[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 35 (Wednesday, March 5, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H1524-H1550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SOCIAL SECURITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2003
Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 743) to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional safeguards for Social
Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries with
representative payees, to enhance the program protections, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 743
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Social
Security Protection Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
TITLE I--PROTECTION OF BENEFICIARIES
Subtitle A--Representative Payees
Sec. 101. Authority to reissue benefits misused by organizational
representative payees.
Sec. 102. Oversight of representative payees.
Sec. 103. Disqualification from service as representative payee of
persons convicted of offenses resulting in imprisonment
for more than 1 year or fleeing prosecution, custody, or
confinement.
Sec. 104. Fee forfeiture in case of benefit misuse by representative
payees.
Sec. 105. Liability of representative payees for misused benefits.
Sec. 106. Authority to redirect delivery of benefit payments when a
representative payee fails to provide required
accounting.
Subtitle B--Enforcement
Sec. 111. Civil monetary penalty authority with respect to wrongful
conversions by representative payees.
TITLE II--PROGRAM PROTECTIONS
Sec. 201. Civil monetary penalty authority with respect to knowing
withholding of material facts.
Sec. 202. Issuance by Commissioner of Social Security of receipts to
acknowledge submission of reports of changes in work or
earnings status of disabled beneficiaries.
Sec. 203. Denial of title II benefits to persons fleeing prosecution,
custody, or confinement, and to persons violating
probation or parole.
Sec. 204. Requirements relating to offers to provide for a fee a
product or service available without charge from the
Social Security Administration.
Sec. 205. Refusal to recognize certain individuals as claimant
representatives.
Sec. 206. Penalty for corrupt or forcible interference with
administration of Social Security Act.
Sec. 207. Use of symbols, emblems, or names in reference to social
security or medicare.
Sec. 208. Disqualification from payment during trial work period upon
conviction of fraudulent concealment of work activity.
Sec. 209. Authority for judicial orders of restitution.
TITLE III--ATTORNEY FEE PAYMENT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Sec. 301. Cap on attorney assessments.
Sec. 302. Extension of attorney fee payment system to title XVI claims.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
Subtitle A--Amendments Relating to the Ticket to Work and Work
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999
Sec. 401. Application of demonstration authority sunset date to new
projects.
Sec. 402. Expansion of waiver authority available in connection with
demonstration projects providing for reductions in
disability insurance benefits based on earnings.
Sec. 403. Funding of demonstration projects provided for reductions in
disability insurance benefits based on earnings.
Sec. 404. Availability of Federal and State work incentive services to
additional individuals.
Sec. 405. Technical amendment clarifying treatment for certain purposes
of individual work plans under the Ticket to Work and
Self-Sufficiency Program.
Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Amendments
Sec. 411. Elimination of transcript requirement in remand cases fully
favorable to the claimant.
Sec. 412. Nonpayment of benefits upon removal from the United States.
Sec. 413. Reinstatement of certain reporting requirements.
Sec. 414. Clarification of definitions regarding certain survivor
benefits.
Sec. 415. Clarification respecting the FICA and SECA tax exemptions for
an individual whose earnings are subject to the laws of a
totalization agreement partner.
Sec. 416. Coverage under divided retirement system for public employees
in Kentucky.
Sec. 417. Compensation for the Social Security Advisory Board.
Sec. 418. 60-month period of employment requirement for application of
government pension offset exemption.
Subtitle C--Technical Amendments
Sec. 421. Technical correction relating to responsible agency head.
Sec. 422. Technical correction relating to retirement benefits of
ministers.
Sec. 423. Technical corrections relating to domestic employment.
Sec. 424. Technical corrections of outdated references.
Sec. 425. Technical correction respecting self-employment income in
community property States.
TITLE I--PROTECTION OF BENEFICIARIES
Subtitle A--Representative Payees
SEC. 101. AUTHORITY TO REISSUE BENEFITS MISUSED BY
ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES.
(a) Title II Amendments.--
[[Page H1525]]
(1) Reissuance of benefits.--Section 205(j)(5) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(j)(5)) is amended by
inserting after the first sentence the following new
sentences: ``In any case in which a representative payee
that--
``(A) is not an individual (regardless of whether it is a
`qualified organization' within the meaning of paragraph
(4)(B)); or
``(B) is an individual who, for any month during a period
when misuse occurs, serves 15 or more individuals who are
beneficiaries under this title, title VIII, title XVI, or any
combination of such titles;
misuses all or part of an individual's benefit paid to such
representative payee, the Commissioner of Social Security
shall certify for payment to the beneficiary or the
beneficiary's alternative representative payee an amount
equal to the amount of such benefit so misused. The
provisions of this paragraph are subject to the limitations
of paragraph (7)(B).''.
(2) Misuse of benefits defined.--Section 205(j) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 405(j)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(8) For purposes of this subsection, misuse of benefits
by a representative payee occurs in any case in which the
representative payee receives payment under this title for
the use and benefit of another person and converts such
payment, or any part thereof, to a use other than for the use
and benefit of such other person. The Commissioner of
Social Security may prescribe by regulation the meaning of
the term `use and benefit' for purposes of this
paragraph.''.
(b) Title VIII Amendments.--
(1) Reissuance of benefits.--Section 807(i) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1007(i)) is amended by inserting
after the first sentence the following new sentences: ``In
any case in which a representative payee that--
``(1) is not an individual; or
``(2) is an individual who, for any month during a period
when misuse occurs, serves 15 or more individuals who are
beneficiaries under this title, title II, title XVI, or any
combination of such titles;
misuses all or part of an individual's benefit paid to such
representative payee, the Commissioner of Social Security
shall pay to the beneficiary or the beneficiary's alternative
representative payee an amount equal to the amount of such
benefit so misused. The provisions of this paragraph are
subject to the limitations of subsection (l)(2).''.
(2) Misuse of benefits defined.--Section 807 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1007) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(j) Misuse of Benefits.--For purposes of this title,
misuse of benefits by a representative payee occurs in any
case in which the representative payee receives payment under
this title for the use and benefit of another person under
this title and converts such payment, or any part thereof, to
a use other than for the use and benefit of such person. The
Commissioner of Social Security may prescribe by regulation
the meaning of the term `use and benefit' for purposes of
this subsection.''.
(3) Technical amendment.--Section 807(a) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1007(a)) is amended, in the first sentence, by
striking ``for his or her benefit'' and inserting ``for his
or her use and benefit''.
(c) Title XVI Amendments.--
(1) Reissuance of benefits.--Section 1631(a)(2)(E) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)(E)) is amended by inserting after
the first sentence the following new sentences: ``In any case
in which a representative payee that--
``(i) is not an individual (regardless of whether it is a
`qualified organization' within the meaning of subparagraph
(D)(ii)); or
``(ii) is an individual who, for any month during a period
when misuse occurs, serves 15 or more individuals who are
beneficiaries under this title, title II, title VIII, or any
combination of such titles;
misuses all or part of an individual's benefit paid to the
representative payee, the Commissioner of Social Security
shall pay to the beneficiary or the beneficiary's alternative
representative payee an amount equal to the amount of the
benefit so misused. The provisions of this subparagraph are
subject to the limitations of subparagraph (H)(ii).''.
(2) Exclusion of reissued benefits from resources.--Section
1613(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382b(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (12), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (13), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (13) the following new
paragraph:
``(14) for the 9-month period beginning after the month in
which received, any amount received by such individual (or
spouse) or any other person whose income is deemed to be
included in such individual's (or spouse's) income for
purposes of this title as restitution for benefits under this
title, title II, or title VIII that a representative payee of
such individual (or spouse) or such other person under
section 205(j), 807, or 1631(a)(2) has misused.''.
(3) Misuse of benefits defined.--Section 1631(a)(2)(A) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)(A)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new clause:
``(iv) For purposes of this paragraph, misuse of benefits
by a representative payee occurs in any case in which the
representative payee receives payment under this title for
the use and benefit of another person and converts such
payment, or any part thereof, to a use other than for the use
and benefit of such other person. The Commissioner of Social
Security may prescribe by regulation the meaning of the term
`use and benefit' for purposes of this clause.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any case of benefit misuse by a representative
payee with respect to which the Commissioner makes the
determination of misuse on or after January 1, 1995.
SEC. 102. OVERSIGHT OF REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES.
(a) Certification of Bonding and Licensing Requirements for
Nongovernmental Organizational Representative Payees.--
(1) Title ii amendments.--Section 205(j) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(j)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)(C)(v), by striking ``a community-based
nonprofit social service agency licensed or bonded by the
State'' in subclause (I) and inserting ``a certified
community-based nonprofit social service agency (as defined
in paragraph (9))'';
(B) in paragraph (3)(F), by striking ``community-based
nonprofit social service agencies'' and inserting ``certified
community-based nonprofit social service agencies (as defined
in paragraph (9))'';
(C) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``any community-based
nonprofit social service agency which is bonded or licensed
in each State in which it serves as a representative payee''
and inserting ``any certified community-based nonprofit
social service agency (as defined in paragraph (9))''; and
(D) by adding after paragraph (8) (as added by section
101(a)(2) of this Act) the following new paragraph:
``(9) For purposes of this subsection, the term `certified
community-based nonprofit social service agency' means a
community-based nonprofit social service agency which is in
compliance with requirements, under regulations which shall
be prescribed by the Commissioner, for annual certification
to the Commissioner that it is bonded in accordance with
requirements specified by the Commissioner and that it is
licensed in each State in which it serves as a representative
payee (if licensing is available in such State) in accordance
with requirements specified by the Commissioner. Any such
annual certification shall include a copy of any independent
audit on such agency which may have been performed since the
previous certification.''.
(2) Title xvi amendments.--Section 1631(a)(2) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B)(vii), by striking ``a community-
based nonprofit social service agency licensed or bonded by
the State'' in subclause (I) and inserting ``a certified
community-based nonprofit social service agency (as defined
in subparagraph (I))'';
(B) in subparagraph (D)(ii)--
(i) by striking ``or any community-based'' and all that
follows through ``in accordance'' in subclause (II) and
inserting ``or any certified community-based nonprofit social
service agency (as defined in subparagraph (I)), if the
agency, in accordance'';
(ii) by redesignating items (aa) and (bb) as subclauses (I)
and (II), respectively (and adjusting the margination
accordingly); and
(iii) by striking ``subclause (II)(bb)'' and inserting
``subclause (II)''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(I) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `certified
community-based nonprofit social service agency' means a
community-based nonprofit social service agency which is in
compliance with requirements, under regulations which shall
be prescribed by the Commissioner, for annual certification
to the Commissioner that it is bonded in accordance with
requirements specified by the Commissioner and that it is
licensed in each State in which it serves as a representative
payee (if licensing is available in the State) in accordance
with requirements specified by the Commissioner. Any such
annual certification shall include a copy of any independent
audit on the agency which may have been performed since the
previous certification.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the first day of the thirteenth month
beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Periodic Onsite Review.--
(1) Title ii amendment.--Section 205(j)(6) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 405(j)(6)) is amended to read as follows:
``(6)(A) In addition to such other reviews of
representative payees as the Commissioner of Social Security
may otherwise conduct, the Commissioner shall provide for the
periodic onsite review of any person or agency located in the
United States that receives the benefits payable under this
title (alone or in combination with benefits payable under
title VIII or title XVI) to another individual pursuant to
the appointment of such person or agency as a representative
payee under this subsection, section 807, or section
1631(a)(2) in any case in which--
``(i) the representative payee is a person who serves in
that capacity with respect to 15 or more such individuals;
``(ii) the representative payee is a certified community-
based nonprofit social service agency (as defined in
paragraph (9) of this subsection or section 1631(a)(2)(I));
or
``(iii) the representative payee is an agency (other than
an agency described in clause
[[Page H1526]]
(ii)) that serves in that capacity with respect to 50 or more
such individuals.
``(B) Within 120 days after the end of each fiscal year,
the Commissioner shall submit to the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Finance of the Senate a report on the results of periodic
onsite reviews conducted during the fiscal year pursuant to
subparagraph (A) and of any other reviews of representative
payees conducted during such fiscal year in connection with
benefits under this title. Each such report shall describe in
detail all problems identified in such reviews and any
corrective action taken or planned to be taken to correct
such problems, and shall include--
``(i) the number of such reviews;
``(ii) the results of such reviews;
``(iii) the number of cases in which the representative
payee was changed and why;
``(iv) the number of cases involving the exercise of
expedited, targeted oversight of the representative payee by
the Commissioner conducted upon receipt of an allegation of
misuse of funds, failure to pay a vendor, or a similar
irregularity;
``(v) the number of cases discovered in which there was a
misuse of funds;
``(vi) how any such cases of misuse of funds were dealt
with by the Commissioner;
``(vii) the final disposition of such cases of misuse of
funds, including any criminal penalties imposed; and
``(viii) such other information as the Commissioner deems
appropriate.''.
(2) Title viii amendment.--Section 807 of such Act (as
amended by section 101(b)(2) of this Act) is amended further
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(k) Periodic Onsite Review.--(1) In addition to such
other reviews of representative payees as the Commissioner of
Social Security may otherwise conduct, the Commissioner may
provide for the periodic onsite review of any person or
agency that receives the benefits payable under this title
(alone or in combination with benefits payable under title II
or title XVI) to another individual pursuant to the
appointment of such person or agency as a representative
payee under this section, section 205(j), or section
1631(a)(2) in any case in which--
``(A) the representative payee is a person who serves in
that capacity with respect to 15 or more such individuals; or
``(B) the representative payee is an agency that serves in
that capacity with respect to 50 or more such individuals.
``(2) Within 120 days after the end of each fiscal year,
the Commissioner shall submit to the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Finance of the Senate a report on the results of periodic
onsite reviews conducted during the fiscal year pursuant to
paragraph (1) and of any other reviews of representative
payees conducted during such fiscal year in connection with
benefits under this title. Each such report shall describe in
detail all problems identified in such reviews and any
corrective action taken or planned to be taken to correct
such problems, and shall include--
``(A) the number of such reviews;
``(B) the results of such reviews;
``(C) the number of cases in which the representative payee
was changed and why;
``(D) the number of cases involving the exercise of
expedited, targeted oversight of the representative payee by
the Commissioner conducted upon receipt of an allegation of
misuse of funds, failure to pay a vendor, or a similar
irregularity;
``(E) the number of cases discovered in which there was a
misuse of funds;
``(F) how any such cases of misuse of funds were dealt with
by the Commissioner;
``(G) the final disposition of such cases of misuse of
funds, including any criminal penalties imposed; and
``(H) such other information as the Commissioner deems
appropriate.''.
(3) Title xvi amendment.--Section 1631(a)(2)(G) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)(G)) is amended to read as follows:
``(G)(i) In addition to such other reviews of
representative payees as the Commissioner of Social Security
may otherwise conduct, the Commissioner shall provide for the
periodic onsite review of any person or agency that receives
the benefits payable under this title (alone or in
combination with benefits payable under title II or title
VIII) to another individual pursuant to the appointment of
the person or agency as a representative payee under this
paragraph, section 205(j), or section 807 in any case in
which--
``(I) the representative payee is a person who serves in
that capacity with respect to 15 or more such individuals;
``(II) the representative payee is a certified community-
based nonprofit social service agency (as defined in
subparagraph (I) of this paragraph or section 205(j)(9)); or
``(III) the representative payee is an agency (other than
an agency described in subclause (II)) that serves in that
capacity with respect to 50 or more such individuals.
``(ii) Within 120 days after the end of each fiscal year,
the Commissioner shall submit to the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Finance of the Senate a report on the results of periodic
onsite reviews conducted during the fiscal year pursuant to
clause (i) and of any other reviews of representative payees
conducted during such fiscal year in connection with benefits
under this title. Each such report shall describe in detail
all problems identified in the reviews and any corrective
action taken or planned to be taken to correct the problems,
and shall include--
``(I) the number of the reviews;
``(II) the results of such reviews;
``(III) the number of cases in which the representative
payee was changed and why;
``(IV) the number of cases involving the exercise of
expedited, targeted oversight of the representative payee by
the Commissioner conducted upon receipt of an allegation of
misuse of funds, failure to pay a vendor, or a similar
irregularity;
``(V) the number of cases discovered in which there was a
misuse of funds;
``(VI) how any such cases of misuse of funds were dealt
with by the Commissioner;
``(VII) the final disposition of such cases of misuse of
funds, including any criminal penalties imposed; and
``(VIII) such other information as the Commissioner deems
appropriate.''.
SEC. 103. DISQUALIFICATION FROM SERVICE AS REPRESENTATIVE
PAYEE OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF OFFENSES
RESULTING IN IMPRISONMENT FOR MORE THAN 1 YEAR
OR FLEEING PROSECUTION, CUSTODY, OR
CONFINEMENT.
(a) Title II Amendments.--Section 205(j)(2) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(j)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)(i)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (III);
(B) by redesignating subclause (IV) as subclause (VI); and
(C) by inserting after subclause (III) the following new
subclauses:
``(IV) obtain information concerning whether such person
has been convicted of any other offense under Federal or
State law which resulted in imprisonment for more than 1
year,
``(V) obtain information concerning whether such person is
a person described in section 202(x)(1)(A)(iv), and'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the following
new clause:
``(iii) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 552a of
title 5, United States Code, or any other provision of
Federal or State law (other than section 6103 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and section 1106(c) of this Act), the
Commissioner shall furnish any Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer, upon the written request of the officer,
with the current address, social security account number, and
photograph (if applicable) of any person investigated under
this paragraph, if the officer furnishes the Commissioner
with the name of such person and such other identifying
information as may reasonably be required by the Commissioner
to establish the unique identity of such person, and notifies
the Commissioner that--
``(I) such person is described in section 202(x)(1)(A)(iv),
``(II) such person has information that is necessary for
the officer to conduct the officer's official duties, and
``(III) the location or apprehension of such person is
within the officer's official duties.'';
(3) in subparagraph (C)(i)(II), by striking ``subparagraph
(B)(i)(IV),,'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B)(i)(VI)'' and
striking ``section 1631(a)(2)(B)(ii)(IV)'' and inserting
``section 1631(a)(2)(B)(ii)(VI)''; and
(4) in subparagraph (C)(i)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (II);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subclause (III)
and inserting a comma; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subclauses:
``(IV) such person has previously been convicted as
described in subparagraph (B)(i)(IV), unless the Commissioner
determines that such certification would be appropriate
notwithstanding such conviction, or
``(V) such person is person described in section
202(x)(1)(A)(iv).''.
(b) Title VIII Amendments.--Section 807 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1007) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (F);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(D) obtain information concerning whether such person has
been convicted of any other offense under Federal or State
law which resulted in imprisonment for more than 1 year;
``(E) obtain information concerning whether such person is
a person described in section 804(a)(2); and'';
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 552a of
title 5, United States Code, or any other provision of
Federal or State law (other than section 6103 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and section 1106(c) of this Act), the
Commissioner shall furnish any Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer, upon the written request of the officer,
with the current address, social security account number, and
photograph (if applicable) of any person investigated under
this subsection, if the officer furnishes the Commissioner
with the name of such person and such other identifying
information as may reasonably be required by the Commissioner
to establish the unique identity of such person, and notifies
the Commissioner that--
``(A) such person is described in section 804(a)(2),
[[Page H1527]]
``(B) such person has information that is necessary for the
officer to conduct the officer's official duties, and
``(C) the location or apprehension of such person is within
the officer's official duties.''; and
(3) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(D) such person has previously been convicted as
described in subsection (b)(2)(D), unless the Commissioner
determines that such payment would be appropriate
notwithstanding such conviction; or
``(E) such person is a person described in section
804(a)(2).''.
(c) Title XVI Amendments.--Section 1631(a)(2)(B) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) in clause (ii)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (III);
(B) by redesignating subclause (IV) as subclause (VI); and
(C) by inserting after subclause (III) the following new
subclauses:
``(IV) obtain information concerning whether the person has
been convicted of any other offense under Federal or State
law which resulted in imprisonment for more than 1 year;
``(V) obtain information concerning whether such person is
a person described in section 1611(e)(4)(A); and'';
(2) in clause (iii)(II)--
(A) by striking ``clause (ii)(IV)'' and inserting ``clause
(ii)(VI)''; and
(B) by striking ``section 205(j)(2)(B)(i)(IV)'' and
inserting ``section 205(j)(2)(B)(i)(VI)'';
(3) in clause (iii)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (II);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subclause (III)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subclauses:
``(IV) the person has previously been convicted as
described in clause (ii)(IV) of this subparagraph, unless the
Commissioner determines that the payment would be appropriate
notwithstanding the conviction; or
``(V) such person is a person described in section
1611(e)(4)(A).''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(xiv) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 552a of
title 5, United States Code, or any other provision of
Federal or State law (other than section 6103 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and section 1106(c) of this Act), the
Commissioner shall furnish any Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer, upon the written request of the officer,
with the current address, social security account number, and
photograph (if applicable) of any person investigated under
this subparagraph, if the officer furnishes the Commissioner
with the name of such person and such other identifying
information as may reasonably be required by the Commissioner
to establish the unique identity of such person, and notifies
the Commissioner that--
``(I) such person is described in section 1611(e)(4)(A),
``(II) such person has information that is necessary for
the officer to conduct the officer's official duties, and
``(III) the location or apprehension of such person is
within the officer's official duties.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the first day of the thirteenth month
beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Report to the Congress.--The Commissioner of Social
Security, in consultation with the Inspector General of the
Social Security Administration, shall prepare a report
evaluating whether the existing procedures and reviews for
the qualification (including disqualification) of
representative payees are sufficient to enable the
Commissioner to protect benefits from being misused by
representative payees. The Commissioner shall submit the
report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate no
later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act. The Commissioner shall include in such report any
recommendations that the Commissioner considers appropriate.
SEC. 104. FEE FORFEITURE IN CASE OF BENEFIT MISUSE BY
REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES.
