partner, that I 
was not interested in applying for SSI or SSDI. I eventually gave up 
and resigned myself to relying on my mother for assistance, or 
crowdfunding on the Internet. My mother frequently puts her own medical 
needs on hold to pay for mine. This has caused her own health to 
decline. My uncle, disabled, dying, and on SSI for over 20 years, has 
been homeless and on the street for over a year now. There is no 
justice or pride in a government that actively allows this to happen to 
people. This current system of keeping disabled people in poverty until 
they die is eugenics in practice.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Fiona McSweeney-Glynn

                                 ______
                                 
                    Letter Submitted by Zoya Melkova
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Zoya Melkova and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

I am 44 years old. For me it is impossible to think about trying to 
build a lasting relationship, resulting in marriage. According to SSI 
rules I must report all changes in my living circumstances no later 
than 10th of the following month. https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-report-
ussi.htm.

Also according to the ``holding out'' rule, https://secure.ssa.gov/
poms.nsf/lnx/0500501152, I would be considered married if I represented 
myself with someone as a married couple.

For me it is impossible to think about building a lasting relationship 
with these two rules.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Zoya Melkova

                                 ______
                                 
                     Letter Submitted by Ivy Miles
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

The rules, and funding of social security, as you know are stuck in 
1972 and are incorporated in title 16 of the Social Security Act. As 
someone who was born with cerebral palsy 20 years after this, I often 
feel as if I am being punished for being born in a body that I did not 
ask for, and needing help managing this.

As people with disabilities age out of our society's system from 
childhood it often feels that we are cast aside and forgotten. The 
programs usually only apply to younger children or their parents and/or 
caregivers and doesn't seem to take into account that we become adults, 
some of us forced to be completely on our own.

SSI is often a saving grace during our transition period and after as 
we move forward with our lives past the age of childhood. However, the 
older I grow, and the more needs I have in an older disabled body it 
becomes apparent that the 1970s rules of SSI are horridly outdated. One 
cannot save or own assets over $2,000 and even the maximum amount of 
SSI is hardly enough to pay for medical co-payments or even dental work 
out of pocket, forcing the person to have to often make tough choices 
or choose between one necessity over another.

Often, I feel like a criminal, wondering if any act of joy or education 
that I pursue with my money is scrutinised. There is a constant feeling 
of being a faker, of feeling undeserving of aid. The idea of saving any 
amount of money feels preposterous with the asset rules. Sometimes, it 
feels like a poverty trap, considering any outside money I get or make 
on my own is taxed after around $80, taken out of my next month's 
check.

This pandemic offered a brief window into the lives of people with 
disabilities on SSI every single day. Often, we are stuck inside, our 
freedom and rights limited. Except unlike the pandemic there is no mask 
for permanent disability, no vaccine or fix. I cannot fix my cerebral 
palsy, cannot solve the PTSD or anxiety. And yet, when we try to make 
ends or improve things for ourselves there is an intense feeling of 
being swept under the rug, and having to claw our way back out.

As I and others write to you we desperately hope you hear and see us. 
We need the rules of SSI to be changed more than you know. Let us be 
treated for once as human beings.

Ivy Miles

                                 ______
                                 
                                Momentum
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6200

RE: Hearing on Policy Options for Improving SSI, September 21, 2021

September 28, 2021

Chairman Brown
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Ranking Member Young
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young,

I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the efforts of this 
committee to review and update the Federal Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI) program. The SSI program provides a critical safety net for more 
than 6.7 million Americans with disabilities yet has not been 
substantially reviewed and updated since it was established in 1972.

As President and CEO of Momentum, a not-for-profit organization 
dedicated to advancing the independence, productivity, and full 
citizenship of children and adults with disabilities and medical 
conditions, I have seen the hardships and stress created by outdated 
SSI income and asset thresholds for people with disabilities and their 
families. These thresholds are decades old and no longer reflect the 
economic realities of people with disabilities that rely on SSI to keep 
them out of poverty.

Of major concern to people with disabilities and their families is the 
individual asset limit of $2,000 for unmarried individuals on the 
program. This asset limit has not been increased since 1989 even though 
the cost of living is 2.2 times higher in that period according to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index.\1\ This asset 
stagnation is heightened for married couples who are allowed joint 
assets of only $3,000 or $500 less per person if they were to remain 
unmarried.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The CPI Inflation Calculator, https://www.in2013dollars.com/.

This unrealistically low asset limit is particularly difficult for 
people with disabilities who work in the community. As our society at 
long last moves away from sheltered workshops and subminimum wages, the 
asset limit needs to keep pace with increased earnings potential and 
increases in the minimum wage. People with disabilities who make 
minimum wage or more should be allowed and encouraged to save for 
everyday life emergencies as all responsible citizens are encouraged, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and able, to do.

And, when those emergencies do arise people with disabilities are 
threatened with reduced benefits or loss of eligibility if they accept 
help from family or friends exceeding $20. Again, it has been decades 
since this $20 threshold has been increased as it has failed to keep 
pace with rising prices. The result is many people with disabilities 
cannot afford rent and other necessities that allow them to live safely 
in their community.

Although the SSI program was created to keep people with disabilities 
out of poverty, the maximum benefit of $794 a month is only 75% of the 
federal poverty line. And again, people with disabilities who marry are 
penalized as the maximum benefit for married couples is only $1,191, or 
$594 per person.

The federal poverty threshold is established for the average American 
and household. A recent study found that people with disabilities, on 
average, need 29% more income than a person or household without a 
member with a disability to obtain the same standard of living.\2\ This 
exacerbates the gap between what people with disabilities receive under 
SSI and what is required to live at or above the federal poverty rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Morris ZA, McGarity SV, Goodman N, Zaidi A. The Extra Costs 
Associated with Living with a Disability in the United States. Criminal 
Justice and Behavior. September 2021:1243-1260. doi:10.1177/
00938548211008488.

To allow people with disabilities to live in the community, pursue real 
community-based employment opportunities, and attend school, including 
post-secondary options, I strongly encourage this committee to adopt 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the provisions of S. 2065, the SSI Restoration Act, including:

      Raise and index the maximum assets individuals or couples may 
have without disqualifying them for SSI to $10,000 and $20,000, 
respectively.

      Update and index SSI's income rules, allowing individuals to 
earn up to $399 a month from working, and up to $123 a month in 
assistance from other sources without being subject to a benefit 
reduction. Such sources could include Social Security, veterans' 
benefits, and pension payments.

      Eliminate benefit reductions that penalize those beneficiaries 
who receive in-kind help from friends or family, such as groceries or a 
place to stay.

I urge this committee and Congress to bring the SSI program in line 
with current economic realities and adopt the provisions of the SSI 
Restoration Act.

Respectfully submitted,

Lori Anderson
President and CEO

                                 ______
                                 
                National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys

                    1577 Spring Hill Road, Suite 310

                            Vienna, VA 22182

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

The National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) submits this 
statement for the record for the hearing, Policy Options for Improving 
SSI. NAELA is a non-profit association that represents nearly 4,500 
attorneys who solve legal problems for older adults and people with 
disabilities. Our members counsel individuals that rely on Supplemental 
Security Income (SSI) and see the critical role the program plays in 
allowing people with disabilities to remain independent and out of 
institutions.

SSI provides just $794 a month, well below the Federal Poverty Level. 
This puts far too many people with disabilities at the margins of 
society. These benefits must be expanded to ensure beneficiaries can 
remain in the community instead of trapped in an institution or 
threatened with homelessness for lack of resources to pay for housing, 
food, and other necessities. Such a low benefit has also increased 
reliance on other entitlement programs and scarce local resources 
further restricting independence.

To make matters worse, the rules regarding assets, family support, and 
outside income remain far too restrictive to ensure adequate economic 
security. To start, the resource test has been stuck since 1984 at just 
$2,000 with no adjustment for inflation. That means when an emergency 
occurs, SSI beneficiaries may have no funds to fix problems, such as a 
leaky roof, a broken furnace, or a frozen pipe burst.

The current systems also punishes family caregiving. The In-Kind 
Support and Maintenance (ISM) rules means that if a family member 
provides a room in their home to their loved one with a disability, the 
benefit gets reduced to just $530 a month. We should encourage, not 
penalize, families helping one another.

Given the current state of the program, we urged Senators to include 
improvements listed in S. 2065, Supplemental Security Income 
Restoration Act of 2021, in the upcoming budget reconciliation package.

Sincerely,

Letha Sgritta McDowell, CELA, CAP
President

                                 ______
                                 
    National Association of Benefits and Work Incentives Specialists
October 7, 2021

Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2021, H.R. 3824. S. 
2065

Dear Honorable Committee Members:

The National Association of Benefits and Work Incentives Specialists 
(NABWIS) is a national organization of 500+ benefits practitioners that 
assists individuals with disabilities who receive cash benefits from 
the Social Security Administration (SSA), healthcare (Medicaid and 
Medicare), as well as other public benefits administered by the states. 
Our focus is to provide accurate and detailed information concerning 
SSA work rules and work incentives to allow the individual with a 
disability to make a well-informed choice to work.

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Restoration Act presents the 
most comprehensive overhaul of the SSI program since its inception 
almost 50 years ago. Since its inception, SSI has provided cash and, in 
the vast majority of states, healthcare to those who, because of age, 
disability, or blindness, would otherwise have nothing. The financial 
criterion for this program uses calculations established in 1972; the 
most recent increase in dollar amounts occurred in 1989. This failure 
to keep pace with growth keeps recipients below the poverty level. 
Current recipients receive a maximum cash benefit that equates to 
roughly 73% of the current poverty level, or $794 monthly. Ultimately, 
the SSI program fails to assist recipients in meeting their most basic 
needs of food and shelter.

The SSI program is also severely impacted by any income received by the 
recipient. Earned, unearned, and ``in-kind'' income all act to reduce 
the already low $794 benefit. While SSA provides significant work 
incentives to SSI recipients, the dollar amounts of these work 
incentives are ``stuck'' in the 1970s. For example, the Earned Income 
Exclusion (EIE) is $65 a month. In 1974, $65 represented a week's pay 
for the American worker. Today, in 2021, the same $65 represents under 
5.5 hours of work at a $12 per hour salary. This is simply inadequate 
to allow an individual with a disability to make the substantial shift 
to a worker with a disability. The SSI Restoration Act will fix this 
and other work incentives and eligibility criteria that have become 
barriers to work.

The SSI Restoration Act will:

      Increase the SSI cash benefit to at least 100% of the Federal 
Poverty Level of $1,073.34 per month for a family of one. This increase 
of $279.34 will provide greatly needed financial relief to recipients 
who depend upon this cash to meet their most basic needs. The Act will 
also provide for annual adjustments that will keep pace with inflation.

      Eliminate the In-kind Support and Maintenance (ISM) rule from 
consideration. This archaic and punishing rule creates a situation 
where any assistance from family members or friends of the recipient, 
in the form of food or shelter, will reduce already low cash benefits. 
For example, should a recipient receive a gift card to a grocery store 
from a friend or family member in the amount of $100, SSA will respond 
with a reduction in monthly SSI of $80. The General Income Exclusion 
(GIE) is currently set at $20 per month. We all realize the $20 is less 
than a stop at a grocery store to pick up even 2 or 3 items. Twenty 
dollars will purchase 6.2 gallons of gas at today's prices. SSA's 
statements from past years have indicated that these punitive ISM rules 
cost more to administer than they save.

      Increase the resource limits, last revised in 1989, of $2,000 
for an individual and $3,000 for a married couple and index these 
levels to keep pace with inflation. The current levels fail to provide 
any emergency safety net for recipients and leave most unable to 
prepare for a return to work effort. Half of that amount is almost 
enough to replace tires on a car needed for work. The act proposes 
increasing the limits to $10,000 for an individual and $20,000 for a 
married couple. This change will protect recipients and new workers and 
align more closely with other means-tested public health insurance 
benefits.

      Update the Earned Income Disregard of $65 per month and the 
General Income Exclusion of $20 per month. The figures have not been 
increased since the inception of the SSI program in 1972 and are almost 
meaningless in today's economic reality. A $65 exclusion of earnings is 
simply no incentive to begin working.

      Eliminate installment payments and extend the time that is 
allowed for an SSI recipient to spend retroactive payments. Recipients 
who currently face a $2,000 resource limit are allowed a 9- month 
period to spend any retroactive SSI benefits payments or future cash 
payments are suspended. Most often, huge retroactive payments result 
from the years-long application process the applicant must somehow 
survive. As indicated above, the ISM rule may then be applied to the 
retroactive payment to reduce the monthly allotment because of food and 
shelter provided by others. An intolerable situation.

The establishment of installment payments of retroactive benefits sets 
forth a belief that SSI recipients cannot manage large sums of money. 
Eliminating installment payments for retroactive benefits will help 
reduce administrative costs and eliminate the stereotype that people on 
SSI cannot manage large sums of money. Extending the period allowed to 
spend the retroactive payment will allow recipients to have more time 
to decide how to use these, oft times, large payments without being in 
a rush to spend the money down. These changes would immediately impact 
some 3.3 million individuals, including 400,000 children. When combined 
with the increase in resource limits, we will likely see a population 
in severe need reaching some semblance of stability.

The ``Build Back Better'' reconciliation bill, geared towards creating 
jobs, putting more money into the pockets of Americans by cutting costs 
for healthcare, and improving the quality of life of all citizens with 
and without disabilities, would build on its potential for success by 
including the SSI Restoration Act as part of it. People with 
disabilities have a strong voice and lobby, of which NABWIS is a part. 
As such, we encourage support for the SSI Restoration Act and its 
addition to the ``Build Back Better'' reconciliation bill.

In addition, NABWIS supports two amendments that may be added to the 
SSI Restoration Act. The Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act 
currently has a requirement that limits these accounts to those who 
became disabled before age 26. Recent efforts, including a pending bill 
in this Congress, propose increasing this age limit to 46. There is 
simply no reason not to make this change for citizens with disabilities 
living in poverty. We encourage your support and efforts to attach this 
bill to the Reconciliation bill.

The Work without Worry Act, also pending before Congress, will allow a 
recipient of Childhood Disability Benefits (CDB), formerly known as 
DAC, to work, earn and build credits for both disability insurance and 
retirement without the fear of having to lose the higher benefit 
provided by a parent's work record.Essentially, the Act will provide 
the CDB recipient with a choice of which account will provide the 
higher retirement payment, their own or their parent's. This will allow 
recipients to work without fear of breaking the CDB relationship and 
suffering a lower benefit upon retirement. We encourage your support 
and efforts to attach this measure to the Reconciliation Act.

Finally, we propose an amendment to the Act, which involves eliminating 
the age limit for the Student Earned Income Exclusion (SEIE), which can 
currently only be utilized by students under the age of 22. The 
exclusion allows for significant earnings exclusions for students who 
must work to support their higher education ventures. Removing the age 
limitation would encourage more adults to seek college education or 
post-high school licensing programs if SSI and healthcare were not put 
at risk due to the school year or summer earnings. The United States is 
experiencing a national workforce shortage. This expansion would 
support the development of an increasingly skilled workforce sector and 
create opportunities for businesses and individuals with disabilities.

The 500 plus membership of NABWIS supports each of these initiatives 
mentioned above. Each has a great deal of potential to increase labor 
market participation by people with disabilities and allow for 
opportunities for economic advancement and equitable treatment by 
assisting the Social Security recipients we serve to move out of 
poverty and into the workforce. We appreciate your support in what 
could be life-changing legislation.

On Behalf of the Board of Directors.

Sincerely,

Raymond Cebula
President, NABWIS

                                 ______
                                 
           National Association of Disability Representatives

                    1305 W. 11th Street, Suite #222

                           Houston, TX 77009

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

On behalf of the membership of the National Association of Disability 
Representatives (NADR), an organization comprised of more than 700 
professionals who assist claimants in applying for disability benefits 
from the Social Security Administration (SSA), I submit these comments 
with regard to the need to include long-overdue improvements to 
Supplement Security Income benefits as part of the budget 
reconciliation process.

Changes are desperately needed to restore the original intent of the 
SSI program by updating outdated rules and modernizing financial 
eligibility rules. Today, more people with disabilities are struggling 
to pay for housing, food, medicine, and other necessities. SSI is a 
supplemental program to the Social Security system that provides modest 
financial assistance for people who are unable to work enough to meet 
their basic needs. The current program benefits are insufficient to 
address the needs of those who qualify. Further, the program's rules 
and requirements are so strict that they keep out many of the people it 
was created to help.

SSI program rules effectively require recipients to live below the 
current federal poverty line of $12,280. This leads to homelessness, 
hunger, and illness among older adults and persons with disabilities. 
The average SSI payment in 2021 is just $586 per month--about $7,000 
per year. The maximum monthly payment is $794, or just $9,530 per year. 
It's time to update the SSI program to better serve our nation's 
lowest-income seniors and people with disabilities. The budget 
reconciliation package should include provisions to:

      Increase the minimum benefit to at least the federal poverty 
level;
      Increase and index resource limits for inflation;
      Eliminate marriage penalties;
      Eliminate rules about ``in-kind'' support from friends and 
family;
      Increase the asset limit; and
      Update outdated income disregards.

Most of the SSI eligibility rules have not been updated since the 
program was signed into law by President Nixon more than 40 years ago. 
The economy has changed dramatically since then and some of the rules 
of the program can make people's financial problems even worse. For 
example, the amount of income a beneficiary is allowed to receive from 
other sources (such as a pension) without having their benefits reduced 
is just $20. In addition, the asset limit for the program--$2,000--has 
not been updated since 1989.

No person with a disability should have to choose between food and 
medicine, become homeless, or live without heat in the winter. And yet, 
NADR members encounter individuals who have to make these impossible 
choices every day. We urge Congress to include provisions in the 
reconciliation package to restore the SSI program as a lifeline for the 
poorest and most vulnerable Americans.

Sincerely,

Michael D. Wener, ADR
President

                                 ______
                                 
      National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

                      111 K Street, NE, Suite 700

                          Washington, DC 20002

                              202-216-0420

                        https://www.ncpssm.org/

              Statement of Max Richtman, President and CEO

Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young, thank you for the opportunity 
to include this statement in today's hearing record. The National 
Committee is a grassroots advocacy and educational organization 
dedicated to preserving and strengthening safety net programs, 
including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Supplemental Security 
Income, or SSI. All of these programs are vitally important to the 
well-being of the most vulnerable members of our society.

The SSI program provides critical income assistance to about 8.3 
million very low-income older adults and people with disabilities--
including over a million children. The maximum SSI benefit for 2021 is 
just $794 per month, an amount that is well below the federal poverty 
line for seniors. But even this modest benefit is vitally important to 
those individuals who receive it, helping as it does with the purchase 
of food, maintenance of housing and other basic needs.

Unfortunately, during the 50-year history of the program, Congress has 
failed to keep SSI up to date. For that reason, the National Committee 
supports your legislation, Mr. Chairman, S. 2065, the ``Supplemental 
Security Restoration Act of 2021.'' We urge you and your Senate 
colleagues to include S. 2065 in the budget reconciliation agreement 
that is currently being negotiated. The SSI Restoration Act remedies 
decades of inattention to this program by including the following 
provisions to:

      Increase the Federal benefit level so that SSI is more effective 
in alleviating poverty among seniors and disabled individuals;

      Update and index the resource limits so that they no longer 
prevent SSI beneficiaries from having even a modest rainy day fund;

      Adjust and index the income disregards, which have remained 
unchanged since Congress enacted the program in 1972; and

      Eliminate the marriage penalty and the In-Kind Support and 
Maintenance provisions.

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare 
believes that seniors and disabled individuals should not live in 
poverty in this country. The economy of the United States is capable of 
supporting an SSI program that is more robust than today's vitiated 
program.

The reforms included in the ``SSI Restoration Act'' are important, long 
overdue, and are urgently needed to ensure that the 8.3 million 
beneficiaries who depend on this safety net program can live in 
dignity.

Conclusion

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you for your leadership and 
for using this hearing to focus on the vitally important work of 
sustaining and improving the SSI program. SSI needs to be restored so 
that it is able to continue to support those seniors and disabled 
beneficiaries who depend on it, both for today and tomorrow.

We look forward to working with you and members of the subcommittee to 
enact these important program improvements.

                                 ______
                                 
                 National Council on Independent Living

                      2013 H Street, NW, 6th Floor

                          Washington, DC 20006

                              www.ncil.org

                          Email: [email protected]

                         (202) 207-0334 (Voice)

                          (202) 207-0340 (TTY)

                          (202) 207-0341 (Fax)

                       (877) 525-3400 (Toll-Free)

October 1, 2021

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6200

Re: September 21, 2021 Subcommittee Hearing on ``Policy Options for 
Improving SSI''

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young,

On behalf of the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL), we 
write today to thank you for holding this hearing on policy options for 
improving the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. As a program 
that millions of low-income disabled people and older adults rely on to 
survive and meet their basic and immediate needs, NCIL has long 
advocated for improvements to the program, and we are grateful to see 
these proposals being seriously considered.

NCIL is the longest-running national cross-disability, grassroots 
organization run by and for people with disabilities. We represent 
thousands of people with disabilities and organizations including 
Centers for Independent Living (CILs), Statewide Independent Living 
Councils (SILCs), and other organizations that advocate for the human 
and civil rights of people with disabilities throughout the U.S.

SSI is a critical program that helps many people meet their immediate 
needs and stay out of extreme poverty. It is a key source of income for 
7.8 million disabled people and older adults,\1\ including 1.1 million 
disabled children.\2\ It is vital for the 65% of recipients over 65 who 
are women \3\ who, on average, tend to earn lower wages, have fewer 
assets, live longer, and face higher rates of poverty.\4\ And it is a 
critical source of income for racially marginalized disabled people and 
older adults, who, because of long-standing systemic inequities are 
more likely to face lower wages and higher un- and underemployment, and 
less likely to have pensions or retirement savings.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Social Security Administration (2021). Monthly Statistical 
Snapshot, August 2021. Washington, DC, available at https://
www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/.
    \2\ Social Security Administration (2020). Fast Facts and Figures 
About Social Security, 2020. Washington, DC, available at https://
www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2020/fast_facts20.html.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ Christ, A. and Gronninger, T. (2018). Older woman and poverty. 
Washington, DC: Justice in Aging, available at https://
justiceinaging.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Older-Women-and-
Poverty.pdf.
    \5\ National Academy of Social Insurance. Social Security and 
People of Color, https://www.nasi.org/education/social-security-and-
people-of-color/.

When Congress created the SSI program in 1972, it was ``designed to 
provide a positive assurance that the Nation's aged, blind, and 
disabled people would no longer have to subsist on below-poverty-level 
incomes.''\6\ However, the neglect of the program and the failure to 
update its rules--some in as much as nearly 50 years--have ensured that 
goal goes unmet. The current maximum federal SSI benefit of $794 per 
month is approximately 74% of the federal poverty level (FPL) for an 
individual. The $20 general income disregard remains unchanged from 
when the program was established. The $2,000 asset limit has not been 
updated since 1989. The SSI program's eligibility requirements, rules, 
and benefit levels do not reflect today's actual cost of living. A 2013 
Social Security Administration study \7\ found that nearly half of all 
beneficiaries live in poverty. Between the program's strict income and 
asset limits and the rapidly rising cost of the necessities needed to 
simply survive, recipients continue to be pushed further into poverty 
as time goes on. This will not change until critical changes are made 
to the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ S. Rept. No. 92-1230, Social Security Amendments of 1972, 
Committee on Finance , U.S. Senate (September 25, 1972), available at 
https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/Downey%20PDFs/
Amendments%20to%20the%20Social%20Security%20Act%201969-
1972%20Vol.%203.pdf.
    \7\ Social Security Administration (2013). Characteristics of 
Noninstitutionalized DI and SSI Program Participants, 2013 Update. 
Washington, DC. Available at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/rsnotes/
rsn2015-02.html.

