[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 10, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             INTRODUCTION OF THE SSI BENEFIT PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. WILLIAM J. COYNE

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 10, 1999

  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``SSI Benefit 
Protection Act.''
  The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program serves some of our 
poorest and most vulnerable citizens. SSI recipients qualify because 
they are elderly, blind, or disabled, and have annual income of less 
that $6,000 a year--a total income of less than $500 a month. Qualified 
medical personnel have determined that their disabilities are so severe 
that they are incapable of gainful employment. Nationally, about 6.6 
million people qualify for SSI.
  SSI is a subsistence income that barely pays for life's basic 
necessities. The maximum federal payment is less than 75% of the 
poverty level. And the average federal SSI payment is about $340 a 
month--over $100 less than the maximum.
  15 states and the District of Columbia offer additional help to their 
aged and disabled citizens by sending money to the Social Security 
Administration to supplement payments to their residents. The average 
state supplement is between $50 and $100 a month, which brings SSI 
recipients a little closer to the poverty line.
  A little-noticed provision in the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act began charging the states that supplemented SSI payments a small 
monthly ``processing fee'' for each check. The fee was not based on any 
assessment of SSA's costs and in fact, did not go to SSA. It was simply 
a revenue-raiser. The fee was increased substantially in the 1997 
Balanced Budget Act, and it is now scheduled to increase to $8.50 per 
recipient, per month, in 2002. This year in my home state of 
Pennsylvania, the governor's office estimated that the fees paid for 
``processing'' totaled about $24 million. In Pennsylvania, if the whole 
fee was passed on to recipients it would reduce their state supplement 
by almost 25%.
  Understandably, this rapidly increasing fee has had a chilling effect 
on state willingness to increase the supplement. State program costs 
have continued to increase because of the fee, but no state being 
charged the fee has increased its payment to beneficiaries since 1993, 
not even to keep up with inflation. Six states have reduced their 
supplement and one eliminated it.
  The Congress should be encouraging states to maintain and increase 
the supplement so that our most vulnerable citizens can afford food and 
shelter, not punishing those states that have reached out to help. Even 
a small increase in benefits can markedly improve life for SSI 
recipients, and even a small cut has devastating consequences.
  That is why I have introduced the ``SSI Benefit Protection Act.'' It 
would repeal this unfair fee, which is not justified by any analysis of 
SSAs costs. I hope removing this burden from states will encourage them 
to reassess their current SSI supplementation levels and increase them 
to a reasonable level. I hope the Congress and the states can work 
together to provide for our aged and disabled citizens.

                          ____________________