(a) Title II Amendments.--Section 205(j)(4)(A)(i) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(j)(4)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``A'' and inserting
``Except as provided in the next sentence, a''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretary''
and inserting the following:
``A qualified organization may not collect a fee from an
individual for any month with respect to which the
Commissioner of Social Security or a court of competent
jurisdiction has determined that the organization misused all
or part of the individual's benefit, and any amount so
collected by the qualified organization for such month shall
be treated as a misused part of the individual's benefit for
purposes of paragraphs (5) and (6). The Commissioner''.
(b) Title XVI Amendments.--Section 1631(a)(2)(D)(i) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)(D)(i)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``A'' and inserting
``Except as provided in the next sentence, a''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The
Commissioner'' and inserting the following: ``A qualified
organization may not collect a fee from an individual for any
month with respect to which the Commissioner of Social
Security or a court of competent jurisdiction has determined
that the organization misused all or part of the individual's
benefit, and any amount so collected by the qualified
organization for such month shall be treated as a misused
part of the individual's benefit for purposes of
subparagraphs (E) and (F). The Commissioner''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any month involving benefit misuse by a
representative payee in any case with respect to which the
Commissioner of Social Security or a court of competent
jurisdiction makes the determination of misuse after 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 105. LIABILITY OF REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES FOR MISUSED
BENEFITS.
(a) Title II Amendments.--Section 205(j) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(j)) (as amended by sections 101
and 102) is amended further--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) as
paragraphs (8), (9), and (10), respectively;
(2) in paragraphs (2)(C)(v), (3)(F), and (4)(B), by
striking ``paragraph (9)'' and inserting ``paragraph (10)'';
(3) in paragraph (6)(A)(ii), by striking ``paragraph (9)''
and inserting ``paragraph (10)''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new
paragraph:
``(7)(A) If the Commissioner of Social Security or a court
of competent jurisdiction determines that a representative
payee that is not a Federal, State, or local government
agency has misused all or part of an individual's benefit
that was paid to such representative payee under this
subsection, the representative payee shall be liable for the
amount misused, and such amount (to the extent not repaid by
the representative payee) shall be treated as an overpayment
of benefits under this title to the representative payee for
all purposes of this Act and related laws pertaining to the
recovery of such overpayments. Subject to subparagraph (B),
upon recovering all or any part of such amount, the
Commissioner shall certify an amount equal to the recovered
amount for payment to such individual or such individual's
alternative representative payee.
``(B) The total of the amount certified for payment to such
individual or such individual's alternative representative
payee under subparagraph (A) and the amount certified for
payment under paragraph (5) may not exceed the total benefit
amount misused by the representative payee with respect to
such individual.''.
(b) Title VIII Amendment.--Section 807 of such Act (as
amended by section 102(b)(2)) is amended further by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(l) Liability for Misused Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--If the Commissioner of Social Security
or a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a
representative payee that is not a Federal, State, or local
government agency has misused all or part of a qualified
individual's benefit that was paid to such representative
payee under this section, the representative payee shall be
liable for the amount misused, and such amount (to the extent
not repaid by the representative payee) shall be treated as
an overpayment of benefits under this title to the
representative payee for all purposes of this Act and related
laws pertaining to the recovery of such overpayments. Subject
to paragraph (2), upon recovering all or any part of such
amount, the Commissioner shall make payment of an amount
equal to the recovered amount to such qualified individual or
such qualified individual's alternative representative payee.
``(2) Limitation.--The total of the amount paid to such
individual or such individual's alternative representative
payee under paragraph (1) and the amount paid under
subsection (i) may not exceed the total benefit amount
misused by the representative payee with respect to such
individual.''.
(c) Title XVI Amendments.--Section 1631(a)(2) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)) (as amended by section 102(b)(3)) is
amended further--
(1) in subparagraph (G)(i)(II), by striking ``section
205(j)(9)'' and inserting ``section 205(j)(10)''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (H) and inserting the
following:
``(H)(i) If the Commissioner of Social Security or a court
of competent jurisdiction determines that a representative
payee that is not a Federal, State, or local government
agency has misused all or part of an individual's benefit
that was paid to the representative payee under this
paragraph, the representative payee shall be liable for the
amount misused, and the amount (to the extent not repaid by
the representative payee) shall be treated as an overpayment
of benefits under this title to the representative payee for
all purposes of this Act and related laws pertaining to the
recovery of the overpayments. Subject to clause (ii), upon
recovering all or any part of the amount, the Commissioner
shall make payment of an amount equal to the recovered amount
to such individual or such individual's alternative
representative payee.
[[Page H1528]]
``(ii) The total of the amount paid to such individual or
such individual's alternative representative payee under
clause (i) and the amount paid under subparagraph (E) may not
exceed the total benefit amount misused by the representative
payee with respect to such individual.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to benefit misuse by a representative payee in
any case with respect to which the Commissioner of Social
Security or a court of competent jurisdiction makes the
determination of misuse after 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 106. AUTHORITY TO REDIRECT DELIVERY OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS
WHEN A REPRESENTATIVE PAYEE FAILS TO PROVIDE
REQUIRED ACCOUNTING.
(a) Title II Amendments.--Section 205(j)(3) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(j)(3)) (as amended by sections
102(a)(1)(B) and 105(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as
subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) In any case in which the person described in
subparagraph (A) or (D) receiving payments on behalf of
another fails to submit a report required by the Commissioner
of Social Security under subparagraph (A) or (D), the
Commissioner may, after furnishing notice to such person and
the individual entitled to such payment, require that such
person appear in person at a field office of the Social
Security Administration serving the area in which the
individual resides in order to receive such payments.''.
(b) Title VIII Amendments.--Section 807(h) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1007(h)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Authority to redirect delivery of benefit payments
when a representative payee fails to provide required
accounting.--In any case in which the person described in
paragraph (1) or (2) receiving benefit payments on behalf of
a qualified individual fails to submit a report required by
the Commissioner of Social Security under paragraph (1) or
(2), the Commissioner may, after furnishing notice to such
person and the qualified individual, require that such person
appear in person at a United States Government facility
designated by the Social Security Administration as serving
the area in which the qualified individual resides in order
to receive such benefit payments.''.
(c) Title XVI Amendment.--Section 1631(a)(2)(C) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new clause:
``(v) In any case in which the person described in clause
(i) or (iv) receiving payments on behalf of another fails to
submit a report required by the Commissioner of Social
Security under clause (i) or (iv), the Commissioner may,
after furnishing notice to the person and the individual
entitled to the payment, require that such person appear in
person at a field office of the Social Security
Administration serving the area in which the individual
resides in order to receive such payments.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
Subtitle B--Enforcement
SEC. 111. CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO
WRONGFUL CONVERSIONS BY REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES.
(a) In General.--Section 1129(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1320a-8) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) Any person (including an organization, agency, or
other entity) who, having received, while acting in the
capacity of a representative payee pursuant to section
205(j), 807, or 1631(a)(2), a payment under title II, VIII,
or XVI for the use and benefit of another individual,
converts such payment, or any part thereof, to a use that
such person knows or should know is other than for the use
and benefit of such other individual shall be subject to, in
addition to any other penalties that may be prescribed by
law, a civil money penalty of not more than $5,000 for each
such conversion. Such person shall also be subject to an
assessment, in lieu of damages sustained by the United States
resulting from the conversion, of not more than twice the
amount of any payments so converted.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to violations committed after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--PROGRAM PROTECTIONS
SEC. 201. CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO
KNOWING WITHHOLDING OF MATERIAL FACTS.
(a) Treatment of Withholding of Material Facts.--
(1) Civil penalties.--Section 1129(a)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``who'' in the first sentence and inserting
``who--'';
(B) by striking ``makes'' in the first sentence and all
that follows through ``shall be subject to'' and inserting
the following:
``(A) makes, or causes to be made, a statement or
representation of a material fact, for use in determining any
initial or continuing right to or the amount of monthly
insurance benefits under title II or benefits or payments
under title VIII or XVI, that the person knows or should know
is false or misleading,
``(B) makes such a statement or representation for such use
with knowing disregard for the truth, or
``(C) omits from a statement or representation for such
use, or otherwise withholds disclosure of, a fact which the
person knows or should know is material to the determination
of any initial or continuing right to or the amount of
monthly insurance benefits under title II or benefits or
payments under title VIII or XVI, if the person knows, or
should know, that the statement or representation with such
omission is false or misleading or that the withholding of
such disclosure is misleading,
shall be subject to'';
(C) by inserting ``or each receipt of such benefits or
payments while withholding disclosure of such fact'' after
``each such statement or representation'' in the first
sentence;
(D) by inserting ``or because of such withholding of
disclosure of a material fact'' after ``because of such
statement or representation'' in the second sentence; and
(E) by inserting ``or such a withholding of disclosure''
after ``such a statement or representation'' in the second
sentence.
(2) Administrative procedure for imposing penalties.--
Section 1129A(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8a(a)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``who'' the first place it appears and
inserting ``who--''; and
(B) by striking ``makes'' and all that follows through
``shall be subject to,'' and inserting the following:
``(1) makes, or causes to be made, a statement or
representation of a material fact, for use in determining any
initial or continuing right to or the amount of monthly
insurance benefits under title II or benefits or payments
under title XVI that the person knows or should know is false
or misleading,
``(2) makes such a statement or representation for such use
with knowing disregard for the truth, or
``(3) omits from a statement or representation for such
use, or otherwise withholds disclosure of, a fact which the
person knows or should know is material to the determination
of any initial or continuing right to or the amount of
monthly insurance benefits under title II or benefits or
payments under title XVI, if the person knows, or should
know, that the statement or representation with such omission
is false or misleading or that the withholding of such
disclosure is misleading,
shall be subject to,''.
(b) Clarification of Treatment of Recovered Amounts.--
Section 1129(e)(2)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-
8(e)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``In the case of amounts
recovered arising out of a determination relating to title
VIII or XVI,'' and inserting ``In the case of any other
amounts recovered under this section,''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1129(b)(3)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-
8(b)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``charging fraud or false
statements''.
(2) Section 1129(c)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-
8(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``and representations'' and
inserting ``, representations, or actions''.
(3) Section 1129(e)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-
8(e)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``statement or
representation referred to in subsection (a) was made'' and
inserting ``violation occurred''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to violations committed after the
date on which the Commissioner implements the centralized
computer file described in section 202.
SEC. 202. ISSUANCE BY COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY OF
RECEIPTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE SUBMISSION OF REPORTS
OF CHANGES IN WORK OR EARNINGS STATUS OF
DISABLED BENEFICIARIES.
Effective as soon as possible, but not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, until such time
as the Commissioner of Social Security implements a
centralized computer file recording the date of the
submission of information by a disabled beneficiary (or
representative) regarding a change in the beneficiary's work
or earnings status, the Commissioner shall issue a receipt to
the disabled beneficiary (or representative) each time he or
she submits documentation, or otherwise reports to the
Commissioner, on a change in such status.
SEC. 203. DENIAL OF TITLE II BENEFITS TO PERSONS FLEEING
PROSECUTION, CUSTODY, OR CONFINEMENT, AND TO
PERSONS VIOLATING PROBATION OR PAROLE.
(a) In General.--Section 202(x) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 402(x)) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``Prisoners'' and all that
follows and inserting the following: ``Prisoners, Certain
Other Inmates of Publicly Funded Institutions, Fugitives,
Probationers, and Parolees'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(IV), by striking ``or'' at the
end;
(3) in paragraph (1)(A)(iii), by striking the period at the
end and inserting a comma;
[[Page H1529]]
(4) by inserting after paragraph (1)(A)(iii) the following:
``(iv) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or
confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place
from which the person flees, for a crime, or an attempt to
commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place
from which the person flees, or which, in the case of the
State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of
such State, or
``(v) is violating a condition of probation or parole
imposed under Federal or State law.
In the case of an individual from whom such monthly benefits
have been withheld pursuant to clause (iv) or (v), the
Commissioner may, for good cause shown, pay such withheld
benefits to the individual.''; and
(5) in paragraph (3), by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(C) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 552a of
title 5, United States Code, or any other provision of
Federal or State law (other than section 6103 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and section 1106(c) of this Act), the
Commissioner shall furnish any Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer, upon the written request of the officer,
with the current address, Social Security number, and
photograph (if applicable) of any beneficiary under this
title, if the officer furnishes the Commissioner with the
name of the beneficiary, and other identifying information as
reasonably required by the Commissioner to establish the
unique identity of the beneficiary, and notifies the
Commissioner that--
``(i) the beneficiary--
``(I) is described in clause (iv) or (v) of paragraph
(1)(A); and
``(II) has information that is necessary for the officer to
conduct the officer's official duties; and
``(ii) the location or apprehension of the beneficiary is
within the officer's official duties.''.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than the first day of the first
month that begins on or after the date that is 9 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of
Social Security shall promulgate regulations governing
payment by the Commissioner, for good cause shown, of
withheld benefits, pursuant to the last sentence of section
202(x)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (as amended by
subsection (a)).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the first day of the first month that
begins on or after the date that is 9 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 204. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO OFFERS TO PROVIDE FOR A
FEE A PRODUCT OR SERVICE AVAILABLE WITHOUT
CHARGE FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Section 1140 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1320b-10) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4)(A) No person shall offer, for a fee, to assist an
individual to obtain a product or service that the person
knows or should know is provided free of charge by the Social
Security Administration unless, at the time the offer is
made, the person provides to the individual to whom the offer
is tendered a notice that--
``(i) explains that the product or service is available
free of charge from the Social Security Administration, and
``(ii) complies with standards prescribed by the
Commissioner of Social Security respecting the content of
such notice and its placement, visibility, and legibility.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any offer--
``(i) to serve as a claimant representative in connection
with a claim arising under title II, title VIII, or title
XVI; or
``(ii) to prepare, or assist in the preparation of, an
individual's plan for achieving self-support under title
XVI.''; and
(2) in the heading, by striking ``prohibition of misuse of
symbols, emblems, or names in reference'' and inserting
``prohibitions relating to references''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to offers of assistance made after the sixth
month ending after the Commissioner of Social Security
promulgates final regulations prescribing the standards
applicable to the notice required to be provided in
connection with such offer. The Commissioner shall promulgate
such final regulations within 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 205. REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS
CLAIMANT REPRESENTATIVES.
Section 206(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
406(a)(1)) is amended by inserting after the second sentence
the following: ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentences, the
Commissioner, after due notice and opportunity for hearing,
(A) may refuse to recognize as a representative, and may
disqualify a representative already recognized, any attorney
who has been disbarred or suspended from any court or bar to
which he or she was previously admitted to practice or who
has been disqualified from participating in or appearing
before any Federal program or agency, and (B) may refuse to
recognize, and may disqualify, as a non-attorney
representative any attorney who has been disbarred or
suspended from any court or bar to which he or she was
previously admitted to practice. A representative who has
been disqualified or suspended pursuant to this section from
appearing before the Social Security Administration as a
result of collecting or receiving a fee in excess of the
amount authorized shall be barred from appearing before the
Social Security Administration as a representative until full
restitution is made to the claimant and, thereafter, may be
considered for reinstatement only under such rules as the
Commissioner may prescribe.''.
SEC. 206. PENALTY FOR CORRUPT OR FORCIBLE INTERFERENCE WITH
ADMINISTRATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.
Part A of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1301 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1129A the
following new section:
``attempts to interfere with administration of social security act
``Sec. 1129B. Whoever corruptly or by force or threats of
force (including any threatening letter or communication)
attempts to intimidate or impede any officer, employee, or
contractor of the Social Security Administration (including
any State employee of a disability determination service or
any other individual designated by the Commissioner of Social
Security) acting in an official capacity to carry out a duty
under this Act, or in any other way corruptly or by force or
threats of force (including any threatening letter or
communication) obstructs or impedes, or attempts to obstruct
or impede, the due administration of this Act, shall be fined
not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or
both, except that if the offense is committed only by threats
of force, the person shall be fined not more than $3,000,
imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. In this subsection,
the term `threats of force' means threats of harm to the
officer or employee of the United States or to a contractor
of the Social Security Administration, or to a member of the
family of such an officer or employee or contractor.''.
SEC. 207. USE OF SYMBOLS, EMBLEMS, OR NAMES IN REFERENCE TO
SOCIAL SECURITY OR MEDICARE.
(a) In General.--Section 1140(a)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-10(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting `` `Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services','' after `` `Health Care
Financing Administration','', by striking ``or `Medicaid', ''
and inserting `` `Medicaid', `Death Benefits Update',
`Federal Benefit Information', `Funeral Expenses', or `Final
Supplemental Plan','' and by inserting `` `CMS','' after ``
`HCFA','';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services,'' after ``Health Care Financing
Administration,'' each place it appears; and
(3) in the matter following subparagraph (B), by striking
``the Health Care Financing Administration,'' each place it
appears and inserting ``the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to items sent after 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 208. DISQUALIFICATION FROM PAYMENT DURING TRIAL WORK
PERIOD UPON CONVICTION OF FRAUDULENT
CONCEALMENT OF WORK ACTIVITY.
(a) In General.--Section 222(c) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 422(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(5) Upon conviction by a Federal court that an individual
has fraudulently concealed work activity during a period of
trial work from the Commissioner of Social Security by--
``(A) providing false information to the Commissioner of
Social Security as to whether the individual had earnings in
or for a particular period, or as to the amount thereof;
``(B) receiving disability insurance benefits under this
title while engaging in work activity under another identity,
including under another social security account number or a
number purporting to be a social security account number; or
``(C) taking other actions to conceal work activity with an
intent fraudulently to secure payment in a greater amount
than is due or when no payment is authorized,
no benefit shall be payable to such individual under this
title with respect to a period of disability for any month
before such conviction during which the individual rendered
services during the period of trial work with respect to
which the fraudulently concealed work activity occurred, and
amounts otherwise due under this title as restitution,
penalties, assessments, fines, or other repayments shall in
all cases be in addition to any amounts for which such
individual is liable as overpayments by reason of such
concealment.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to work activity performed after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 209. AUTHORITY FOR JUDICIAL ORDERS OF RESTITUTION.
(a) Amendments to Title II.--Section 208 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection:
``(b)(1) Any Federal court, when sentencing a defendant
convicted of an offense under subsection (a), may order, in
addition to or in lieu of any other penalty authorized by
law, that the defendant make restitution to the Social
Security Administration.
[[Page H1530]]
``(2) Sections 3612, 3663, and 3664 of title 18, United
States Code, shall apply with respect to the issuance and
enforcement of orders of restitution under this subsection.
In so applying such sections, the Social Security
Administration shall be considered the victim.
``(3) If the court does not order restitution, or orders
only partial restitution, under this subsection, the court
shall state on the record the reasons therefor.''.
(b) Amendments to Title VIII.--Section 807(i) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1007(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(i) Restitution.--In any case where'' and
inserting the following:
``(i) Restitution.--
``(1) In general.--In any case where''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Court order for restitution.--
``(A) In general.--Any Federal court, when sentencing a
defendant convicted of an offense under subsection (a), may
order, in addition to or in lieu of any other penalty
authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the
Social Security Administration.
``(B) Related provisions.--Sections 3612, 3663, and 3664 of
title 18, United States Code, shall apply with respect to the
issuance and enforcement of orders of restitution under this
paragraph. In so applying such sections, the Social Security
Administration shall be considered the victim.
``(C) Stated reasons for not ordering restitution.--If the
court does not order restitution, or orders only partial
restitution, under this paragraph, the court shall state on
the record the reasons therefor.''.
(c) Amendments to Title XVI.--Section 1632 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1383a) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection:
``(b)(1) Any Federal court, when sentencing a defendant
convicted of an offense under subsection (a), may order, in
addition to or in lieu of any other penalty authorized by
law, that the defendant make restitution to the Social
Security Administration.
``(2) Sections 3612, 3663, and 3664 of title 18, United
States Code, shall apply with respect to the issuance and
enforcement of orders of restitution under this subsection.
In so applying such sections, the Social Security
Administration shall be considered the victim.
``(3) If the court does not order restitution, or orders
only partial restitution, under this subsection, the court
shall state on the record the reasons therefor.''.
(d) Special Account for Receipt of Restitution Payments.--
Section 704(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 904(b)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), amounts
received by the Social Security Administration pursuant to an
order of restitution under section 208(b), 807(i), or 1632(b)
shall be credited to a special fund established in the
Treasury of the United States for amounts so received or
recovered. The amounts so credited, to the extent and in the
amounts provided in advance in appropriations Acts, shall be
available to defray expenses incurred in carrying out titles
II, VIII, and XVI.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to
amounts received in connection with misuse by a
representative payee (within the meaning of sections 205(j),
807, and 1631(a)(2)) of funds paid as benefits under title
II, VIII, or XVI. Such amounts received in connection with
misuse of funds paid as benefits under title II shall be
transferred to the Managing Trustee of the Federal Old-Age
and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund or the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund, as determined appropriate
by the Commissioner of Social Security, and such amounts
shall be deposited by the Managing Trustee into such Trust
Fund. All other such amounts shall be deposited by the
Commissioner into the general fund of the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections
(a), (b), and (c) shall apply with respect to violations
occurring on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE III--ATTORNEY FEE PAYMENT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
SEC. 301. CAP ON ATTORNEY ASSESSMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 206(d)(2)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 406(d)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, except that the maximum amount of the
assessment may not exceed the greater of $75 or the adjusted
amount as provided pursuant to the following two sentences''
after ``subparagraph (B)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In
the case of any calendar year beginning after the amendments
made by section 301 of the Social Security Protection Act of
2003 take effect, the dollar amount specified in the
preceding sentence (including a previously adjusted amount)
shall be adjusted annually under the procedures used to
adjust benefit amounts under section 215(i)(2)(A)(ii), except
such adjustment shall be based on the higher of $75 or the
previously adjusted amount that would have been in effect for
December of the preceding year, but for the rounding of such
amount pursuant to the following sentence. Any amount so
adjusted that is not a multiple of $1 shall be rounded to the
next lowest multiple of $1, but in no case less than $75.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to fees for representation of
claimants which are first required to be certified or paid
under section 206 of the Social Security Act on or after the
first day of the first month that begins after 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 302. EXTENSION OF ATTORNEY FEE PAYMENT SYSTEM TO TITLE
XVI CLAIMS.