While the SSI program provides critical support that helps people meet 
some of their basic, immediate needs, it is woefully insufficient and 
desperately in need of modernization to meet its original intent. There 
are some specific policy proposals we hope to see enacted, all of which 
are proposed in the recently reintroduced SSI Restoration Act (S. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2065). These include:

      Increase the SSI benefit level. This is one of the most critical 
steps that can be taken to ensure that the original intent behind the 
creation of the SSI program--assuring older adults and disabled people 
do not have to subsist on below-poverty-level incomes--is met. The SSI 
Restoration Act would raise benefits to 100% of the federal poverty 
level and index them to inflation.
      Significantly increase the asset limit. The current $2,000 limit 
has not been updated since 1989. As a result of these insufficient 
asset limits, SSI recipients are unable to save for any expected or 
unexpected costs, leaving them vulnerable in the event of an emergency 
or accident. Disabled people and older adults who rely on SSI are 
often, quite literally, one emergency away from losing everything. The 
SSI Restoration Act would update and index the assets individuals may 
have up to $10,000.
      Eliminate marriage penalties. Currently, if two people receiving 
SSI get married, they will receive less in benefits than they did as 
two individuals. Further, the $3,000 asset limit for couples is only 
1.5 times what two single people are able to save ($2,000 each). These 
penalties make meeting basic needs even more difficult for couples, and 
make it even more difficult to prepare and save for possible 
emergencies. The SSI Restoration Act would increase the benefit amount 
for married couples to double the individual rate, and it would update 
and index the asset limit for couples to double that of a single person 
($20,000).
      Increase the income limits so people can supplement their SSI 
benefits with other sources of income and are not disincentivized from 
working. Currently SSI recipients can earn only $65 per month from work 
and $20 per month from other sources before their benefits are reduced. 
These income rules have not been updated since the program was created 
in 1972. The SSI Restoration Act would update and index SSI's income 
rules, allowing individuals to earn up to $399 per month from working 
and up to $123 per month in assistance from other sources (including 
Social Security, veterans' benefits, and pension payments) without 
being subject to a benefit reduction.
      Eliminate the in-kind support and maintenance rules. While the 
in-kind support and maintenance provision frames the receiving of 
support from family and friends as cheating the system, in reality, 
receiving such support is often critical for SSI recipients who, again, 
are receiving below-poverty-level benefits. People must not be 
penalized for receiving support from family and friends who are able 
and willing to provide it. The SSI Restoration Act would eliminate this 
penalty, ensuring that people who receive in-kind help from friends or 
family--such as groceries or a place to stay--do not have their 
benefits reduced as a result.

On behalf of the National Council on Independent Living and our 
membership across the country, we thank you for your efforts to update 
and improve the SSI program. The changes outlined above would make 
major improvements to the lives of the 7.8 million disabled people and 
older adults who rely on SSI benefits. We appreciate the opportunity to 
submit this statement, and we welcome the opportunity to continue 
working with your offices as these efforts move forward. If you have 
any questions or would like to discuss this further, please feel free 
to contact NCIL's Policy Director, Lindsay Baran, at [email protected] 
or 202-207-0334 ext. 1108.

Sincerely,

Reyma McCoy McDeid

                                 ______
                                 
                    National Down Syndrome Congress

                      30 Mansell Court, Suite 108

                           Roswell, GA 30075

                          phone: 770-604-9500

                           fax: 770-604-9898

                       email: [email protected]

                      https://www.ndsccenter.org/

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

The National Down Syndrome Congress (NDSC) submits this statement for 
the record for the Subcommittee Hearing: Policy Options for Improving 
SSI. NDSC is the country's oldest national organization for people with 
Down syndrome, their families, and the professionals who work with 
them. We provide information, advocacy and support concerning all 
aspects of life for individuals with Down syndrome, and work to achieve 
our vision of a world with equal rights and opportunities for people 
with Down syndrome. Our members rely on SSI and the program desperately 
needs to be updated.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. The maximum 
benefit is $794 a month, only three fourths of the Federal Poverty 
Level. People on SSI who are married receive even less and people are 
not allowed to save more than $2,000 without losing their benefits. 
Rules about help from family and friends and the amount of earnings or 
other income people can have before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years. SSI was passed to ensure ``that the 
nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live 
on below-poverty incomes'' and because of decades of neglect, it no 
longer fulfills this promise. Many of SSI's archaic rules are harmful 
to people with disabilities, forcing them to remain impoverished to 
sustain their much-needed benefits.

We support the following updates to SSI benefits and rules:

    1.  Increase the minimum benefit to at least the federal poverty 
level. The current maximum SSI benefit is $794 per month, and the 
average benefit in March 2021 was only $586 per month. This is well 
below the federal poverty level of $1,073 a month for an individual. 
Increasing the SSI benefit to the federal poverty level would 
dramatically reduce poverty and hardship for the 8 million people 
currently relying on SSI benefits, ensuring that people with 
disabilities and older adults are better able to meet their basic 
needs.

    2.  Increase and inflation-index resource limits. The resource or 
asset limits for SSI have not changed since 1989. Currently, 
individuals can only have $2,000 in assets and married couples are only 
allowed $3,000. These woefully outdated levels penalize savings and 
keep recipients from preparing for emergencies or meeting their needs.

    3.  Eliminate marriage penalties. The maximum SSI benefit for a 
married couple is only 150% of what two single people would receive. 
People on SSI also risk losing their benefits if they marry someone not 
on SSI. These marriage penalties should be eliminated so that 
beneficiaries are not forced to choose between maintaining survival 
benefits and marrying the person they love.

    4.  Eliminate rules about ``in-kind support'' from friends and 
family. SSI's ``In-Kind Support and Maintenance'' (ISM) rules reduce 
SSI benefits by up to one third if beneficiaries receive help from 
loved ones with food and shelter. This drives beneficiaries even deeper 
into poverty, interferes with people's desires to assist their loved 
ones, and create tremendous inefficiency when SSA attempts to 
administer them. Both Democratic- and Republican-appointed SSA 
Commissioners have proposed elimination of these archaic rules.

    5.  Update outdated income disregards. The income rules for SSI 
beneficiaries have never been updated since the SSI program was 
established in 1974. The disregards have been stuck at $20 (unearned) 
and $65 (earned) for nearly 50 years, meaning they have lost virtually 
all of their value due to inflation. This pushes people with 
disabilities and the lowest income seniors even deeper into poverty and 
means that SSA must spend time and money adjusting SSI benefits for 
relatively small changes in recipients' income. It is long past time to 
update SSI's income disregards for inflation. This is especially 
important for the millions of very low-income Social Security 
beneficiaries who also receive SSI, as Social Security benefits are 
considered unearned income.

For these reasons, we ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in 
the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Heather Sachs, J.D.
Policy and Advocacy Director
[email protected]
301-580-8005

                                 ______
                                 
                    Letter Submitted by Selena Neese
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Selena Neese and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.''

I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. Many of 
the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 and it no 
longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled people 
would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

To show how this affects me, let us take a recent example. My husband, 
not even working 40 hours, made 3 paychecks in a month. My SSI was cut 
off. My medicaid is only still running because of COVID compensations, 
but I lost access to the subsidiary company who had better benefits 
that my state runs.

Without Medicaid I will lose my thyroid medications. Not sure if you 
know this, but Hashimoto's and Hypothyroidism can kill without 
medication. I cannot take generics as the body processes it 
differently. I also have Celiac so may need a different type of 
synthetic thyroid hormone--liquid or liquid cap--that are also 
expensive compared to generics.

I also need my thyroid removed, it is dead, swelling and causing 
difficulty breathing at night. I can no longer control the swelling 
with diet, it doesn't matter what I do or don't eat--what I do or don't 
do. So last month was a 3 month paycheck. I can't get my surgery I need 
next month (if current circumstances allow) I have to wait until 
November.

What happens after the end of the year if Medicaid is not extended if 
your SSI gets cut off? Will I need to go without my thyroid meds? 
Things I need to live? We barely can make rent and utilities. We live 
in housing that is based on our income, anything that doesn't take into 
account our income status? Too much.

It doesn't help I have Celiac and food for me is much more expensive 
then those prepackaged meals everyone in our situation are forced to 
eat. I've been told I cannot apply for food stamps--not my husband, 
just me (my husband cannot apply as he is a permanent resident)--
because it will affect my SSI, so no way to get help there either. They 
don't take into account medical conditions.

The little bit of SSI I do get, we need to pay for some items during 
the month. Without it, we need to put items on credit that we really 
cannot afford.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Selena Neese

                                 ______
                                 
               Letter Submitted by Madelein Michelle Owen
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Madelein Michelle Owen and I am writing to submit a 
statement for the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options 
for Improving SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to 
be updated. Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was 
passed in 1972 and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, 
blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live on below-
poverty incomes.''

I have been receiving SSDI since I was a child. My father passed away 
when I was seven years old, leaving my mother and I without support. As 
a result I did not have adequate medical care and my early childhood 
was exceedingly unstable due to my mother's reliance on men she was 
involved with. The lack of care, instability, poverty and abuse I 
endured led me to develop complex post traumatic stress disorder. I was 
later diagnosed with Bipolar disorder when I was eleven years old. 
Shortly thereafter my mother was sent to Montana State Women's Prison 
for check fraud, after she had abandoned me and I was placed in foster 
care. As a result of the neglect I experienced my behavior was 
unmanageable for a family setting. I spent much of my youth in 
residential hospital facilities while my mother served her sentence. 
During this time we had no contact. In fact, I had very little contact 
with any of my biological family during my formative years. It made it 
incredibly difficult to heal from my trauma. My worker with the state 
had an enormous case load. I only met her once during the time she was 
responsible for me. I changed placements constantly and although I did 
my best in school and tried to work, I was not permitted to get my 
driver's license and faced many other barriers to independence. In 
spite of all this I graduated high school at 16 with a 3.9 GPA and 
started at the University of Montana while still in the care of the 
state.

Due to behavioral difficulties stemming from frustration with the 
restrictions placed on me as a foster child I was moved to several 
different placements after my first semester at college. When I aged 
out I was put on a bus with $20 and my SSI benefits ended. I was 
targeted when I returned to the University of Montana due to my lack of 
support and assaulted violently, at which time I spiraled into a deep 
depression.

The Interim Assistance Program in Missoula helped me regain access to 
my benefits a few years later, however they were insufficient and work 
opportunities in my area were limited. At this time I was offered a job 
below minimum wage. All of this caused my mental health to decline, and 
like my mother had done I began to seek male attention in order to have 
support to survive.

I have since been in many abusive relationships due to not being able 
to be financially independent. I was recently diagnosed with ADHD, 
which explains why many of the treatments given to me for Bipolar 
disorder were not effective. The lack of infrastructure has made 
seeking adequate treatment difficult. There are a serious lack of 
providers in Montana that accept Medicare or Medicaid and many 
treatments are not covered by it. I have struggled to work and be 
independent, was unable to marry, and lost everything I owned as well 
as custody of all three of my children in this process.

Few people understand the situation and symptoms of mental illness and 
the limitations it creates. I was placed with the SDMI waiver in 
Montana but the program is woefully understaffed and getting access to 
benefits is a very slow process. Because of how I grew up I lack 
insight as to many aspects of independent living, this in addition to 
my neurological disorder and long term effects of the abuse I endured 
while in the states care and prior make the publicly funded classes 
inaccessible for me despite my intellectual ability. Many people imply 
that I'm not disabled and treat me poorly because of this and other 
symptoms I display which they assume are simply related to having a 
poor attitude. I am now 34 years old, still do not have my bachelor's 
despite my early start, and constantly on the brink of homelessness as 
well as not possessing a driver's license. I have worked almost 
incessantly for years to recover from my trauma and have almost nothing 
to show for it due to the lack of support and limitations placed on 
Social security beneficiaries.

I am asking you as a person who desperately wants to be independent, 
stable and contribute to the economy to re-evaluate and change this 
system so that people like myself can break the cycle of poverty and 
abuse we must perpetuate in order to simply survive.

Thank you.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Madelein Owen

``Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.''
--Simone Weil

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Louis Paniccioli
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young

    My name is Louis Paniccioli, and I am writing to submit a statement 
for the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for 
Improving SSI.'' I rely on SSI, and the program desperately needs to be 
updated. Many of the rules have not changed since SSI was created in 
1972, and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and 
disabled people would no longer have to live on below-poverty 
incomes.''

Louis Paniccioli's Story

    Since I was born, I have been and continue to be a recipient of 
Social Security Income (SSI) because I am a person with disabilities. 
Many other people with disabilities, myself included, feel that SSI is 
a system that keeps us in a vicious cycle of poverty and prevents us 
from ever achieving the American dream. It forces us to rely on 
minuscule payments to sustain our lives and the medical expenses of 
having disabilities. For example, where I live in New York, the SSI 
monthly limit is $794 per month; no person, whether they have or do not 
have disabilities, cannot live off of $794 a month. To live comfortably 
in New York, a person must earn at least $73,000 annually. It is 
extremely difficult for the average person, regardless of whether they 
have or don't have disabilities, to achieve or find a job that pays the 
median salary of $73,000 per year so imagine how difficult it must be 
for a person with a disability to find employment. I want to address 
the issue of the marriage penalty now firmly. If people with 
disabilities marry the person they love, we kick off benefits because 
of joint income after marriage. As people with disabilities, why must 
we always be forced to choose between our lives and the person we love.

    We cannot honestly claim marriage equality until all people with 
disabilities are guaranteed the right to marry each other without 
consequence. I want to briefly divulge from Social Security Income to 
address the issue of the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program (MERP). 
According to the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program, states are required 
to seek reimbursements for Medicaid Recipients age 55 or older for 
Long-Term Care related expenses. This mandatory form of estate recovery 
effectively defeats the purpose of people trying to build economic 
sustainability or pass on assets to their next of kin without facing 
lien that would significantly reduce the support for the next 
generation or deplete the assets left to next-generation from in its 
entirety. I strongly urge whoever is in charge of Medicaid Estate 
Recovery to eliminate real property from recovery and significantly 
reduce estate recovery, especially if the cost of the Medicaid 
Beneficiary expenses exceeds $2.5 million. I would also like to assert 
further that states and the federal government should significantly 
reduce Medicaid reimbursement for recipients for Supplemental Needs 
Trusts whose beneficiary's lifetime medical expenses exceed $2 million.

    Returning to Social Security Income's original issue, it is 
inhumane that SSI forbids people from in-kind support. It is 
challenging for anyone, including people with disabilities, to sustain 
themselves economically. Why must we as people with disabilities face 
penalties reducing our benefits because of receiving assistance from a 
trusted friend or loving relative who wants to help us out, as would 
anyone disabled or non-disabled? The disability community should face 
penalties or reduced benefits for receiving help with everyday 
necessities like food and shelter but instead be encouraged to gain 
support from friends and family so that people with disabilities can 
lead lives worth living filled with joy, independence, and autonomy. 
Lastly, I want to address the issue of SSI Income Asset limits. 
Currently, it stands that a recipient of SSI cannot have more than 
$2,000 in assets. $2,000 in assets is not enough to establish economic/
financial security and build wealth for that. The United States was 
founded on the principle that all people are entitled to life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness. With this draconian asset limit being 
forced upon us as people with disabilities who are SSI recipients, our 
quality of life is reduced, our economic liberty significantly 
restricted, and our pursuit of happiness deliberately undermined. We 
may be people with disabilities, but first and foremost, we are human 
beings. For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to 
SSI in the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Louis Paniccioli

                                 ______
                                 
                     Letter Submitted by Mary Paone
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Mary Paone and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

Most of the medications for my rare disease have to be imported or 
compounded. The amount I pay, monthly, right now for medication is 
enough to make my friends and family with $50k+ a year salaries balk. 
There are many more medications that I should be on that would 
significantly improve my health, if only I could afford them.

Despite having a disease that affects my vision and dental health I 
haven't been able to afford any dental or vision care since I turned 
21, including basic exams. I've accepted the fact that I'm probably 
going to lose most, if not all of my teeth. Because of my high 
anaphylaxis risk low income dental care isn't available to me, and even 
if it was the average installment payment in my area is about $50. An 
amount that I cannot pay in order to afford my daily maintenance 
medications.

Because of the pandemic the cost of my maintenance health care has 
increased significantly. I have to pay two to three times the cost of 
prepandemic prices on medications because of supply chain issues. There 
have been many times where if I had any extra money, I would have been 
able to buy these medications in bulk at a lower price before the 
shortages happened.

Due to my disability I pay more than the average person for personal 
care items. I cannot use or be exposed to scented products without 
having a severe allergic reaction. I not only pay more for the product 
itself, but since these products are niche and specialty, I also have 
to pay shipping since they're not sold at regular stores. This 
situation is very common among SSI beneficiaries, and disabled people 
in general pay more for everyday products than the average nondisabled 
person.

Despite living in HUD housing where I can deduct some of my medical 
expenses from my rent, my medical expenses far exceed my rent payment. 
It's as low as it can possibly go and I still cannot afford basics. 
Every month is a game of what we can make stretch. When I pick 
something to run out of it's usually grooming supplies like shampoo, 
soap, or conditioner that I can water down.

I am not well enough to work a full time job. I will never be well 
enough to work a full time job. But if working part time is no longer 
turned into a full time job by having to engage in a paper fight with 
the Social Security Administration, I have a chance at a decent life 
again. It will be a massive struggle but we deserve the chance.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Mary Paone

                                 ______
                                 
                    Letter Submitted by Shyla Patera
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

My name is Shyla Patera. I am writing this testimony to members of the 
Senate Finance Committee regarding the SSI Restoration Act. I am a 
Montanan with a congenital disability of cerebral palsy and glaucoma 
suspect. At the age of 18 in 1987, I applied for and was approved for 
SSI. While attending Montana State University and earning my Bachelors 
of Arts in political science, I had hoped that I would be successfully 
employed with a Juris Doctor or law degree. After graduation, as often 
happens though, my life choices changed. I moved to Philadelphia to 
become a VISTA or Volunteer in Service to America for Liberty Resources 
Inc., a center for independent living. While serving during the mid-
nineties, I learned about disability history and activism as well as 
community. Most importantly, I met and fell in love with someone. My 
love Dan and my friends were the reason I stayed in Philadelphia. D was 
adventurous, smart, humorous, and funny. I felt I could share so much 
with him. It was during this time that I first heard rumblings about 
the SSI marriage penalty. I knew I needed Medicaid to keep receiving 
the self-directed home care that helped me become a working adult and 
renter even though I was working a series of part time jobs. D needed 
home health care to thrive with his own disabilities. D passed away in 
2000. I stayed in Philadelphia until 2003 to honor his memory and 
because I had found friends and community that I was a part of. I 
struggled with finding full time jobs, paying fair market rent as well 
as SSI over payments because of working Americorps or part time school 
age child care jobs. I probably should have been SSDI eligible but SSA 
customer service reps were telling me that I didn't qualify for SSDI 
funding. States didn't have Medicaid buy-in or Medicaid for Workers 
with Disabilities until after1999 The Ticket to Work and Work 
Incentives Program Act

In 2003, after returning home to Great Falls Montana, I worked as a 
paraprofessional for the Great Falls Public Schools. In 2005, I 
accepted a full time position with North Central Independent Living 
Inc. as an Independent Living Specialist dealing with legislative 
issues. In 2006, I met and began a relationship with M. M has 
disabilities of his own but worked enough quarters and earned a 
Disabled Adult Child benefits from his father's record to qualify for 
SSDI. At the time, I was on SSI but not receiving active cash payment. 
He proposed. I accepted. We began to plan for a celebration. At this 
time, Montana did not have Montana Medicaid for Workers with 
Disabilities. My increment or spend down to remain eligible for 
Medicaid was approximately $2,000 per month. Because I need to stay 
Medicaid eligible and private insurance doesn't cover Community First 
Choice or HCBS Waiver services at the same service level and provider 
rate, M and I had to call off our engagement. This caused a lot of 
relationship stress not only for us as a couple but our families and 
friends because to many unfamiliar with the SSI marriage penalty and 
its implications, it seemed that we as a couple only cared about the 
financial aspects of couplehood. Once Montana Medicaid for Workers with 
Disabilities was passed and enacted in 2009, my cost share is between 
$67.00-$135.00 per month based upon earnings. If I can no longer work 
and need to reapply for benefits, like most I will have to spend down 
to the SSI base level monthly to become eligible for Medicaid.

It would seem that individual needs for Medicaid and SSI cash when I 
was cash eligible often have influenced my life choices. These choices 
make me concerned for the Montanans with disabilities I serve at North 
Central Independent Living Services, Inc. While I am not writing on 
behalf my agency nor any specific consumer request at this time, there 
are some overarching issues that many northcentral Montanans on SSI 
relay to me as hopefully fixable concerns in my advocacy work that I 
would like to relay to you as Finance Committee staff and members.

      Marriage penalty issues.
      Why are there inequities between beneficiary programs?
      My income from my benefits not enough to live on?
      I am on Medicare and I would like home health but I need to be 
Medicaid eligible.
      My younger consumers would like career work opportunities that 
are financially stable and in competitive integrated settings.

Thank you for consideration of my concerns/testimony.

Shyla Patera

                                 ______
                                 
        Letter Submitted by Yvonne M. Perret, M.A., MSW, LCSW-C
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Yvonne M. Perret and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I am a licensed clinical social worker who has spent the last 28 
years assisting individuals who are homeless and who have serious 
mental illness apply for SSI and SSDI. Most, if approved, receive SSI. 
I go to where people are, do everything for the application, conduct a 
clinical evaluation, and follow through for as long as needed. The many 
hundreds of people I have served struggle to access these benefits, 
partly because of poor medical treatment histories and partly because 
of social determinants of health impairments that affect their ability 
to navigate these complex processes. In addition, their mental 
illnesses in and of themselves impede their ability to complete the 
process.

The SSI benefits, once finally received, are woefully inadequate, well 
below the Federal Poverty Level. Given the cost of housing, these 
benefits often leave a person homeless or at risk of returning to being 
homeless. For couples, the logic behind not doubling the benefits makes 
no sense. In addition, the resource limits have not been raised since 
1984. If a claimant is $1 over resources, they are initially denied. 
This must be changed.

The benefits currently received are not enough to pay for the high cost 
of housing in most parts of the U.S. A housing stipend in addition to 
the benefits would be helpful. For people to recover, they need a safe 
place to live. So, raising the benefit amount, allowing for a much 
higher amount of resources, eliminating such countable resources as 
life insurance policies, and raising the amount for deeming for 
children's SSI is only reasonable.