(a) In General.--Section 1631(d)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause
(i)--
(A) by striking ``section 206(a)'' and inserting ``section
206'';
(B) by striking ``(other than paragraph (4) thereof)'' and
inserting ``(other than subsections (a)(4) and (d)
thereof)''; and
(C) by striking ``paragraph (2) thereof'' and inserting
``such section'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``in subparagraphs
(A)(ii)(I) and (C)(i),'' and inserting ``in subparagraphs
(A)(ii)(I) and (D)(i) of subsection (a)(2)'', and by striking
``and'' at the end;
(3) by striking subparagraph (A)(ii) and inserting the
following:
``(ii) by substituting, in subsections (a)(2)(B) and
(b)(1)(B)(i), the phrase `section 1631(a)(7)(A) or the
requirements of due process of law' for the phrase
`subsection (g) or (h) of section 223';
``(iii) by substituting, in subsection (a)(2)(C)(i), the
phrase `under title II' for the phrase `under title XVI';
``(iv) by substituting, in subsection (b)(1)(A), the phrase
`pay the amount of such fee' for the phrase `certify the
amount of such fee for payment' and by striking, in
subsection (b)(1)(A), the phrase `or certified for payment';
and
``(v) by substituting, in subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii), the
phrase `deemed to be such amounts as determined before any
applicable reduction under section 1631(g), and reduced by
the amount of any reduction in benefits under this title or
title II made pursuant to section 1127(a)' for the phrase
`determined before any applicable reduction under section
1127(a))'.''; and
(4) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following new subparagraphs:
``(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), if the claimant is
determined to be entitled to past-due benefits under this
title and the person representing the claimant is an
attorney, the Commissioner of Social Security shall pay out
of such past-due benefits to such attorney an amount equal to
the lesser of--
``(i) so much of the maximum fee as does not exceed 25
percent of such past-due benefits (as determined before any
applicable reduction under section 1631(g) and reduced by the
amount of any reduction in benefits under this title or title
II pursuant to section 1127(a)), or
``(ii) the amount of past-due benefits available after any
applicable reductions under sections 1631(g) and 1127(a).
``(C)(i) Whenever a fee for services is required to be paid
to an attorney from a claimant's past-due benefits pursuant
to subparagraph (B), the Commissioner shall impose on the
attorney an assessment calculated in accordance with clause
(ii).
``(ii)(I) The amount of an assessment under clause (i)
shall be equal to the product obtained by multiplying the
amount of the representative's fee that would be required to
be paid by subparagraph (B) before the application of this
subparagraph, by the percentage specified in subclause (II),
except that the maximum amount of the assessment may not
exceed $75. In the case of any calendar year beginning after
the amendments made by section 302 of the Social Security
Protection Act of 2003 take effect, the dollar amount
specified in the preceding sentence (including a previously
adjusted amount) shall be adjusted annually under the
procedures used to adjust benefit amounts under section
215(i)(2)(A)(ii), except such adjustment shall be based on
the higher of $75 or the previously adjusted amount that
would have been in effect for December of the preceding year,
but for the rounding of such amount pursuant to the following
sentence. Any amount so adjusted that is not a multiple of $1
shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1, but in no
case less than $75.
``(II) The percentage specified in this subclause is such
percentage rate as the Commissioner determines is necessary
in order to achieve full recovery of the costs of determining
and approving fees to attorneys from the past-due benefits of
claimants, but not in excess of 6.3 percent.
``(iii) The Commissioner may collect the assessment imposed
on an attorney under clause (i) by offset from the amount of
the fee otherwise required by subparagraph (B) to be paid to
the attorney from a claimant's past-due benefits.
``(iv) An attorney subject to an assessment under clause
(i) may not, directly or indirectly, request or otherwise
obtain reimbursement for such assessment from the claimant
whose claim gave rise to the assessment.
``(v) Assessments on attorneys collected under this
subparagraph shall be deposited in the Treasury in a separate
fund created for this purpose.
``(vi) The assessments authorized under this subparagraph
shall be collected and available for obligation only to the
extent and in the amount provided in advance in
appropriations Acts. Amounts so appropriated
[[Page H1531]]
are authorized to remain available until expended, for
administrative expenses in carrying out this title and
related laws.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply with respect to fees for representation of claimants
which are first required to be certified or paid under
section 1631(d)(2) of the Social Security Act on or after the
first day of the first month that begins after 270 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Sunset.--Such amendments shall not apply with respect
to fees for representation of claimants in the case of any
claim for benefits with respect to which the agreement for
representation is entered into after 5 years after the date
on which the Commissioner of Social Security first implements
the amendments made by this section.
(c) Study Regarding Fee-Withholding for Non-Attorney
Representatives.--
(1) Study.--As soon as practicable after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall undertake a study regarding fee-withholding for
non-attorney representatives representing claimants before
the Social Security Administration.
(2) Matters to be studied.--In conducting the study under
this subsection, the Comptroller General shall--
(A) compare the non-attorney representatives who seek fee
approval for representing claimants before the Social
Security Administration to attorney representatives who seek
such fee approval, with regard to--
(i) their training, qualifications, and competency,
(ii) the type and quality of services provided, and
(iii) the extent to which claimants are protected through
oversight of such representatives by the Social Security
Administration or other organizations, and
(B) consider the potential results of extending to non-
attorney representatives the fee withholding procedures that
apply under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act for
the payment of attorney fees, including the effect on
claimants and program administration.
(3) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a
report detailing the results of the Comptroller General's
study conducted pursuant to this subsection.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
Subtitle A--Amendments Relating to the Ticket to Work and Work
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999
SEC. 401. APPLICATION OF DEMONSTRATION AUTHORITY SUNSET DATE
TO NEW PROJECTS.
Section 234 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 434) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (c), by striking
``conducted under subsection (a)'' and inserting ``initiated
under subsection (a) on or before December 17, 2004''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(2), by amending the first sentence to
read as follows: ``The authority to initiate projects under
the preceding provisions of this section shall terminate on
December 18, 2004.''.
SEC. 402. EXPANSION OF WAIVER AUTHORITY AVAILABLE IN
CONNECTION WITH DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
PROVIDING FOR REDUCTIONS IN DISABILITY
INSURANCE BENEFITS BASED ON EARNINGS.
Section 302(c) of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act of 1999 (42 U.S.C. 434 note) is amended by
striking ``(42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.),'' and inserting ``(42
U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and the requirements of section 1148 of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-19) as they relate to the program
established under title II of such Act,''.
SEC. 403. FUNDING OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS PROVIDED FOR
REDUCTIONS IN DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS
BASED ON EARNINGS.
Section 302(f) of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act of 1999 (42 U.S.C. 434 note) is amended to
read as follows:
``(f) Expenditures.--Administrative expenses for
demonstration projects under this section shall be paid from
funds available for the administration of title II or XVIII
of the Social Security Act, as appropriate. Benefits payable
to or on behalf of individuals by reason of participation in
projects under this section shall be made from the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, as determined appropriate by
the Commissioner of Social Security, and from the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary
Medical Insurance Trust Fund, as determined appropriate by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, from funds
available for benefits under such title II or XVIII.''.
SEC. 404. AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE WORK INCENTIVE
SERVICES TO ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUALS.
(a) Federal Work Incentives Outreach Program.--
(1) In general.--Section 1149(c)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-20(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Disabled beneficiary.--The term `disabled
beneficiary' means an individual--
``(A) who is a disabled beneficiary as defined in section
1148(k)(2) of this Act;
``(B) who is receiving a cash payment described in section
1616(a) of this Act or a supplementary payment described in
section 212(a)(3) of Public Law 93-66 (without regard to
whether such payment is paid by the Commissioner pursuant to
an agreement under section 1616(a) of this Act or under
section 212(b) of Public Law 93-66);
``(C) who, pursuant to section 1619(b) of this Act, is
considered to be receiving benefits under title XVI of this
Act; or
``(D) who is entitled to benefits under part A of title
XVIII of this Act by reason of the penultimate sentence of
section 226(b) of this Act.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to grants, cooperative agreements,
or contracts entered into on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) State Grants for Work Incentives Assistance.--
(1) Definition of disabled beneficiary.--Section 1150(g)(2)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-21(g)(2)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Disabled beneficiary.--The term `disabled
beneficiary' means an individual--
``(A) who is a disabled beneficiary as defined in section
1148(k)(2) of this Act;
``(B) who is receiving a cash payment described in section
1616(a) of this Act or a supplementary payment described in
section 212(a)(3) of Public Law 93-66 (without regard to
whether such payment is paid by the Commissioner pursuant to
an agreement under section 1616(a) of this Act or under
section 212(b) of Public Law 93-66);
``(C) who, pursuant to section 1619(b) of this Act, is
considered to be receiving benefits under title XVI of this
Act; or
``(D) who is entitled to benefits under part A of title
XVIII of this Act by reason of the penultimate sentence of
section 226(b) of this Act.''.
(2) Advocacy or other services needed to maintain gainful
employment.--Section 1150(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-
21(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``secure or regain'' and
inserting ``secure, maintain, or regain''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to payments provided after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 405. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT CLARIFYING TREATMENT FOR
CERTAIN PURPOSES OF INDIVIDUAL WORK PLANS UNDER
THE TICKET TO WORK AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 1148(g)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-19) is amended by adding at the end,
after and below subparagraph (E), the following new sentence:
``An individual work plan established pursuant to this
subsection shall be treated, for purposes of section
51(d)(6)(B)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as an
individualized written plan for employment under a State plan
for vocational rehabilitation services approved under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in section 505 of the Ticket
to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (Public
Law 106-170; 113 Stat. 1921).
Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Amendments
SEC. 411. ELIMINATION OF TRANSCRIPT REQUIREMENT IN REMAND
CASES FULLY FAVORABLE TO THE CLAIMANT.
(a) In General.--Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 405(g)) is amended in the sixth sentence by
striking ``and a transcript'' and inserting ``and, in any
case in which the Commissioner has not made a decision fully
favorable to the individual, a transcript''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to final determinations issued (upon
remand) on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 412. NONPAYMENT OF BENEFITS UPON REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 202(n)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(n)(1), (2)) are
each amended by striking ``or (1)(E)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section to
section 202(n)(1) of the Social Security Act shall apply to
individuals with respect to whom the Commissioner of Social
Security receives a removal notice from the Attorney General
after the date of the enactment of this Act. The amendment
made by this section to section 202(n)(2) of the Social
Security Act shall apply with respect to removals occurring
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 413. REINSTATEMENT OF CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 3003(a)(1) of the Federal Reports Elimination and
Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note) shall not apply to
any report required to be submitted under any of the
following provisions of law:
(1)(A) Section 201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401(c)(2)).
(B) Section 1817(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395i(b)(2)).
(C) Section 1841(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395t(b)(2)).
(2)(A) Section 221(c)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 421(c)(3)(C)).
(B) Section 221(i)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
421(i)(3)).
SEC. 414. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITIONS REGARDING CERTAIN
SURVIVOR BENEFITS.
(a) Widows.--Section 216(c) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 416(c)) is amended--
[[Page H1532]]
(1) by redesignating subclauses (A) through (C) of clause
(6) as subclauses (i) through (iii), respectively;
(2) by redesignating clauses (1) through (6) as clauses (A)
through (F), respectively;
(3) in clause (E) (as redesignated), by inserting ``except
as provided in paragraph (2),'' before ``she was married'';
(4) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The requirements of paragraph (1)(E) in connection
with the surviving wife of an individual shall be treated as
satisfied if--
``(A) the individual had been married prior to the
individual's marriage to the surviving wife,
``(B) the prior wife was institutionalized during the
individual's marriage to the prior wife due to mental
incompetence or similar incapacity,
``(C) during the period of the prior wife's
institutionalization, the individual would have divorced the
prior wife and married the surviving wife, but the individual
did not do so because such divorce would have been unlawful,
by reason of the prior wife's institutionalization, under the
laws of the State in which the individual was domiciled at
the time (as determined based on evidence satisfactory to
the Commissioner of Social Security),
``(D) the prior wife continued to remain institutionalized
up to the time of her death, and
``(E) the individual married the surviving wife within 60
days after the prior wife's death.''.
(b) Widowers.--Section 216(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
416(g)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subclauses (A) through (C) of clause
(6) as subclauses (i) through (iii), respectively;
(2) by redesignating clauses (1) through (6) as clauses (A)
through (F), respectively;
(3) in clause (E) (as redesignated), by inserting ``except
as provided in paragraph (2),'' before ``he was married'';
(4) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(g)''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The requirements of paragraph (1)(E) in connection
with the surviving husband of an individual shall be treated
as satisfied if--
``(A) the individual had been married prior to the
individual's marriage to the surviving husband,
``(B) the prior husband was institutionalized during the
individual's marriage to the prior husband due to mental
incompetence or similar incapacity,
``(C) during the period of the prior husband's
institutionalization, the individual would have divorced the
prior husband and married the surviving husband, but the
individual did not do so because such divorce would have been
unlawful, by reason of the prior husband's
institutionalization, under the laws of the State in which
the individual was domiciled at the time (as determined based
on evidence satisfactory to the Commissioner of Social
Security),
``(D) the prior husband continued to remain
institutionalized up to the time of his death, and
``(E) the individual married the surviving husband within
60 days after the prior husband's death.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 216(k) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 416(k)) is amended by striking ``clause (5) of
subsection (c) or clause (5) of subsection (g)'' and
inserting ``clause (E) of subsection (c)(1) or clause (E) of
subsection (g)(1)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective with respect to applications for benefits
under title II of the Social Security Act filed during months
ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 415. CLARIFICATION RESPECTING THE FICA AND SECA TAX
EXEMPTIONS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL WHOSE EARNINGS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF A TOTALIZATION AGREEMENT
PARTNER.
Sections 1401(c), 3101(c), and 3111(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking ``to taxes
or contributions for similar purposes under'' and inserting
``exclusively to the laws applicable to''.
SEC. 416. COVERAGE UNDER DIVIDED RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES IN KENTUCKY.
(a) In General.--Section 218(d)(6)(C) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 418(d)(6)(C)) is amended by inserting
``Kentucky,'' after ``Illinois,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect on January 1, 2003.
SEC. 417. COMPENSATION FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY
BOARD.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 703 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 903(f)) is amended to read as
follows:
``Compensation, Expenses, and Per Diem
``(f) A member of the Board shall, for each day (including
traveltime) during which the member is attending meetings or
conferences of the Board or otherwise engaged in the business
of the Board, be compensated at the daily rate of basic pay
for level IV of the Executive Schedule. While serving on
business of the Board away from their homes or regular places
of business, members may be allowed travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by
section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in
the Government employed intermittently.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall be effective as of January 1, 2003.
SEC. 418. 60-MONTH PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENT FOR
APPLICATION OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET
EXEMPTION.
(a) Wife's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(b)(4)(A) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(4)(A)) is amended by
striking ``if, on'' and inserting ``if, during any portion of
the last 60 months of such service ending with''.
(b) Husband's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(c)(2)(A) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(2)(A)) is amended by striking
``if, on'' and inserting ``if, during any portion of the last
60 months of such service ending with''.
(c) Widow's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(e)(7)(A) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(7)(A)) is amended by striking
``if, on'' and inserting ``if, during any portion of the last
60 months of such service ending with''.
(d) Widower's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(f)(2)(A) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking
``if, on'' and inserting ``if, during any portion of the last
60 months of such service ending with''.
(e) Mother's and Father's Insurance Benefits.--Section
202(g)(4)(A) of the such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(g)(4)(A)) is
amended by striking ``if, on'' and inserting ```if, during
any portion of the last 60 months of such service ending
with''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to applications for benefits under
title II of the Social Security Act filed on or after the
first day of the first month that begins after the date of
the enactment of this Act, except that such amendments shall
not apply in connection with monthly periodic benefits of any
individual based on earnings while in service described in
section 202(b)(4)(A), 202(c)(2)(A), 202(e)(7)(A), or
202(f)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (in the matter
preceding clause (i) thereof)--
(1) if the last day of such service occurs before the end
of the 90-day period following the date of the enactment of
this Act, or
(2) in any case in which the last day of such service
occurs after the end of such 90-day period, such individual
performed such service during such 90-day period which
constituted ``employment'' as defined in section 210 of such
Act, and all such service subsequently performed by such
individual has constituted such ``employment''.
Subtitle C--Technical Amendments
SEC. 421. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
HEAD.
Section 1143 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-
13) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Secretary'' the first place it appears
and inserting ``Commissioner of Social Security''; and
(2) by striking ``Secretary'' each subsequent place it
appears and inserting ``Commissioner''.
SEC. 422. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO RETIREMENT
BENEFITS OF MINISTERS.
(a) In General.--Section 211(a)(7) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 411(a)(7)) is amended by inserting ``, but
shall not include in any such net earnings from self-
employment the rental value of any parsonage or any parsonage
allowance (whether or not excluded under section 107 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) provided after the individual
retires, or any other retirement benefit received by such
individual from a church plan (as defined in section 414(e)
of such Code) after the individual retires'' before the
semicolon.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to years beginning before, on, or after December
31, 1994.
SEC. 423. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RELATING TO DOMESTIC
EMPLOYMENT.
(a) Amendment to Internal Revenue Code.--Section
3121(a)(7)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by striking ``described in subsection (g)(5)'' and inserting
``on a farm operated for profit''.
(b) Amendment to Social Security Act.--Section 209(a)(6)(B)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 409(a)(6)(B)) is
amended by striking ``described in section 210(f)(5)'' and
inserting ``on a farm operated for profit''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3121(g)(5) of such Code
and section 210(f)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 410(f)(5)) are
amended by striking ``or is domestic service in a private
home of the employer''.
SEC. 424. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS OF OUTDATED REFERENCES.
(a) Correction of Terminology and Citations Respecting
Removal From the United States.--Section 202(n) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(n)) (as amended by section 412)
is amended further--
(1) by striking ``deportation'' each place it appears and
inserting ``removal'';
(2) by striking ``deported'' each place it appears and
inserting ``removed'';
(3) in paragraph (1) (in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A)), by striking ``under section 241(a) (other than under
paragraph (1)(C) thereof)'' and inserting ``under section
237(a) (other than paragraph (1)(C) thereof) or
212(a)(6)(A)'';
(4) in paragraph (2), by striking ``under any of the
paragraphs of section 241(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (other than under paragraph (1)(C) thereof)''
and inserting ``under any of the paragraphs of section 237(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (other than paragraph
(1)(C) thereof) or under section 212(a)(6)(A) of such Act'';
(5) in paragraph (3)--
[[Page H1533]]
(A) by striking ``paragraph (19) of section 241(a)'' and
inserting ``subparagraph (D) of section 237(a)(4)''; and
(B) by striking ``paragraph (19)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (D)''; and
(6) in the heading, by striking ``Deportation'' and
inserting ``Removal''.
(b) Correction of Citation Respecting the Tax Deduction
Relating to Health Insurance Costs of Self-Employed
Individuals.--Section 211(a)(15) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
411(a)(15)) is amended by striking ``section 162(m)'' and
inserting ``section 162(l)''.
(c) Elimination of Reference to Obsolete 20-Day
Agricultural Work Test.--Section 3102(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and the
employee has not performed agricultural labor for the
employer on 20 days or more in the calendar year for cash
remuneration computed on a time basis''.
SEC. 425. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RESPECTING SELF-EMPLOYMENT
INCOME IN COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES.
(a) Social Security Act Amendment.--Section 211(a)(5)(A) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 411(a)(5)(A)) is amended
by striking ``all of the gross income'' and all that follows
and inserting ``the gross income and deductions attributable
to such trade or business shall be treated as the gross
income and deductions of the spouse carrying on such trade or
business or, if such trade or business is jointly operated,
treated as the gross income and deductions of each spouse on
the basis of their respective distributive share of the gross
income and deductions;''.
(b) Internal Revenue Code of 1986 Amendment.--Section
1402(a)(5)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by striking ``all of the gross income'' and all that follows
and inserting ``the gross income and deductions attributable
to such trade or business shall be treated as the gross
income and deductions of the spouse carrying on such trade or
business or, if such trade or business is jointly operated,
treated as the gross income and deductions of each spouse on
the basis of their respective distributive share of the gross
income and deductions; and''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, Social Security, as everyone in this Chamber knows,
touches the lives of virtually every American and serves as a vital
safety net for those who retire, become disabled or die. Nearly $500
billion in Social Security and supplemental security income benefits
were paid last year to about 50 million retired and disabled workers
their families and SSI recipients. These costs represent close to one-
fourth of all Federal outlays last year. More importantly, as baby
boomers approach retirement age, Social Security's and SSI's combined
benefit outlays are expected to double by the time children born this
year finish high school. Programs as important, as comprehensive as
these require our constant vigilance. We must act today to address
inadequate protections for beneficiaries and the programs in order to
avoid potentially tragic consequences in the future.
This is why I urge all Members to support the Social Security
Protection Act of 2003. This is a bipartisan bill introduced earlier
this month by myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui)
along with other Members of Congress. The Protection Act will give the
Social Security Administration the additional tools needed to fight
activities that drain resources from Social Security and undermine the
financial security of beneficiaries.
First, this bill protects the one in eight Social Security and SSI
beneficiaries who cannot, for physical or mental reasons, handle their
own funds. For these persons, the Social Security Administration
appoints an individual or organization called a representative payee to
manage their benefits. While most representative payees are
conscientious and they are honest, some violate the trust placed in
them.
The Social Security Inspector General reported that in the late
1990's over 2,400 representative payees missed about $12 million in
benefits. This bill raises the standard for persons and organizations
serving as representative payees and imposes stricter regulation and
monetary penalties on those who mismanage benefits.