Though Congress and SSA want people to work or return to work, the SSI 
work incentives are absurd. After earning $65 or $85 in a month, 
benefits begin to decline. Clearly, if work is emphasized, the work 
incentives need to make it worthwhile to work. Why not do something 
such as is done with SSDI? That is more complicated but better for 
recipients financially.

Many of these individuals receive mental health treatment from licensed 
clinical social workers, but we are not considered acceptable medical 
sources. The landscape of care has changed with social workers 
providing the majority of mental health treatment in the U.S. Few 
people who are financially poor see M.D.s on a regular basis. It is 
time to add licensed clinical social workers, who are licensed to 
diagnose in most states, to the list of acceptable sources.

Thank you for this opportunity. These changes are urgent.

Sincerely,

Yvonne M. Perret, M.A., MSW, LCSW-C

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Arthur Pronin
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

My name is Arthur Pronin and I live in Houston Texas. I am 41 years of 
age. When I was in college in 2001 I got food poisoning. And so began a 
long battle with an illness. The food poisoning paralyzed part of my 
stomach. And I was left with long-term issues. I never thought I would 
be someone who would need to be on Medicare and Medicaid and disability 
but I couldn't pay my bills anymore and had to file for the program.

It took me years and an attorney to finally get on SSI and SSDI 
benefits. It took a judge to rule on that and award me the benefit. I 
was told at the time I would get housing funding through the government 
as well. No such housing has ever been offered in 17 years now on the 
program. I currently sit at number 4,000 for section 8.

What I have found on SSI and SSDI is how broken the system is and how 
outrageous it is that Congress has failed to act. It is a poverty trap. 
I am highly educated I live in the suburbs. I do feel I could at some 
point do paying work. However every time I try I fall back into the 
poverty trap. Ticket to Work is not very effective because the 
resources are so limited. The formula is so complicated it scares you 
off from trying to work.

In 2014 the Social Security Administration said I went over my bank 
account limit by $3. Giving you are only allowed $2,000 in the bank I 
was allegedly in a violation. So I had a battle on my hands for over 6 
months to try and prevent the government from taking my health care. 
Finally I appealed and appealed to a judge and he found that the Social 
Security Administration was an error on the $3 dollars and not me. Also 
I had to contact my congressman to help me as well. That is what it 
took to prevent them shredding my health care and limited assets.

I have met over the years in my work as an activist many high-profile 
individuals from mayors to members of Congress to even Joe Biden. And 
in all these years have been unable to get any kind of changes passed. 
Also when you live in a state like Texas there is nothing else offered 
if you are on disability. There is no state supplement to help you or 
anything. Literally it's just what you get from the federal government 
and that is about all you can expect.

I found out last week I was under a review which can take up to 6 
months at minimum. The Social Security Administration will collect all 
of my medical information from the last year and it will be sent to a 
doctor who I do not know to tell me if I am disabled or not.

A letter from the Social Security Administration is like a letter from 
the IRS. The whole system is adversarial it is not one of partnership 
or hope or help. It simply has to be fixed now and not next year or the 
next Congress.

If it can happen to me it can happen to anyone. No matter how poor or 
how rich you are in this country anyone could at some point need SSI or 
SSDI and the system is a failure. I am asking this Congress again to 
move forward on reforms on SSI in the reconciliation Bill. Things like 
lifting the $2,000 Bank limit. Things like an increase in pay. Things 
like improving funding for housing. Everyday I wake up to a broken 
promise from the government simply because I became suddenly Ill all 
those years ago.

I wanted to thank the chairman, Senator Wyden, Senator Brown and the 
many other Senators on this committee for having this hearing and I 
hope that something concrete and meaningful will come out of this for 
immediate help for millions of people like me.

Thank you again.

Art Pronin

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Kerrie Reilly
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Kerrie Reilly and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' My daughter relies on SSI and the program desperately needs to 
be updated. Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was 
passed in 1972 and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, 
blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live on below-
poverty incomes.''

My youngest adult daughter was born with a genetic disorder causing 
global developmental delays as well as spinal scoliosis, hypotonia, and 
other physical challenges. She began receiving SSI at age 6, and while 
the monthly benefit has been a blessing for her, the annual COLA 
doesn't keep up with the actual basic needs of the cost of living. 
Please increase the annual COLA to better respond to the needs of the 
disabled recipients of SSI.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Kerrie Reilly

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Louis Richter
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Louis Richter and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' My seriously handicapped son lives in a group home and relies on 
SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. Many of the rules 
have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972.

I am 91 years old, and way past the time when I could care for my son 
myself, and he has no one else. I fear that the home will have to 
compromise the standard of his care, or refuse to keep him, if the 
public assistance on which he depends does not suffice.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Louis Richter

                                 ______
                                 
                    Letter Submitted by Miriam Rocke
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Miriam Rocke and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

I have a rare genetic condition (Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva) 
that is progressive, incurable, untreatable, and horribly crippling: 
over the 42 years of my life my muscles and tendons have turned to 
bone, gradually immobilizing me. Currently I can only move a few 
fingers, my jaw, and facial muscles.

I am unable to work, and rely upon SSI (and SSDI because of my parents' 
employment) for income. Also, I need paid caregivers for everything 
from eating and dressing to getting in and out of bed and going to the 
bathroom. I get approximately 8 hours/day of caregiver time through In-
Home Supportive Services, which is tied to SSI eligibility.

The maximum SSI and SSDI that I could get is not enough to pay for my 
rent, especially if I continue to live in this town which has high cost 
of living but is also where I grew up and have community support. My 
parents are able to help me out with rent, but that reduces my SSI 
because it counts as income (even though I don't touch that). Because 
of the $2,000 asset limit, I can't save money, and any gifts from 
friends also count against me.

Being disabled is expensive, yet the current rules for SSI force people 
like me to live in poverty and punish us for getting assistance from 
friends and family. I would love to be a functional member of society 
but even if I could find a place that would hire me, even sub-minimum-
wage income would disqualify me from IHSS as well as SSI/SSDI. I can't 
get married without affecting my benefits (and those of my partner if 
they are disabled).

I am able to survive but I could thrive better if the system allowed me 
to. Being physically immobilized by my own body is hard--being 
financially immobilized by an outdated set of arbitrary rules is 
harder.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Miriam Rocke

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Erika Rodriguez
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Hello. I am writing you on behalf of everyone on SSI in support of the 
SSI Restoration Act.

SSI is a vital program that helps the elderly and disabled. Currently, 
SSI only pays out a maximum benefit of $794 a month. This doesn't 
support the basic needs of a person.

It's a very difficult process to qualify for the SSI program. Once 
you're on it, it can trap you in poverty with little way out as you 
can't have more then $2,000 at a time. If you try to work, you can't 
make more then $1,310 a month without being cut off the program.

Rent for a one-bedroom apartment could range from $600 to $900 alone. 
So people on SSI have to use other federal programs to help cover the 
cost of basic needs.

People on SSI feel like they are on the bottom of the totem pole. They 
are scared to speak up as you are publicly shamed to be on it. They get 
little support getting into the workforce. And after you start earning 
$60 your benefits start getting cut.

You get penalized if you find someone that you love; if you decide to 
get married your benefits either get reduced or cut all together.

The SSI Restoration Act would help people on SSI be more independent 
and would help people in the long-term get back into the workforce 
without needing further assistance.

Thank you for your time.

            Sincerely,

            Erika Rodriguez

                                 ______
                                 
                     Letter Submitted by Jodee Rose
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Jodee Rose and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

I began my adult life as a teacher. I graduated from the University of 
Florida in 1997, finishing a 5-year degree in three years thanks to 
college prep classes in high school. Though I graduated with a degree 
in Fine Arts, I began working immediately as a substitute teacher and 
then went through state testing and training to teach Math and Science 
full-time. Symptoms that I had in childhood reemerged full-time in 
1999. I remember because it was the weekend of my wedding when it all 
reached a fever pitch. It didn't let up after that. I found much later 
that I have a rare disease referred to as MAGIC syndrome, which is a 
concurrence of Behcet's Disease and Relapsing Polychondritis. I later 
developed Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) in 2016 (previously call 
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome). MAGIC syndrome means I have systemic 
vasculitis (inflammation of all of my vascular system manifesting in 
widespread ulceration and pain) and inflammation of my cartilage to the 
point that it breaks down and eats itself, for lack of a better 
description. Behcet's is also known as ``the great imitator'' as it has 
the same symptoms of MS, Crohn's disease, Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, 
and Fibromyalgia. M.E. makes it so that I'm also constantly drained of 
energy. Both of my primary diseases are very rare and have no cure.

It took me from the time of my relapse in 1999 until 2014 to finally 
get a correct diagnosis. I was a substitute teacher from 1998 until 
2004, when I was finally hired into a full-time position. I managed 2 
school years before I lost my full-time teaching position due to my 
illness. In 2008 substituting ultimately became too difficult so I 
applied for SSDI. Though I put 10 years into teaching the children of 
Florida and Montana, I never earned enough quarters to get SSDI. It 
wasn't until 2020 that I was finally approved for SSI (after two 
unsuccessful applications seen through to trial). My repeated denials 
(in part because of my doctor's lack of record-keeping, as he wrote off 
my very real symptoms as hypochondria) meant I spent 13 years without 
an income, while I became mostly bed-bound, so an SSDI work exception 
could not be made when I was finally approved. During those 13 years, I 
was relegated to living with an abusive family member who tormented me 
and escalated abuse until I finally schemed to talk my husband into 
going back to college to finish his degree in a bid to get us out of 
the house, taking out exorbitant loans to fund our move, future 
finances be damned.

Now with his degree in Film and Photography complete, my husband's job 
is taking care of me full-time. If he works, I face losing my support, 
both financially and physically. We live in a Section 8 apartment. I am 
bed-bound. He cleans and cooks and helps me with my daily living tasks. 
With the cost of our emotional support animal who helps him deal with 
PTSD from an abusive childhood and helps alert when I aspirate (as 
happens when my esophageal cartilage is inflamed), the $794 a month I 
get from SSI doesn't go very far. We pay rent, utilities, pay for our 
cat's prescription cat food and insulin (who knew a cat could have 
insulin-dependent diabetes). All of our food has to be covered by SNAP. 
I spend my days fighting tooth and nail (when I am not sleeping, or in 
too much pain to function at all) with various government agencies to 
make sure that all of our out-of-pocket medical expenses are factored 
into our benefits so we can still afford to eat and live indoors. 
Stress makes all of these things worse.

When we had our COVID stimulus money, my condition was much better. I 
had clarity and even had the energy to write, working on a novel. Now 
that that money has run out, the stress of poverty has made my 
condition worse. My skin is covered in open ulcers. My immune system is 
attacking my liver. I can't help but be bitter knowing that much of the 
suffering I experience could be helped by our government. It hurts that 
we are denied a morally appropriate level of support out of the bizarre 
notion by some that denying us a comfortable living will somehow 
motivate us to . . . stop having diseases that disable us? Or more 
grimly, that some think we would be better off dead. SSI is incredibly 
difficult to attain. My struggle left me destitute for 13 years. Now, 
the limits of the program promise to keep me destitute for the rest of 
my life, if things do not change.

Please know, I would love to work. I miss teaching. I miss having the 
energy to write novels in four months and paint beautiful portraits. If 
I could make my own living, I would. But I'm sick, and I will only get 
worse, and I, like many others, will get no better subjected to the 
policies by which SSI currently operates.

There was a large uproar during 2020 as stimulus checks we discussed 
claiming the average person needs $2,000 to survive in our current 
world. Disabled people deserve the same consideration as the average 
person. Though we can no longer financially support our country's 
economy, our contributions are no less valuable. We are parents, 
spouses, children, lovers, friends. We should be treated like we 
matter.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Jodee Rose

                                 ______
                                 
                    Letter Submitted by Ahmed Saafir
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Ahmed Saafir and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' As the owner and operator of a licensed residential care 
facility for low-income adults with mental illness who rely on SSI, I 
know that the program desperately needs to be updated. Many of the 
rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 and it no 
longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled people 
would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

I have been the owner and operator of Orange Community Care--a licensed 
``Board and Care,'' or residential long-term care facility--for decades 
and know firsthand about the harmful effects of low SSI rates. I am one 
of only a few remaining facilities that serve low-income adults with 
mental illness, who have no other source to pay for supportive living 
besides SSI. Many others have opted to leave the business because it 
simply is not feasible to house, feed, and provide 24/7 support for 
someone on $35 per day--the rate currently paid by SSI, after personal 
and incidental expenses are accounted for. When facilities close, our 
communities lose a vital resource and residents have few places to turn 
to. The cheapest motel room in Los Angeles is much more than $35 a 
night--let alone food and care.

Without substantial increases to SSI rates, I have not been able to 
raise the quality of life for my residents much beyond the minimum 
licensing requirements. For example, I'd like to increase the number of 
staff, but I don't have the money to do so. Given the difficulty of 
this job, especially during COVID-19, it has become increasingly 
difficult to recruit caregivers for minimum wages. Another example is 
facility maintenance--from the interior and exterior to grounds 
maintenance, this is not simply a matter of upkeep. Administrative, 
accounting and property tax cost have also increased dramatically. My 
residents deserve to live in a setting that is healthy, safe, and 
beautiful.

Finally, at the current rates, my residents are left with only $138 a 
month for personal and incidental expenses--about $4.50 a day, or $35 a 
week. That is meant to cover everything from clothing, to haircuts, to 
feminine products. These are not ``incidental'' expenses . . . they are 
fundamental and things that everybody deserves. I've seen my residents 
often go without these because they don't have enough money for all 
these very basic essentials.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include an increase to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Ahmed Saafir

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Steve S. Senti
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

My name is Steve Senti, I am 61 years old and I am on SSI for 
disability. I worked for 17 years from 1978 to 1995 at a union printing 
company called International Paper Company in Peoria Illinois. I 
performed multiple back breaking jobs there that caused me to hurt my 
back and have back surgery in 1985.

After the back surgery I was off work for 1 year, and I was left with 
permanent disability in my lower back and right leg. I have PPD and 
DDD, which is permanent partial disability and degenerative disc 
disease. I went back to work for the next 9 years, working in pain 
every day, until I had to quit my job in June of 1995 due to back pain.

And that was the last day I worked a job, I was 35 years old at the 
time. So I filed for SSDI and they denied me. I do not remember the 
exact date, but I do remember filing at some point. I believe I filed 
for SSDI 2 or 3 times from 1996 up to about 6 years ago when I was 
finally awarded SSI disability in 2015.

I won at the Appeals Council, they said the ALJ judge made a legal 
error and they awarded me full disability, including back pay back to 
the date of my 55th birthday, when I was put into the old age category. 
In total I got almost $12k settlement, paid in 3 payments over the next 
12 months, $3k for the first two, and $6k on the final payment.

I was denied SSDI, because they said I had gone 10 years without 
working so my work credits had expired. But those work credits got me a 
pension from International Paper of $123 a month. I filed for it when I 
turned 55 years old in 2015, and I was approved. Those work credits 
also got me my social security retirement benefits at age 67, so they 
did not expire for that.

The reason I did not work at all in those 10 years is because I was 
living with my Father who had alzheimers and I was taking care of him 
24/7. His name was Florian D. Senti and he was a world war two veteran. 
I could not work because he needed care 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

The 10 years rule should have an exemption for people like me who were 
taking care of a parent. I was also disabled, and could not work. So it 
was the fault of social security that I was not awarded SSDI, during 
the 10 years I could have got it, they just decided I was not disabled, 
even though I was, and then they denied my SSDI saying I did not work 
for 10 years, even though I filed for SSDI in the 10 year window.

I feel those work credits should never expire, and I should have been 
put on SSDI at a rate of $1,100 a month, but I was over-ruled by the 
social security administration. Instead they put me on SSI at $300 a 
month less than the SSDI would have paid me. I also feel that since I 
was making $3k under the poverty line they should have not deducted 
$100 of my pension from my SSI payments.

The Social Security Administration deducts $100 of my $123 pension 
every month, so instead of getting $790.00 a month from them, they only 
give me $690.99 a month. I get to keep all my $123 a month pension, 
they just take $100 of it off my SSI payments every month.

This is wrong and unfair, and the rules on that should be changed. I am 
poor, I make $9,600 a year on SSI, which is about $3k under the poverty 
line, so I should not have that $100 deducted from my SSI benefits 
every month, I should be able to keep it all.

I do not want to get rich off the government, I just want to get what I 
earned, and I want to make enough in cash benefits to not be below the 
poverty line, which is $12,880 a year. I would also say the rules 
should be changed on how they decide our rent amount and our food stamp 
amount.

Every January we get the COLA raise, this year it was $11 a month 
increase for me. Then they raised my rent $5 a month, starting next 
month in October, so I lost half my raise just to rent. This year they 
have not cut my food stamps, so far, but in past years they also cut my 
food stamps citing my COLA raise.

To me it is crazy to raise a persons rent, who is on SSI making $3k 
under the poverty line, and cut their food stamps, every time they get 
a small COLA raise. It takes away every little gain we made, and puts 
us farther into poverty, because of inflation that almost always goes 
up more than our COLA raise.

As long as we are under the poverty line the rent should never be 
increased, and our food stamps should never be lowered. I get a COLA 
raise every January, then you take it all away from me in rent 
increases and food stamp cuts, so I never get ahead, and I am already 
as poor as you can get, and make the same as someone working for $5 an 
hour.

So please increase the SSI payouts, please change the law so a persons 
work credits never expire, please change the formula that you use to 
decide our yearly COLA raises, and please stop raising my rent and 
cutting my food stamps so I never make any gains and lose buying power 
from inflation.

Thank you,

Steve S. Senti

                                 ______
                                 
                    Letter Submitted by Mark Slatin
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Mark Slatin and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

I am sure you are getting many voluminous stories. As disabled folks, 
our circumstances are so different, they often sound made up and we 
spend a lot of energy convincing people, even our families and doctors, 
of the reality we live through. Because I don't want them to get lost 
in the entirety of my story, I am going to focus on the details I want 
you to hear the most.

When I applied for disability, it took 2 years and I was not allowed to 
start the process with more than $2,000, which my disabilities made 
difficult to earn. If I work during the process, even if that work is 
not sustainable, it is evidence that I do not need disability. If I 
don't work, I will be quickly unhoused, as $2,000 is a few months rent 
(or less) in Portland. Being unhoused, I will not be able to reasonably 
complete the disability process. Getting help from family and friends 
is a luxury many don't have and utilizing this privilege both hurts 
benefits and reduces the likelihood of succeeding. This is an 
impossible scenario and it forces us to dehumanize ourselves or engage 
dishonestly or lose hope.

I am in love with an amazing person and we want to entwine our lives in 
marriage. Once I was able to discharge my student loans through the 
Total and Permanent Disability Discharge program, I had hope that I 
could marry without saddling my partner with unfair debt she didn't 
earn. Then I remembered that to be married would make them de facto 
financially responsible for me. That is not a way to start a marriage 
and that precarity is not a way to keep it going. Our lives are often 
marked by a not so subtle request that we stay quietly out of sight and 
we often hear messages about being burdensome or unlovable. The 
desperation we have to be reduced to in order to barely survive on SSI 
is dehumanizing and when we try to salvage small joys and celebrate our 
loves we are chastened. We hear that we may be punished for 
occasionally going on a hike (as the prior administration threatened) 
and whether it happens or not, the chilling effect keeps us from 
striving for happiness. It seems like asking for anything more than 
survival is threatening to the world around us.

I'm going to end with these two small examples. Thank you for your 
time. I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the upcoming 
budget reconciliation legislation.

Solidarity and Hope,

Mark Slatin

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Charlene Slimp
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Charlene Slimp and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' My family member and my friends rely on SSI and the program 
desperately needs to be updated. Many of the rules have not been 
changed since SSI was passed in 1972 and it no longer ensures ``that 
the nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to 
live on below-poverty incomes.''

I, personally, am on SSDI (Social Security Disability) and don't 
qualify for SSI, but I have friends and family who ARE on SSI. My SSDI 
award is TWICE the maximum award for SSI and I have to live off of HALF 
the California poverty level determination. And people on SSI have to 
live off HALF of what I receive. This is simply impossible to do! I can 
BARELY afford my living expenses and healthcare expenses but only 
because California is extremely generous in it's additional health-care 
assistance. When I was living in Arizona, receiving even less, I simply 
had to give up on receiving any healthcare at all because I couldn't 
afford it. And that is still making twice the SSI award.

Not only do disabled people have additional obstacles in society that 
make us ``disabled'' (because accessibility and workers rights would 
allow a lot of people to actually go back to work) but we also have 
higher costs of living in terms of healthcare and assistance supports, 
like wheelchairs, crutches, psychiatry, and more. I have an emotional 
support cat (documented) and even though it's entirely illegal, I still 
have a hard time finding and keeping any housing, and so can never pay 
the lowest amount of rent available in an area and finding roommates is 
nigh impossible. Programs designed to help in finding affordable 
housing almost universally have wait lists (they did in Arizona and 
California, maybe there's an exception in some other state) that are 
years or even decades long. But you still have to live somewhere in 
that time and not everyone has family that can/will help them. It's a 
nice thought that there are laws out there to protect us, except that 
utilizing these protections is, in itself, complicated and expensive 
and we just don't have the money necessary to do anything except barely 
pay for our survival. And survival is not the same thing as living. 
Whatever the original intentions of the SSI/SSDI systems, they have 
created a poverty trap for disabled people that is impossible to escape 
and nearly impossible to navigate. A system that cannot be navigated by 
your average able-
bodied person (let alone someone with a disability!) because it's so 
complex, intensive, and time consuming that several of the folks I know 
that WERE on SSI aren't anymore because they simply couldn't navigate 
it. That is absolutely shameful. America should be better than this.

Even WORSE are the folks who would love to get married, but because 
this would be combining their resources, they will lose their SSI. And 
now there are laws and penalties for ``avoiding the marriage penalty'' 
so you have to guard against any kind of love and commitment in your 
life. You can love, or you can live, but you can't do both.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Charlene Slimp

                                 ______
                                 
                         Special Needs Alliance

         Statement of Christopher W. Smith and Roxanne J. Chang

Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young, and members of the 
subcommittee, we first congratulate you on holding a hearing to 
identify ways to increase income and resource limits and other 
components used to determine Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
eligibility and related benefits for individuals with disabilities. We 
appreciate the opportunity to provide written testimony to this 
subcommittee to express the gratitude and support of the Special Needs 
Alliance (SNA) regarding these efforts, as well advise on additional 
ways that SSI eligibility and related benefits can be improved for 
persons with disabilities.

We are co-chairs of the Public Policy Committee and Board members of 
the SNA. The SNA is a national, non-profit organization committed to 
helping individuals with disabilities, their families, and the 
professionals who serve them. Its members are attorneys representing 
the majority of states in the union, and the members regularly assist 
clients with disabilities and their families with eligibility for 
public benefit programs, guardianship/conservatorships, planning for 
disabilities, and special education issues. Many members also have 
family members who have disabilities. The SNA members contribute 
significant time to the special needs community and advocate for 
legislative and regulatory change to improve the quality of life and 
care for individuals with disabilities.

The SNA is one of approximately one hundred national organizations who 
are members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), 
working together to advocate for national public policy that promotes 
self-determination, independence, empowerment, integration and 
inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of 
society. Improvements to the existing SSI eligibility requirements has 
been a public policy priority of the CCD, and hence also of the SNA. As 
such, the SNA greatly appreciates the work of this subcommittee and its 
efforts towards passage of bills that consist of various improvements 
to the SSI benefits program, which will have a meaningful impact on 
some of the most vulnerable in our society--children and adults with 
disabilities.

We would like to take the opportunity to voice SNA's support of the 
Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2021, S.2065 introduced 
by Senator Brown and cosponsored by twenty other senators. The 
provisions in this bill will unquestionably improve the quality of life 
for individuals with disabilities.

As the subcommittee and full Finance Committee consider changes 
proposed in the SSI Restoration Act and other related legislation, we 
would like to draw your attention to another issue which is also a 
major priority of the SNA related to SSI benefits and Social Security 
Childhood Disability Benefits. The CCD also supports our position on 
this issue. The Social Security Act as currently drafted results in a 
fundamentally unfair outcome because it arises from circumstances the 
individual with disabilities cannot control, which can have a 
significant impact on access to much-needed care, treatment, and 
services.

What's the Problem?

Under Section 1634 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1383c(c)), an 
individual with disabilities must receive Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI) before receiving Social Security's Childhood Disability Benefits 
(CDB, formerly known as ``DAC'' benefits) in order for the CDB income 
to be disregarded for Medicaid qualification. This creates an 
unintended trap of making individuals with disabilities whose parents 
die young, or are older and retire, or who otherwise fail to apply for 
SSI benefits prior to receiving CDB benefits, subject to a monthly 
Medicaid spend-down.

Medicaid eligibility for persons with disabilities is commonly linked 
to eligibility for SSI benefits. Depending on the state, these 
individuals with disabilities who received CDB benefits before 
receiving SSI benefits may not be able to qualify for or receive 
Medicaid benefits, including essential mental health services, simply 
by being unlucky in their uncontrollable personal life circumstances. 
These Medicaid covered services are essential to ensuring their health, 
safety, independence, and meaningful participation in the community.

What Does the Law Say?

The noble intent of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1383c(c) is to ensure that 
individuals with disabilities who subsequently lost Supplemental 
Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid solely because the individual began 
receiving SSDI payments as a result of changes in a parent's situation 
(death, disability or retirement), continue to maintain their 
eligibility for Medicaid benefits without the imposition of a Medicaid 
deductible solely because of this change in the source of income. 
However, the law as written has the unintended consequence of imposing 
a Medicaid spend-down prior to accessing Medicaid benefits and related 
services simply because their parents die, retire, or become disabled 
themselves before the child with disabilities can qualify for SSI. 
There appears to be no intended justification why there are more 
hurdles to access Medicaid benefits for these individuals.

An Introduction to Michael, a Person with Disabilities

Michael is a thirty-one (31) year old man from Michigan, born with 
spastic quadriplegia and cerebral palsy. When Michael was only six (6) 
years old, his father died from cancer leaving his mother, Marilyn, to 
raise him on her own. Michael requires complete support due to his 
severe physical and mental impairments, including full assistance with 
basic activities like personal hygiene, bathing, and dressing. He 
relies on the use of a wheelchair, receives nutrition through a feeding 
tube, and wears adult briefs due to incontinence. Michael is medically 
fragile and suffers from upper respiratory dysfunction and frequent 
pneumonia. Although Michael is nonverbal, his mother is able to 
communicate with him through eye raising and head shaking.

Michael did not become eligible for SSI benefits prior to receiving CDB 
benefits due to his father's passing when he was a child. As a result, 
Michael must first expend over half of his CDB monthly benefit (or $915 
from his monthly CDB benefits of $1,343) in order to access Medicaid 
and related benefits instead of using CDB benefits for his basic living 
expenses and other needs.

Unfortunately, Michael is unable to pay this amount each month from his 
CDB benefits and therefore is unable to access Medicaid benefits, which 
can assist with obtaining incontinence briefs, formula for his feeding 
tube, orthotic braces, mobility equipment, and other needs typical of 
an individual with quadriplegia. Michael is also unable to access other 
Medicaid programs and mental health services which enables individuals 
to hire caregivers to assist him with his personal care, along with 
access to socialization and meaningful activities in the community.

Michael's inability to access such Medicaid benefits and other services 
also has an unfortunate impact on his mother, who continues to be his 
primary caregiver. Michael's mother, Marilyn, would like to be able to 
work outside the home but has found it difficult because Michael cannot 
be left alone, and she cannot afford to pay caregivers privately which 
causes the family to suffer financially. Marilyn, age 56, is also 
concerned about her continuing ability to care for Michael as she ages.

Requested correction

Fortunately, a simple amendment to 42 U.S.C. 1383c of the Social 
Security Act would correct this unfortunate outcome as follows:

(c) Entitlement to Medicaid Upon Receiving Child's Insurance Benefits 
Based on Disability

Any individual entitled to child's insurance benefits under section 
402(d) of this shall be treated for purposes of subchapter XIX as 
receiving benefits under this subchapter so long as he or she would be 
eligible for benefits under this subchapter in the absence of such 
child's insurance benefits.

On behalf of Michael, the Special Needs Alliance, and the individuals 
with disabilities and families that we serve, we thank you for the 
opportunity to provide written testimony for your consideration, and 
for your continued efforts to improve the lives of individuals with 
disabilities.

                                 ______
                                 
                    Letter Submitted by Judith Smith
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Senate Finance Committee Subcommittee on SSI:

SSI is in serious need of modernization, and updates to the program are 
long overdue. There are some key ways that we can improve the program 
for older adults. The following are just four examples from the SSI 
Restoration Act, introduced in the Senate this year, which lays out a 
comprehensive set of fixes to the program:

    1.  Increase the benefit level so that people are not left in 
poverty despite receiving SSI benefits.

    2.  Update SSI's income rules so that people can use more of the 
income they receive from other sources to supplement their SSI. As 
mentioned above, the $20 general income disregard has not been changed 
for almost 50 years.

    3.  Eliminate the draconian in-kind support and maintenance rules 
so that people can supplement their SSI benefits with needed support 
from family and friends who are willing and able to assist them.

    4.  Raise SSI's outdated asset limits, which haven't been changed 
since 1989.

These fixes are critically important to ensuring that SSI effectively 
keeps older adults and people with disabilities LIKE ME from living in 
poverty.

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of older adults and people with 
disabilities, and the millions of others who interact with SSA.

Sincerely,

Judith Smith

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by William Snell
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Hello. I'm a disabled person that had from 2010 to 2015 SSI. Then in 
2015 I transferred into standard social security. As the you may know 
that the status and funding are stuck in rules from the Social Security 
Amendments of 1972 and is incorporated in title 16 of the Social 
Security Act. As I still must fallow these rules in this time and age 
each one of us are in a holding pattern from the implanted rules that 
are barbaric. That is holding me and others back as cost have inflated. 
As we aged out of our safe interments and access to supports loaned out 
to us to live our life.

As I have lived my life with these rules that have restrictions, that 
have not moved or evolved having restrictions to what we can buy as to 
live in this age, prices have inflated and the $500 does not go far. As 
for adding inflation the $500 is now $3,500 for rent and others around 
the country have soared to new costs. As the rules in place for rent 
controlled apartments have skyrocketed from places that are not under 
section 8 housing rules.

The cost for mobility equipment, mobility modifications, and aids have 
increased from a low cost to well over the $500 restrictions. From 
adding a lift and modified an existing van for hand controls have 
become expensive from the low cost in 1972 to a 600% price increase for 
parts and labor to do so. In 1972 the motorized wheelchair cost less 
then it does now as parts have jumped up in price and the restrictions 
put in place from manufacturers to bypass the Magnuson and Moss. The 
ability to repair the mobility equipment is difficult, parts are not 
interchangeable and will fry the equipment if done so.

Equipment and other costs for daily communication: from 1972, there has 
been advances in electronics and communication. We have come a long way 
for people with disabilities that have to suffer to communicate and 
have come a long way from the simple act of just writing it down on a 
chalkboard or piece of paper.

As of now as I submit my testimony with my voice to help me spell, the 
keyboard and touch keyboard have come a long way from the typewriter. 
We have aged and a lot has changed as we have new assistant 
technologies, communications, and equipment that is also not covered 
under Magnuson and Moss. We have become a throwaway society. No one 
just has a bell telephone anymore but a multimedia communications 
device in the palm of the hand and attached locations. But the dark 
side is the subscriptions have skyrocketed from a low cost to an 
outrageous cost even with low cost programs being offered that are 
hidden and not well known.

Minimum account balances: in the last couple of years banks and other 
financial institutions have crusaded to have minimum account balances. 
As we must be watched by others and restricted, these institutions have 
set a minimum of $1,000 or more. The account will be closed as the flip 
flop nation of the 1972 rules penalizing how much that we can have, is 
no longer reflective of our current age.

William Snell

                                 ______
                                 
                       Social Security Works \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Parts of this statement are drawn from a statement (``The 
Pressing Need to Update, Expand and Simplify SSI'') by Social Security 
Works president, Nancy Altman, who wrote it as a member of the Social 
Security Advisory Board for inclusion in the Social Security 
Administration's 2020 Annual Report of the Supplemental Security Income 
Program (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/ssir/SSI20/ssi2020.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     815 16th Street, NW, 4th Floor

                          Washington, DC 20006

Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Young, and members of the subcommittee, 
Social Security Works is a nonprofit organization committed to 
protecting and improving the economic security of disadvantaged and at-
risk populations. We submit this statement on behalf of our over 2.2 
million supporters, Social Security's current and future beneficiaries, 
and the current and future recipients of Supplemental Security Income 
(``SSI'').

We applaud Chairman Brown and this subcommittee for shining a spotlight 
on SSI, an essential but long neglected companion program to Social 
Security. SSI not only provides a crucial lifeline to those it serves 
all across the nation; it simultaneously benefits the local businesses 
in which those Americans reside and spend their limited incomes. The 
following chart lists the number of SSI recipients and their combined 
benefits in August 2021 in the states represented by the members of 
this subcommittee:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Total Federal
                State                      Monthly        Number of SSI
                                         Payments a       Recipients b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado                                   $42,467,000            70,881
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana                                    $79,411,000           125,630
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana                                 $101,027,000           166,615
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska                                   $17,185,000            28,979
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire                              $10,209,000            17,657
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio                                      $187,358,000           301,213
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma                                   $58,279,000            95,346
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon                                     $53,378,000            86,373
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania                              $211,501,000           338,618
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_monthly/2021-08/
  table06.html.
b https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_monthly/2021-08/
  table10.html.

As important as SSI is, it is in urgent need of updating, expanding and 
simplifying. Its benefits are inadequately low, its eligibility rules 
are outdated and fundamentally flawed, and its requirements to maintain 
benefits are punitive and intrusive. By updating, expanding, and 
reforming SSI, this Congress has an historic opportunity to not only 
drastically reduce poverty among seniors and people with disabilities, 
but also improve their dignity and quality of life.

Ending Poverty Among Seniors and People with Disabilities

In creating SSI, Congress recognized that as effective and important as 
Social Security is in fighting poverty, that is a byproduct of its 
mission to provide insurance against the loss of wages in the event of 
old age, disability, and death. To eradicate the poverty experienced by 
seniors and people with disabilities, Congress understood that there 
needed to be a companion program with anti-poverty as its focus. In its 
1972 Report (https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/Downey%20PDFs/
Amendments%20
to%20the%20Social%20Security%20Act%201969-1972%20Vol.%203.pdf) 
accompanying the legislation creating SSI, this Committee described 
that anti-poverty goal:

        Building on the present social security program, [the Social 
        Security Amendments of 1972] would create a new Federal program 
        administered by the Social Security Administration, designed to 
        provide a positive assurance that the Nation's aged, blind, and 
        disabled people would no longer have to subsist on below-
        poverty-level incomes. (Emphasis added.)

Unfortunately, this vital program, created a half century ago, needs 
improvement to achieve that anti-poverty goal. Disturbingly, the Census 
Bureau reports (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/
income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html) that 5 million people 
aged 65 or older and approximately one in four (https://
www.povertyusa.org/facts) people with a disability have incomes below 
the federal poverty line.

Poverty among seniors and people with disabilities persists (https://
justiceinaging.org/current-ssi-levels-leave-seniors-out-in-the-cold/) 
despite SSI, for a number of reasons. First, SSI's benefits are too 
low. The maximum monthly payment amount for an individual receiving SSI 
in 2021 is $794 or $9,528 for the year. That is just three-quarters of 
the federal poverty guideline, which, in 2021 (https://aspe.hhs.gov/
topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines/prior-hhs-poverty-
guidelines-federal-register-references/2021-poverty-guidelines), is 
$1,073.34 a month ($12,880 a year) for an individual.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The U.S. Census Bureau calculates annual poverty levels, which 
are labeled thresholds. The guidelines are a simplified version of the 
thresholds and, as stated in the text, is $12,880 for an individual in 
2021. Unlike the guidelines, the thresholds differentiate between those 
younger than age 65 and those age 65 or older. At the time of this 
writing, the 2021 thresholds have not yet been released. For 2020 
(https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/
historical-poverty-thresholds.html), when SSI's maximum benefit was 
$783 ($9,396 on an annualized basis), the poverty threshold for those 
under age 65 was $13,465, and for those age 65 or older, $12,413.

Moreover, the federal poverty line substantially underestimates what is 
needed to subsist.\3\ The Gerontology Institute at the University of 
Massachusetts has developed an annual Elder Economic Security Standard 
Index, which is a more refined measure, designed to determine the 
income needed to meet bare necessities, with the amount differing based 
on where individuals or couples reside, whether they rent or own their 
homes, and what, in broad terms, is the status of their health. 
According to that refined measure, an older individual in good health 
who rents in Washington, DC needed income of $2,812 a month (https://
elderindex.org/elder-
index?state_county%5B%5D=8573&views_fields_combined_on_off_form=0&fields
_on_
off_hidden_submitted=1&views_fields_on_off_form%5Bfield_housing_renter%5
D=
field_housing_renter&views_fields_on_off_form_1=field_health_good) in 
2020 to be able to afford housing, food, and the other costs associated 
with the barest of necessities.\4\ That is just 28 percent of SSI's 
very inadequate federal maximum benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Among their many shortcomings, the federal poverty guidelines 
and thresholds do not take into account expenditures other than food.
    \4\ The expenses that are included are housing, food, 
transportation, health costs, and miscellaneous. If the amount 
specified as needed for health care is deducted for comparison 
purposes, because SSI recipients qualify for Medicaid, the monthly 
amount is still $2,311, three times what SSI provides as a maximum 
federal benefit.

Importantly, as low as SSI benefits are in relation to what is needed 
to meet basic needs, recipients must have virtually no resources or 
other income even to receive those minimal benefits. Those extremely 
stringent income and resource limits are in desperate need of updating. 
They have not been updated in many decades, some since before the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program was signed into law a half century ago!

Congress has explained (https://www.ssab.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/
03/2011_SSI_Income___Resources.pdf) that it allows SSI recipients to 
have some resources in recognition of the need to meet unexpected 
expenses that could not be covered by current income. The allowable 
resources are much too restricted, however, to satisfy Congress's 
intent that they cover the cost of emergencies (https://lifehacker.com/
the-average-cost-of-57-common-home-maintenance-projects-1771094630). An 
individual's savings are limited to just $2,000 and a married couple's 
to just $3,000.

Those modest amounts are a cliff: Even one dollar more than those 
limits means failure to qualify. Once benefits are being paid, one 
dollar over the resource limit on the first day of any month causes 
recipients to lose eligibility until their resources again meet those 
extremely strict limits. Congress increased the limits just once, in 
1984, and the amount of the increase was minimal; Congress has not 
adjusted the limits at all in more than three decades. Consequently, 
the resource limits have eroded substantially in value.

Like the resource limits, SSI's income limits are also extremely 
stringent. The first $20 of income in a month is disregarded. After 
that, so-called unearned income, including pensions, Social Security 
benefits, and interest on those meager savings, reduces SSI benefits 
dollar for dollar. With respect to earned income, the first $65 in a 
month is disregarded, as well as whatever amount of the $20 disregard 
remains unused after its application against unearned income. After 
those small exemptions, every single dollar of earnings reduces SSI 
benefits by 50 cents.

SSI essentially penalizes savings. The resource limit prohibits savings 
above the exempt amount. Exceeding the limit results not just in the 
loss of SSI cash benefits but also can result in the loss of Medicaid 
eligibility, housing assistance, and other benefits. Consequently, 
prudent recipients have to avoid getting close to the line. Moreover, 
the effective 100 percent tax on unearned income above $20 is a further 
discouragement of savings. Recipients gain no additional income from 
the interest on the savings, despite forgoing current consumption, and 
will even cause their benefits to be reduced dollar for dollar after 
the disregard has been exhausted. Worse, if recipients are not 
meticulously careful, the interest could cause them accidentally to 
exceed the resource limits, inadvertently triggering a loss of Medicaid 
and other assistance.

While not confiscatory like the marginal tax on unearned income, the 
marginal tax rate of 50 percent on earned income is high, particularly 
when compared to the federal income tax rates of those at the top of 
the income scale. In that regard, it is instructive to note that 
policymakers have argued that increasing the marginal tax rate of those 
with incomes of over $250,000 to just 36 percent would be a serious 
work disincentive. Because of the very low incomes of SSI recipients, 
the 50 percent rate is unlikely to discourage work, but it does reduce 
substantially the gain from any work they are able to engage in.

Moreover, SSI is in need of other reforms. As currently structured, SSI 
penalizes marriage (https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/issuepapers/ip2003-
01.html). As just one of the many ways it penalizes marriage, married 
couples are allowed to receive maximum benefits that together total 
just 75 percent of what a non-married couple receives. Not only are the 
provisions that penalize marriage discriminatory against those who are 
married, they require the Social Security Administration (``SSA'') to 
expend scarce resources to determine whether couples that are not 
legally married under state law nevertheless are subject to the 
marriage penalty because they are presenting themselves to the 
community as married.

In addition to penalizing marriage, SSI, as currently structured, 
discourages friends, neighbors, and family from assisting those on SSI. 
Under current law, groceries and other assistance that recipients 
receive from their families and friends count as in-kind income. SSI 
recipients who receive groceries and other assistance must report that 
fact to the government. By reducing benefits to offset this support, 
the so-called income support and maintenance (``ISM'') provisions 
implicitly discourage this help.

Moreover, to enforce the ISM provisions, SSA must make detailed and 
intrusive inquiries into the lives of recipients, who may be required 
to describe in great detail how their households function and to 
furnish documentation. Landlords, housemates, and family members may be 
interrogated, as well. Once the information is collected, the in-kind 
transfers must be converted to dollar amounts, requiring an extremely 
complicated set of calculations. Then, benefits are adjusted, another 
complicated task.

As a matter of morality, implicitly discouraging families and friends 
from helping those who are less fortunate, as these provisions do, is 
wrong. As a policy matter, the ISM provisions are extremely time-
consuming to administer and frequently result in improper payments.

The ISM provisions are just one example of the many aspects of SSI that 
must be repealed to make SSI more efficient and cost effective, as well 
as more even-handed and uniform in its coverage and administration. 
Fundamentally, the change will also make the program more humane. Other 
provisions that should be repealed for the same reasons include 
dedicated accounts and the penalty on assets deemed to be transferred 
for less than fair market value.

All of these improvements, in addition to making SSI less burdensome 
and more humane for recipients, will simplify and streamline its 
administration. That will dramatically reduce administrative costs, as 
well as the time spent by hard working civil servants. SSI accounts for 
just five percent of the benefits SSA administers; Social Security 
accounts for 95 percent. There are more than eight and a half times 
more Social Security beneficiaries than there are SSI recipients. 
Nevertheless, SSA spends almost as much to administer SSI as it does to 
administer Social Security. In fiscal year 2022, the agency is 
appropriately seeking (https://www.ssa.gov/budget/FY22Files/FY22-
JEAC.pdf) authority from Congress to spend $6.24 billion to administer 
Social Security and eighty percent of that amount--$4.97 billon--to 
administer SSI.

Repealing the various complicated rules will save administrative costs 
which can be used to offset some of the cost of increasing benefits and 
updating the income and asset limits. In addition, Congress should 
correct the arbitrary, discriminatory coverage of SSI. Currently, SSI 
benefits are available to those residing in one of the fifty states, 
the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but not to 
Americans residing in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and 
American Samoa. SSI should be available to Americans in those 
territories, as well. In addition, Congress should extend coverage to 
otherwise qualifying immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.

 The Build Back Better Reconciliation Legislation Should Include SSI 
                    Improvements

President Joe Biden ran on a platform (https://joebiden.com/
disabilities/) of updating and improving SSI. He proposed the following 
improvements, the rationale for which is explained above:

      Increase the maximum federal SSI benefit to ``at least 100% of 
the federal poverty level'';
      Increase the assets limits and automatically index them so that 
they don't erode;
      Update the income disregards and automatically index them so 
that they don't erode;
      Repeal the in-kind maintenance and support provisions (``ISM''), 
which penalizes acts of charity; and
      Repeal the various marriage penalties.

These improvements are all contained in Chairman Brown's SSI 
Restoration Act of 2021 (https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/
release/social-security-program-update), co-sponsored by 40 percent of 
Senate Democrats (https://www.
congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2065/
cosponsors?q=%7b%22search%22
:%5b%22s.+2065%22%5d%7d&s=5&r=1&overview=closed&pageSort=alpha) and 
enthusiastically endorsed by numerous organizations including Social 
Security Works. In addition, the legislation has other important 
improvements that will simplify administration, including those 
described above.

There is overwhelming support for the SSI updates in Congress. There 
are 19 cosponsors (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-
bill/2065/cosponsors?r=9&s=7) of Senator Brown's SSI Restoration Act in 
the Senate and 48 cosponsors (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-
congress/house-bill/3824/cosponsors?s=
1&r=5&overview=closed#tabs) of Representative Grijalva's companion 
legislation in the House of Representatives. Moreover, polling reveals 
(https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2021/05/27090206/
21.5_1PAGER_SSI_v1.pdf) that there is overwhelming support among the 
American people. The overwhelming support is bipartisan, with even 
large percentages of Republicans strongly supporting improvements 
identified in polling as those President Biden champions.

Social Security Works urges, in the strongest possible terms, Congress 
to include these reforms in the Build Back Better reconciliation 
package. Cost concerns, for the most part, are not an issue with 
respect to the SSI improvements. Most of the improvements contained in 
the SSI Restoration Act cost (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/
SSIRestorationAct_20210716.pdf) less than $100 million a year--
essentially a rounding error in the physical and human infrastructure 
packages. Indeed, many of those reforms cost just half that amount--$50 
million a year or less.

The four that are more expensive are still relatively inexpensive in 
the context of such comprehensive, historic legislation. Three of the 
four most expensive proposals cost just $800 million, $3.1 billion, $6 
billion a year, respectively. The most expensive--increasing the 
maximum federal SSI benefit to the poverty line--costs only $35 billion 
a year. That is a small price to pay for finally accomplishing the goal 
set out by this Committee a half century ago: ``that the Nation's aged, 
blind, and disabled people . . . no longer have to subsist on below-
poverty-level incomes.''