Second, this bill picks up where legislation enacted in 1996 let off
in ending benefit payments to those who committed crimes. That
legislation denied SSI benefits to fugitive felons. However, these
criminals are still allowed to receive Social Security benefits. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that they will pay $526 million
out of the Social Security trust fund to these law-breakers over the
next 10 years. This is not right, and this legislation denies them
these benefits.
The Protection Act also provides tools to further safeguard Social
Security programs. Our goals are to help shield Social Security
employees from harm while conducting their duties, expanding the
Inspector General's ability to stop perpetrators of fraud through new
civil monetary penalties, and prevent people from misrepresenting
themselves as they provide Social Security-related services.
{time} 1100
On top of this, the bill helps individuals with disabilities by, one,
making it easier for them to obtain legal representation while applying
for benefits by improving the attorney fee withholding process; two,
enhancing provisions of the Ticket to Work Program; and, three,
encouraging more employers to hire individuals with disabilities by
expanding eligibility for the Work Opportunity Tax Credit.
Finally, the bill contains several provisions aimed at correcting
inequities in the law regarding benefit coverage and receipt, as well
as making technical corrections to the law.
It is our and the agency's duty to protect Social Security programs
and the beneficiaries. This bill is the accumulation of bipartisan
efforts towards that, and as well as the cooperation and support of the
Social Security Administration and the Social Security Inspector
General. That is why the 107th Congress's version of the bill, the
Social Security Protection Act of 2002, passed this House by an
overwhelming bipartisan support of 425 to 0 and passed the Senate as
amended under unanimous consent.
I urge the Members today to finish the good work begun in the 107th
Congress and vote in favor of the Social Security Protection Act. We
must enact these changes quickly to protect the most vulnerable
beneficiaries and to stop Social Security from hemorrhaging precious
dollars through fraud and benefit misuse.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to commend the Chair of the
Subcommittee on Social Security, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw),
for the bipartisanship in which we were able to put this legislation
together. As many know, and as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw)
mentioned, we passed this bill last year, in the last Congress, but
unfortunately, it was dropped during the waning hours of the joint
House-Senate conference committees in the month of October. So now we
are bringing the bill back.
It essentially has four parts to it. We added one provision which has
become somewhat controversial. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw)
says, it has strengthening of the representative pay provisions of the
law. Obviously, when someone is mentally disabled or one is a child,
one needs a representative payee. This bill strengthens that law to
protect the recipient, the beneficiary.
Second, it provides anti-fraud provisions in the legislation,
including denying benefits to fugitive felons and also those who have
violated their parole.
Thirdly, it provides for SSI recipients more of the advantages of
having a lawyer or others represent that person as they are going
through the administrative process, essentially by creating the same
kind of withholding of benefits by the attorney or other representative
of the claimant as we currently have in the Social Security System. So
SSI beneficiaries will have the same kind of rights as the Social
Security recipients. And, in addition, it caps attorneys' fees, the
processing fees, to $75. So it will make it much easier for people to
actually go through the administrative procedures.
It has 18 technical provisions in the legislation, or in the bill
last year. The one area in which we have added to it is it closes a
loophole in which some have attempted to get around the GPO, the
government pension offset provisions that are currently in the law. The
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has indicated to me and to others
that he intends to have hearings on the whole
[[Page H1534]]
issue of the government pension offset issue. And as a result of that,
I am very satisfied with this legislation.
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have problems with
it on my side of the aisle. They intend to speak on this issue today. I
would urge a ``yes'' vote on it, but I certainly can understand some of
those that might have some differences of opinion on that one
provision.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record two documents. The
first is bipartisan summary report language, including a detailed
summary of current law and an explanation of each provision and the
reasons for the change. The second is a list of organizations,
including AARP, that provided letters of support for this bill, with
those letters attached.
``The Social Security Protection Act of 2003'' Summary
TITLE I--PROTECTION OF BENEFICIARIES
Subtitle A--Representative Payees
Section 101. Authority to Reissue Benefits Misused by
Organizational Representative Payees
Present Law
The Social Security Act requires the re-issuance of
benefits miscued by any representative payee when the
Commissioner finds that the Social Security Administration
(SSA) negligently failed to investigate and monitor the
payee.
Explanation of Provision
In addition to cases where the SSA negligently failed to
investigate and monitor the payee, the provision also
requires the Commissioner to re-issue benefits under Titles
II, VIII and XVI in any case in which a beneficiary's funds
are misused by a representative payee that is not an
individual (regardless of whether it is a qualified
organization such as a state/local agency or a community
nonprofit social service agency) or an individual payee
representing 15 or more beneficiaries.
The new provision defines misuse as any case in which a
representative payee converts the benefits entrusted to his
or her care for purposes other than the ``use and benefit''
of the beneficiary, and authorizes the Commissioner to define
``use and benefit'' in regulation.
In crafting a regulatory definition for ``use and
benefit,'' the Commissioner should take special care to
distinguish between the situation in which the representative
payee violates his or her responsibility by converting the
benefits to further the payee's own self interest, and the
situation in which the payee faithfully serves the
beneficiary by using the benefits in a way that principally
aids the beneficiary but which also incidentally aids the
payee or another individual. For instance, cases in which a
representative payee uses the benefits entrusted to his or
her care to help pay the rent on an apartment that he or she
and the beneficiary share should not be considered misuse.
The effective date applies to any cases of benefit misuse
by a representative payee with respect to which the
Commissioner makes the determination of misuse on or after
January 1, 1995. This protects the interests of beneficiaries
affected by cases of egregious misuse that have been
identified in recent years.
Reason for Change
There have been a number of highly publicized cases
involving organizational representative payees that have
misused large sums of monies paid to them on behalf of the
Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
beneficiaries they represented. In most instances, these
organizations operated as criminal enterprises, bent not only
on stealing funds from beneficiaries, but also on carefully
concealing the evidence of their wrongdoing. These illegal
activities went undetected until large sums had been stolen.
If the Social Security Administration is not shown to be
negligent for failing to investigate and monitor the payee,
affected beneficiaries may never be repaid or may be repaid
only when the representative payee committing misuse makes
restitution to the SSA.
Requiring the SSA to reissue benefit payments to the
victims of misuse in these cases protects beneficiaries who
are among the most vulnerable, because they may have no
family members or friends who are willing or able to manage
their benefits for them. These are cases in which misuse of
benefits may be the hardest to detect. Moreover, extending
the provision to cases involving individual payees serving
fewer beneficiaries may lead to fraudulent claims of misuse.
These claims, which often turn on information available only
from close family members, would be difficult to assess.
Similarly, extension of this provision to these cases could
potentially encourage misuse or poor money management by
these individual representative payees, if they believe the
SSA could eventually pay the beneficiary a second time.
Section 102. Oversight of Representative Payees
Present Law
Present law requires community-based nonprofit social
service serving as representative payees to be licensed or
bonded. Payees are not required to submit proof of bonding or
licensing, and they are not subject to independent audits. In
addition, there is no provision requiring periodic onsite
reviews of organizational payees (other than the
accountability monitoring done for State institutions that
serve as representative payees).
Explanation of Provision
The new provision requires community-based nonprofit social
service agencies serving as representative payees to be both
bonded and licensed (provided that licensing is available in
the State). In addition, such representative payees must
submit yearly proof of bonding and licensing, as well as
copies of any independent audits that were performed on the
payee since the previous certification.
The new provision also requires the Commissioner of Social
Security to conduct periodic onsite reviews of: (1) a person
who serves as a representative payee to 15 or more
beneficiaries; (2) community-based nonprofit social service
agencies serving as representative payees; and (3) any agency
that serves as the representative payee to 50 or more
beneficiaries. In addition, the Commissioner is required to
submit an annual report to the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of
the Senate on the reviews conducted in the prior fiscal year.
The bonding, licensing, and audit provisions are effective
on the first day of the 13th month following enactment of the
legislation. The periodic on-site review provision is
effective upon enactment.
Reason for change
Strenthening the bonding and licensing requirements for
community-based nonprofit social service agencies would add
further safeguards to protect beneficiaries' funds. State
licensing provides for some oversight by the State into
the organization's business practices, and bonding
provides some assurances that a surety company has
investigated the organization and approved it for the
level of risk associated with the bond. Requiring annual
certification as to the licensing and bonding of the
payee, as well as submission of audits performed, should
help prevent a payee from dropping their licensing or
bonding subsequent to the SSA approving them as payee.
On-site periodic visits should be conducted regularly to
reduce misuse of funds. To the degree possible, appropriate
auditing and accounting standards should be utilized in
conducting such reviews.
Section 103. Disqualification from Service as Representative
Payee of Persons Convicted of Offenses Resulting in
Imprisonment for More Than One Year, or Fleeing
Prosecution, Custody or Confinement.
present law
Sections 205, 807, and 1631 of the Social Security Act
disqualify individuals from being representative payees if
they have been convicted of fraudulent conduct involving
Social Security programs.
explanation of provision
The new provision expands the scope of disqualification to
prohibit an individual from serving as a representative payee
if he or she has been convicted of an offense resulting in
imprisonment for more than one year, unless the Commissioner
determines that payee status would be appropriate despite the
conviction. It also disqualifies persons fleeing prosecution,
custody, or confinement for a felony from being
representative payees. Finally, the Commissioner shall assist
law enforcement officials in apprehending such persons by
providing them with the address, Social Security number,
photograph, or other identifying information.
The new provision requires the Commissioner, in
consultation with the SSA Inspector General, to submit a
report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
evaluating existing procedures and reviews conducted for
representative payees to determine whether they are
sufficient to protect benefits from being misused.
This provision is effective on the first day of the 13th
month beginning after the date of enactment, except that the
report to Congress is due no later than 270 days after the
date of enactment.
reason for change
Prohibiting persons convicted of offenses resulting in
imprisonment for more than one year and persons fleeing
prosecution, custody or confinement for a felony from serving
as representative payees decreases the likelihood of
mismanagement or abuse of beneficiaries' funds. Also,
allowing such persons to serve as representative payees could
raise serious questions about the SSA's stewardship of
taxpayer funds. The agency's report will assist Congress in
its oversight of the representative payee program.
Section 104. Fee Forfeiture in Case of Benefit Misuse by
Representative Payees
present law
Certain qualified organizations are authorized to collect a
fee for their services. The fee, which is determined by a
statutory formula, is deducted from the beneficiary's benefit
payments.
explanation of provision
The new provision requires representative payees to forfeit
the fee for those months during which the representative
payee misused funds, as determined by the Commissioner of
Social Security or a court of competent jurisdiction. This
provision applies to
[[Page H1535]]
any month involving benefit misuse by a representative payee
as determined by the Commissioner or a court of competent
jurisdiction after 180 days after the date of enactment.
reason for change
Payees who misuse their clients' funds are not properly
performing the service for which the fee was paid; therefore,
they should forfeit such fees. Permitting the payee to retain
the fees is tantamount to rewarding the payee for violating
his or her responsibility to use the benefits for the
individual's needs.
Section 105. Liability of Representative Payees for Misused
Benefits
present law
Although the SSA has been provided with expanded authority
to recover overpayments (such as the use of tax refund
offsets, referral to contact collection agencies,
notification of credit bureaus, and administrative offsets of
future federal benefit payments), these tools cannot be used
to recoup benefits misused by a representative payee.
explanation of provision
The new provision treats benefits misused by any
representative payee (except a federal, state or local
government agency) as an overpayment to the representative
payee, thus subjecting the representative payee to current
overpayment recovery authorities. Any recovered benefits not
already reissued to the beneficiary pursuant to section 101
of this legislation would be reissued to either the
beneficiary or their alternate representative payee, up to
the total amount misused. This provision applies to benefit
misuse by a representative payee in any case where the
Commissioner of Social Security or a court of competent
jurisdiction makes a determination of misuse after 180 days
after the date of enactment.
reason for change
Although the SSA has been provided with expanded authority
to recover overpayments, these tools cannot be used to recoup
benefits misused by a representative payee. Treating misused
benefits as overpayments to the representative payee would
provide the SSA with additional means for recovering misused
payments.
Section 106. Authority to Redirect Delivery of Benefit
Payments When a Representative Payee Fails to Provide
Required Accounting
present law
The Social Security Act requires representative payees to
submit accounting reports to the Commissioner of Social
Security regarding how a beneficiary's benefit payments were
used. A report is required at least annually, but may be
required by the Commissioner at any time if the Commissioner
has reason to believe the representative payee is misusing
benefits.
explanation of provision
The new provision authorizes the Commissioner of Social
Security to require a representative payee to receive any
benefits under Titles II, VIII, and XVI in person at a Social
Security field office if the representative payee fails to
provide a required accounting of benefits. The Commissioner
would be required to provide proper notice and the
opportunity for a hearing prior to redirecting benefits to
the field office. This provision is effective 180 days after
the date of enactment.
reason for change
Accounting reports are an important means of monitoring the
activities of representative payees to prevent misuse of
benefits. Redirecting benefit payments to the field office
would enable the agency to promptly address the failure of
the representative payee to file a report.
Subtitle B--Enforcement
Section 111. Civil Monetary Penalty Authority with Respect to
Wrongful Conversions by Representative Payees
present law
Section 1129 of the Social Security Act authorizes the
Commissioner to impose a civil monetary penalty (of up to
$5,000 for each violation) along with an assessment (up to
twice the amount wrongly paid), upon any person who knowingly
uses false information or knowingly omits information to
wrongly obtain Title II, VIII or XVI benefits.
explanation of provision
The new provision expands civil monetary penalties
authority under section 1129 to include misuse of Title II,
VIII or XVI benefits by representative payees. A civil
monetary penalty of up to $5,000 may be imposed for each
violation, along with an assessment of up to twice the amount
of misused benefits. This provision applies to violations
committed after the date of enactment.
reason for change
Providing authority for SSA to impose civil monetary
penalties along with an assessment of up to twice the amount
of misused benefits would provide the SSA with an additional
means to address benefit misuse by representative payees.
TITLE II--PROGRAM PROTECTIONS
Section 201. Civil Monetary Penalty Authority with Respect to
Knowing Withholding of Material Facts
Present Law
Section 1129 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1320a-8, authorizes the Commissioner of Social Security
to impose civil monetary penalties and assessments on any
person who makes a statement or representation of a material
fact for use in determining initial or continuing rights to
title II, VIII, or XVI benefits that the person knows or
should know omits a material fact or is false or misleading.
In order for the penalty or assessment to be imposed, the law
requires an affirmative act on the part of the individual of
making (or causing to be made) a statement that omits a
material fact or is false or misleading.
Section 1129A, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-8a, provides administrative
procedures for imposing penalties of nonpayment of title II
and XVI benefits (6 months for the first violation) for
making false statements.
Explanation of Provision
By including the phrase ``or otherwise withholds disclosure
of'', in section 1129 and 1129A, civil monetary penalties and
assessments and sanctions could also be imposed for failure
to come forward and notify the SSA of changed circumstances
that affect eligibility or benefit amount when that person
knows or should know that the failure to come forward is
misleading. This provision applies to violations committed
after the date on which the Commissioner implements the
centralized computer file described in section 202.
Reason for Change
Currently the SSA cannot impose civil monetary penalties
and assessments on a person who should have come forward to
notify the SSA of changed circumstances that affect
eligibility or benefit amount, but did not. To be subject to
civil monetary penalties and assessments under the current
law, an individual must have made a statement that omitted a
material fact or was false or misleading. Examples of the
types of individuals intended to be covered under this
amendment to section 1129 and 1129A include (but are not
limited to): (1) an individual who has a joint bank account
with a beneficiary in which the SSA direct deposited the
beneficiary's Social Security checks; upon the death of the
beneficiary, this individual fails to advise the SSA of the
beneficiary's death, instead spending the proceeds from the
deceased beneficiary's Social Security checks; and (2) an
individual who is receiving benefits under one SSN while
working under another SSN.
This amendment is intended to close this loophole in the
current law, but it is not intended to expand section 1129
and 1129A to include those individuals whose failure to come
forward to notify the SSA was not done for the purpose of
improperly obtaining or continuing to receive benefits. For
instance, it is not intended that the expanded authority be
used against individuals who do not have the capacity to
understand that their failure to come forward is misleading.
Section 202. Issuance by Commissioner of Social Security of
Receipts to Acknowledge Submission of Reports of Changes
in Work or Earnings Status of Disabled Beneficiaries
Present Law
Changes in work or earnings status can affect a Title II
disability beneficiary's right to continued entitlement to
disability benefits. Changes in the amount of earned income
can also affect an SSI recipient's continued eligibility for
SSI benefits or his or her monthly benefit amount.
The Commissioner has promulgated regulations that require
Title II disability beneficiaries to report changes in work
or earnings status (20 CFR Sec. 404.1588) and regulations
that require SSI recipients (or their representative payees)
to report any increase or decrease in income (20 CFR,
Sec. Sec. 416.704-416.714).
Explanation of Provision
The new provision requires the Commissioner to issue a
receipt to a disabled beneficiary (or representative of a
beneficiary) who reports a change in his or her work or
earnings status. The Commissioner is required to continue
issuing such receipts until the Commissioner has implemented
a centralized computer file that would record the date on
which the disabled beneficiary (or representative) reported
the change in work or earnings status.
This provision requires the Commissioner to begin issuing
receipts as soon as possible, but no later than one year
after the date of enactment. The Committee on Ways and Means
is aware that the SSA has developed software known as the
Modernized Return to Work System (MRTW). This software will
assist SSA employees in recording information about changes
in work and earnings status and in making determinations of
whether such changes affect continuing entitlement to
disability benefits. The software also has the capability of
automatically issuing receipts. The SSA has informed the
Committee on Ways and Means that this software is already in
use in some of the agency's approximately 1300 local field
offices, and that the SSA expects to put it into operation in
the remainder of the field offices over the next year. The
Committee on Ways and Means expects that the SSA field
offices that are already using the MRTW system will
immediately begin issuing receipts to disabled beneficiaries
who report changes in work or earnings status, and that the
SSA will require the other field offices to begin issuing
receipts as these offices begin using the MRTW system over
the next year. For disabled Title XVI beneficiaries, if the
SSA issues a notice to the beneficiary immediately following
the report of earnings that details the effect of the change
in income on
[[Page H1536]]
the monthly benefit amount, this notice would serve as a
receipt.
reason for change
Witnesses have testified before the Social Security
Subcommittee and the Human Resources Subcommittee of the
House Ways and Means Committee that the SSA does not
currently have an effective system in place for processing
and recording Title II and Title XVI disability
beneficiaries' reports of changes in work and earnings
status. Issuing receipts to disabled beneficiaries who make
such reports would provide them with proof that they had
properly fulfilled their obligation to report these changes.
Section 203. Denial of Title II Benefits to Persons Fleeing
Prosecution, Custody, or Confinement, and to Persons
Violating Probation or Parole
present law
The ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996,'' (PRWORA) P.L. 104-193, included
provisions making persons ineligible to receive SSI benefits
during any month in which they are fleeing to avoid
prosecution, custody, or confinement for a felony, or if they
are in violation of a condition of probation or parole.
However, this prohibition was not extended to Social Security
benefits under Title II.
explanation of provision
The new provision denies Social Security benefits under
Title II to persons fleeing prosecution, custody or
confinement for a felony, and to persons violating probation
or parole. However, the Commissioner may, for good cause, pay
withheld benefits. Finally, the Commissioner shall assist law
enforcement officials in apprehending such persons by
providing them with the address, Social Security number,
photograph, or other identifying information.
This provision is effective the first day of the first
month that begins on or after the date that is nine months
after the date of enactment.
reason for change
There are concerns that Social Security benefits, not just
Supplemental Security Income and other welfare benefits, are
being used to aid flight from justice or other crime. The
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that persons
fleeing to avoid prosecution for a felony or to avoid custody
or confinement after conviction for a felony, or in violation
of a condition of probation or parole, will receive $526
million in Title II Social Security benefits over the next 10
years. The Social Security Inspector General (SSA IG)
recommended changing the law to prohibit fugitive felons and
other criminals from receiving benefits.
The provision gives the Commissioner authority to pay
withheld Title II benefits if there is ``good cause.'' The
Commissioner would be required to develop regulations within
one year of the date of enactment. This ``good cause''
discretion is authorized for the Commissioner in cases of
Title II benefits, where it was not authorized or intended
for programs affected under the similar provision in PRWORA,
because workers earn the right to receive benefits for
themselves and their families through their career-long Title
II payroll tax contributions.
The good cause exception will provide the Commissioner with
the ability to pay benefits under circumstances in which the
Commissioner deems withholding of benefits to be
inappropriate--for example, but not limited to, situations
when Social Security beneficiaries are found to be in flight
from a warrant relating to a crime for which a court of
competent jurisdiction finds the person not guilty, or if the
charges are dismissed; if a warrant for arrest is vacated; or
if probation or parole is not revoked. In such circumstances,
it is expected that the Commissioner would pay benefits
withheld from the beneficiary for which he or she was
otherwise eligible but for the prohibition in this provision.
In testimony received at a February 27, 2003 hearing, the
Subcommittee was made aware of instances with respect to the
SSI program where there may be mitigating circumstances
relating to persons with outstanding warrants for their
arrest. In addition, PRWORA implementing instructions have
been found to vary between agencies. For example, the
Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service has
issued instructions that in order to be considered
``fleeing,'' the individual must have knowledge a warrant has
been issued for his or her arrest and that the State agency
should verify the individual has such knowledge. In addition,
once the person has knowledge of the warrant, either by
having received it personally or by being advised of its
existence by the State agency, he or she is technically
``fleeing'' at that time. Finally, the instructions strongly
urge the State agency to give the individual an opportunity
to submit documentation that the warrant has been satisfied.
The Social Security Administration's procedures do not
include such instructions.
The SSA IG is conducting an audit on implementation of the
fugitive felon provision for the Supplemental Security Income
program, which will shed light on the types of crimes
beneficiaries committed, law enforcement's pursuit of such
criminals, the length of time benefits were suspended, the
SSA's handling of these cases, and other issues. The
Subcommittee will continue to closely monitor these issues
and encourages the Commissioner to review the agency's
implementing instructions in light of these circumstances and
what constitutes flight under federal law.