Congress should also pass the Supplemental Security Income Equality Act 
(https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/537?r=3) which 
extends SSI to those residing in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and 
Puerto Rico. Though the issue is currently before the Supreme Court 
with respect to Puerto Rico, Congress should not wait. Enacting the 
legislation provides immediate certainty and avoids further expensive, 
time-consuming litigation.

As an overarching matter, these reforms should be done in the name of 
racial justice. People of color who have been discriminated against 
disproportionately benefit from SSI. Increasing its benefits, reducing 
the penalties on saving, work, and marriage, along with the other 
important reforms, in addition to all the other reasons for enactment, 
should be done as a matter of racial equity.

All of these important improvements should be enacted together with the 
other crucial changes being considered, reforms that will greatly 
improve the lives of seniors, those with disabilities, and, indirectly, 
their families and loved ones, so disproportionately hurt by the 
current pandemic. Those reforms include expanding Medicare, lowering 
prescription drug prices, investing in Home and Community-Based 
Services, and enacting paid family and medical leave. These policies 
all work together and will provide a foundation of economic security 
for millions of families across America.

These, together with the other important improvements contained in the 
reconciliation bill, will allow today's policymakers to say, as 
President Franklin Roosevelt said (https://www.ssa.gov/history/
fdrstmts.html) when he signed Social Security into law:

``If the Senate and the House of Representatives in this long and 
arduous session had done nothing more than pass this Bill, the session 
would be regarded as historic for all time.''

                                 ______
                                 
     SourceAmerica and National Council of SourceAmerica Employers

                        8401 Old Courthouse Road

                            Vienna, VA 22182

                          Phone: 571-226-4660

                           Fax: 703-849-8916

The Honorable Richard Neal          The Honorable Ron Wyden
Chairman                            Chairman
U.S. House                          U.S. Senate
Committee on Ways and Means         Committee on Finance
1102 Longworth House Office 
Building                            219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515                Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Wyden and Chairman Neal:

SourceAmerica' and the National Council of SourceAmerica 
Employers (NCSE) write to express our strong support for including 
long-overdue improvements to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
program in the Budget Reconciliation package that is currently being 
drafted.

Established in 1974, SourceAmerica's mission is to create and increase 
employment opportunities for people with disabilities. As a leading job 
creator within the disability community, and an AbilityOne-authorized 
\1\ enterprise, SourceAmerica connects government and corporate 
customers to a national network of nonprofit agencies (NPAs) that hire 
people with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.abilityone.gov/.

NCSE represents a national network of nearly 400 NPAs that participate 
in the AbilityOne' Program. These NPAs provide training and 
employment opportunities for more than 75,000 people with disabilities 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
through the SourceAmerica and AbilityOne network.

The SSI program provides supplemental income to individuals with 
limited income and who are blind or have disabilities to help meet 
their basic needs. In most states, additional benefits such as Medicaid 
and food and housing assistance are tied to SSI eligibility. That is, 
when recipients are no longer eligible for SSI, they also lose access 
to other critical assistance. The risk of losing these vital benefits 
creates an unintended disincentive to work or earn higher wages. For 
decades, the labor force participation rate of people with disabilities 
has remained roughly 40 percentage points lower than that of people 
without disabilities. According to a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics 
employment report, only 35.2% of all working age people with 
disabilities are employed or looking for work. In contrast, the labor 
force participation rate for people without disabilities is 77.6%.

The fear of losing SSI benefits is one of the reasons why people with 
disabilities are not a part of today's workforce. We strongly support 
the inclusion of the SSI Restoration Act of 2021 (H.R. 3824/S. 2065) in 
the Reconciliation package. The SSI Restoration Act of 2021 would 
enhance the SSI program with the following reforms:

1. Increase the minimum benefit to at least the federal poverty level. 
The current maximum SSI benefit is $794 per month, and the average 
benefit in March 2021 was only $586 per month. This is 26% below the 
federal poverty level of $1,073 per month for an individual. Increasing 
the SSI benefit to the federal poverty level would dramatically reduce 
poverty and hardship for the 8 million people currently relying on SSI 
benefits, ensuring that people with disabilities and older adults are 
better able to meet their basic needs.

2. Increase and inflation-index resource limits. The resource or asset 
limits for SSI have not changed since 1989. Currently, individuals can 
only have $2,000 in assets and married couples are only allowed $3,000. 
These woefully outdated levels penalize savings and keep recipients 
from preparing for emergencies or meeting their needs. Individuals who 
want to work often have to make a difficult choice of not working, or 
working only a few hours per week, in order to avoid losing their 
assets.

3. Eliminate marriage penalties. The maximum SSI benefit for a married 
couple is only 150% of what two single people would receive. People on 
SSI also risk losing their benefits if they marry someone not on SSI. 
These marriage penalties should be eliminated so that beneficiaries are 
not forced to choose between maintaining survival benefits and marrying 
the person they love.

4. Eliminate rules about ``in-kind support'' from friends and family. 
SSI's ``In-Kind Support and Maintenance'' (ISM) rules reduce SSI 
benefits by up to one third if beneficiaries receive help with food and 
shelter from loved ones. This drives beneficiaries even deeper into 
poverty, interferes with people's desires to assist their loved ones, 
and creates tremendous inefficiency when Social Security Administration 
attempts to administer them.

5. Update outdated unearned and earned income disregards. The income 
rules for SSI beneficiaries have not been updated since the SSI program 
was established in 1974. The income disregards have been stuck at $20 
(unearned) and $65 (earned) for nearly 50 years, meaning they have lost 
virtually all their value due to inflation. This pushes people with 
disabilities and the lowest income seniors even deeper into poverty and 
means that the SSA must spend time and money adjusting SSI benefits for 
relatively small changes in recipients' income. It is long past time to 
update SSI's income disregards for inflation. This is especially 
important for the millions of very low-income Social Security 
beneficiaries who also receive SSI, as Social Security benefits are 
considered unearned income.

These important and long-overdue reforms are urgently needed to ensure 
that the 8 million people who currently rely on SSI benefits--as well 
as COVID-19 long-
haulers who will turn to SSI for critical income support in the months 
and years ahead--are able to live in dignity. We are eager to work with 
you to make these long-overdue improvements a reality through the 
Budget Reconciliation package. If you have any questions or need 
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact SourceAmerica 
Vice President of Government Affairs Stacy Palmer Barton at 
[email protected].

Sincerely,

Richard Belden
Interim President and CEO
SourceAmerica

Charlotte Hammond
President
National Council of SourceAmerica Employers

                                 ______
                                 
     SourceAmerica and National Council of SourceAmerica Employers

                        8401 Old Courthouse Road

                            Vienna, VA 22182

                          Phone: 571-226-4660

                           Fax: 703-849-8916

                           September 15, 2021

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer    The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Majority Leader                     Speaker
 United States Senate               U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510                Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker and Majority Leader Schumer,

The undersigned nonprofit agencies (NPAs) join SourceAmerica and the 
National Council of SourceAmerica Employers (NCSE) in expressing our 
support for including improvements to the Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI) program in the Budget Reconciliation package.

Established in 1974, SourceAmerica's mission is to create and increase 
employment opportunities for people with disabilities. As a leading job 
creator within the disability community, and an AbilityOne-authorized 
enterprise, SourceAmerica connects government and corporate customers 
to a national network of nonprofit agencies (NPAs) that hire people 
with disabilities.

NCSE represents a national network of nearly 400 NPAs that participate 
in the AbilityOne Program. These NPAs provide training and employment 
opportunities for more than 75,000 people with disabilities through the 
SourceAmerica and AbilityOne network.

The SSI program provides supplemental income to individuals with 
limited income and who are blind or have disabilities to help meet 
their basic needs. In most states, additional benefits such as Medicaid 
and food and housing assistance are tied to SSI eligibility. That is, 
when recipients are no longer eligible for SSI, they also lose access 
to other critical assistance. For many of our dedicated employees the 
risk of losing SSI eligibility or other benefits creates a disincentive 
to work and thwarts opportunities to earn higher wages. As the federal 
government and states work to raise the minimum wage, we fear that the 
dignity of earning a livable wage will be further out of reach for 
people with disabilities.

The Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2021 (S. 2065 and 
H.R. 3824) has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Sherrod Brown 
and in the House by Representative Raul Grijalva. This legislation 
makes important updates to the SSI program and addresses the program's 
burdensome asset limitations. Many individuals with disabilities who 
choose employment are forced to work fewer hours to maintain their 
eligibility for SSI. Countless others make the unfortunate choice to 
not work at all because of the program's onerous compliance 
requirements.

The legislation would address this critical issue and make other 
important improvements to the program including:

      Increasing the maximum monthly SSI benefit to 100% of the 
federal poverty level;
      Increasing the amount of assets SSI recipients can have and 
remain eligible for the monthly benefit from the current $2,000 up to 
$10,000 for individuals, and from $3,000 up to $20,000 for couples; and
      Eliminate benefit reductions that penalize beneficiaries who 
receive in-kind help from friends or family, such as groceries and 
housing.

Including the SSI Restoration Act, or other provisions from S. 2065 and 
H.R. 3824, in the upcoming budget package would be a major step toward 
ensuring that individuals with disabilities can participate in 
meaningful work without jeopardizing their much-needed benefits.

We strongly urge the House and Senate to include this impactful 
legislation, or germane provisions in the final Budget Reconciliation 
Package. If you have any questions or need additional information, 
please do not hesitate to contact Source
America Vice President of Government Affairs Stacy Palmer Barton at 
[email protected].

Sincerely,

Richard Salem                       Steven D. Coons
Director of the Board               President
Able Force Inc.                     Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, 
                                    Inc.

Rebecca Sanford                     Dennis Monday
President and CEO                   President
Adelante                            Friendship Industries, Inc.

Michael McMahon                     Lori Kain
Executive Director                  Director of Community and 
                                    Government Relations
Alpha Productions Technologies      GCE

Aturo Santos                        Joe Cunningham
CEO                                 Director, Contract Operations and 
                                    Business Development
Arc Imperial Valley                 Goodwill Industrial Services Corp.

Howard W. Ganter                    David Tinkis
CEO                                 President and CEO
Arc Jefferson-St. Lawrence          Goodwill Industries of North 
                                    Louisiana

David R. Kyle                       Scott Parry
SrVP/Chief Compliance Officer       Vice President, Faciltiy Services
Bakersfield ARC, Inc.               Goodwill of North Georgia

Tammy Bellofatto                    Tara Sandle
Executive Director                  Director of Contracts
Bayaud Enterprises, Inc.            Goodwill Specialty Services, Inc.

Brad Saathoff                       Steve H. Perdue
CEO                                 Advocacy Director
Black Hills Works/BH Services, Inc. Grand Traverse Industries

Larry Gluth                         Tim Becker
President and CEO                   Chief Operating Officer
Bobby Dodd Institute                Hope Network Services Corp.

Amar Patel                          Timothy Giarusso
President and CEO                   President and CEO
Brevard Achievement Center          Human Technologies

Charlotte Hammond                   Laura Espinosa
President and CEO                   Managing Director
Challenge Unlimited Inc.            ICAN Resources

Andrew Esterer                      John Connolly
Executive Vice President            President and CEO
Challenge Unlimited Inc.            InspiriTec, Inc.

Charles Ramey                       Steven Credle
Project Manager GSA-Page-Woodson    Human Resources Manager
Challenge Unlimited Inc.            Job Options, Inc.

Deb Snyder                          Karen Corken
Vice President of Operations        Vice President and Chief Operating 
                                    Officer
Challenge Unlimited Inc.            Joy Faith Knapp Children's Center

Daryl Odom                          Michael Carney
Project Manager                     President
Challenge Unlimited Inc.            Knox County Development

Randy Baker                         Rona Fukumoto
Project Manager                     President and CEO
Challenge Unlimited Inc.            Lanakila Pacific

Anthony DiVittorio                  Susan Lautenbacher
President and CEO                   CEO
Clearbrook                          Lark Enterprises

Kristy Chambers                     Steve Watkins
CEO                                 CEO
Columbus Community Center           Lifescape

Mychal Fearncombe                   Nancy Albin
Executive Director                  Vice President
Community Enterprises of St. Clair 
County                              Los Angels Habilitation House

Duane Turnbull                      Larysa Kautz
Director of Cottonwood Industries   CEO
Cottonwood Incorporated             Melwood

McKayla Matlack                     Marv Hannon
President and CEO                   CFO
Development Workshop Inc.           Minesota Diversified Industries

Joseph Diaz                         Sandy Bryant
Chief Operating Officer             Chief Executive Officer
Didlake                             Mount Rogers Community Services

Darone Dancy                        Carolyn Dankowski
VP of Workforce Operations          Chief Manufacturing Officer
Eastern Carolina Vocational Center, 
Inc.                                Mount Rogers Community Services

Stephen Achilles                    Allen Connely
CEO                                 CEO
Exceed Enterprises                  Mozaic

Ashley Burke                        Jo Sinha
Vice President of Clinical and 
Business Operations                 President and CEO
Mozaic                              Peckham, Inc.

Keegan Ovens                        Vanessa Ferguson
Director of Services                Senior Vice President of Workforce 
                                    Development
Mozaic                              PSCI

Jennifer Goodman                    Karen Gustina
Director of Clinical and Business 
Services                            Executive Vice President of 
                                    Operations and Day Services
Mozaic                              Sasi Inc.

Charles Mathis                      Cindy Sterling
Executive Director                  Executive Director
MQC Enterprises, Inc.               Service Source Opportunity Center, 
                                    Inc.

Tim Hatfield                        Michele McKenna
President and CEO                   Executive Director and CEO
New Horizons Rehabilitation 
Services, Inc.                      New Leaf, Inc.

Robert Hutt                         Brent Mikulski
President and CEO                   President and CEO
North Bay Industries                Services to Enhance Potential

Debera Taylor                       Bruce Patterson
CEO                                 CEO
NW Works, Inc.                      ServiceSource

Bob Brown                           Brian Behler
President and CEO                   President and CEO
Opportunity Village                 Skils'kin

Chris Flynn                         Marie Campanoli
President and CEO                   VP of Government Affairs
Pacific Coast Community Services    Skookum

Reginald Hughes                     John Walker
Executive Director                  President and CEO
Palmetto Goodwill Services          SOAR365

Patricia Walker                     Phyllis Barrett
Chief Financial Officer             Board Member
Pathfinder, Inc.                    SourceAmerica

 Dean Emerson                       Cheryl Sanders
CEO                                 Director Rehabilitation Services
SVRC Industries                     Southeastern Kentucky 
                                    Rehabilitation Services

Karen Johnston                      Leo Miller
Executive Director                  Executive Director
Tasks Unlimited                     Southeastern Kentucky 
                                    Rehabilitation Services

Teresa Downs                        Patrick Gartside
Vice President, Business 
Development and Marketing           Executive Director
The Kennedy Center, Inc.            Work Now Hawaii

Rick Sebastian                      David Toogood
President and CEO                   President and CEO
The Kennedy Center, Inc.            Work Services Corporation

Jon Gold                            Mileasha Rizan
CEO                                 Vice President of Human Services
Tradewinds Services, Inc.           Work Services Corporation

Leca Chapman                        Melissa Marvel
Board Member                        President and CEO
Transylvania Vocational Services, 
Inc.                                Zoom Group

Jay Burrell                         Kasia Grzelkowski
Vice President and COO              President and CEO
Tri Industries NFP                  VersAbility Resources

Jason Telander                      Kearney Waites
CEO                                 Director WCARC Programs
VTC Enterprises                     Warren County Arc, Inc./MIDD--West

Dan Murray                          James Cassetta
Executive Director                  President and CEO
Warren, Washington and Albany 
Counties ARC                        WORK Inc.

                                 ______
                                 
       SPAN Parent Advocacy Network and Family Voices New Jersey

                             35 Halsey St.

                            Newark, NJ 07102

                              973-642-8100

                       https://spanadvocacy.org/

September 21, 2021

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment to the subcommittee on 
``Policy Options for Improving SSI.'' The SPAN Parent Advocacy Network 
(SPAN) is New Jersey's one-stop for families of children birth to 26 
across systems; our special priorities are children and families at 
greatest risk due to poverty, disability and special healthcare needs, 
discrimination based on race, ethnicity, immigrant or language status, 
gender identity, or other special circumstances. Family Voices-NJ is 
the New Jersey affiliate for Family Voices, dedicated to supporting the 
family voice in children's healthcare. SPAN also serves as the Parent-
to-Parent USA affiliate for NJ; the NJ Parent Training and Information 
Center and Family to Family Health Information Center; and the state 
organization of the National Federation of Families for Children's 
Mental Health. Our comments today are based on our extensive experience 
providing support to families.

SPAN Parent Advocacy Network and Family Voices NJ @ SPAN submits this 
statement for the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options 
for Improving SSI.'' SPAN and FVNJ provide information on how to apply 
for SSI, and the appeals process. In our state, Medicaid and SSI are 
linked so if an individual is eligible for one, they get the other. 
Maintaining eligibility is essential, as many services are also linked 
to Medicaid/SSI such as services for children with autism and adult 
services for individuals with developmental disabilities. Our members 
rely on SSI to pay for food, rent, utilities, clothing and other 
necessary expenses and the program desperately needs to be updated.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. The maximum 
benefit is less than $800/month, only 3/4 fourths of the Federal 
Poverty Level. There is also a penalty for marriage in that those on 
SSI who are married receive even less. Anyone on SSI is not permitted 
to have more than $2,000 in total assets. In addition, help from 
family/friends, amount of earnings, or other income people can have 
before they lose benefits have not been updated for almost 50 years. 
SSI was passed to ensure ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes'' and it 
no longer fulfills this promise.

Children and adults have difficulty maintaining eligibility for SSI and 
must live below the poverty level. It helps that once a child reaches 
age 18 that family income is no longer deemed, but the adult with 
disabilities now must maintain assets far below the FPL, and this just 
perpetuates the cycle of poverty.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the policy options 
for improving SSI. We urge Congress to include improvements to SSI in 
the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation. Your attention to this 
matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and 
consideration.

Sincerely,

Diana MTK Autin                     Lauren Agoratus, M.A.-parent
Executive Co-Director, SPAN         NJ Coordinator--Family Voices @ 
                                    SPAN
[email protected]        [email protected]

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Alin Steglinski
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Alin Steglinski and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program is badly obsolete. Many of the 
rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 and it no 
longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled people 
would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

I receive a total of $751 from SSA each month, of which a maximum 
allowable is $651 according to the office. This is not even a weeks 
wages flipping burgers at McDonalds. The forced poverty that SSA puts 
people with disabilities through is why everyone is on Medicaid and 
everyone is on food stamps and never will get off. Ticket to work 
program may as well be a scam, finding a job with a disability is next 
to impossible. Ticket to work is more like here's a lottery ticket one 
in a million chance you get a job. Marriage/domestic partnership 
penalties are an encroachment upon free will of people to create 
families. Taking in help from family members and arranging large 
purchases/saving money for the future is complex and even takes 
avoidance of certain reporting requirements.

Two thousand dollars is not even 1 months mortgage, utilities and food 
for an average house yet it is the hard resource limit for a Medicare / 
Medicaid recipient. This absurd cap on assets creates a manic spend 
thrift state within SSA recipients because of a complete inability to 
save money or invest it without being forced to conceal funds.

The SSA trust fund is estimated to run to depletion levels in the next 
decade.

For these reasons, I urgently signal Congress to include improvements 
to SSI in the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

For starters, calculating SS benefits should be based on an average 
American households income. An average blue collar single man makes up 
to $2,500 a month

Nobody should be receiving less than $2,400 a month to secure housing, 
food, base level expenses and pursuit of enjoyment as shown in the 
constitution.

Sincerely,

Alin Steglinski

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Katera Stillwell
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

    My name is Katera Stillwell and I am writing to submit a statement 
for the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for 
Improving SSI.'' Many of my friends rely on SSI, and I was recently 
approved as well. The program desperately needs to be updated. Many of 
the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 and it no 
longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled people 
would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

    I have been waiting for 6 years to be approved for SSI, and in that 
time I have had to be very careful about how much money I have. I have 
had to go without most of the things that I need for treating the 
conditions that disable me.

    I am still waiting to begin receiving monthly SSI payments, but I 
know that when I do I will still have to go without treatments that 
could help me. If I were to purchase all of the medications and other 
recurring treatments that my doctors recommend for me, it'd be just 
over $230 every month.

    When I receive my backpay I will need to purchase a lot of one-time 
items. The first thing will be a wheelchair so that I can get out to my 
medical appointments and other places, without risking further injury 
to my body. The powerchair that meets my needs is $4,000, and that's 
without the accessories I'll also need (like a backpack holder, a rear-
view mirror, a mount to hold my phone, a mount for an umbrella). Those 
accessories will cost another $1,100. I also need a special bed 
($3,500), ring splints for my hands ($2,000, conservatively), other 
joint braces ($2,000), compression clothing ($1,000), kitchen items 
that will make preparing food easier/
possible on my own ($2,000), body care items ($1,500), a living room 
chair that won't exacerbate my symptoms (almost $650), and other 
miscellaneous items that will support my health or treat symptoms 
($2,300). This totals to $20,050 just to get the one-time essentials 
that will support my health. None of these items are for fun, 
entertainment, or luxury.

    I will need to hire people to help me do things that I can't do 
myself: assemble the furniture I'll be buying ($15/hour), help me move 
into an ADA apartment when I get to the top of a wait-list ($45/hour), 
help me figure out what documents I should keep paper copies of and 
help me create that file box ($15/hour). If I can't get into a 
caregiving program that offers the amount of hours I need, I will have 
to hire people to do the tasks that my caregiver doesn't have time for 
($15/hour).

    I have allergic responses to wheat, corn, and tomatoes, which can 
cause anything from long-term organ damage (which can prevent my body 
being able to digest food effectively), to hives, to anaphylaxis. I 
cannot eat most of the things found in a grocery store. I would greatly 
benefit from using the Meals on Wheels program, but at $7.39 per meal, 
I won't have it in my budget. Which means I will need to continue to 
use my limited caregiving hours to have someone prepare food from 
scratch for me. This takes time away from having other tasks done. I 
currently have to forego regular bathing in order to have food that 
won't damage my body.

    Even if I get into a subsidized apartment (I am on a handful of 
wait-lists, but these can take years to get to the top and get 
accessible housing), that will still be a third of my SSI money that 
goes to rent. I'll be left with only $550 a month to buy all the normal 
items of life (toilet paper, phone service, electricity, Internet, 
renter's insurance, bus pass, etc). After those items are purchased, 
there will not be enough left over to ensure I can access treatment for 
my medical conditions.

    All of the specific dollar amounts I have mentioned are for items 
that are directly for treating or preventing symptoms of my chronic 
illnesses. I have not included things like entertainment or hobby 
purchases, because there will be next to no money left over for those 
things. I will continue to have to barter or beg for the items that 
make my life something more than just tolerable.

    It is incredibly expensive to be chronically ill, and the current 
maximum monthly payout for SSI is insufficient to provide for necessary 
care.

    For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in 
the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Katera Stillwell

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Diane Sullivan
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

To whom it may concern:

I am a qualified physically challenged adult, living in Arizona. It is 
extremely difficult for me to afford to purchase food, pay for 
wheelchair accessible housing, or medications, because the benefits of 
SSI are NOT sufficient to meet my needs.

I am penalized when friends try to help me.

Asset limits won't allow me to save money.

The SSI Restoration Act (S. 2065/H.R. 3824) introduced this year, will 
significantly improve the SSI benefits program. Please vote in favor of 
this Act. It's not a solution, but will be a significant improvement, 
for me.

Thank you.

Diane Sullivan

                                 ______
                                 
                          Sunrise Movement PDX

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

Sunrise Movement PDX submits this statement for the record for the 
subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving SSI.'' As climate 
justice activists, we see how disability and economic justice issues 
intersect. 8 million people, including almost 90,000 Oregonians as of 
2019, rely on SSI to pay for food, rent, and other crucial expenses and 
the program desperately needs to be updated.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. The maximum 
benefit is $794 a month, only three fourths of the Federal Poverty 
Level. People on SSI who are married receive even less and people are 
not allowed to save more than $2,000 without losing their benefits. 
Rules about help from family and friends and the amount of earnings or 
other income people can have before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years. SSI was passed to ensure ``that the 
nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live 
on below-poverty incomes'' and because of decades of neglect, it no 
longer fulfills this promise.

Disabled people are on the frontlines of the climate crisis. How 
exactly are people living below the poverty line supposed to afford to 
get out of harm's way during climate disasters? Evacuating requires 
financial flexibility and access to reliable and affordable 
transportation. Staying safe during hazardous air quality conditions 
requires access to air purifiers, high quality masks, and home 
improvements to keep the smoke and other pollutants out. During heat 
waves and ice storms, disabled people are already at higher risk of not 
getting the medical care they need and increased risk of having medical 
emergencies as a result of conditions. A limited income means limited 
options for accessing heaters, fans, air conditioners, generators, and 
cooling and warming shelters. Already forced to live under the poverty 
line on an average day, the impacts of SSI being outdated are 
exacerbated by the worsening climate crisis. Improving SSI will save 
lives and must happen as soon as possible.

Additionally, as it stands, disabled people cannot run for office 
without risking losing their income. We believe a better world is 
possible, and a better world must allow disabled people a seat at the 
table and a voice in shaping our present and future. SSI recipients 
should not have higher barriers to elected office.

For these reasons, we ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in 
the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Sunrise Movement PDX

                                 ______
                                 
                Supportive Housing Providers Association

                           #6 Lawrence Square

                      Springfield, Illinois 62704

                           (217) 321-2476 x2

                        https://www.shpa-il.org/

                         [email protected]

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

The Supportive Housing Providers Association submits this statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' The Supportive Housing Providers Association is a statewide 
association of supportive housing agencies providing critical services 
to adults and youth who are formerly homeless and/or at risk of 
homelessness, individuals with an intellectual or physical disability, 
children and adults with mental illness, and veterans with PTSD and 
fighting substance abuse. Our members rely on SSI to pay for food, 
rent, and other crucial expenses and the program desperately needs to 
be updated.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. The maximum 
benefit is $794 a month, only three fourths of the Federal Poverty 
Level. People on SSI who are married receive even less and people are 
not allowed to save more than $2,000 without losing their benefits. 
Rules about help from family and friends and the amount of earnings or 
other income people can have before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years. SSI was passed to ensure ``that the 
nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to live 
on below-poverty incomes'' and because of decades of neglect, it no 
longer fulfills this promise.

Chronic homelessness in Illinois has increased drastically. One in five 
Illinoisians experiencing homelessness are chronically homeless, which 
means they are experiencing long term homelessness while living with a 
disabling condition. These Illinoisans are often unable to find 
affordable housing on the SSI benefits, lengthening their homelessness, 
and exacerbating their health issues. Their experience is the testament 
that SSI must change.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

David Esposito
Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 
                     Letter Submitted by Jan Thomas
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance,
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My 29-year-old daughter lives with my husband and me. She has multiple 
disabling conditions: autism, a learning disability, and 
schizoaffective disorder. She has few if any options to live outside of 
our home because her SSI income will not be nearly enough to assist 
with any housing costs. She is unable to work to support herself. My 
husband and I are aging, and we face the prospect of our daughter 
struggling to secure any housing given her extremely low SSI income.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Jan Thomas

                                 ______
                                 
                 Letter Submitted by Melissa M. Thomas
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Melissa Thomas and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

I have been on SSI for over a decade. I'm in my mid 40s and feel 
trapped in a system that is set up to keep people with disabilities in 
poverty. I was married to another SSI recipient for almost 9 years, and 
finally divorced because of the marriage penalty that caused our income 
to decrease, when in fact it costs more to live as two than one. 
Everything is more expensive, travel, co-pays, food, personal items, 
more electric, water, etc. are being used. We lived every day on the 
edge of not knowing where we would end up next. He was mentally and 
physically disabled to a point he needed a legal guardian and in home 
services. No one that is disabled should have to worry about basic 
needs to survive.

I would try to work what I was able to with the Department of 
Vocational Rehabilitation, but every time I did, I would not gain any 
money. I would have to pay more for my rent because of being on housing 
and having to report income, more for transportation, more for food 
because they adjust on your income. I never got ahead because of all 
the rules in place and felt like I was getting nowhere.

It got so bad I was concerned how we would eat so I signed up for 
school knowing I would never graduate so I could get financial aid that 
would not be counted against us so I could buy food and clothing and 
other basic needs. It was the only loophole I could find in the system, 
and knowing that it will not last forever, I must hope that people in 
congress do what is right for the disabled people in the country by 
updating SSI so people can survive. I was only up to 12 hrs. of work a 
week. But paying a dollar to every 2 I made, while being penalized for 
trying to better my life was spirit breaking. It caused more 
depression. People don't choose to be disabled and it's not a life of 
luxury but being able to have your basic needs met without having to 
stress daily about hoops you must jump through to get by isn't mentally 
healthy. The fact that I was in a position to be able to make my 
husband at the time lose all his benefits, his in-home healthcare etc. 
was insanity to me. I don't think anyone should have that much power to 
ruin anyone's life. Also, I was his wife, and could have made income by 
taking care of him from the IRIS program but because of the penalties, 
we both would have lost everything including his in-home healthcare. 
The system is set up to keep us down. It is no wonder that so many 
disabled people end up in jail. They are drove off an edge of having to 
chose between things, that they shouldn't have to.

So much needs to change. The fact that 2 disabled people are punished 
by marriage is complete discrimination. I also am upset that disabled 
people are forced not to marry just a regular American without 
disabilities that has a job. Why should I become someone's liability? 
Why should I feel like someone's liability because I can't keep a job? 
Why should my benefits of healthcare go away, why would my small 
contribution to the family be taken away because he has a job? Why am a 
burden? None of this is fair. I do hope that now is the time to make 
the necessary changes needed to ensure disabled people are being lifted 
out of poverty, not kept in it. That there are goals that can be 
reached without barriers standing in their way. That the system is 
helping the disabled not killing them.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Melissa Thomas

                                 ______
                                 
                               Thresholds

                        4101 N. Ravenswood Ave.

                           Chicago, IL 60613

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

Thresholds submits this statement for the record for the subcommittee 
hearing ``Policy Options for Improving SSI.''

Thresholds is one of the largest organizations in Illinois fighting to 
transform the lives of people living with serious mental illnesses 
through services and advocacy. We provide outreach, community mental 
health supports, housing, employment, psychiatric care, primary care, 
substance use treatment, and more to thousands of individuals across 
the Chicago metropolitan region and collar counties. The vast majority 
of Thresholds' clients rely on SSI as their sole income to cover rent, 
food, utilities, clothing, transportation, and other basic necessities.

Sub-poverty SSI benefit levels make life extremely difficult for our 
clients who struggle to manage significant mental health symptoms. 
Without an adequate income to stay in their homes and communities, 
clients regularly cycle in and out of homelessness, costly and harmful 
institutions, such as hospitals and prisons, and are forced to live in 
poverty. Low benefit levels and harmful SSI restrictions prevent 
thousands of Thresholds' clients from thriving on their journey to 
recovery.

SSI benefits and rules have not been updated for decades. In Illinois 
the maximum benefit is $794 a month, only three quarters of the Federal 
Poverty Level. Individuals are not permitted to save more than $2,000 
without losing their benefits, preventing them from saving for a crisis 
or an unexpected event. This is less than 2 months of fair market rent 
in Cook County, Illinois. Increasing asset limits would increase 
stability for our clients and ultimately support their pathway to 
recovery.

The amount of earnings a person can make before they lose SSI benefits 
have not been updated for almost 50 years--a person can only earn up to 
$85 before they begin losing benefits--this is less than one day of 
work making minimum wage in the city of Chicago. This prevents people 
on SSI who can and want to work from being able to. Eliminating the 
earned income restriction would mean that Thresholds' clients with 
serious mental illnesses would have the opportunity to find meaningful 
work opportunities that bring a sense of purpose, hope, and 
independence without the risk of losing the safety net SSI was intended 
to provide.

Financial support from family and friends to help make ends meet can 
result in a reduction in SSI benefits. In essence, individuals who are 
severely disabled and need SSI to support their basic living expenses 
are forced to stay in poverty--they cannot save, they cannot work, and 
they cannot receive help from loved ones without risking their sole 
income source. Antiquated income and asset limits should be updated to 
account for decades of inflation.

SSI was passed to ensure ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.'' SSI no 
longer fulfills this promise because of decades of neglect. The SSI 
safety net is critical for our clients whose serious mental health 
symptoms make stable long-term employment more difficult. For these 
reasons, we ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the upcoming 
budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Heather O'Donnell
Senior Vice President
Public Policy and Advocacy

                                 ______
                                 
                    Letter Submitted by Destiny Toro
United States Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Destiny Toro, and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

January of this year, I was finally approved for SSI after appealing 
and waiting for 18 months. I receive the maximum benefit amount, $794. 
The house I live in, which meets my particular health and function 
needs, costs me $675 per month which is roughly 85% of my income. That 
leaves me with $119 per month for other bills, groceries not covered by 
SNAP, copays, loan payments, and other medical needs that are not 
covered by insurance.

I have a rare disease and multiple comorbidities and most doctors are 
not knowledgeable about these conditions, so I have to seek multiple 
types of speciality care. Some of the specialists I need are not 
covered by Medicaid. Some of them take Medicare, which I also have, but 
I can't afford to pay the 20% of appointments, expensive testing, and 
treatments that falls on me. This means I ration my speciality care and 
go without treatments.

I currently can't send my personal care attendant to the store with my 
SNAP card (per agency rules) and can only send them with cash; cash 
that I don't have. This means I ration my food.

Per SSI rules, I can't receive financial help from my community to make 
up for this outdated income without further reducing my income.

This also means that I can't save money for specialist doctors 
appointments, treatments, moving to another house if my landlord raises 
my rent in a few months, repairs to my wheelchair, or even any normal 
life things/emergencies that happen to everyone. Not only am I not able 
to save on this income/rent ratio, but per SSI rules, I can't save more 
than $2,000 if I did have a better income/rent ratio.

At 33 years old, I can't get married, can't lean on my community, can't 
receive treatments that could potentially lead to my functioning 
without a personal attendant or doing some kind of work at my own pace. 
SSI allows me to pay for my housing and since Texas has tied my 
Medicaid to approval of and actively receiving SSI allows me to have 
some health care. But because SSI hasn't been updated in so many 
decades, if I make one wrong turn in the extremely restrictive and 
complicated program that is SSI, even accidentally, I could lose my 
housing and lose my health care.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely

Destiny Toro

                                 ______
                                 
                 Letter Submitted by Richard R. Troxell

Chairman Sherrod Brown
Ranking Member Todd Young
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0220

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

This statement is submitted on behalf of the oldest action homeless 
organization in Texas 1989, House the Homeless, Inc., where as Founder 
and Executive Director since 1989, I oversaw Legal Aid for the Homeless 
where the core function was to apply for and secure disability benefits 
(SSI) for people experiencing homelessness and The National Coalition 
for the Homeless BOD since 1997and presently on the CORE Team 
functioning to devise, develop, and enhance Livable Incomes for those 
who can work (emphasis on the federal minimum wage) and for those who 
cannot work (emphasis on SSI).

The goal is to ensure that the funds received by each individual are 
sufficient to ensure that each person is able to afford basic food, 
clothing, telephone, transportation, with particular emphasis on 
securing shelter in the form of rental housing in the general housing 
market.

For disabled, single housewives and disabled single adults this program 
is essential. Additionally, all people who are homeless and disabled 
are potentially SSI recipients, people of color make up 61% of all 
people experiencing homelessness (of which 42% are African American and 
Hispanics make up 13% of the homeless population) Note: The current 
basic SSI check is $794/month. The single most expensive item in the 
budget of every American is housing.

However, if you look at the cost of housing in this nation, it is 
immediately evident that that cost of housing varies by region or even 
by zip code and rises far above that check. We have a thousand plus 
economies but only one-size check to cover that incredible range of 
housing costs. Therefore, it is imperative that in order to afford 
basic rental housing, the SSI needs to be indexed to the local cost of 
housing wherever that housing is located throughout the U.S.In this 
manner, we can end economic homelessness for those who cannot work (SSI 
recipients).

We do this in the same way that we fix the Federal Minimum Wage for 
those who can work . . . we index the wage (SSI check) to the local 
cost of housing by using the HUD Fair Market Rents, FMR, (reviewed 
every year).

See http://www.universallivingwage.org/wagecalculator.html.
See http://www.universallivingwage.org/myths-facts.html.

Benefits:

    - Houses all SSI recipients;
    - Reduces major stress for all SSI recipients;
    - Displays respect for our disabled citizens; and
    - Stabilizes this portion of the economy.

In 2010, House the Homeless conducted one of its annual surveys in 
Austin, Texas. This Health Survey of over 600 people, revealed that 
over 47% of those surveyed (all homeless) were so disabled that they 
could not work. One of the thousands of SSI applicants that Legal Aid 
for the Homeless helped apply for SSI benefits stumped me with his 
symptoms. Once a master plumber and a building engineer, he could no 
loner do either job. He was befuddled and he could not tell me the 
cause of his original injury. We went over it and over it. No auto 
accident, no electrocution, no huffing glue, not a boxer, never played 
ball, never got knocked out, no near drowning etc. It was only after a 
third interview that I traced it back to playing high school football 
where he never got knocked out or went to the hospital in an ambulance. 
But in his younger days (now 45) he would get his bell rung or see 
stars, ``shake it off'' and go back in without the required rest that 
each incident requires. He suffered from Chronic Traumatic 
Encephalopathy, CTE. He had a traumatic brain injury with a major 
complication maybe 20 years later. After high school he went on to have 
Substantial Gainful Activity, SGA, twice, after having the initial 
injury that can only be definitively diagnosed with brain slices post 
mortem.

For the first and only time I know of, the SS Administration paid 
benefits in such a case.

In 2016, after pondering the situation, I ran another health survey and 
found 47% of a large almost 600 people in Austin's homeless population 
said they were too disabled to work. I also listed all 28 symptoms of 
TBI--80% of the people said they had one or more of the symptoms. These 
symptoms are severe medical conditions ranging from wild aggressive 
anger, alcoholism, to Parkinson's disease, major depression, bipolar 
disorder, etc.

Further research led me to a doctor, who said he had developed a 
protocol that in 98% of the cases he sees from 50%-100% reduction in 
symptoms. Imagine if we stop just one of these symptoms! Benefits: (1) 
people's lives would be turned around; (2) tax dollar savings would sky 
rocket; (3) we would find a medical reason along with economic causes 
for homelessness in our nation.

     - So, let's have a complete medical review of the SSI system every 
10 years.

Additionally, our organizations supports the statements presented by 
Justice in Aging for basically the same reasons as they provided:

     - Increase the benefit level so that people are not left in 
poverty despite receiving SSI benefits.

     - Update SSI income rules so that people can use more of the 
income they receive from other sources to supplement their SSI.

     - Eliminate the in-kind support and maintenance rules so that 
people can supplement their SSI benefits with needed support from 
family and friends who are willing to assist them.

     - Raise SSI's outdated asset limits by a minimum of $10,000-
$15,000. (The amounts are our suggestions).

     - Create a general review process that occurs every five years.

Coming soon is my book on ending and preventing homelessness, Short 
Stories in a Long Journey: What it Takes to End and Prevent 
Homelessness.

Thank you for the opportunity to raise these concerns. Please realize 
that not only our organizations are prepared to participate in 
developing these ideas but realize that SSI recipients are willing to 
help conduct the general review process as well.

Richard R. Troxell

Author: Looking Up at the Bottom Line and Livable Incomes: Real 
Solutions that Stimulate the Economy, http://www.amazon.com/Livable-
Incomes-Solutions-Stimulate-stability-ebook/dp/B00I8EA8J8/ref=sr_sp-
atf_title_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid
=1391995227&sr=1-2&keywords=Richard+Troxell

https://housethehomeless.org/

www.UniversalLivingWage.org

(512) 796-4366

                                 ______
                                 
                 Letter Submitted by Heather K. Turnage
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Heather K. Turnage and I am writing to submit a statement 
for the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for 
Improving SSI.''

My friend Louis relies on SSI and the program desperately needs to be 
updated. Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed 
in 1972 and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and 
disabled people would no longer have to live on below-poverty 
incomes.''

Louis has catatonic schizophrenia. He is about to have a hearing for 
SSI. Which means he was denied twice. He had SSI for years. Then became 
homeless again and wound up in prison. He has to reapply after prison.

Why? Believe it or not, prison did not make his catatonic schizophrenia 
better. It did give him PTSD, though.

I'm not sure how a mentally ill person would get SSI without help. 
Getting health records from multiple states from years ago is difficult 
enough for me, I can't imagine him getting it taken care of without 
assistance.

Sure some people with schizophrenia can work. They are rare exceptions. 
I don't think any boss would keep him around if he started talking to 
customers about how people are after him or started asking very 
inappropriate questions. And it would happen. Every job has stressors, 
and guess what causes relapse in schizophrenia? Stress!

 Also, his illness and his medications make him sleep at least 12 hours 
a day. At least. How can anyone support themselves with a sleep 
schedule like that?

Automatic first time denial needs to stop. It's inhuman and it's un-
American. There are much better places for the government to save 
money. Make the law fair. Make it make sense.

If I wasn't able to give him a temporary home he would probably be dead 
by now.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Heather K. Turnage

                                 ______
                                 
                               Tzedek DC

A Center at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke 
                             School of Law

                 4340 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 319

                          Washington, DC 20008

                             (202) 274-7386

                       https://www.tzedekdc.org/

October 5, 2021

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

RE: Written Testimony by Tzedek DC Submitted Regarding the September 
21, 2021, Hearing

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young,

On behalf of Tzedek DC, we submit this statement for the record for the 
subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving SSI.''

About Tzedek DC

Tzedek DC is an independent, public-interest center headquartered at 
the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of 
Law. Inspired by the ancient Hebrew teaching ``Tzedek tzedek, tzedek 
tirdof,'' or ``Justice, justice, you shall pursue,'' Tzedek DC's 
mission is to safeguard the financial health and legal rights of DC 
residents with lower incomes facing debt-related problems.

Tzedek DC is well-positioned to comment on policies that would improve 
SSI. Tzedek DC offers direct legal services at no cost to DC residents 
with low- to 
moderate-income struggling with debt and other consumer-related legal 
issues. One area of our work entails representation of Supplemental 
Security Income (SSI) recipients in overpayment cases. Our clients rely 
on benefits, like SSI, for living expenses, including for food, rent, 
and necessities. Those clients disproportionately experience debt--
merely because they cannot afford basic expenses. Additionally, Tzedek 
DC houses a project specifically focused on the disabled community and 
the unique challenges they face when experiencing debt and consumer 
problems. Our Disabilities Community Project has a particular interest 
in ensuring reform to SSI programs and benefits. Finally, Tzedek DC 
employs several attorneys with substantial experience handling Social 
Security cases.

Overview

In this testimony, Tzedek DC makes five central recommendations. 
Congress should:

    1.  Increase the statutory SSI monthly maximum benefit to 100 
percent of federal poverty guidelines to help fill the gap that people 
with lower incomes experience in meeting their basic needs.

    2.  Reform asset limits to both:

        a.  Expand beyond $2,000 for individuals because $2,000 is too 
low a limit to allow claimants to save for an emergency or other 
critical necessities.

        b.  Exclude the assets of a spouse to expand the asset limit 
for married couples beyond $3,000, so that disabled people are not 
forced to decide whether to marry their partners or continue to receive 
needed benefits.

    3.  Amend substantial gainful activity, income, and other work 
incentive requirements, because government should encourage people to 
live their lives in ways that are meaningful to them without risk of 
losing their benefits, particularly if they are unsure of whether work 
will be something that can continue based on their disability.

    4.  Engage in oversight to ensure the Social Security Act's purpose 
is not being frustrated by the Social Security Administration's 
execution of its statutory mandate. The current rules lead to 
consistent issues with overpayments that disabled people cannot afford 
to repay and lead to particular problems for claimants who have a 
disability that impacts cognition.

    5.  Ensure the SSA's budget provides the agency sufficient 
resources to carry out its important statutory mission.

1. The SSI Maximum Should be Increased

Reform to the rules that govern SSI is needed. Congress has not updated 
the SSI benefits rules for decades.

The current maximum benefit one can receive monthly from SSI is only 
three fourths of Federal Poverty Guidelines--currently $794 for an 
individual claimant. Couples on SSI who are married receive a maximum 
of $1,191, which is even less per person. The minimal cash benefits are 
not enough to afford basic living expenses, leaving recipients 
engrossed in debt, including, but not limited to, credit card debt, 
automobile debt, medical debt, and event student loan debt. Census data 
from 2017 shows that 31 percent of SSI households have credit card 
debt, 25 percent have medical debt, 20 percent have vehicle debt, 19 
percent have home debt, and 14 percent have student loan debt. The 
cycle of debt is one that is difficult to escape once in the cycle. 
Debt begins to negatively affect one's credit score and credit history, 
which then makes it difficult, if not impossible, to take out 
additional lines of credit. Debt also makes it difficult to find 
housing and employment.