Section 204. Requirements Relating to Offers to Provide for a
Fee a Product or Service Available Without Charge From
the Social Security Administration
present law
Section 1140 of the Social Security Act prohibits or
restricts various activities involving the use of Social
Security and Medicare symbols, emblems, or references that
give a false impression that an item is approved, endorsed,
or authorized by the Social Security Administration, the
Health Care Financing Administration (now the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services), or the Department of Health
and Human Services. It also provides for the imposition of
civil monetary penalties with respect to violations of the
section.
explanation of provision
Several individuals and companies offer Social Security
services for a fee even though the same services are
available directly from the SSA free of charge. The new
provision requires persons or companies offering such
services to include in their offer a statement that the
services they provide for a fee are available directly from
the SSA free of charge. The statements would be required
to comply with standards promulgated through regulation by
the Commissioner of Social Security with respect to their
content, placement, visibility, and legibility. The
amendment applies to offers of assistance made after the
6th month following the issuance of these standards. The
new provision requires that the Commissioner promulgate
regulations within 1 year after the date of enactment.
Reason for Change
Several individuals and companies offer Social Security
services for a fee even though the same services are
available directly from the SSA free of charge. For example,
the SSA's Inspector general has encountered business entities
that have offered assistance to individuals in changing their
names (upon marriage) or in obtaining a Social Security
number (upon the birth of a child) for a fee, even though
these services are directly available from the SSA for free.
The offer from the business entities either did not state at
all, or did not clearly state, that these services were
available from the SSA for free. These practices can mislead
and deceive senior citizens, newlyweds, new parents, and
other individuals seeking services or products, who may not
be aware that the SSA provides these services for free.
Section 205. Refusal to Recognize Certain Individuals as
Claimant Representatives
Present Law
An attorney in good standing is entitled to represent
claimants before the Commissioner of Social Security. The
Commissioner may prescribe rules and regulations governing
the recognition of persons other than attorneys representing
claimants before the Commissioner. Under present law,
attorneys disbarred in one jurisdiction, but licensed to
practice in another jurisdiction, must be recognized as a
claimant's representative.
Explanation of Provision
The new provision authorizes the Commissioner to refuse to
recognize as a representative, or disqualifying as a
representative, an attorney who has been disbarred or
suspended from any court or bar, or who has been disqualified
from participating in or appearing before any Federal program
or agency. Due process (i.e., notice and an opportunity for a
hearing) would be required before taking such action. Also,
if a representative has been disqualified or suspended as a
result of collecting an unauthorized fee, full restitution is
required before reinstatement can be considered. This
provision is effective upon the date of enactment.
Reason for Change
This provision would provide additional protections for
beneficiaries who may rely on representatives during all
phases of their benefit application process. As part of their
ongoing oversight of claimant representatives, the Committee
on Ways and Means intends to review whether options to
establish protections for claimants represented by non-
attorneys should be considered.
Section 206. Penalty for Corrupt or Forcible Interference
with Administration of the Social Security Act
Present Law
No provision.
Explanation of Provision
The new provision imposes a fine of not more than $5,000,
imprisonment of not more than 3 years, or both, for
attempting to intimidate or impede--corruptly or by using
force or threats of force--any Social Security Administration
(SSA) officer, employee or contractor (including State
employees of disability determination services and any
individuals designated by the Commissioner) while they are
acting in their official capacities under the Social Security
Act. If the offense is committed by threats of force, the
offender is subject to a fine of not more than $3,000, no
more than one year in prison, or both. This provision is
effective upon enactment.
The Committee on Ways and Means expects that judgment will
be used in enforcing this section. Social Security and SSI
disability claimants and beneficiaries, in particular, are
frequently subject to multiple, severe life stressors, which
may include severe physical, psychological, or financial
difficulties. In addition, disability claimants or
[[Page H1537]]
beneficiaries who encounter delays in approval of initial
benefit applications or in post-entitlement actions may incur
additional stress, particularly if they have no other source
of income. Under such circumstances, claimants or
beneficiaries may at times express frustration in an angry
manner, without truly intending to threaten or intimidate SSA
employees. In addition, approximately 25% of Social Security
disability beneficiaries and 35% of disabled SSI recipients
have mental impairments, and such individuals may be less
able to control emotional outbursts. These factors should be
taken into account in enforcing this provision.
Reason for Change
This provision extends to SSA employees the same
protections provided to employees of the Internal Revenue
Service under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. These
protections will allow SSA employees to perform their work
with more confidence that they will be safe from harm.
The Internal Revenue Manual defines the term ``corruptly''
as follows: `` `Corruptly' characterizes an attempt to
influence any official in his or her official capacity under
this title by any improper inducement. For example, an offer
of a bribe or a passing of a bribe to an Internal Revenue
employee for the purpose of influencing him or her in the
performance of his or her official duties is corrupt
interference with the administration of federal laws.''
(Internal Revenue Manual, [9.5] 11.3.2.2, 4-09-1999).
Section 207. Use of Symbols, Emblems or Names in Reference to
Social Security or Medicare
Present Law
Section 1140 of the Social Security Act prohibits (subject
to civil penalties) the use of Social Security or Medicare
symbols, emblems and references on any item in a manner that
conveys the false impression that such item is approved,
endorsed or authorized by the Social Security Administration,
the Health Care Financing Administration (now the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services) or the Department of Health
and Human Services.
Explanation of Provision
The new provision expands the prohibition in present law to
several other references to Social Security and Medicare.
This includes, but is not limited to, ``Death Benefits
Update,'' ``Federal Benefits Information,'' and ``Final
Supplemental Plan.'' This provision applies to items sent
after 180 days after the date of enactment.
Reason for Change
The SSA Inspector General has found these phrases appearing
in mailings, solicitations, or flyers, which, when used with
the SSA's words, symbols, emblems, and references may be
particularly misleading and more likely to convey the false
impression that such item is approved, endorsed, or
authorized by the SSA, the Health Care Financing
Administration (now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services), or the Department of Health and Human Services.
Expansion of this list helps to ensure that individuals
receiving any type of mail, solicitations or flyers bearing
symbols, emblems or names in reference to Social Security or
Medicare are not misled into believing that these agencies
approved or endorsed the services or products depicted.
Section 208. Disqualification from Payment During Trial Work
Period Upon Conviction of Fraudulent Concealment of Work
Activity
Present Law
An individual entitled to disability benefits under Title
II is entitled to a ``trial work period'' to test his or her
ability to work. The trial work period allows beneficiaries
to have earnings from work above a certain amount ($570 a
month in 2003) for up to 9 months (which need not be
consecutive) within any 60-month period without any loss of
benefits. Presently, section 222(c) of the Social Security
Act does not prohibit a person entitled to disability
benefits under Title II from receiving disability benefits
during a trial work period, even if convicted by a federal
court for fraudulently concealing work activity during that
period.
The SSA's Inspector General has pursued prosecution of
Title II disability beneficiaries who fraudulently conceal
work activity by applying several criminal statutes,
including section 208(a) of the Social Security Act, and
sections 371 and 641 of Title 18 of the United States Code
(Crimes and Criminal Procedures).
Explanation of Provision
Under the new provision, an individual convicted by a
federal court of fraudulently concealing work activity from
the Commissioner of Social Security would not be entitled to
receive any disability benefits in any trial work period
month and would be liable for repayment of those benefits, in
addition to any restitution, penalties, fines or assessments
otherwise due.
Under this provision, concealing work activity is
considered to be fraudulent if the individual (1) provided
false information to the SSA about his or her earnings during
that period; (2) worked under another identity, including
under another person's or a false Social Security number; or
(3) took other actions to conceal work activity with the
intent to receive benefits to which he or she was not
entitled.
This provision is effective with respect to work activity
performed after the date of enactment.
Reason for Change
Under current law, if an individual is convicted of
fraudulently concealing work activity, the dollar loss to the
government is calculated based on the benefits that the
individual would have received had he or she not concealed
the work activity. During the trial work period, disability
beneficiaries continue to receive their monthly benefit
amount regardless of their work activity. Therefore, the SSA
does not include benefits paid during a trial work period in
calculating the total dollar loss to the government, even if
the individual fraudulently concealed work activity during
that period. As a result, the dollars lost to the government
may fall below the thresholds set by the United States
Attorneys in cases involving fraudulent concealment of work
by Title II disability beneficiaries. In such situations, the
case would not be prosecuted, even if the evidence of fraud
were very clear.
This provision rectifies the situation by establishing that
individuals convicted of fraudulently concealing work
activity during the trial work period are not entitled to
receive any disability benefits for trial work period months
prior to the conviction (but within the same period of
disability).
Section 209. Authority for Judicial Orders of Restitution
Present Law
A court may order restitution when sentencing a defendant
convicted of various offenses under titles 18, 21, and 49 of
the United States Code. However, violations of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C.) are not included among those for
which the court may order restitution.
Explanation of Provision
This provision amends the Social Security Act to allow a
federal court to order restitution to the Social Security
Administration for violations of the Social Security Act.
Restitution in connection with benefits misuse by a
representative payee would be credited to the Social Security
Trust Funds for cases involving OASDI recipients and to the
General Fund for cases involving Supplemental Security Income
and Special Veterans benefits. Other restitution funds,
credited to a special fund established in the Treasury, would
be available to defray expenses incurred in implementing
title II, title VIII, and title XVI. If the court does not
order restitution, or only orders partial restitution, the
court must state the reason on the record. This provision
is effective with respect to violations occurring on or
after the date of enactment.
reason for change
This provision would enhance a judge's ability to
compensate the programs and punish persons convicted of
violations including, but not limited to, improper receipt of
Social Security payments and misuse of Social Security
numbers.
TITLE III--ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVE FEE PAYMENT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Section 301. Cap on Attorney Representative Assessments
present law
If there is an agreement between the claimant and the
attorney, the Social Security Act requires the SSA to pay
attorney fees for Title II claims directly to the attorney
out of the claimant's past-due benefits. The SSA charges an
assessment, at a rate not to exceed 6.3% of approved attorney
fees, for the costs of determining, processing, withholding,
and distributing attorney fees.
explanation of provision
The new provision imposes a cap of $75 on the 6.3%
assessment on approved attorney representative fees for Title
II claims. The cap is indexed annually for inflation. This
provision is effective after 180 days after the date of
enactment.
reason for change
Testimony was given at a House oversight hearing in May
2001 on the SSA's processing of attorney representative's
fees that the amount of the fee assessment is unfair to these
attorneys, who provide an important service to claimants. The
attorneys who receive fee payments from the agency have their
gross revenue reduced by 6.3%. As a result of this revenue
loss and the time it takes for the SSA to issue the fee
payments to attorneys, a number of attorneys have decided to
take fewer or none of these cases. The cap on the amount of
the assessment would help ensure that enough attorneys remain
available to represent claimants before the Social Security
Administration.
The Committee on Ways and Means continues to be concerned
about the agency's processing time for attorney
representatives fee payments and expects the SSA to further
automate the payment process as soon as possible.
Section 302. Extension of Attorney Fee Payment System to
Title XVI Claims
present law
If there is an agreement between the claimant and the
attorney, the Social Security Act requires attorney fees for
Title II claims to be paid by the SSA directly to the
attorney out of the claimant's past-due benefits (subject to
an assessment to cover the SSA's costs). However, attorney
fees for Title XVI claims are not paid directly by the SSA
out of past-due benefits. Instead, the attorney must collect
the fee from the beneficiary.
explanation of provision
The provision would extend direct fee payment to attorneys
out of past-due benefits
[[Page H1538]]
for Title XVI claims. It would also authorize the SSA to
charge a processing assessment of up to 6.3% of the approved
attorney fees, subject to a cap of $75 that is indexed for
inflation.
In addition, in cases where the States would be reimbursed
for interim assistance they had provided to a beneficiary
awaiting a decision on a claim for SSI benefits, the State
would be paid first, and the attorney would be paid second
out of the past-due benefit amount.
The provision also requires the General Accounting Office
to conduct a study of claimant representation in the Social
Security and Supplemental Security Income programs. The study
will include an evaluation of the potential results of
extending the fee withholding process to non-attorney
representatives.
This provision applies with respect to fees for
representation that are first required to be certified or
paid on or after the first day of the first month that begins
after 270 days after the date of enactment. The provision
would sunset with respect to respect to agreements for
representation entered into after 5 years after the
implementation date. The GAO report is due to the Committee
on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Finance of the Senate not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment.
reason for change.
Withholding the attorney fee payments from the SSI benefit
claim would improve SSI applicants' access to representation,
as more attorneys would be willing to represent claimants if
they are guaranteed payment.
Payment of States first and attorneys second would ensure
that States providing interim assistance to individuals would
not receive less reimbursement, while also providing a method
of ensuring that attorneys receive payment and continue to
provide representation.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
Subtitle A--Amendments Relating to the Ticket to Work and Work
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999
Section 401. Application of Demonstration Authority Sunset
Date to New Projects
present law
Section 234 of the Social Security Act provides the
Commissioner with general authority to conduct demonstration
projects for the disability insurance program. These projects
can test: (1) alternative methods of treating work activity
of individuals entitled to disability benefits; (2) the
alteration of other limitations and conditions that apply to
such individuals (such as an increase in the length of the
trial work period); and, (3) implementation of sliding scale
benefit offsets. To conduct the projects, the Commissioner
may waive compliance with the benefit requirements of Title
II and Section 1148, and the HHS Secretary may waive the
benefit requirements of Title XVIII. The Commissioner's
authority to conduct demonstration projects terminates on
December 17, 2004, five years after its enactment in the
``Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of
1999'' (P.L. 106-170, ``Ticket to Work Act'').
explanation of provision
The new provision clarifies that the Commissioner is
authorized to conduct demonstration projects that extend
beyond December 17, 2004, if such projects are initiated on
or before that date (i.e., initiated within the five-year
window after enactment of the Ticket to Work Act). This
provision is effective upon enactment.
Reason for change
The current five-year limitation on waiver authority
restricts the options that may be tested to improve work
incentives and return to work initiatives, as several
potential options the Commissioner may test would extend past
the current five-year limit. Developing a well-designed
demonstration project can require several years, and the
current five-year authority might not allow sufficient time
to both design the project and to conduct it long enough to
obtain reliable data.
Section 402. Expansion of Waiver Authority Available in
Connection with Demonstration Projects Providing for
Reductions in Disability Insurance Benefits Based on
Earnings
present law
Section 234 of the Social Security Act provides the
Commissioner with general authority to conduct demonstration
projects for the disability insurance program. In addition,
Section 302 of the Ticket to Work Act directs the
Commissioner to conduct demonstration projects for the
purpose of evaluating a program for Title II disability
beneficiaries under which benefits are reduced by $1 for each
$2 of the beneficiary's earnings above a level determined by
the Commissioner. To permit a thorough evaluation of
alternative methods, section 302 of the Ticket to Work Act
allows the Commissioner to waive compliance with the benefit
provisions of Title II and allows the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to waive compliance with the benefit
requirements of Title XVIII.
explanation of provision
The new provision allows the Commissioner to also waive
requirements in Section 1148 of the Social Security Act,
which governs the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program
(Ticket to Work Program), as they relate to Title II. This
provision is effective upon enactment.
reason for change
This additional waiver authority is needed to allow the
Commissioner to effectively test the $1-for-$2 benefit offset
in combination with return to work services under the Ticket
to Work Program. Under the $1-for-$2 benefit offset, earnings
of many beneficiaries may not be sufficient to completely
eliminate benefits. However, under section 1148 of the Social
Security Act, benefits must be completely eliminated before
employment networks participating in the Ticket to Work
Program are eligible to receive outcome payments. Therefore,
employment networks are likely to be reluctant to accept
tickets from beneficiaries participating in the $1-for-$2
benefit offset demonstration, making it impossible for the
SSA to effectively test the combination of the benefit offset
and these return to work services. Additionally, section 1148
waiver authority was provided for the broad Title II
disability demonstration authority under section 234 of the
Social Security Act, but not for this mandated project.
Section 403. Funding of Demonstration Projects Providing for
Reductions in Disability Insurance Benefits Based on
Earnings
present law
The Ticket to Work Act provides that the benefits and
administrative expenses of conducting the $1-for-$2
demonstration projects will be paid out of the Old-Age,
Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) and Federal
Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance (HI/SMI) trust funds, to the extent provided in
advance in appropriations act.
explanation of provision
The new provision establishes that administrative expenses
for the $1-for-$2 demonstration project will be paid out of
otherwise available annually-appropriated funds, and that
benefits associated with the demonstration project will be
paid from the OASDI or HI/SMI trust funds. This provision is
effective upon enactment.
reason for change
For demonstration projects conducted under the broader
Title II demonstration project authority under section 234 of
the Social Security Act, administrative costs are paid out of
otherwise available annually appropriated funds, and benefits
associated with the demonstration projects are paid from the
OASDI or HI/SMI trust funds. This provision would make
funding sources for the $1 for $2 demonstration project under
the Ticket to Work Act consistent with funding sources for
other Title II demonstration projects.
Section 404. Availability of Federal and State Work Incentive
Services to Additional Individuals
present law
Section 1149 of the Social Security Act (the Act), as added
by the Ticket to Work Act, directs the SSA to establish a
community-based work incentives planning and assistance
program to provide benefits planning and assistance to
disabled beneficiaries. To establish this program, the SSA is
required to award cooperative agreements (or grants or
contracts) to State or private entities. In fulfillment of
this requirement, the SSA has established the Benefits
Planning, Assistance, and Outreach (BPAO) program. BPAO
projects now exist in every state.
Section 1150 of the Act authorizes the SSA to award grants
to State protection and advocacy (P&A) systems so that they
can provide protection and advocacy services to disabled
beneficiaries. Under this section, services provided by
participating P&A systems may include: (1) information and
advice about obtaining vocational rehabilitation (VR) and
employment services; and (2) advocacy or other services that
a disabled beneficiary may need to secure or regain
employment. The SSA has established the Protection and
Advocacy to Beneficiaries of Social Security (PABSS) Program
pursuant to this authorization.
To be eligible for services under either the BPAO or PABSS
programs, an individual must be a ``disabled beneficiary'' as
defined under section 1148(k) of the Act. Section 1148(k)
defines a disabled beneficiary as an individual entitled to
Title II benefits based on disability or an individual who is
eligible for federal SSI cash benefits under Title XVI based
on disability or blindness.
explanation of provision
The new provision expands eligibility for the BPAO and
PABSS programs under sections 1149 and 1150 of the Act to
include not just individuals who are ``disabled
beneficiaries'' under section 1148(k) of the Act, but also
individuals who (1) are no longer eligible for SSI benefits
because of an increase in earnings, but remain eligible for
Medicaid under section 1619(b); (2) receive only a State
supplementation payment (a payment that some States provide
as a supplement to the federal SSI benefit); or (3) are in an
extended period of Medicare eligibility under Title XVIII
after a period of Title II disability has ended. The new
provision also expands the types of services a P&A system may
provide under section 1150 of the Act. Currently P&A systems
may provide ``advocacy or other services that a disabled
beneficiary may need to secure or regain employment,'' while
the new provision allows them to provide ``advocacy or other
services that a disabled beneficiary may need to secure,
maintain, or regain employment.''
[[Page H1539]]
The amendment to section 1149, which affects the BPAO
program, is effective with respect to grants, cooperative
agreements or contracts entered into on or after the date of
enactment. The amendments to section 1150, which affect the
PABSS program, are effective for payments provided after the
date of the enactment.
reason for change
The Committee on Ways and Means recognizes that Social
Security and SSI beneficiaries with disabilities face a
variety of barriers and disincentives to becoming employed
and staying in their jobs. The intent of this provision, as
with the Ticket to Work Act, is to encourage disabled
individuals to work.
The definition of ``disabled beneficiary'' under section
1148(k) of the Act does not include several groups of
beneficiaries, including individuals who are no longer
eligible for SSI benefits because of an earnings increase but
remain eligible for Medicaid under section 1619(b);
individuals receiving only a State supplementation payment;
and individuals who are in an extended period of Medicare
eligibility. The Committee on Ways and Means believes that
BPAO and PABSS services should be available to all of these
disabled beneficiaries regardless of Title II or SSI payment
status. Beneficiaries may have progressed beyond eligibility
for federal cash benefits, but may still need information
about the effects of work on their benefits, or may need
advocacy or other services to help them maintain or regain
employment. Extending eligibility for the BPAO and PABSS
programs to beneficiaries who are receiving a State
supplementation payment or are still eligible for Medicare or
Medicaid, but who are no longer eligible for federal cash
benefits, will help to prevent these beneficiaries from
returning to the federal cash benefit rolls and help them to
reach their optimum level of employment.
The Committee on Ways and Means also intends that PABSS
services be available to provide assistance to beneficiaries
who have successfully obtained employment but who continue to
encounter job-related difficulties. Therefore, the new
provision extends the current PABSS assistance (which is
available for securing and regaining employment) to
maintaining employment--thus providing a continuity of
services for disabled individuals throughout the process of
initially securing employment, the course of their being
employed and, if needed, their efforts to regain employment.
This provision would ensure that disabled individuals would
not face a situation in which they would have to wait until
they lost their employment in order to once again be eligible
to receive PABSS services. Payments for services to maintain
employment would be subject to Section 1150(c) of the Social
Security Act. The Committee on Ways and Means will continue
to monitor the implementation of PABSS programs to ensure
that assistance is directed to all areas in which
beneficiaries face obstacles in securing, maintaining, or
regaining work.
Section 405. Technical Amendment Clarifying Treatment for
Certain Purposes of Individual Work Plans Under the
Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program
present law
Under section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC),
employers may claim a Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) if
they hire, among other individuals, individuals with
disabilities who have been referred by a State vocational
rehabilitation (VR) agency. For an individual to qualify as a
vocational rehabilitation referral under section 51(d)(6)(B)
of the IRC, the individual must be receiving or have
completed vocational rehabilitation services pursuant to: (i)
``an individualized written plan for employment under a State
plan for vocational rehabilitation services approved under
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;'' or (ii) ``a program of
vocational rehabilitation carried out under chapter 31 of
title 38, United States Code.'' (IRC, section 51(d)(6)(B).
The WOTC is equal to 40% of the first $6,000 of wages paid
to newly hired employees during their first year of
employment when the employee is retained for at least 400
work hours. As such, the maximum credit per employee is
$2,400, but the credit may be less depending on the
employer's tax bracket. A lesser credit rate of 25% is
provided to employers when the employee remains on the job
for 120-399 hours. The amount of the credit reduces the
company's deduction for the employee's wages.
The Ticket to Work Act established the Ticket to Work and
Self-Sufficiency Program (Ticket to Work Program) under
section 1148 of the Social Security Act. Under this program,
the SSA provides a ``ticket'' to eligible Social Security
Disability Insurance beneficiaries and Supplemental Security
Income beneficiaries with disabilities that allows them to
obtain employment and other support services from an approved
``employment network'' of their choice. Employment
networks may include State, local, or private entities
that can provide directly, or arrange for other
organizations or entities to provide, employment services,
VR services, or other support services. State VR agencies
have the option of participating in the Ticket to Work
Program as employment networks. Employment networks must
work with each beneficiary they serve to develop an
individual work plan (IWP) for that beneficiary that
outlines his or her vocational goals and the services
needed to achieve those goals. For VR agencies that
participate in the Ticket to Work Program, the
individualized written plan for employment (as specified
under (i) in paragraph one above) serves in lieu of the
IWP.
Under current law, an employer hiring a disabled individual
referred by an employment network does not qualify for the
WOTC unless the employment network is a State VR agency.
explanation of provision
The new provision allows employers who hire disabled
workers through referrals by employment networks under
section 1148 of the Social Security Act to qualify for the
WOTC. Specifically, it provides that, for purposes of section
51(d)(6)(B)(i) of the IRC of 1986, an IWP under section 1148
of the Social Security Act shall be treated as an
individualized written plan for employment under a State plan
for vocational rehabilitation services approved under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
This provision is effective as if it were included in
section 505 of the Ticket to Work Act.
reason for change
The Ticket to Work Program was designed to increase choice
available to beneficiaries when they select providers of
employment services. Employers hiring individuals with
disabilities should be able to qualify for the WOTC
regardless of whether the employment referral is made by a
public or private service provider. This amendment updates
eligibility criteria for the WOTC to conform to the expansion
of employment services and the increase in number and range
of VR providers as a result of the enactment of the Ticket to
Work Act.
Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Amendments
Section 411. Elimination of Transcript Requirement in Remand
Cases Fully Favorable to the Claimant
present law
The Social Security Act requires the SSA to file a hearing
transcript with the District Court for any SSA hearing that
follows a court remand of a SSA decision.
explanation of provision
The new provision clarifies that the SSA is not required to
file a transcript with the court when the SSA, on remand,
issues a decision fully favorable to the claimant. This
provision is effective with respect to final determinations
issued (upon remand) on or after the date of enactment.
reason for change
A claimant whose benefits have been denied is provided a
transcript of a hearing to be used when the claimant appeals
his case in Federal District court. If the Administrative Law
Judge issued a fully favorable decision, then transcribing
the hearing is unnecessary since the claimant would not
appeal this decision.
Section 412. Nonpayment of Benefits Upon Removal From the
United States
present law
In most cases, the Social Security Act prohibits the
payment of Social Security benefits to non-citizens who are
deported from the United States. However, the Act does not
prohibit the payment of Social Security benefits to non-
citizens who are deported for smuggling other non-citizens
into the United States.
explanation of provision
The new provision requires the SSA to suspend benefits of
beneficiaries who are removed from the United States for
smuggling aliens. This provision applies with respect to
removals occurring after the date of enactment.
reason for change
Individuals who are removed from the United States for
smuggling aliens have committed an act that should prohibit
them for receiving Social Security benefits.
Section 413. Reinstatement of Certain Reporting Requirements
present law
The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995
``sunsetted'' most annual or periodic reports from agencies
to Congress that were listed in a 1993 House inventory of
congressional reports.
explanation of provision
The new provision reinstates the requirements for several
periodic reports to Congress that were subject to the 1995
``sunset'' Act, including annual reports on the financial
solvency of the Social Security and Medicare programs (the
Board of Trustees' reports on the OASDI, HI, and SMI trust
funds) and annual reports on certain aspects of the
administration of the Title II disability program (the SSA
Commissioner's reports on pre-effectuation reviews of
disability determinations and continuing disability reviews).
The provision is effective upon enactment.
Reason for change
The reports to be reinstated provide Congress with
important information needed to evaluate and oversee the
Social Security and Medicare programs.
Section 414. Clarification of Definitions Regarding Certain
Survivor Benefits
Present Law
Under the definitions of ``widow'' and ``widower'' in
Section 216 of the Social Security Act, a widow or widower
must have been
[[Page H1540]]
married to the deceased spouse for at least nine months
before his or her death in order to be eligible for survivor
benefits.
Explanation of Provision
The new provision creates an exception to the nine-month
requirement for cases in which the Commissioner finds that
the claimant and the deceased spouse would have been married
for longer than nine months but for the fact that the
deceased spouse was legally prohibited from divorcing a prior
spouse who was institutionalized due to mental incompetence
or similar incapacity. The provision is effective for benefit
applications filed after the date of enactment.
Reason for Change
This provision allows the Commissioner to issue benefits in
certain unusual cases in which the duration of marriage
requirement could not be met due to a legal impediment over
which the individual had no control and the individual would
have met the legal requirements were it not for the legal
impediment.
Section 415. Clarification Respecting the FICA and SECA Tax
Exemptions for an Individual Whose Earnings are Subject
to the Laws of a Totalization Agreement Partner
Present Law
In cases where there is an agreement with a foreign country
(i.e., a totalization agreement), a worker's earnings are
exempt from United States Social Security payroll taxes when
those earnings are subject to the foreign country's
retirement system.
Explanation of Provision
The new provision clarifies the legal authority to exempt a
worker's earnings from United States Social Security tax in
cases where the earnings were subject to a foreign country's
retirement system in accordance with a U.S. totalization
agreement, but the foreign country's law does not require
compulsory contributions on those earnings. The provision
establishes that such earnings are exempt from United States
Social Security tax whether or not the worker elected to make
contributions to the foreign country's retirement system.
The provision is effective upon enactment.
Reason for Change
In U.S. totalization agreements, a person's work is
generally subject to the Social Security laws of the country
in which the work is performed. In most cases, the worker
(whether subject to the laws of the United States or the
other country) is compulsorily covered and required to pay
contributions in accordance with the laws of that country. In
some instances, however, work that would be compulsorily
covered in the U.S. is excluded from compulsory coverage in
the other country (such as Germany). In such cases, the IRS
has questioned the exemption from U.S. Social Security tax
for workers who elect not to make contributions to the
foreign country's retirement system. This provision would
remove any question regarding the exemption and would be
consistent with the general philosophy behind the coverage
rules of totalization agreements.
Section 416. Coverage Under Divided Retirement System for
Public Employees in Kentucky
Present Law
Under Section 218 of the Social Security Act, a State may
choose whether or not its State and local government
employees who are covered by a public pension may also
participate in the Social Security Old-Age, Survivors, and
Disability Insurance program. (In this context, the term
``public pension plan'' refers to a pension, annuity,
retirement, or similar fund or system established by a State
or a political subdivision of a State such as a town. Under
current law, State or local government employees not covered
by a public pension plan are, with a few exceptions, required
to pay Social Security payroll taxes.)
Social Security coverage for employees covered under a
State or local government public pension plan is established
through an agreement between the State and the federal
government. All States have the option of electing Social
Security coverage for employees by a majority vote in a
referendum. If the majority vote is in favor of Social
Security coverage, then the entire group, including those
voting against such coverage, will be covered by Social
Security. If the majority vote is against Social Security
coverage, then the entire group, including those voting in
favor of such coverage and employees hired after the
referendum, will not be covered by Social Security.
In certain States, however, there is an alternative method
for electing Social Security coverage. Under this method,
rather than the majority of votes determining Social Security
coverage for the whole group, employees voting in the
referendum may individually determine whether they want
Social Security coverage, provided that all newly hired
employees of the system are required to participate in Social
Security. After the referendum, the retirement system is
divided into two groups, one composed of members who elected
Social Security coverage plus those hired after the
referendum, and the other composed of those who did not elect
Social Security coverage. Under Section 218(d)(6)(c) of the
Social Security Act, 21 states currently have authority to
operate such a divided retirement system.
Explanation of Provision
The new provision permits the state of Kentucky to join the
21 other states in being able to offer a divided retirement
system. This system would permit current state and local
government workers in a public pension plan to elect
Social Security coverage on an individual basis. Those who
do not wish to be covered by Social Security would
continue to participate exclusively in the public pension
plan. This provision is effective retroactively to January
1, 2003.
reason for change
The governments of the City of Louisville and Jefferson
County merged in January 2003, and formed a new political
subdivision. Under the provision, once the new political
subdivision holds a referendum on Social Security coverage
among its employees, each employee would choose whether or
not to participate in the Social Security system in addition
to their public pension plan. All employees newly hired to
the system after the divided system is in place would be
covered automatically under Social Security.
Currently, some employees of the new government are covered
under Social Security, while others are not. In order to
provide fair and equitable coverage to all employees, a
divided retirement system, such as that currently authorized
in 21 other states, was seen as the best solution. It would
allow those who want to keep Social Security coverage or
obtain Social Security coverage to do so, without requiring
other current employees to participate in Social Security as
well.
Without this provision, upon holding a referendum on Social
Security coverage, a majority of votes would determine
whether or not the group would participate in Social
Security. Since the number of non-covered employees exceeds
the number of Social Security-covered employees in the new
government, those employees currently covered by Social
Security could lose that coverage. The Kentucky General
Assembly has adopted a bill that will allow the new divided
retirement system to go forward following enactment of this
provision.
Section 417. Compensation for the Social Security Advisory
Board
present law
The Social Security Advisory Board is an independent,
bipartisan Board established by the Congress under section
703 of the Social Security Act. The 7-member board is
appointed by the President and the Congress to advise the
President, the Congress, and the Commissioner of Social
Security on matters related to the Social Security and
Supplemental Security Income programs. Section 703(f) of the
Social Security Act provides that members of the Board serve
without compensation, except that, while engaged in Board
business away from their homes or regular places of business,
members may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in
lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title
5, United States Code for persons in the Government who are
employed intermittently.
explanation of provision
The new provision establishes that compensation for Social
Security Advisory Board members will be provided, at the
daily rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive
Schedule, for each day (including travel time) during which
the member is engaged in performing a function of the Board.
This provision is effective on January 1, 2003.
reasons for change
Other government advisory boards--such as the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act Advisory Council, the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee and the
Thrift Savings Plan Board--provide compensation for their
members. This provision allows for similar treatment of
Social Security Advisory Board members with respect to
compensation.
Seciton 418. 60-Month Period of Employment Requirement for
Application of Government Pension Offset Exemption
present law
The Government Pension Offset (GPO) was enacted in order to
equalize treatment of workers in jobs not covered by Social
Security and workers in jobs covered by Social Security, with
respect to spouse and survivor benefits. Where what is known
as the ``dual-entitlement'' rule reduces a spouse or survivor
benefit dollar-for-dollar by the worker's own Social Security
retirement or disability benefit, the GPO reduces the Social
Security spouse or survivor benefit by two-thirds of the
government pension.
However, under what's know as the ``last day rule,'' State
and local government workers are exempt from the GPO if, on
the last day of employment, their job was covered by Social
Security. In contrast, Federal workers who switched from the
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), a system that is not
covered by Social Security, to the Federal Employee
Retirement System (FERS), a system that is covered by Social
Security, must work for 5 years under FERS in order to be
exempt from the GPO.
explanation of provision
The new provision requires that State and local government
workers be covered by Social Security during their last 5
years of employment in order to be exempt from the GPO. The
provision is effective for applications filed on or after the
first day of the first month after the date of enactment.
However, the provision would not apply to individuals whose
last day of employment for the State or local governmental
entity occurred before the end of the 90-day period following
the date of enactment. It would also not apply to person
whose last day of
[[Page H1541]]
employment occurred after the end of the 90-day period
following the date of enactment, if during the 90-day period
following the date of enactment the person's job was covered
by Social Security and remained so until their last day of
employment.
reason for change
In August 2002, the GAO published a report titled ``Social
Security Administration: Revision to the Government Pension
Offset Exemption Should Be Considered'' (GAO-02-950). At the
request of Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on
Social Chairman E. Clay Shaw, Jr., the GAO investigated use
of the ``last day'' exemption to avoid being subject to the
GPO. The investigation found that over 4,800 individuals in
Texas and Georgia used the last day exemption, with over
3,500 in Texas using it in 2002.
In testimony provided to the Subcommittee on Social
Security February 27, 2003, the GAO stated that the exemption
``allows a select group of individuals with a relatively
small investment of work time and only minimal Social
Security contributions to gain access to potentially many
years of full Social Security spousal benefits.'' GAO also
clarified in testimony that a spouse who worked in the
private sector, paid payroll taxes for an entire career,
and earned a Social Security retirement or disability
benefit as a worker would not receive a full spousal
benefit. The GAO stated that current usage of last day
exemption could cost the Social Security trust funds $450
million, and that considering the potential for abuse of
the exemption and the likelihood of increased use, timely
action is needed. This provision to conform their
treatment to that of federal workers was among the
recommendations provided by the GAO to address potential
abuse of the exemption. A provision addressing the GPO
last-day exemption was also included in President Bush's
budget request for 2004.
Subtitle C--Technical Amendments
Section 421. Technical Correction Relating to Responsible
Agency Head
present law
Section 1143 of the Social Security Act directs ``the
Secretary of Health and Human Services'' to send periodic
Social Security Statements to individuals.
explanation of provision
The new provision makes a technical correction to this
section by inserting a reference to the Commissioner of
Social Security in place of the reference to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services. This provision is effective upon
enactment.
reason for change
The ``Social Security Independence and Program Improvements
Act of 1994'' (P.L. 103-296) made the Social Security
Administration an independent agency separate from the
Department of Health and Human Services. This provision
updates Section 1143 to reflect that change.
Section 422. Technical Correction Relating to Retirement
Benefits of Ministers
present law
Section 1456 of the ``Small Business Job Protection Act of
1996'' (P.L. 104-188) established that certain retirement
benefits received by ministers and members of religious
orders (such as the rental value of a parsonage or parsonage
allowance) are not subject to Social Security payroll taxes
under the Internal Revenue Code. However, under Section 211
of the Social Security Act, these retirement benefits are
treated as net earnings from self-employment for the purpose
of acquiring insured status and calculating Social Security
benefit amounts.
explanation of provision
The new provision makes a conforming change to exclude
these benefits received by retired clergy from Social
Security-covered earnings for the purpose of acquiring
insured status and calculating Social Security benefit
amounts. This provision is effective for years beginning
before, on, or after December 31, 1994. This effective date
is the same as the effective date of Section 1456 of P.L.
104-188.
reason for change
P.L. 104-188 provided that certain retirement benefits
received by ministers and members of religious orders are not
subject to payroll taxes. However, a conforming change was
not made to the Social Security Act to exclude these benefits
from being counted as wages for the purpose of acquiring
insured status and calculating Social Security benefit
amounts. This income is therefore not treated in a uniform
manner. This provision would conform the Social Security Act
to the Internal Revenue Code with respect to such income.
Section 423. Technical Correction Relating to Domestic
Employment
present law
Present law is ambiguous concerning the Social Security
coverage and tax treatment of domestic service performed on a
farm. Domestic employment on a farm appears to be subject to
two separate coverage thresholds (one for agricultural labor
and another for domestic employees).
explanation of provision
The new provision clarifies that domestic service on a farm
is treated as domestic employment, rather than agricultural
labor, for Social Security coverage and tax purposes. This
provision is effective upon enactment.
reason for change
Prior to 1994, domestic service on a farm was treated as
agricultural labor and was subject to the coverage threshold
for agricultural labor. According to the SSA, in 1994, when
congress amended the law with respect to domestic employment,
the intent was that domestic employment on a farm would be
subject to the coverage threshold for domestic employees
instead of the threshold for agricultural labor. However, the
current language is unclear, making it appear as if farm
domestics are subject to both threshold.
Section 424. Technical Correction of Outdated References
present law
Section 202(n) and 211(a)(15) of the Social Security Act
and Section 3102(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 each
contain outdated references that relate to the Social
Security program.
explanation of provision
The new provision corrects outdated references in the
Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code by: (1) in
Section 202(n) of the Social Security Act, updating
references respecting removal from the United States; (2) in
Section 211(a)(15) of the Social Security Act, correcting a
citation respecting a tax deduction related to health
insurance cost of self-employed individuals; and (3) in
Section 3102(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
eliminating a reference to an obsolete 20-day agricultural
work test. This provision is effective upon enactment.
reason for change
Over the years, provisions in the Social Security Act, the
Internal Revenue Code and other related laws have been
deleted, re-designated or amended. However, necessary
conforming changes have not always been made. Consequently,
Social Security law contains some outdated references.
Section 425. Technical Correction Respecting Self-Employment
Income in Community Property States
present law
The Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code
provide that, in the absence of a partnership, all self-
employment income from a trade or business operated by a
married person in a community property State is deemed to be
the husband's unless the wife exercises substantially all of
the management and control of the trade or business.
explanation of provision
Under the new provision, self-employment income from a
trade or business that is not a partnership, and that is
operated by a married person in a community property State,
is taxed and credited to the spouse who is carrying on the
trade or business. If the trade or business is jointly
operated, the self-employment income is taxed and credited to
each spouse based on their distributive share of gross
earnings. This provision is effective upon enactment.
reason for change
Present law was found to be unconstitutional in several
court cases in 1980. Since, then, income from a trade or
business that is not a partnership in a community property
State has been treated the same as income from a trade or
business that is not a partnership in a non-community
property State--it is taxed and credited to the spouse who is
found to be carrying on the business.
This change will conform the provision in the Social
Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code to current
practice in both community property and non-community
property States.
____
Letters of Support Received for H.R. 743, Social Security Protection
Act of 2003
Disability Advocates
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities.
Attorney Organizations
National Organization of Social Security Claimants'
Representatives.
Administrative Law Judges
Association of Administrative Law Judges.
Law Enforcement
Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police.
Fraternal Order of Police, Louisville Lodge 6.
Long Beach, CA Police--Chief of Police.
Wayne County, MI (includes Detroit)--Sheriff.
Chartiers Township Police--Houston, PA--Chief of Police.
Borough of Churchill Police--Pittsburgh, PA--Chief of
Police.
Brecknock Township Police--Mohnton, PA--Chief of Police.
Milton, PA Police--Chief of Police.
AARP,
Washington, DC, March 5, 2003.
Hon. Robert Matsui,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Matsui: On behalf of AARP and its 35
million members, I wish to commend you and Representative
Shaw for introducing H.R. 743, the ``Social Security Program
Protection Act of 2003.'' This comprehensive legislation is
important to claimants, beneficiaries and the overall Social
Security program.
We are pleased that the legislation would protect
beneficiaries against abuses by representative payees. For
many years, AARP recruited volunteers as representative
payees so that Social Security beneficiaries who
[[Page H1542]]
needed a representative payee but could not find one would
not lose any benefits. These programs were quite successful
but were limited in scope.
AARP has had a longstanding interest in curbing deceptive
mailings targeted at older Americans. This legislation builds
upon prior legislation and could discourage other mailers
from scaring older people about their Social Security and
Medicare benefits.
The legislation would strengthen the Ticket to Work Act and
conduct pilot projects to improve work incentives for those
with a disability. These changes would send a strong signal
that our society values the contributions of all its
citizens.
Thank you again for your leadership in moving H.R. 743 in
the House.
Sincerely,
David Certner,
Director, Federal Affairs.
____
NAMI,
Arlington, VA, March 3, 2003.
Hon. E. Clay Shaw,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways
& Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shaw: On behalf of the 220,000 members and
1,200 affiliates of the National Alliance for the Mentally
Ill (NAMI) I am writing to offer our support and urge swift
House consideration of HR 743, the Social Security Protection
Act of 2003. As the nation's largest organization
representing individuals with severe mental illnesses and
their families, NAMI urges the House to pass this bipartisan
legislation to protect the interests of vulnerable
beneficiaries of Social Security's disability income and
support programs.
HR 743 is the product of near universal bipartisan support.
This legislation contains many long overdue protections for
the most disabled and vulnerable Americans and their
families. As you know, individuals with severe mental
illnesses represent a large and growing percentage of Social
Security's cash assistance benefit programs (SSI and SSDI).
The beneficiary protections and program integrity provisions
in HR 743 will help ensure that the performance of the SSI
and SSDI programs improve. Of particular to NAMI are the
sections in HR 743 that will provide badly needed protections
for recipients whose benefits are mishandled or fraudulently
diverted by institutional representative payees. NAMI is
especially supportive of these protections given the high
percentage of SSI beneficiaries with severe persistent mental
illnesses who receive benefits through a representative
payee.
NAMI is also pleased with provisions in HR 743 that will
require Social Security to issue receipts to SSDI
beneficiaries when they forward earnings reports to agency.
This new protection will be of tremendous help to SSDI
beneficiaries seeking to use the Trial Work Period program to
re-enter the workforce. Finally, NAMI is pleased that HR 743
contains needed technical corrections to improve with the
implementation of the 1999 Ticket to Work and Work incentives
Improvement Act (TWWIIA).
HR 743 is the product of years of bipartisan work. Similar
legislation passed the House 425-0 and cleared the Senate
without dissent in the 107th Congress. In NAMI's view, the
House should act swiftly in 2003 to pass this important
legislation that everyone agrees is needed to protect people
with severe disabilities that rely on SSI and SSDI benefits
for their most basic needs.
Sincerely,
Richard C. Birkel, Ph.D.,
Executive Director.