The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated these concerns, particularly 
for the disabled community, and disproportionately, disabled people of 
color. We have counseled clients on Social Security who are attempting 
to find cheaper, safer, or more accessible housing but who could not do 
so because of their negative credit history and past debt. CoStar data 
showed that, in 2019, the median monthly rent in the District of 
Columbia was $1,512.\1\ That was two years ago. According to a D.C. 
Policy Center report, fewer than 800 units were available in the 
District of Columbia for those who needed to pay less than $750 per 
month on rent.\2\ Increasing the maximum benefit is crucial to ensuring 
that SSI recipients can afford basic necessities. This benefit should, 
at a minimum, be equivalent to 100% of Federal Poverty Guidelines and 
adjust to keep up with inflation, as stipulated in the Supplemental 
Security Income Restoration Act of 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Yesim Sayin Taylor, Appraising the District's Rentals--Rental 
Housing Affordability, D.C. Policy Center (April 1, 2020), https://
www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/appraising-the-districts-rentals-
chapter-iii/.
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The SSI Asset Limits Should be Reformed

Another persistent barrier for our clients is the asset limit to 
maintain eligibility for SSI benefits. The current asset limit has not 
been increased since 1984.\3\ Recipients are not allowed to save or 
obtain more than $2,000 without losing their benefits. This asset limit 
often makes it impossible for our clients to save for emergencies, and 
further perpetuates the cycle of poverty and debt for our clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Trends in the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income 
Disability Programs, Social Security Administration Office Policy 
(August 2006), https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/
disability_trends/sect05.html.

In an area with expensive rents like the District of Columbia, we have 
encountered clients who cannot save a security deposit to move into an 
apartment because the security deposit amount is over $2,000, the asset 
limit for SSI, which in turn keeps them from using a housing subsidy 
that will pay their rent. For married couples, the asset limit is even 
steeper, such that marriage constitutes a penalty. A $3,000 limit on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
assets is simply not enough for a married couple in 2021.

While the Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2021 does 
provide for an asset limit increase up to $10,000 for individuals and 
$20,000 for married couples, attempting to eliminate the marriage 
penalty, simply eliminating the asset limit would be the better policy 
solution. Requirements for obtaining SSI are already very stringent. 
These benefits are not provided to just anyone. Recipients must meet 
specific requirements pertaining to disability, substantial gainful 
activity, and other criteria. The difficulty of obtaining the benefits 
makes the likelihood of those that do not need the benefits seeking 
them very low, especially since the benefits are such a minimal amount 
of money. Worrying about the margins of individuals who might 
theoretically game the system at the expense of those who legitimately 
require benefits and are being excluded from accessing them is unsound 
public policy. Additionally, while the proposed increase in asset 
limits as a means of addressing the marriage penalty is certainly an 
improvement over current policy, it still forces disabled people and 
SSI recipients to either choose not to marry or to ensure that they are 
marrying an individual who is extremely poor. SSI recipients, 
particularly disabled people, still rely on SSI, even if they are 
married to someone with assets above $10,000 in their own right. 
Disabled people have many additional expenses, often referred to as the 
``Crip tax,'' that they rely on benefits like SSI to help pay. These 
expenses include medical equipment, mobility devices, making homes more 
accessible, additional transportation needs, and other costs. Not 
considering the income or assets of a spouse would be most equitable 
and better facilitates marriage equality for disabled beneficiaries.
 ABLE Accounts Are Insufficient to Address Asset Limit Problems
ABLE accounts, unfortunately, also do not address concerns related to 
the asset limit. ABLE accounts are intended to ensure that disabled 
individuals can save funds that do not count toward the asset limits 
for benefits such as SSI. ABLE Accounts are only available to 
individuals with disabilities with an age of onset of disability prior 
to 26 years old. This requirement severely limits who can access these 
accounts, even if they were, in practice, helpful for all SSI 
recipients to counteract draconian asset limits. ABLE Accounts also do 
not address the prohibition on substantial gainful activity. Many 
states also have required minimum contributions and maintenance fees, 
all of which are barriers for any SSI recipient to actually start 
saving with an ABLE account if they wanted to save for their future. 
For all these reasons, ABLE accounts are most helpful only for those 
who have saved monies from previous work experience or for those who 
have family or friends who can contribute resources. For most disabled 
people, ABLE accounts are not an adequate fix.

 3. The Substantial Gainful Activity, Income, and Other Work Incentive 
                    Requirements Should Be Reformed

Work is currently disincentivized for SSI recipients, and it should not 
be. For anyone who is able to work, it is difficult to do so without 
meeting the threshold for substantial gainful activity. For SSI 
recipients, there is not even so much as a trial work period. 
Additionally, those who do work, even for minimal wages, lose some 
portion of their benefits. Finally, many individuals with low incomes 
work as hourly workers whose incomes vary each month, leading to 
consistent overpayments by the Social Security Administration that are 
detrimental to financial health and well-being, regardless of how 
diligent beneficiaries are in reporting. When the Social Security 
Administration overpays beneficiaries, at a later point, the Social 
Security Administration may send notices of overpayment. The 
beneficiary would be required to repay the Social Security 
Administration. This requirement can be damaging since SSI recipients 
already receive so little in benefits and may be unable to save for 
these types of situations.

These restrictions further the cycle of poverty and debt for our 
clients. The Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2021 would 
allow for beneficiaries to earn up to $416 a month without penalty for 
their work. This is a helpful change. However, $416 per month is not 
enough to live on in the District of Columbia, or in most metropolitan 
areas of the country. To live in the District while paying for basic 
needs, one must make at least 250% to 300% of the Federal Poverty 
Guidelines. That would require approximately $1,610 to $2,146.66 per 
month, amounts that are least triple the $416 proposed maximum for no 
penalty. More flexibility to allow SSI recipients, who are able, to 
work, including an equivalent trial work period and increasing the 
threshold for substantial gainful activity, would be beneficial. Blind 
SSI recipients, by contrast, are not even subject to substantial 
gainful activity requirements in applying for benefits. These 
limitations solely apply to disabled individuals who are not blind, 
which creates disparities and inequity even among the disabled 
community. Additionally, not considering substantial gainful activity 
in future disability reviews is critical for incentivizing work. Often, 
disabled recipients are punished for working in future reviews and lose 
their benefits.
 Rules About Unearned Income and In-Kind Support Are Overbroad
Rules about help from family and friends and the amount of earnings or 
other income people can have before they lose benefits have not been 
updated for almost 50 years.\4\ Gifts from friends or family, in-kind 
support of food or shelter, grants from nonprofit organizations, 
busking and panhandling, and other occasional resource generating 
activities trigger a reduction in cash benefits, and can lead to 
overpayments. We have clients who have had to forgo philanthropic gifts 
from nonprofit organizations because these gifts which would marginally 
and temporarily address an unmet need would put them over asset or 
result in an overpayment. Government policy should not force people to 
make that choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Richard M. Ball, Social Security Amendments of 1972: Summary 
and Legislative History, Social Security (March 1973), https://
www.ssa.gov/history/1972amend.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 4. Further Oversight Is Needed to Ensure Improvement of the SSA's 
                    Handling of Individual Matters

Tzedek DC's clients' experiences at the agency level highlight the need 
for additional oversight by this Committee and increased care by the 
SSA. Many of our clients have their SSI benefits offset due to existing 
overpayments, meaning they are unable to access benefits to which they 
might otherwise be entitled. However, the individuals struggle to 
navigate the vast policies, forms, and requirements aimed at addressing 
overpayments, and receive little assistance from Social Security 
representatives when requesting help. Many of our clients approach 
Tzedek DC in confusion and frustration because of the process they have 
endured with the Social Security Administration. These clients already 
typically receive little income, and to owe anything additional to the 
Social Security Administration when, in some cases, our clients are not 
at fault and diligently reported their earnings, is damaging. Our 
clients also often receive conflicting or no information from Social 
Security Administration representatives about reporting requirements. 
We also regularly encounter clients who have disabilities that affect 
cognitive function, acted in good faith, and were genuinely unable to 
understand the bureaucracy, slew of required forms, confusing and 
contradictory instructions in letters and from representatives, and 
requirements that led to an overpayment.

For clients navigating the current system for disputing overpayments, 
it is also stressful. There are several different forms and options, 
including waivers and reconsiderations. Clients often do not understand 
the purpose of these forms or what they must demonstrate. Simplifying 
these documents, explaining what must be proved, creating more uniform 
policies, clearly and correctly informing recipients of these policies, 
and adjusting internal policies to ensure that benefit recipients are 
not prejudiced because of a lack of experience or a lack of 
understanding of the process is crucial.

In overpayment cases, the Social Security Administration often changes 
values owed and provides information about balances without providing a 
breakdown of how the balance was reached. The Administration routinely 
provides contradicting mailings, or mailings containing errors about 
overpayments and what is allegedly due to the Social Security 
Administration. This practice is confusing even to lawyers who are 
Authorized Representatives practicing within the SSA on behalf of 
claimants.

The Social Security Administration, as a practice, should include 
specific calculations in all overpayment notices to ensure that benefit 
recipients have a fair opportunity to respond using all available 
information. There should also be a system in place for quality 
assurance to prevent consistently conflicting or erroneous mailings. 
Continuing to send out mailings without regard for the consequence or 
confusion it may cause, and with little explanation of why the change 
is being effected, is unhelpful for clients and legal representatives 
alike. Without understanding all the facts, our clients continue to 
face barriers to accessing their benefits and continue to have to make 
payments to the Social Security Administration. These offsets often 
come out of their already less than Federal Poverty level limited SSI 
benefits.

Even though these claims are non-adversarial, without support from SSA 
agents, clients often feel that SSA is trying to find ways to bar them 
from the benefits they are entitled to under the Act. Clients receive 
little to no assistance in navigating next steps or achieving a 
resolution with the Social Security office.

In one illustrative case, Tzedek DC represented a disabled client with 
delayed thought processing who had attempted to understand what 
occurred after an overpayment. An SSA agent made one attempt to call 
the disabled claimant back. When the claimant was unable to answer the 
one call, the SSA proceeded to offset her benefits, noting the single 
instance in which they called to try to explain the issue to the 
claimant and that she did not answer. Ensuring that SSA staff members 
understand that service, not recoupment, is the priority and assist 
benefit recipients who call is key to ensuring that claimants obtain 
the minimum financial support they require to meet their basic needs as 
the Social Security Act intended.

5. The SSA's Budget Should Be Re-examined by Congress

Increasing the Social Security Administration budget may be one way to 
improve the process for SSI recipients. It could ensure benefit 
recipients get the support they need so they can continue to access 
their benefits. President Biden's proposed budget would be a step in 
the right direction. The proposed budget would also include funding for 
outreach to individuals who would be eligible for SSI benefits. 
However, the SSA cannot simply focus on clearing the enormous backlog 
without truly working with claimants to ensure that those eligible for 
SSI received the much-needed material support required to meet their 
basic needs.

                                  ***

SSI was passed to ensure ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to subsist on below-poverty incomes.''\5\ 
Because of decades of neglect, this critical federal program no longer 
fulfills this promise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Amendments to the Social Security Act 1969-1972: Reports, 
Bills, Debates, and Acts 384, https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/
Downey%20PDFs/Amendments%20to%20the%20Social%20
Security%20Act%201969-1972%20Vol.%203.pdf.

Tzedek DC urges this subcommittee to consider the above-described 
recommendations regarding maximum benefits, asset limits, work 
incentives, income limitations, Social Security transparency and 
simplification, and the Social Security Administration budget. For the 
aforementioned reasons, we ask Congress to include improvements to SSI 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

Ariel Levinson-Waldman
Founding President and Director-Counsel
On behalf of Tzedek DC staff

Board of Directors

Irvin Nathan, Chair                 Courtney Weiner, Vice Chair
Robert Bloom, Treasurer             Rachel Kronowitz, Member
Willard Tom, Member                 Peter Edelman, Honorary Director
Paul Berger, Honorary Director      Ariel Levinson-Waldman, Founding 
                                    President & Director-Counsel
Ronald Glancz, z"l, Permanent 
Member

Advisory Council

Anthony Alexis                      Roy Austin, Jr.
Nicole Austin-Hillery               Claude Bailey
Allyson Baker                       Michael Baratz
Vivian Bass                         Mathew Bruckner
Barry Coburn                        Stephen Danzansky
Daniel Edelman                      Andrew Eskin
Vicki Fishman                       John Freedman
Sally Greenberg                     Andrew Herman
William Jaffe                       Mark Kahan
June Kress                          Karen Ann Lash
Richard Lawch                       Joshua Levy
Nancy Liebermann                    Susan Liss
Stephen Marcus                      Lorelie Masters
Carol Mates                         Christopher McCannell
Dan Neustadt                        Michael Nilsson
Kathryn Oberly                      Ellen Oberwetter
BB Otero                            Thorn Pozen
Harvey Reiter                       Thomas Riesenberg
Seth Rosenthal                      Robert Rozen
James Sandman                       Nina Simon
John Sturc                          Kenneth Trombly
Rebecca Vallas                      Roger Zuckerman

                                 ______
                                 
                       United Spinal Association

                  120-34 Queen's Boulevard, Suite 320

                         Kew Gardens, NY 11415

                          Phone: 718-803-3782

                           Fax: 718-803-0414

                       https://unitedspinal.org/

Dear Chairman Brown:

The United Spinal Association thanks you for holding a timely hearing 
on options to improve the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

Since being founded by paralyzed veterans in 1946, United Spinal 
Association has been dedicated to advancing the independence and 
quality of life of individuals living with spinal cord injuries and 
disorders (SCI/D) such as multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral 
sclerosis (ALS), and spina bifida. There are over two million 
individuals throughout the country with SCI/D. United Spinal has more 
than 58,000 members, 49 chapters, close to 200 support groups and over 
100 rehabilitation hospital members and hospital partners nationwide. 
We also work collaboratively with 14 distinguished Spinal Cord Injury 
Model System Centers that support innovative projects and research in 
the field of SCI. United Spinal Association is also a VA-recognized 
veterans service organization (VSO) serving veterans with disabilities 
of all kinds.

We open our comments with a well-deserved salute to you, Mr. Chairman, 
for crystallizing today's sad state of the SSI program in your 
thoughtful opening statement. As you know, people with disabilities, 
through no fault of their own, experience exponentially more barriers 
to an independent life as a result of antiquated public policies that 
do not keep pace with an ever-changing world economy and technologies.

SSI is a federal income support program designed to help elderly or 
disabled people who have limited income and resources meet their basic 
needs. It is a lifeline to many, but many of its provisions related to 
eligibility have not been updated in several decades, which has meant 
that SSI recipients have needed to endure extreme poverty in order to 
keep their benefits. For example, the amount of earned income an SSI 
recipient is allowed to bring in each month without seeing a reduction 
in their SSI benefits is currently $65--a figure that hasn't been 
adjusted, for inflation or otherwise, since 1972. SSI's asset limits, 
which are currently $2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a married 
couple, haven't been updated since 1989.

Along with you, Mr. Chairman, United Spinal supports the SSI 
Restoration Act (H.R. 4280/S. 2753), which would increase SSI's asset 
limits to $10,000 for an individual and $20,000 for a married couple, 
while removing financial penalties that prevent many couples from 
marrying. It would also increase the amount of income an SSI recipient 
can earn each month to $399 without penalties. It is long past time 
these rules were updated to allow people with disabilities keep their 
SSI benefits without being forced into extreme poverty.

Our organizational position is further articulated in a letter we 
signed, along with numerous other organizations, as members of the 
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) to congressional 
leadership which can be reviewed at: http://www.c-c-d.org/fichiers/CCD-
SSI-Letter_7-26-21.pdf.

We thank every member of the Subcommittee for their leadership in 
reforming this vital program.

                                 ______
                                 
              Letter Submitted by Willard F. Watkins, Jr.
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Willard F. Watkins, Jr. and I am writing to submit a 
statement for the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options 
for Improving SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to 
be updated. Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was 
passed in 1972.

I have been in love with the same woman for 31 years, yet we have never 
married each other, despite the fact that we have always wanted to do 
so. It has boiled down to us being married, or her losing her SSI, 
Medicaid, and her spot on the Home and Community Based Services Waiver.

Try to deal with Social Security when they misinterpret my job title as 
the two of us being married. I had to go to the Social Security office 
with a copy of the Oklahoma Administrative Code to correct the 
situation. Wearing rings, only to have case managers pose a problem 
with us doing so. Going to church after church, and when we tried to 
get involved, we were told no because we aren't married.

She was hospitalized in 2013, and I couldn't make vital healthcare 
decisions for her, as the hospital put preference for her family over 
me, once again because we weren't married. She was hospitalized again 
in 2018, and the State of Oklahoma made a decision to place her into 
medically frail placement without any input from her or me.

Her guardianship was legally removed by the state, and given to her 
sister. I was never given consideration to act as her guardian, as the 
state favored biological family. I wasn't called to testify at the 
guardianship hearing, despite the fact that I could have been called as 
a witness and should have been. I tried to save our home, but couldn't.

Despite the fact that I saved her life in 2018, I was fired from my 
job. I now live in a house that really isn't mine, and she lives in a 
house that isn't hers and she never chose to live there. I suffer from 
depression, anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder in the 
aftermath of the events of 2018.

With the advent of the COVID pandemic, we are further isolated from 
each other. I firmly believe that we both would have been treated much 
better had we been married, but I had to choose between us being 
married and her having what she needed to survive on a daily basis.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Willard F. Watkins, Jr.
Tulsa People First Member

                                 ______
                                 
                 Letter Submitted by Carolyn D. Wember
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Carolyn Wember and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' My disabled adult daughter relies on SSI, and the program 
desperately needs to be updated. Many of the rules have not been 
changed since SSI was passed in 1972 and it no longer ensures ``that 
the nation's aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to 
live on below-poverty incomes.'' In particular, I am writing to request 
that Congress update the SSI rules that create disincentives for people 
with disabilities to obtain and retain employment.

My daughter is 31 years old and has severe physical disabilities. She 
has been receiving SSI since she turned 18. She needs to maintain her 
SSI eligibility in order to retain Medicaid coverage. Like many adults 
with severe disabilities, she depends on Medicaid for the long-term 
care services that she requires in order to continue living 
independently at home in her community.

In April 2020, my daughter was lucky enough to obtain a part-time job, 
despite her severe physical limitations. She works from home 
approximately 16 hours per week, for $15.40/hour. (That translates to 
slightly less than $13,000 per year in wages, if she works for 52 weeks 
with no time off.) Under the current SSI income rules, as soon as my 
daughter makes more than $65 a month--the Social Security 
Administration (SSA) reduces her SSI cash benefits, with a $1 reduction 
in SSI for every $2 in earnings. As a result, even with my daughter's 
meager, part-time earnings--her SSI cash benefit is reduced by almost 
$500 every month that she works. Perhaps a $65 earned-income disregard 
was a meaningful amount half a century ago. But 50 years later, it just 
feels like SSI recipients are being punished for working.

To add insult to injury: when my daughter received a small, year-end 
bonus at the end of 2020, she ended up in ``overpayment'' status with 
SSA. This led to an incomprehensible barrage of conflicting notices 
from SSA, which are seemingly incapable of resolution (particularly 
with the SSA field offices still closed). My daughter has tried to get 
help straightening things out from a ``WIPA'' advisor for the ``Ticket 
to Work'' program; however, after waiting months for a call-back from a 
WIPA counselor--it seems that the WIPA counselor has now been waiting 
for months to receive information about my daughter that she requested 
from SSA. I have spent hours of my own time trying to help my daughter 
resolve these issues with SSA. She would never be able to resolve this 
mess without my help. I honestly don't need this kind of aggravation, 
and my life would have been easier if my daughter had never become 
employed--which is a sad state of affairs!

Finally, to make matters even worse: Almost one year ago, I filed early 
for my own Social Security Retirement benefits, for the sole reason of 
being able to submit an application for ``Child Disability Benefits'' 
(CDB) for my daughter, based on my own work record. I chose to forego a 
larger retirement benefit for myself, in the hope that my daughter 
would benefit from an increased monthly Social Security payment based 
on MY work history. It has been almost a full year since we filed the 
CDB application for my daughter and we have still not received a 
decision from SSA. Apparently, nothing is functioning properly within 
the Social Security Administration these days.

For all these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in 
the upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Carolyn D. Wember

                                 ______
                                 
                 Letter Submitted by Joannah L. Whitney
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

October 3, 2021

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young,

Thank you for accepting my testimony on SSI and the way it has been 
neglected for over 3 decades. The witnesses who spoke on September 21st 
made several important points. However, there was one aspect of SSI 
that no one addressed. While the spokesperson for SSA emphasized the 
point that ``SSI is a program of last resort,'' he did not elaborate on 
the brutal way that people on SSI are punished, if they go over the 
$2,000 financial resource limit by any amount.

First, let us be clear that the evaluation process to get on SSI is 
lengthy and rigorous. It is implausible that there are many people on 
the program who do not meet the medical criteria that establish 
significant disability. Although the way the government talks about 
people on SSI gives the impression that people who could work scam 
their way on to the program and, no doubt, it is always possible to 
find some, it is more likely that ``fraud and abuse'' actually refers 
to people who go over the financial resource limits--by any amount and 
for any length of time.

The more accurate truth is that people struggle on this program, 
always. When someone is facing a significant life expense, they try to 
save the maximum allowed to cover the cost of a move, or a wheelchair 
ramp, or modifications required to make a bathroom safe. These are not 
nefarious things for someone on SSI to do. They are normal, and 
necessary, and set at 21st century prices.

My disability is caused by Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. 
When the Social Security Administration reviewed my medical records, 
they determined that I met the criteria for a significant disability in 
August 2010. However, I was not eligible for SSDI because I had not 
accrued enough quarters in the Social Security system. That was because 
I sometimes worked in the private sector and, more often, had public 
sector jobs that did not pay into Social Security.

It took from the summer of 2010 until the end of 2011 to deplete my 
savings. I applied for SSI in December 2011, and was admitted to the 
program beginning in January of 2012. I received my first check in 
March, as a lump sum payment, including the back payment of $1450.80 
for January and February. I was told that this back payment would not 
count toward the financial resource limit until December 1, 2012.

I had my first eligibility review in the summer of 2014. In the review, 
the SSA employee first tried to penalize me because my first, lump sum 
payment put me over the $2,000 resource limit. I showed him the copy of 
the letter from SSA saying it would not be counted as part of my 
financial resources until December of that year. He grimaced and said, 
``Oh, right.''

He then went on to review the remaining months. He determined that, 
because I had received a small payment of a couple of hundred dollars 
that had been put into the Massachusetts State retirement system, when 
I taught an adjunct class for one semester at the University of 
Massachusetts/Amherst, I was ``over resourced'' on January 1, 2014. (I 
had become eligible for a Housing Choice, Section 8 voucher in 2013, 
and had saved as much money as I thought was allowed, so that I could 
move to more stable housing. It took me a long time to find a viable 
apartment because I need an apartment that could be made wheelchair 
accessible. This significantly limits my options.)

He then began to look at my financial records for February 2014 and 
determined that I was over resourced for that month too. I was shocked 
and said, ``If you are taking back all of the SSI payment for January, 
you should subtract that from my resources before calculating the 
amount I had in February!'' He laughed at me and said, ``That's not how 
we do it.''

When I received the results of the review, I was penalized for June and 
July, 2012, even though the lump sum payment wasn't supposed to count. 
The SSA employee counted it anyway. He found that I had a total of 
$2003.11 in June and $2258.99 in July. Therefore, I would have to 
return the SSI payments for both of those months.

He also determined that I was ineligible from January through March and 
also June of 2014. Because I was trying to save for a move, and because 
I had not yet learned about the money in the State retirement account, 
I was $639.81 over the resource limit in January. In February, I had 
$460.21 too much. In March, I was $602.02 over and in June, I had 
$698.57 too much.