____
Consortium for
Citizens with Disabilities,
Washington, DC, March 4, 2003.
Hon. E. Clay Shaw,
Hon. Robert Matsui,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Shaw and Matsui: On behalf of the
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Task Forces on
Social Security and Work Incentives Implementation, we are
writing to express our support for the speedy passage of H.R.
743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2003.
We appreciate the hard work and the perseverance of the
Subcommittee on Social Security in addressing this important
legislation over the course of two Congresses and again in
this 108th Congress. Your leadership and commitment last year
resulted in the passage of the Social Security Program
Protection Act of 2002, H.R. 4070, in the House by a vote of
425 to 0. Clearly, the issues addressed in the bipartisan
Social Security Protection Act are important to people with
disabilities who must depend on the Title II and Title XVI
disability programs. We urge House passage of H.R. 743.
H.R. 743 is a very important bill for people with
disabilities. We believe that it should be enacted as soon as
possible. People with disabilities need the protections of
the representative payee provisions. People with disabilities
who are attempting to work need the statutory changes to the
Ticket to Work program in order to better utilize the
intended work incentive provisions enacted in 1999. In
addition, beneficiaries with disabilities need the provision
requiring the Social Security Administration to issue written
receipts, and to implement a centralized computer file
record, whenever beneficiaries report earnings or a change in
work status. These important provisions have not been
controversial--in fact, they have enjoyed significant
bipartisan support--and have simply fallen prey to the
legislative process over the last two Congresses. We
appreciate your interest in moving H.R. 743 quickly so that
these important protections can become available to
beneficiaries as soon as possible.
One of the most important sections of H.R. 743 for people
with disabilities is the section dealing with improved
protections for beneficiaries who need representative payees.
Approximately 6 million Social Security and Supplemental
Security Income beneficiaries have representative payees,
often family members or friends, who receive the benefits on
their behalf and have a responsibility to manage the benefits
on behalf of the beneficiaries.
H.R. 743 includes important provisions strengthening SSA's
ability to address abuses by representative payees. The
provisions would:
Require non-governmental fee-for-services organizational
representative payees to be bonded and licensed under state
or local law;
Provide that when an organization has been found to have
misused an individual's benefits, the organization would not
qualify for the fee;
Allow SSA to re-issue benefits to beneficiaries whose funds
had been misused;
Allow SSA to treat misused benefits as ``overpayments'' to
the representative payee, thereby triggering SSA's authority
to recover the money through tax refund offsets, referral to
collection agencies, notifying credit bureaus, and offset of
any future federal benefits/payments; and
Require monitoring of representative payees, including
monitoring of organizations over a certain size and
government agencies serving as representative payees.
In addition, H.R. 743 would extend the direct payment of
attorneys fees in SSI cases on a voluntary basis. Advocates
believe that such a program will make legal representation
more accessible for people with disabilities who need
assistance in handling their cases as they move through the
extremely complex disability determination and appeals
systems.
CCD is a working coalition of national consumer, advocacy,
provider, and professional organizations working together
with and on behalf of the 54 million children and adults with
disabilities and their families living in the United States.
The CCD Social Security and Work Incentives Implementation
Task Forces focus on disability policy issues in the Title
XVI Supplemental Security Income program and the Title II
disability programs. We look forward to the House passage and
final enactment of H.R. 743.
Sincerely,
Co-chairs, Social Security and Work Incentives Implementation Task
Forces
Marty Ford
The Arc and UCP Public Policy Collaboration.
Ethel Zelenske
National Organization of Social Security Claimants'
Representatives.
Cheryl Bates-Harris
National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.
Susan Prokop
Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Melanie Brunson
American Council of the Blind.
Paul Seifert
International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation
Services.
____
National Organization of Social Security Claimants'
Representatives,
Midland Park, NJ, February 26, 2003.
Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the National Organization
of Social Security Claimants' Representatives (``NOSSCR''),
we offer our support for the important goals of H.R. 743, the
Social Security Protection Act of 2003.
Specifically, we support the protections in Title I for
beneficiaries who have representative payees and support
provisions which, for the first time, require the Social
Security Administration to issue receipts to beneficiaries
when they report earnings or a change in work status.
Additionally, Title III of this measure contains two
important provisions NOSSCR strongly supports. These
provisions are designed to ensure access to legal
representation for those Social Security and Supplemental
Security Income (``SSI'') claimants who seek to be
represented as they pursue their claims and appeals. First,
the bill limits the assessment of the user fee to $75.00 or
6.3 percent, whichever is lower. Second, the bill extends the
current Title II fee withholding and direct payment procedure
to the Title XVI program, giving SSI claimants the same
access to representation as is currently available to Social
Security disability claimants. Together, these provisions
make changes that will help claimants obtain representation
as they navigate what can often be confusing and difficult
process.
We are dismayed, however, by the addition of a sunset
provision for the extension of withholding to the Title XVI
program. Enactment of an attorneys' fee payment system with
an ``end date'' will undercut its very purpose: to enable
more SSI claimants seeking a lawyer to hire one. The sunset
provision shortchanges SSI claimants who desire legal
representation. We are not aware
[[Page H1543]]
of any policy justification for this provision, and we urge
its deletion from the bill.
NOSSCR appreciates your continued interest in improving the
Social Security and SSI programs and ensuring the best
possible service delivery. We look forward to your
Subcommittee's consideration of this legislation.
Very truly yours,
Nancy G. Shor,
Executive Director.
____
Association of
Administrative Law Judges,
Milwaukee, WI, February 28, 2003.
Re: The Social Security Protection Act of 2003 (HR 743).
Hon. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
Chairperson, Subcommittee on Social Security, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairperson Shaw: I write on behalf of the Association
of Administrative Law Judges. We represent about 1000
administrative law judges in the Social Security
Administration and in the Department of Health and Human
Services which comprise about 80% of the administrative law
judges in the Federal government. I am writing in regard to
H.R. 743, a bill to provide additional safeguards for Social
Security and Supplement Security Income beneficiaries with
representative payees, to enhance program protections, and
for other purposes.
We support the goals of H.R. 743. In particular, we support
the attorney fee payment system improvements provided for in
the bill, but we believe that the legislation should not
include any ``sunset'' provisions. We further support the
provisions in the legislation for the elimination of
transcript requirements in remand cases fully favorable to
the claimant.
We also favor the provision in the legislation that directs
the Social Security Administration to issue receipts to
acknowledge submissions of earnings by beneficiaries.
Thank you for your work on this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Ronald G. Bernoski,
President.
____
Grand Lodge,
Fraternal Order of Police,
Washington, DC, January 10, 2003.
Hon. Ron Lewis,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Lewis: I am writing on behalf of the
membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of
our strong support for H.R. 134, which would add Kentucky to
the list of those States permitted to operate a separate
retirement system for certain public employees.
As you know, in November of 2000, the citizens of Jefferson
County and the City of Louisville, Kentucky voted to merge
their communities and respective governments into a single
entity, known as Greater Louisville. This merger went into
effect on 6 January 2003. Jefferson County and the City of
Louisville operated two very different retirement programs
for their police officers and, now that the merger has
occurred, Federal law requires the new government to offer a
single retirement plan. We share your concern that this
requirement may dramatically increase the cost of retirement
for the public safety officers who now serve Greater
Louisville, and thus jeopardize the retirement security of
many of the community's police, fire, and emergency
personnel.
The Kentucky State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police
has been successful in its effort in the State's General
Assembly and now need the Federal government to act by adding
Kentucky to the list of twenty-one (21) States permitted to
operate what is known as a ``divided retirement system.''
This will allow the police officers of Greater Louisville to
decide for themselves whether or not they want to participate
in Social Security or remain in their traditional retirement
plan. While future employees will be automatically enrolled
in Social Security, no current officers would be forced into
a new retirement system as a result of the merger.
It is critical that the Congress act quickly on this
matter. The F.O.P. is ready to assist you in getting this
bill through the House expeditiously.
On behalf of the more than 300,000 members of the Fraternal
Order of Police, I want to thank you for your hard work on
this effort. Please let us know how we can be of further
assistance by contacting me or Executive Director Jim Pasco
through my Washington office.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.
____
Fraternal Order of Police,
Louisville Lodge 6,
Louisville, KY, February 19, 2003.
Hon. Ron Lewis,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Lewis: I am writing on behalf of the
members of Fraternal Order of Police, Louisville Lodge #6. We
want to advise you of our support for HR 134. We believe that
this bill would add Kentucky to the list of those States
permitted to operate a separate retirement system for certain
public employees.
As I am sure you are aware that last November our community
voted to unite Jefferson County and the City of Louisville,
Kentucky. We have a newly formed entity known as Greater
Louisville. This merger was effective January 6th 2003.
Jefferson County and the City of Louisville are now operating
on two very different retirement systems in respect to their
police officers. Now that the merger has taken effect,
Federal law requires the new government to offer one single
retirement plan for everyone.
The Kentucky State F.O.P. Lodge has been successful in its
effort in the State's General Assembly and now need the
Federal Government to act by adding Kentucky to the list of
twenty-one (21) States permitted to operate what is known as
a ``divided retirement system.'' This will give every police
officer the choice whether to participate in Social Security
or remain in their current/traditional retirement plan.
We believe that it is critical and important that Congress
act on this matter as quickly as possible. On behalf of our
membership, we wish to thank you for your efforts with this
matter. Please let us know if we can be of any assistance in
the future.
Sincerely,
David James,
President.
____
City of Long Beach
Police Department,
Long Beach, CA, February 27, 2003.
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Shaw: It has come to my attention that you
will soon be holding hearings on House of Representatives
Bill 743. I am writing to let you know that I fully support
this Bill, especially as it relates to expanding the denial
of Social Security benefits to all of those who are fugitives
from justice.
My department has worked successfully with the Social
Security Administration's Office of the Inspector General
(SSA OIG) in apprehending fugitives who collect Supplemental
Security Income payments. By working with the SSA OIG to
remove a source of income for the fugitive, law enforcement
departments like mine are finding it easier to locate and
apprehend fugitives.
I urge you to fully support the provisions of H.R. 743 that
make all fugitives ineligible for any type of Social Security
benefit from the United States Government.
Sincerely,
Anthony W. Batts,
Chief of Police.
____
Office of the Sheriff,
Wayne County,
Detroit, MI, February 25, 2003.
Subject: House Bill HR 473.
Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Shaw: I would like to take this
opportunity to officially endorse and support House Bill HR
473 that provides for the expansion of the Fugitive Felons
Project to include the Title II program. My department works
closely with the Social Security Inspector General's office
in identifying Title 16 SSI welfare recipients who are
fugitive felons and are residents of Wayne County.
Over the past two years several hundred fugitive felons
have been arrested because of the close working relationship
between the Sheriff's Department and the Social Security
Inspector General's office. By expanding the fugitive felon
provision to include the Title II program, I believe the
number of arrests will increase significantly.
If I may be of assistance to you in this matter, please
contact me at (313) 224-2233.
Sincerely yours,
Warren C. Evans,
Sheriff.
____
Chartiers Township
Police Department,
Houston, PA, February 26, 2003.
Congressman E. Clay Shaw Jr.,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman E. Clay Shaw Jr.: I am writing you today,
to strongly endorse House Bill #473. I would especially
endorse Section 203 that covers the Title II Fugitive Felons
expansion. I believe Law Enforcement efforts would be greatly
enhanced by its passage.
Sincerely,
James M. Horvath,
Chief.
____
The Borough of Churchill
Police Department,
Pittsburgh, PA, February 28, 2003.
To: Congressman E. Clay Shaw Jr.
Subject: Endorsement for H.R. 743.
I am writing to show my support for the above bill. I
believe that it would be in the best interest of the American
public to give this tool to Law Enforcement officials. I
believe that it will help up in the investigation of
Terrorists.
Richard H. James,
Chief of Police.
____
Brecknock Township
Police Department,
Mohnton, PA, February 27, 2003.
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Shaw: I would like to take this
opportunity to endorse the expansion of the Fugitive Felons
Project to include the Title II program in Section 203 of
[[Page H1544]]
HR 473. It will be another valuable tool in the fight against
crime.
Thank you for your consideration.
John V. Mintz,
Chief of Police.
____
Milton Police Department,
Milton, PA, February 25, 2003.
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Shaw Jr.: This letter is in support of
your efforts under House Bill H.R. 743, amending the Social
Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This
should provide law enforcement at all levels a powerful tool
in the location of fugitives from justice. On many occasions
in my law enforcement experience I have found persons
receiving benefits of the Social Security System while
outstanding warrants or other paper was pending on them.
Thank you for your introduction of this needed legislation.
Sincerely yours.
Paul Yost,
Chief.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger), a valued member of the subcommittee.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Social Security
Program Protection act. I would like to thank Chairman Shaw and the
other members of the Committee on Ways and Means who have worked
tirelessly to improve Social Security programs that provide a crucial
safety net for many of our Nation's neediest disabled and elderly
individuals. These changes have been designed to ensure that the right
benefits go to the right people, a principle which should guide our
efforts on behalf of the taxpayers we serve.
I am especially pleased that the bill before us includes a provision
designed to keep convicted fugitive felons from getting Social Security
checks. These efforts built upon the criminal welfare prevention
provisions which I introduced and which were enacted into law more than
3 years ago. By all accounts, these laws have been effective in
stopping illegal, fraudulent Social Security payments to prisoners.
We have also stopped hard-earned taxpayer dollars from being used to
subsidize addicts with disability checks. Overall, we have saved the
taxpayers and beneficiaries literally billions of dollars.
Other provisions in the legislation before us, such as granting the
Social Security Administration the tools it needs to weed out waste and
fraud, will further protect vulnerable beneficiaries.
Mr. Speaker, this bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in
the last Congress. I urge all my colleagues to join me today in
supporting it once again.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sandlin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today to express my strong opposition to section 418
of the Social Security Protection Act.
Under section 418, an individual would be required to work in a
Social Security-covered job for his or her last 5 years of employment
to be exempt from the GPO. Both the increase in time and the offset
itself are absolutely ridiculous.
Under a provision of current law, known as the ``last day rule,'' an
individual is exempt from GPO if he or she worked in a job that was
covered by Social Security on the last day of employment. According to
the GAO, extending the employment requirement to 5 years will save only
$18 million per year, greatly to the detriment of public workers,
especially our school teachers.
Section 418 was not included in the version of this legislation that
the House passed, with my support, during the 107th Congress. This is
not the same bill as last year. I support the other provisions of this
legislation, but cannot support H.R. 743 as introduced. Technical
corrections are necessary. This is a correction that will strike at the
very heart of public school teachers in Texas and public employees in
other parts of the country.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this legislation will finally focus Congress'
attention on the need to repeal the government pension offset. I urge
the Committee on Ways and Means to examine the GPO and its harmful
impact on seniors in my district and all across the country.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), another valued member of the Subcommittee on
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee
for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Social
Security Protection Act of 2003.
Now, the gentleman who preceded me in the well, the gentleman from
California, spoke of the initiatives this committee and this House
adopted to crack down on fraud and abuse, specifically the abuse of
Social Security payments going to convicted felons. We have a chance
now to expand that, to deny fugitive felons and payroll violators from
receiving Social Security benefits and help individuals with
disabilities.
This is the key thing for me, my colleagues, because so many folks in
the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona have come to me to extol
the virtues of something this Congress did back in 1999, as we put
people back to work with our Ticket to Work incentives that year. And
while we have granted tickets to work across the country to emphasize
the ability in disability and put people back to work, an important
piece of clarifying language is in this provision. It clarifies that
the Work Opportunity Tax Credit would be available to employers who
hire a disabled beneficiary who is referred from any employment
network, not just the State rehabilitation agency.
So we actually expand the pool of people who can go to work and add
further incentives in our Ticket to Work. So, on one hand, if we are
talking about Social Security protection, we move to bar those who
would take advantage of fraud and abuse. We crack down there. And yet
for the most deserving among us, people who genuinely want to get back
in the workforce, who have been met with limitations heretofore, we
expand their opportunities to find work. We expand the opportunities
for those who are willing to put them to work.
It creates the type of balance necessary. It is the ideal type of
perfecting and expanding legislation that is meant when we say we step
up to protect this vital program. It shows reasoned balance and
perfection in what is all too often an imperfect world as we strive to
further strengthen and protect and perfect our process of Social
Security.
If nothing else were there but this expansion of the Work Opportunity
Tax Credit and the Ticket to Work Program, I would stand in favor of
this bill. But it does so much more. I would invite all of my friends
in the House to join us in supporting this legislation.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the
State of Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from California for yielding me this time and for all of his
good work.
I am particularly saddened today, Mr. Speaker, that I have to come to
the floor and vigorously oppose this legislation because just last
year, 2002, I enthusiastically supported the Social Security Act of
2002 for the very reason that we do need to fix some of the abuses and
we need to respond to the needs of shoring up Social Security.
But the Texas branch of our teachers association has characterized
this hidden provision in 418 as a poison pill for Texas school
employees--hardworking teachers and others who are working in our
school districts lose their benefits. Many school districts offer
teachers nonSocial Security government pensions. So, until now, many
teachers have been forced to take advantage of the last day option.
Just before they retire, they get a job in a business with a Social
Security pension for a day, in order to receive their deserved
benefits.
This is a ridiculous system and the appropriate way to fix it would
have been to repeal the GPO. In fact, I have cosponsored H.R. 594, with
my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and 132
others, just to do that. This bill closes the option to protect those
hardworking teachers.
For example, I received a call from one woman in my district who was
a teacher earlier in her life. She wanted to come back today and help
the teachers to teach the children to the system.
[[Page H1545]]
But as a widow she cannot do so because of this terrible structure in
our Social Security legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill that has this hidden provision. It
will hurt teachers, firefighters, and police persons and I ask my
colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to come to the floor today to speak out
against H.R. 743, The Social Security Protection Act of 2003. Social
Security represents a covenant between the U.S. Federal Government and
the American people. It is a promise that if a person works hard, and
contributes into this investment program, that when it comes time for
them to retire--their government will ensure that a fair benefit is
there for them. It seems that too often, criminals take advantage of
the trust between the Social Security Administration and the seniors
and disabled Americans it serves. They misuse Social Security benefits.
Such activity is worse than just stealing, because it threatens the
confidence that the American people have in their government. That
confidence is the foundation of our democracy.
So last Congress, I joined with every voting Member of this House in
support of The Social Security Act of 2002. It was an excellent piece
of bipartisan legislation, which would have made great strides towards
cutting down on the abuse of the Social Security system. Most of the
major provisions of that bill are reflected in the bill before us
today, and I still support them. The bills would both protect Social
Security recipients by mandating reissue of funds when their payments
are misused. Representative payees who misuse a person's benefits would
be forced to reimburse those funds, plus would be subject to fines of
up to $5000 if they knowingly provided false or misleading information.
For further protection, representative payees for over 15 individuals
would be required to be licensed and bonded, and would be subject to
periodic reviews. The bills would allow the Commissioner to withhold
benefits from fugitive felons, and persons fleeing prosecution. The
bills also provide for numerous improvements to the present system,
which would reduce fraud and abuse of the program.
The bill passed unanimously in the House last Congress, and similar
legislation cleared the Senate. But unfortunately this important
legislation got hung up at the end of last year. With such support and
progress, this should have been an easy piece of work to get through
this year, and a score for the American taxpayers. Instead, a wrench
has been thrown into the works, through the addition of a small section
that has provoked a deluge of phone calls into my office from, it seems
like, every schoolteacher in my district.
The Texas branch of the American Federation of Teachers describes
Section 418 as ``poison for Texas school employees.'' That section
relates to the Government Pension Offset. At present, if an individual
receives a government pension based on work that was not covered by
Social Security, his or her Social Security spousal or survivor benefit
is reduced by an amount equal to two-thirds the government pension.
This provision of current law is called the Government Pension Offset
(GPO). However, under the ``last day rule,'' an individual is exempt
from the GPO if he or she works in a job covered by Social Security on
the last day of employment.
Many school districts offer teachers non-Social Security government
pensions, so until now many teachers have been forced to take advantage
of the ``last day'' option. Just before they retire, they get a job in
a business with a Social Security pension for a day, in order to
receive their deserved benefits. This is a ridiculous system, and the
appropriate way to fix it would have been to repeal the GPO. In fact, I
have co-sponsored H.R. 594 with my colleague from California, Buck
McKeon, and 132 others to do just that.
Instead, the bill before us today closes the option. I am usually all
for saving money, but now is no time to be ``sticking-it'' to
teachers--just as we are trying to leave no child behind, just as we
have a shortage of qualified teachers in many areas. This could drive
many people away from careers in teaching.
For example, today I received a call from one woman in my District
who was a teacher earlier in her life. Her husband recently passed away
and she has been contemplating going back into teaching. But she has
been warned that she could actually jeopardize her financial future by
going to work. As a widow, she will be entitled to her husband's social
security benefits. However, if she starts to teach in a school district
with a government non-Social Security pension, she could lose $360 per
month in retirement benefits--over $4000 per year.
Why should she risk it? If H.R. 743 passes today, it won't be only
she that loses. It will be our Nation's children who lose--an
experienced, intelligent teacher.
The GPO issue needs to be addressed, but not today. Right now, we are
giving money to criminals who are beating our system and undermining
confidence in the future of Social Security and the government as a
whole. We need to protect Social Security, and we need to do it soon.
But I will wait until we can do it without attacking our teachers, and
penalizing our children.
I will vote ``no'' on H.R. 743, and urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say to the gentlewoman from Texas that this levels the playing field
and treats the people, or the teachers in Texas as other teachers
throughout the entire country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Hulshof), another valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection
Act.
There are a lot of issues that are addressed that are important to
Americans with disabilities that depend upon Title II and Title XVI.
Individuals facing the challenges of life with a disability need these
protections that are proposed on the representative payee provisions.