The year I was trying to move, I did not fully understand all of my own 
financial circumstance. Becoming disabled was a chaotic transition. I 
also did not fully understand that SSA would penalize me, over and over 
again, for the same $600. If they subtracted the penalty for January, I 
would not have been over the resource limit any of the other months.

In October, 2015, I received a letter following another eligibility 
review. This time, they determined that I was ineligible from August 
2013 through May 2014. At the time, they were adding another $4992 in 
penalties to my outstanding penalties the previous review.

In August, 2013, I had $237.29 too much. In September, I was over by 
$318.28. In October, I was over by $98.16. I had $74.15 over in 
November, and had $327.14 too much in December. In April, 2014, I was 
$241.72 over the limit and in May, I had $280.22 too much.

Between the eligibility reviews in 2014 and 2015, the SSA determined 
that I had no need of an income from August 2013 until June 2014. All 
because I became eligible for a Housing Choice, Section 8 voucher and 
was trying desperately to find adequately accessible housing.

In February of 2019, I received a summary of another review. SSA 
determined that, on December 1, 2018, I had $129.03 too much money. 
That penalty really stung. In November, I attended a Greenfield City 
Council meeting to speak in support of building a new Library. The 
incline of the ramp to get into the meeting room was very steep and my 
wheelchair tipped over, when I was leaving the meeting. I was taken to 
the emergency room. Fortunately, nothing was broken. However, the 
muscles in my back and shoulders were badly bruised. As a result, I 
wasn't able to go about my normal routine--grocery shopping and such. I 
am glad the Council approved the library project, and I am proud of the 
role I played in that effort. I just wish I had not been injured and 
lost one month's income, as a consequence.

Last year, when I heard that people would receive stimulus checks, to 
mitigate the economic impact of COVID, I was terrified that the funds 
would put me over the resource limit, yet again. I called Congressman 
McGovern's office to ask what impact these checks would have on people 
on SSI. The aide I spoke with looked into it, and told me that I would 
have until the end of 2021 to spend down that money. It would not be 
counted toward my financial resources until then.

I had another SSI eligibility review on July 13, 2021. In that review, 
I learned that I was supposed to have spent the first stimulus check 
within 12 months of receiving it. The building where I live was sold 
earlier this year and the new owners want me to move. I was saving the 
stimulus money to cover moving expenses. Not only are my housing 
options limited, the same way they were the last time I moved, now we 
are in an affordable housing crisis, in the middle of a pandemic. 
Because my apartment search has gone on for over a year, and because I 
did not know that the first check would be counted sooner than the 
later stimulus payments, I will be penalized over $1400 for having that 
first $1200 too long.

In order to avoid on further penalties, I spent that $1200 on various 
things, none of which were particularly urgent. I would have rather 
kept it in reserve to cover the cost of moving. As it is, we are now at 
the beginning of October. I still haven't found an apartment and there 
are only a couple of months left before I must spend the last two 
stimulus checks. If I can't find an affordable apartment by December, I 
will have to spend the money on something else, or return it to the 
government. At that point, I have no idea how I will be able to cover 
the cost of moving.

In the testimony given during the September 21st hearing on how to 
improve SSI, no one spoke about the penalty system. It is, in fact, the 
most broken part of the program. As I have been speaking up about my 
own experience on SSI, I have heard from many others who share my fear 
of the government. The way SSI has been neglected for so many years, 
combined with the way SSA maximizes financial damages, when people make 
a mistake, is simply cruel.

Seniors and people with disabilities who rely on SSI to survive deserve 
better. Some of us might be able to return to some level of work, but 
even there, for all of the talk about ways to support people who might 
want to try to work, not a word was said about the discrimination we 
face in the work place. There are two sides to this coin. It is just as 
important to look at the social and architectural barriers that 
marginalize people with disabilities as it is to discuss how we could 
be encouraged to seek work.

Being willing to work won't be sufficient if employers are unwilling to 
hire us; if the health insurance available through work is too costly 
to use, leaving us unable to manage the health consequences of our 
disability; if places of employment are not accessible; if the way the 
workday is organized presumes everyone is able to work to as if they 
were able-bodied; if work accommodations are viewed as a kind of scam, 
rather than a way to level the playing field, then all of the desire to 
work in the world will not help people get off SSI.

Absent from the September 21st hearing was any information about people 
on SSI. What are the root causes that lead someone to fall into this 
punitive program ``of last resort''? What are the demographic patterns: 
how many men; how many women; what are the racial patterns; how many 
people were born with significant disabilities; how many people 
acquired their disability later in life? Among working-age people, why 
weren't they eligible for SSDI? What impact do stagnant wages have on 
low-wage workers who become disabled--for example, the low-wage, 
essential workers who caught COVID and now have long term medical 
impairments?

What impact does interrupted work histories have on SSI recipients, 
such as single parents whose work history is impacted by the time they 
spend caring for their children? What about people whose work history 
has been impacted by larger economic events, like the Great Recession, 
or the work disruption cause by the COVID pandemic? How have these 
larger, social events impacted people's ability to earn enough money, 
and Social Security quarters, to be able to rely on SSDI if they become 
disabled? If we want to understand how to develop better policies, to 
improve SSI, shouldn't we understand who and why people are on SSI in 
the first place?

If you aren't looking at why people with disabilities are marginalized, 
we will continue to be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard 
place: lack of living-wage job opportunities, with viable health 
insurance, on the one hand, and employers who will only consider hiring 
people with disabilities who are able to ``pass'' as almost able-
bodied, on the other.

Perhaps it is finally time to look directly at the people who are on 
SSI, not to blame and shame, but to understand why the way we organize 
employment in the United States fails to meet the basic needs of the 
more than 8 million people on the Supplemental Security Insurance 
program.

Thank you for taking my testimony. There is plenty of room for 
improving SSI, and the need for improvement is urgent. As you consider 
different options, I hope you will remember that people with 
disabilities are not the enemy. Disability is not a scam. Perhaps it is 
time to retire phrases like, ``SSI is a program of last resort'' and 
consider more respectful ways to talk about us and our place in 
American society.

Sincerely,

Joannah L. Whitney

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Turlach Wilks
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Tasks My Service Dog Sally Storm Performs:

      Rouses me when I am hyper-focused or have hypersomnia 4-6 times 
a day so that I am able to eat, refill my hydration, do my PT, and 
bring her out so we can get some fresh air.

      Alerts not only to door knocks, water kettles, alarms, sirens, 
alerts, and notifications, but also gives me a general situational 
awareness of my surroundings that I am bereft of when I have to leave 
her behind. To not have it at home would leave me very, very anxious. I 
know when I am safe (or not) because Sally tells me.

      Sally retrieves and returns items to me by name, when given the 
command. Dropped or ``searched'' items. List grows.

      When I am having a panic attack or starting to get upset, Sally 
immediately comes and either gets in my lap or lays down beside my leg, 
depending on my pain level (and where I'm sitting), and provides 
pressure to chest or leg while nudging my hand to encourage me to pet 
her.

This helps me slow down, breath easier, and be better able to focus. 
Sally uses this skill several times a day, since my TBI makes it 
difficult to think clearly sometimes.

      Does a circuit around the apartment several times a day, 
checking to see if I'm in fugue. Nudges my leg until I respond if I am.

      Goes paws-up to assist me in reaching her leash, or anything she 
may be carrying. On command and spontaneous.

      Wakes for fire alarm. Wakes me for fire alarm. Is relentless. 
(Water kettle/stove alerts are 70% of this level.)

      In group settings, will indicate who is speaking, if she is on 
my lap.

      Reminds me to eat. She gets my attention then goes to her food 
bowl, and sits. She repeats this until I eat. She goes waggy and eats 
her food. At least once daily.

      She reminds me to move to the bed if I fall asleep on the couch. 
She will nudge me until I wake up and try to get me to move. Several 
times a week.

I am on SSI, I am multiply disabled. I am latedeaf from a moderate TBI 
in 2010, I have the genetic connective tissue disorder Vascular Ehlers 
Danlos Syndrome, fibromyalgia, autism, thyroid disorder, asthma, 
migraines, PTSD, and many of the expected co-morbidities. I'm allergic 
to penicillin, Trovan, latex (and many related fruits and vegetables), 
sulfas, nickel, fragrance, shellfish, and dairy protein. I'm gluten 
``sensitive,'' which means I can't touch it. I'm walking disabled, had 
a left ulnar nerve displacement (left hand nerve damage), and have 
lifelong glove and stocking neuropathy, and daily joint subluxations. 
The TBI left me with short term memory disorder, cognitive disfunction, 
expressive aphasia, severe tinnitus, inability to reach former 
memories, a new way of forming memories . . . I try very hard every 
day. I stay within my very small budget.

I was homeless for a long time both before and after I was on SSI. I 
got a housing voucher through BRAP (I've been on the Section 8 waiting 
list for years). At first it was 50% of my income, to ``teach us 
budgeting.'' During COVID, it dropped to 40% (my portion went up $10 
this month, next month another $2, no one will say why except that the 
rent was raised; my income didn't change . . .). I pay my electricity, 
phone, insurance, all out of pocket. I also cover my pain medication.

Sally Storm is my 3rd fully trained service dog. If my Section 18 case 
manager cannot get my service dog's insurance approved, I will have to 
surrender her. We both know this is the likely case, and a plan has 
been made. I have packed Sally's things.

I cannot afford the vet bills that even a healthy dog needs to keep her 
on her maintenance medications (vaccinations, heart worm, flea, tick, 
etc.). Southern Maine has no vets that I've found who will do free or 
reduced price well visits. There is one charity vet, but they are 
completely booked and not taking new clients. An emergency vet visit 
took this year's vet visit and more from me; my usual vet urged me to 
wait a week to look at what even they said sounded like a potential 
fracture; I go there because it's two blocks away, I have no working 
vehicle.

I cannot afford the vet bills for the dog who gives me a reason to get 
up in the morning and makes it possible for me to function in the way 
I've learned to since my moderate TBI. I cannot afford to keep safe the 
service dog who has kept me safe for 5 years. This is not acceptable. I 
will do what is right for my service dog, even if it is not what is 
right for me.

I do not know what I will do without a service dog. I have no one to 
help me.

If I lived even at poverty level, I could afford vet visits. I could 
afford to fix my vehicle, if it still can be at this point. I could 
breathe easier. I might even be able to afford remedial training so 
that Sally could do public access again, and I would be less anxious in 
public and when shopping (when my tinnitus makes me very confused).

Even though her home skills are amazing, Sally needs remedial training 
for public access. Another dog, who was off-leash, ran up behind us and 
attacked her. I picked her up with her search-and-rescue vest, but the 
large breed knocked me down to get at Sally. My neighbors saw and 
pulled the dog off, but Sally still has physical scars 3 years later; 
the dog's owner refused to take any responsibility. Sally is now leash 
reactive. I cannot afford the training, I cannot get help to get the 
training (due to SSI's rules), Section 18 (Medicaid TBI specialty) 
won't approve the training.

My cupboards are nearly empty. I just ate a lunch of black beans and 
bell pepper cooked in pork lard, with stale tortilla chips (never waste 
food). I have plenty of rice, I'll be okay for another week or so with 
vegetables, but for protein I'm down to my last egg. I'm effectively 
housebound with my car needing a new braking system (it's only been 
moved for plowing for 2 years), so I'm dependent on others for bringing 
me to get groceries, especially with my dietary needs. I do have SNAP, 
but using it is an issue. There are no caregivers rated for my level in 
my area, which apparently means it's better for liability to leave me 
without anybody. The Medicaid rideshare is for doctor's appointments or 
workfare only, they don't consider getting food essential.

You can get a ride to spend hours doing benchwork for piece rate, 
because your form is marked for ``socialization,'' not employment, but 
not to get groceries, as a disabled person on SSI! They don't want to 
``mess up your benefits,'' after all. They'll keep your monthly check 
well under the $80 confusion limit, don't worry. Goodwill will ``take 
care'' of you, for a profit!

I want to live in my apartment without fear of being institutionalized. 
I want to be able to keep my service dog who I love and who helps me so 
very much. I want the freedom of a car in Maine, I'm very isolated. I'd 
like to be able to get more than an ounce of medical marijuana a month 
for my pain; see if I could function more normally on 2-3oz/month, 
maybe.

I want to be able to live without every day being about pain and fear.

Please modernized SSI. We're being forced to make terrible choices. 
It's easier to choose between Sally and I eating than having to give 
her up.

Turlach Wilks

                                 ______
                                 
           Letter Submitted by Barbara B. Wilson, LCSW, EDPNA
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

My name is Barbara B Wilson and I am writing to submit a statement for 
the record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.''

I have experienced providing mental health services to adults who have 
Serious Mental Illness since the late 1960s. Although I have provided 
services to other populations including:

Women's Maximum Security.

Inpatient state hospital units (adults with acute illness; older adults 
with serious neurological conditions; children; pre-adolescents).

Community based programs (transitioning from state hospitals to board 
and care facilities for adults both with Serious Mental Illness and for 
adults with Intellectual Disabilities); designing community programs 
for adults, older adults, adolescents and children with mental illness 
and/or intellectual disabilities.

Currently I have founded a grass-roots not-for-profit organization to 
help families who have been affected by a loved one's Serious Mental 
Illness. Often our families are very confused by the entire process of 
applying for SSI. Once approved, their loved one often are unable to 
locate any housing that will accept their rate of pay. The rules of SSI 
preclude the family supplementing the rate so that they can move away 
from the family home. Yet, from a clinical perspective, it is not only 
desirable but even essential for that son or daughter to relocate since 
our community has very limited community based programs to help them 
improve their functioning.

Additional issues:

The $2,000 limit is obsolete and prevents clients from being able to 
accumulate the necessary funds to move out into independent apartments. 
Currently housing vouchers are rare and are most likely to be given to 
a person who is both psychotic and homeless. That person is actually a 
poor risk for maintaining an apartment and would be more appropriately 
placed in a Licensed Board and Care for stabilization. In that way the 
person could have daily supervision. Meals and Medications are 
provided.

Unfortunately we are experiencing the continual closure of these 
facilities due to the abysmally low rate of reimbursement. Even with a 
state supplement, these facilities receive slightly less than $36.00 
per diem.

Yet they provide: 3 meals daily plus 2 snacks; shared room occupancy--2 
per room; housekeeping; laundry; and 24-hour supervision medication 
management.

So we are losing these facilities county-wide and state-wide. Yet the 
cost of even one trip to the Emergency Room or the cost of even one 
arrest (plus jail time/court time) far exceeds the cost of paying these 
facilities a reasonable rate of reimbursement.

On the other hand, residents in a Licensed Board and Care facility are 
routinely denied access to Housing Vouchers since they are not 
Homeless. Yet, they would be a more stable resident to receive a 
voucher provided they have proper supports in place.

The lived reality for many people receiving SSI and who do not reside 
in Board and Care homes is a precarious one at best. If they refuse 
medications, many clinics will close their cases. Eventually Social 
Security will call them in for a review of their case to determine 
whether or not they are still disabled.The threat of termination of 
their SSI often triggers more psychosis. They are unlikely to be 
hospitalized since during COVID, almost no one gets admitted to the 
hospital or jails. Instead the family members are terrorized, afraid to 
go to sleep because their loved one is awake all night.

Elderly parents deserve to be safe from their adult children who may be 
in a psychotic episode.

It is my hope that the revision of SSI rules include: changes in 
monthly rates to recipients; changes in the total assets allowed; and 
changes in the amounts paid to representatives. (We provide 
representation to claimants who have Serious Mental Illness and who, 
without significant hands-on support, would not be able to complete the 
application process or the hearing process. There is almost always a 
significant gap between the $6,000 maximum payment versus the actual 
staff time incurred to service the claimants during the total process.)

Revision of the return to work rules. Most claimants are highly 
invested in wanting to be a paid employee while most employers are 
reluctant to provide the necessary accommodations that chronic mental 
illness requires. There needs to be greater incentives to employers as 
well.

Administrative Law Judges need to be immune from political pressure to 
Deny claimants in order to maintain their own employment.

Having hearings via Internet is spotty at best and assumes that all 
claimants have access to working Internet.

Thank you for having this hearing.

Barbara Wilson

                                 ______
                                 
                   Letter Submitted by Cassie Wilson
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Cassie Wilson and I am writing to submit a statement for the 
record for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving 
SSI.'' I rely on SSI and the program desperately needs to be updated. 
Many of the rules have not been changed since SSI was passed in 1972 
and it no longer ensures ``that the nation's aged, blind, and disabled 
people would no longer have to live on below-poverty incomes.''

As someone with a permanent disability, I decided to apply for SSI in 
2018 after repeatedly trying and failing to get a job because of the 
inaccessibility of employment. I got approved in January 2019 which was 
a pleasant surprise because many people are denied on their first 
application.

Beginning to receive SSI was life-changing, at first. I had never 
experienced having a steady and reliable income. I had no idea that 
just a couple years later I'd realize I was trapped into government 
sanctioned poverty that sometimes hurts more than it helps due to out 
of date restrictions.

SSI recipients are only allowed an additional income of $85 per month 
before our benefit starts being reduced. I didn't know this last fall 
when I was offered a job for the first time in my life. I thought there 
was no way that earning $465 per month in addition to my $529.34 
benefit, a total income that would still be below the federal poverty 
line, would be an issue. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. As a 
result of the income limitations, I work just five hours a month 
earning $75. I have yet to find a job that meets my needs and gives me 
the confidence to go off of SSI because I'm so scared that once I lose 
it I won't be able to get it back if I need it.

It's not just earned income that counts against SSI recipients, it's 
also the $20 your friend puts in your birthday card and the bag of 
groceries your family offers to buy you. The latter, in-kind income, 
really starts to add up in terms of penalties. I live with my parents 
and they buy the groceries, so that's why I receive $529.34 instead of 
$794 as if that extra $264.66 is enough for both food and shelter.

States are allowed to provide a supplement to SSI, but almost none have 
opted to do so in a way that is widely accessible and available to all 
SSI recipients. The ones that do provide this supplement often have 
tight restrictions around which SSI recipients are allowed the extra 
help and their programs are often just as outdated as the federal 
program.

Additionally, I'm not allowed to have more than $2000 in assets or I'll 
immediately become ineligible for SSI. The exception is that I can save 
money in an ABLE savings account which is a special program that states 
have to opt into. Fortunately Oregon is one of those states, but it 
takes $35 in annual fees and I'm restricted on what eligible expenses 
I'm allowed to spend my savings on. If I were to be allowed to just 
keep my savings in my bank account I wouldn't be losing money while 
trying to save for the future.

Somehow, that's still not all that's wrong with this program. SSI is 
keeping disabled people from marriage equality. When computing your 
benefit, the Social Security Administration (SSA) counts your spouse's 
income against you through what's called ``deemed income.'' 
Additionally, if two people on SSI get married they would receive just 
$1,191 which is $397 less than if both people got to keep their full 
individual income. Combined assets for couples max out at just $3,000.

The marriage penalty makes it really easy for couples, including two 
people living together in a serious relationship that aren't legally 
married, to become ineligible. This can be life threatening, especially 
if they lose eligibility for Medicaid along with their SSI and can't 
afford medical care.

It also puts disabled people in potentially dangerous situations where 
we're forced to become financially dependent on our partner and could 
easily become a victim of financial abuse or become trapped and unable 
to afford to leave if the relationship turns sour.

The flaws of SSI can also take effect in many unobvious ways. For 
example, I live in a rural area and have no choice but to get around by 
driving. The cost to get a lift put into our van ($6,500) to make it 
fully accessible to me, is greater than my total annual income on SSI 
($6352.08). If family or friends wanted to chip in to help me pay for 
large expenses like this, I would be penalized for receiving the help 
and risk my overall income.

The intersecting issues don't start and end with transportation, 
though. Rent alone is more than people receive on SSI and we don't have 
enough affordable housing. Affording a college tuition or student loans 
as a young person on SSI becomes impossible if your parents' income 
makes you ineligible for financial aid even when they can't support 
you. It forced me to delay my studies until FAFSA sees me as 
financially independent at age 24. And how exactly are people living 
below the poverty line supposed to afford to get out of harm's way 
during climate disasters?

Additionally, while beginning to explore the idea of running for 
office, I found out that doing so would threaten my eligibility for SSI 
due to the numerous ways the Social Security Administration can decide 
if you ``still have a qualifying disability.'' I am permanently 
disabled and nothing is going to change that, but if the SSA determines 
I have the ability to work, even if I don't have a job, then I can lose 
my income because I'm no longer disabled according to them. Campaigning 
is something that could show the ability to work, and therefore cause 
me to lose SSI before the election even rolls around.

This denies disabled people access to positions of power that could 
allow us to improve the system based on our lived experiences within 
it. Whether or not to improve SSI is a decision currently sitting in 
the hands of mostly non-disabled people. One in four people are 
disabled, yet for SSI recipients our path to elected office means 
risking our already limited income which leads to dramatic under 
representation.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation. We can't build back better 
while leaving millions of disabled people in poverty.

Sincerely,

Cassie Wilson

                                 ______
                                 
                Letter Submitted by Leona Belle Zarrabi
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Dear Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Young:

My name is Leona and I am writing to submit a statement for the record 
for the subcommittee hearing ``Policy Options for Improving SSI'' in my 
personal capacity and in the capacity of Representative Payee. Eugenie 
Van Miller, my late mom, relied on SSI due to schizophrenia. I was her 
Representative Payee from 2011 until her death in 2018.

SSI urgently needs to cover an equitable amount of rent for RCFEs and 
ARFs in California. RCFEs and ARFs are closing all over California due 
to low payment rates set by SSI.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/MH/Documents/Legislation-
Committee/2018-ARF-Final.pdf. Please note the report excludes San 
Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa and Los Angeles Counties, yet 
identifies a worrisome trend. The Steinberg Institute met with 
California Assemblyman Bloom on April 11, 2019 where Alameda and Contra 
Costa Counties reported 5,468 ARF/RCFE beds lost in the prior 5 years.

My mom, Eugenie, resided in a RCFE that accepted SSI patients from 
2012-2017 where she shared a tiny room with another female patient. Its 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
closing in 2017 was the beginning of her decline.

From September of 2017 until her death in May 2018, my mom did not 
receive the level of care required because neither she nor I could 
afford to privately pay for a licensed RCFE/ARF that had medication 
management. As a result, she had to live in a room and board that did 
not provide medication management and did not have trained 
professionals. I am certain that my mom's health would not have 
declined as dramatically as it did if she had received proper care in a 
RCFE.

The SSI system failed my mom at the end of her life due to the minimal 
amount set by SSI for RCFEs in California. The SSI payment amount 
should be increased for living in a RCFE setting. Perhaps long term, 
dual insurance (Medi/Medi) individuals with serious mental illness 
could receive RCFE and ARF services in the same format as individuals 
with developmental disabilities in California receive services--through 
the use of a Medicare waiver--but Medicare waivers take time. At a 
minimum, and with urgency, the SSI payment amount should be increased 
for living in a RCFE in order to avoid any more closures and 
casualties--like my mom.

For these reasons, I ask Congress to include improvements to SSI in the 
upcoming budget reconciliation legislation.

Sincerely,

Leona Belle Zarrabi

                                   [all]