There are about 6 million Americans that receive Social Security and
supplemental security income. These beneficiaries often have family
members or loved ones who act on their behalf, and yet there are some
of those receiving these benefits that go to services, a fee for this
service of being a representative payee. If someone receives a fee for
this service, now they must be bonded and licensed. And if this
representative payee chooses to pray on the disability or the elderly,
society's most vulnerable, then tough civil monetary penalties will
result. These changes are important and necessary.
Another provision deserving mention, Mr. Speaker, is contained within
section 401 through 405. In 1999, this body enacted some breakthrough
changes for individuals with disabilities, specifically the Ticket to
Work and Work Incentive Improvement Act. The Ticket to Work rolled over
barriers that prevented countless employable individuals with
disabilities from rejoining the workforce.
{time} 1115
Yet now we need to make some technical corrections. For instance, one
of the things in the original Ticket to Work bill was a demonstration
project which allowed the commissioners of Social Security to look at
other ways to employ those that want to rejoin the workforce. One of
the technical corrections is that we extend the 5-year limit on
designing and implementing these worthy demonstration projects.
I am especially interested personally in abolishing this so-called
``income cliff.'' That is, if an individual is employable and works and
achieves earnings up to a certain amount, if that individual makes $1
more than that, they fall off the cliff and lose all of their Social
Security disability benefits. I encourage this sliding scale, for every
$2 earned, maybe losing $1 of disability benefits. Yet we need to make
those technical corrections to the bill so employer networks will
accept these beneficiaries that are participating in this $1 for $2
offset demonstration project. So these are worthy changes.
Let me quickly address the issue of my colleagues from Texas. There
was a recent study that the General Accounting Office came back to our
committee in August of last year with, at the request of the chairman,
and found this last-day exemption, this loophole, found that nearly
5,000 individuals in two States were taking advantage of this loophole
in order to get around the requirements of law.
What we do is simply implement the changes of the GAO. What the
General Accounting Office found was that we were allowing, current law
was allowing a select group of individuals with really a small
investment of work time and only minimal Social Security contributions
to really gain access to potentially many years of full Social Security
benefits. I recognize this is a tough situation for those Members from
those particular States; but as the chairman alluded after the last
speaker, this is something that brings those States in line with the
other 48 States. Again a difficult but necessary, important change.
These changes are overdue. I urge adoption of H.R. 743.
[[Page H1546]]
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, there are over 40,000 teachers across the
State of Texas who could be adversely affected by this legislation.
This bill includes provisions which I consider to be catastrophic for
Texas teachers and many other government employees. Provisions in the
legislation would, in effect, reduce the amount of combined benefits
that the Texas teachers could depend upon after retirement, even for
many teachers who have paid into both Social Security and the Texas
teacher retirement system.
I realize that many in this body characterize section 418, the
section that would extend the last-day exemption to 6 years, as an
issue of fundamental fairness. With that, I cannot entirely disagree.
Those who are able to take advantage of a loophole in the law represent
a small minority of Americans who pay into Social Security and a
government pension; and there are other ways in which we can fix that,
and we do have legislation that is pending.
I do not object to this legislation on the grounds that it seeks to
create an equitable system of payment for all citizens. I object to a
process whereby Members of the Texas delegation and other delegations
are not able to offer amendments or debate this bill on the floor of
the House. This legislation will have broad implementations for
teachers in Texas and will most likely force a mass exodus of
experienced teachers from our public schools. Under this legislation,
teachers will still be able to retire this year and use the last day
exemption provision to draw their retirement.
What impetus does an experienced teacher have to stay in the
classroom and continue teaching if the government is, in effect, going
to significantly reduce his or her retirement payment after this year?
If we are to attract and retain qualified, caring teachers, then hidden
procedures such as that in section 418 must be debated and considered
in an open forum where amendments and debate are not stifled. Now is
not the time to force experienced, caring teachers into retirement and
demonstrate to the younger generation of educators our indifference to
the livelihood of our Nation's educators.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that we pull section 418, make the bill like it
was last year, or defeat H.R. 743.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago a lady came to my
office in my district whose husband had died before he had ever
collected a single penny of Social Security. He had worked his entire
life paying into the Social Security system thinking when he died, his
wife would receive a survivor's benefit from his Social Security
payments that would help keep her secure during her retirement.
She sat in my office near tears explaining to me that because she had
spent her career in teaching and because she receives a monthly Texas
State teacher's retirement benefit, she would never see one penny from
Social Security. To learn that she would have received a survivor's
benefit if she had been drawing a retirement benefit from a private,
rather than a public, retirement fund only added insult to her injury.
Mr. Speaker, this is unfair and the government pension offset must be
repealed. For the 6 years that I have been in Congress, I have
cosponsored the legislation to end this unfair result caused by this
provision we call the GPO. Last year 186 Members on both sides of the
aisle cosponsored legislation to repeal this government pension offset.
In spite of that support, the bill never has passed, never has received
a full hearing in the committee. And in spite of the support in this
Congress, section 418 of the bill before us moves in exactly the
opposite direction.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect our teachers, to reject
this bill today, to send it back to the Committee on Ways and Means
with the understanding that the GPO should be repealed.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
This is an issue so important to some of us who represent districts
in Texas and Georgia, and it is important nationwide because there has
been legislation in the last 4 years that had a majority of the U.S.
House of Representatives as cosponsors to repeal the offset for public
employees, for teachers, firefighters and police officers. The
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) was a cosponsor of the bill 2
years ago, and now we are gathering signatures again. It is a system
that is wrong, and it needs to be changed; but in my 5 years, we have
not had a chance to address it on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
I know my colleagues talk about the 1 day as a loophole. Well, it may
be a loophole, but it is also complying with the law. It is
interesting, we are going to close a loophole and allow firefighters,
police officers and teachers to go to work 1 day in a system that has
Social Security and their retirement system and be eligible for Social
Security. Yet we are willing to open up millions of loopholes for
corporations to be able to walk through.
I regret to say Enron is from the area I am from in Houston, and they
have not paid Federal taxes in 6 years. We do not mind opening
loopholes big enough for corporations to drive trucks through, but for
a school teacher who wants to get her husband's Social Security
benefits because she has taught for 30 years teaching our children, we
are closing up that loophole. They get penalized on their widow's
benefits. We are talking about widows' benefits and not somebody that
is double dipping, and I know previously that is what the committee
wanted to do.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to H.R. 743, and I hope that Members will
look at it to change it. Some public employees are not covered by
Social Security, and in Texas it is particularly our police officers,
firefighters and teachers. Our school districts can be part of Social
Security or not. The individual employee, whether they are a cafeteria
worker or custodian or a teacher, they do not have a choice. All they
want to do is serve our children, and yet they are getting penalized.
My example is the best one I can think of. My wife and I have been
married 33 years. She has been a teacher in Texas for 26 years. If I
died tomorrow, she would be penalized on all the benefits that I have
put into Social Security. I have paid the maximum for I-do-not-know-
how-many years. She would be penalized because she is a public
schoolteacher in Texas.
H.R. 743 has a great many good things in it, but this is so bad we
ought to have enough votes on the floor to be able to defeat it and
bring it back without this provision in it, or at least bring it back
and debate it fully on the floor with an opportunity to amend it.
Full spousal benefit ought to be if I paid into Social Security, my
wife as a widow when I pass away ought to get the same benefit no
matter whether she is a stay-at-home housewife or actually worked as a
schoolteacher. We should not punish teachers and firefighters and
police officers by stripping away this right unless we address the
underlying problem of the government pension offset.
Closing a loophole, that is what the current law is. And in Texas I
have a good example. I have a teacher in my wife's school district who
was 73 years old. Her husband died in her early sixties. She was
receiving his Social Security widow's benefit. She could not retire
because of the cut she would take in her Social Security benefit from
her husband. They were married many years so she was entitled to it.
What she did, she went and worked in a school district that had Social
Security and teacher retirement for that 1 day at 73 years old. How
long do we want people to have to work?
It is just outrageous what the law has made people have to do.
Teachers across our country are chronically underpaid. We give lots of
lip service on the floor. Yesterday we passed a resolution about
Lutheran educators. I am talking about public school teachers who teach
our children every day. Is it perfect? Of course not. But this is the
only thing we can do on the Federal level because teachers' salaries
are set by the school districts and by the States. But this is
something we can do to say we are not going to slap them in
[[Page H1547]]
the face. We are going to make sure that if someone is a teacher and
has taught all those years, and their husband has been under Social
Security and they pass away, and I say husband because most of the
teachers are women. They are the ones in their retirement years who
have less than we do as men, and yet we are taking that away from them.
Again, that is just outrageous.
We find it harder and harder to attract teachers. Let us make sure if
teachers are married to someone who pays into Social Security, they can
get their widow's benefit without being punished for it. This issue is
close to the heart for a lot of us in Texas.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I remind Members who are going to vote on this issue who
are zeroing in on this one small part of this bill, where we have a
two-worker family both paying into Social Security, one dies, the
survivor either gets their earned benefit or the survivor benefit,
whichever is greater.
But in Texas where you have one spouse who has paid nothing into
Social Security but paid all into their pension plan, they would
receive, if they worked 1 day under the Social Security system, they
would receive their full pension and survivor benefits. All we are
trying to do is to say if someone works 5 years under Social Security,
they can get both. But if they work 1 day, they cannot get both.
This is trying to level the playing field for the millions of
teachers, firefighters and others across this country who have paid
into Social Security, to level the playing field so the people who
never paid into Social Security are not getting a better deal. It is as
simple as that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1130
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the legislation, but not
with regard to the government offset. It is very, very important that
we make sure that we take care of the persons on Social Security that
have representatives speaking on their behalf. This legislation will
provide stricter requirements with regard to those who represent people
in the Social Security Administration on behalf of recipients.
This is my first opportunity as a member of the Committee on Ways and
Means, the Subcommittee on Social Security, to be on the floor to speak
on behalf of an issue. I am pleased to stand in support of this
legislation with regard to all the provisions with regard to Social
Security. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for all the work
they have done in this particular regard.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Brady), a valued member of the Ways and Means subcommittee.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are right to be concerned about
our teachers. They are overworked. They are underpaid. We are concerned
about them. I think had it not been for study over the last year or so,
I would be giving the exact same speech today as my Democratic
colleagues from Texas because we are all concerned. It turns out this
is not exactly the case I thought it was.
Recently we held a hearing on this legislation. We wanted to hear
from our Texas teachers, so we requested the chairman invite our Texas
State Teachers Association, our Texas Federation of Teachers and the
Association of Texas Professional Educators to testify. Unfortunately,
they were not able to because of various reasons, the snow being one of
them, but we submitted their testimony on their behalf and urged
members of the subcommittee to study it.
During the hearing, it was shown that teachers in government pensions
are not being singled out. They are not. The government pension offset
affects more than just teachers. It affects more than 5 million people
in all sorts of State, local and Federal Government pensions who do not
pay into Social Security. This is important to know because a lot of my
teachers feel like they are being targeted, being singled out.
My main concern during the hearing that I expressed that my teachers
are so upset about, that a widower who has worked a lifetime to earn
their government pension, like a Texas teacher, will keep less of their
deceased spouse's Social Security than a widower who has worked and
paid into Social Security. The Social Security Administration
conclusively proved this is not the case. It turns out it is just the
opposite.
Teachers in TRS are able to keep the same, or more, of their spouse's
Social Security benefits than other widowers who have worked, like
nurses or waitresses. That is because the government pension offset law
reduces their husband's or their deceased spouse's Social Security by
two-thirds of their pension. But for other widowers, for waitresses,
nurses and others who paid into Social Security, their husband's
benefits are reduced even more, 100 percent of their own benefit.
What I think confuses teachers and many is that if someone has not
worked, they have worked inside the home all their life, have not
earned Social Security, they keep all of their husband's or their
deceased spouses's benefits because they depend upon it more. Social
Security is extremely complicated. There is a great deal of
misinformation going around the Internet and by well-meaning
individuals and organizations these days.
What frustrates me most is that teachers were not told about this
situation years ago. They feel they have paid into Social Security for
years and they do not get the help when they need it the most. It would
have been so much better if this would have been reformed years ago,
where you put aside your own contribution to Social Security into a
traditional retirement account, where that money grew for you over the
years, you could take it with you, it was yours to own and you would
not be surprised by some government formula done 20 years ago. That is
where we need to head.
How we can help teachers today and others I think is to focus on the
windfall elimination provision. It sounds complicated, but the
principle is, for me, if you have worked hard and paid into Social
Security and you have worked hard and paid into a government pension,
you should receive more of both. I am thinking here of teachers who
have contributed their hard-earned pay into Social Security through a
second job, teachers who have contributed to Social Security in another
State before moving to Texas or Georgia, thinking of future teachers
who already have a career, we would like to get them into the classroom
to help but they are afraid of losing their retirement benefits. I
believe the best and the most timely solution to help these people,
these teachers, and others who have earned two pensions, is to
modernize the windfall elimination provision to make it more fair.
I have asked our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Shaw), to hold hearings on the windfall elimination provision.
This is where I think we can take a formula that is outdated, I think a
bit arbitrary, and focus on the principles if you have paid into Social
Security and you have paid into your government pension, that you keep
more of the Social Security that you have paid into.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying that I find the
comments of the last speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), to
be very troubling. Each of the three organizations that he identified,
the Association of Professional Texas Educators, the Texas State
Teachers Association, and the American Federation of Teachers, oppose
this bill. They have submitted written testimony when at least one of
those organization's representatives was stranded in Austin because of
an ice storm.
It is fine to talk about teachers; this Republican leadership though
has a chance to act. Today they talk about leveling the playing field.
It is just that they want to level the playing
[[Page H1548]]
field down instead of leveling the playing field up. The Texas teachers
who have tried to protect themselves from this terrible government
pension offset have confronted a Republican leadership that has been in
control here for the last eight years. What have they done about the
windfall elimination provision or the government pension offset during
that time? They filed a bill that a lot of us have cosponsored. They
could have had a hearing in the subcommittee last week on that bill.
But what did they choose to do? They took a bill that passed
unanimously, that I voted for, that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui) voted for, that every Member of this Chamber voted for last
year, and they added a provision to it, on page 70 of the bill, section
418, a provision that is not even clearly identified in the summary of
the bill. This bill has the effect of taking away a right that Texas
teachers and teachers in other parts of this country have utilized and
which they enjoy a perfect right to utilize.
It is legal and proper for teachers to do this, and the reason they
must act for themselves is that this Congress, under Republican
leadership, has failed to act for them. This self-help should be of
little surprise when all they hear is talk up here and when the
Republican leadership will not even set this for a hearing.
Yes, they had a hearing on a bill that passed unanimously last year.
They just tucked in a little provision they did not tell us about that
hurts the teachers of Texas and many other States. Then what did they
do after they held a hearing when our teachers were stuck in an ice
storm but they were so eager to move forward that they would not wait
for them to get to Washington? Did they bring it up for a vote in the
subcommittee? No, they did not. Did they bring it up for a vote in the
full committee on Ways and Means? No, they did not. Instead they
brought it directly to the floor today in a surprise move announced
only a couple of legislative days after this was taken up in committee.
Now they propose to bring it up under a procedure where debate is
limited and we cannot even offer an amendment to take out this
offending provision.
Yes, I think we should do something about felons getting Social
Security checks. I am ready to vote for that. But why do we have to
treat our teachers like felons and deny them the benefits that they
have rightly earned?
The loss of a spouse is difficult enough to bear. But when a widow or
a widower has devoted their lifetime to public service as a teacher
often at low wages, they get another cruel surprise. When these former
educators lose their husband or wife, the Social Security
Administration does not send them a letter to console them in their
mourning, it reduces the spousal Social Security benefit by two-thirds
of the teacher's pension. That is what these teachers are concerned
about.
To the average retired teacher in Texas, or anywhere else, this means
a loss of about $360 a month. For an elderly retiree, you can call it
an ``offset,'' but for them it is mighty upsetting. Confronted with
this unfair offset and the technique that teachers have had to rely on
as self-help to fix this injustice, the Republican leadership has not
been willing to correct the problem. Instead, they want to target the
cure. What a contrast, too, with the rest of their legislative package.
The Republicans could have fixed this injustice in a separate bill or
they could have fixed this injustice in the bill that they are going to
be taking up tomorrow, that began as a very appropriate, unanimously
supported bill much like this one. It is called the ``Armed Forces Tax
Fairness Act,'' and it is designed to treat our Armed Forces fairly as
they serve in harm's way throughout the world.
But what began as a bill to help our Armed Forces has been debased
with measures that would allow foreigners to bet on horse races tax-
free, certainly good news to the Turks and the French; it would exempt
fishing tackle boxes from an excise tax; and exempt bows and arrows
from a similar tax.
I support tax fairness for our military because they secure our
country. But I also support retirement security for our teachers
because they build the foundation upon which our democracy rests. The
Republican leadership is today tackling the issue of tackle boxes, but
it tells our teachers to ``Go fish.'' They will cut bow and arrow taxes
but put a bulls-eye on teachers. Surely we can also fix the injustice
that this offset inflicts on America's educators.
We ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill and we have a message to this
entire Congress that has not been heard, apparently by even some of our
own representatives, but certainly not by the sneaky tactics that got
this provision in the bill. That message, is, ``Don't mess with
Texas.'' [Doggett holds bumper sticker] Don't mess with Texas teachers.
Vote ``no'' on this bad bill.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the other speaker that what we
did was picked up the language that the Democrat-controlled Senate
passed by unanimous consent in the last Congress and put it in this
bill and now have brought it to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, clearing up a couple of
misconceptions there, I would love to be able to tell my Texas
teachers, whom I love, what they want to hear. But I respect them too
much to do that. I want to tell them the truth. The fact of the matter
is, this was not snuck in. This was passed in the Senate last session.
And this Republican House, with Texas lawmakers from both sides said,
let us discuss this in open debate and make sure it is the right way,
which is exactly what we are doing. Both parties have had a chance to
work on this issue since 1983. We have not come up with a solution yet.
We are working to do that.
Finally, I want our Texas teachers to be treated fairly. I want our
Texas waitresses and nurses and other moms to be treated fairly, too.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House, even though we have
been talking about the Texas situation over most of the time that has
been allocated to this bill, exactly what this bill does and exactly
why it is and does receive such high bipartisan support. This holds
representative payees accountable for mismanaging benefits and
increases representative payee oversight. We support that and you
support that. It denies Social Security benefits to fugitive felons.
That is right. I support that. You support that. It deters fraud by
creating new civil penalties for Social Security fraud. All of us agree
to that. It helps individuals with disabilities gain access to
representation. These are the people that need it most. We agree with
that. You agree with that. It helps disabled beneficiaries return to
work. This is something that I think that this Congress has done with a
ticket to work, and I think have done it in the best tradition of this
House, in a very bipartisan way.
Now we come to a little bump in the road. It does involve Texas. I
think the gentleman was quite right to put the sign up, ``Don't Mess
with Texas,'' because that is a Texas problem. But Texas has discovered
a loophole which folds into their pension plan which is unfair to the
rest of the country. The General Accounting Office has told us that
this is going to amount to about a half a billion dollars in savings
once this goes into place, just simply by treating Texas like the rest
of the country.
{time} 1145
This is not anti-Texas, and it is not intended to punish anybody. As
a matter of fact, those that are already receiving those double
benefits and the disability benefits as well as their earned pension
plans will continue to do so. They plan for their retirement. So we do
not take that away; but we do put fairness into the law, and we say
that people who do not pay into Social Security should not get a better
deal than those who did pay into Social Security.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it
includes many necessary provisions to protect Social Security
beneficiaries.
However, I do have concerns about one provision, and would have
preferred for the bill to be considered under a procedure allowing for
amendments.
The troublesome provision is the one related to the ``government
pension offset'' part of the Social Security Act.
I understand the rationale for that provision, which would make
application of the offset
[[Page H1549]]
provision more uniform. However, I think it would be better for this
provision to be considered separately, as part of a measure to make
other revisions to the government pension offset.
I think the offset should be revised, because as it stands it works a
hardship on many people. That is why I am cosponsoring a bill (H.R.
887) which would assure that the offset will not reduce Social Security
benefits below $2,000 per month. I hope the House will soon take up
that much-needed legislation.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, the original intent of this bill was a worthy
one: to reimburse Social Security benefits if they are misused by
people representing the recipient.
That's not controversial . . . but the provision reducing the spousal
Social Security benefits for countless teachers, school support
personnel, police officers, firefighters, and other public servants is
most certainly controversal--and I intent to oppose the entire bill
since it contains this provision that will adversely affect teachers
and others across Texas. These are people we should be protecting.
We need to understand that targeting pensions of teachers and other
school employees will discourage qualified individuals from entering
the classroom at exactly the time when the nation is experiencing a
shortage of teachers. We say we are committed to education . . . yet in
this bill we are profoundly uncommitted to educators.
The teachers across the state of Texas are largely women and are not
wealthy people. They depend on the benefits of both them and their
spouses; nearly all are part of two-income families. We are being
monumentally unfair to them by changing the rules late in the game.
Since we are ramrodding this bill through the House with non-
controversial bills today, be on notice that our opposition efforts
will not end here.
I am a co-sponsor of HR 594, a bill introduced in the 108th Congress
that will eliminate the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall
Elimination Provisions that target our teachers and other public
servants by denying them the opportunity to retain their full spousal
Social Security benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that this provision was
included in an otherwise good bill.
Mrs. TUBBS JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 743.
First, I would like to acknowledge Mr. Matsui for working diligently on
the Social Security Act of 2003.
As we all know, H.R. 743 will extend the direct fee withholding
program payment to attorneys who represent supplemental security income
claimants, thus encouraging more attorneys to represent them.
It is vital that we pass legislation that addresses the major
concerns of our seniors, the blind, and the disabled.
This legislation imposes greater standards on individuals and
organizations that serve as representative payees for Social Security
and supplemental security income recipients; this legislation will make
non-governmental representative payees liable for ``misused'' funds and
subject them to civil monetary penalties; H.R. 743 will reduce the fee
assessments from the Social Security Administration that charges
attorneys for fee withholding.
Overall, the Social Security Act of 2003 will be beneficial to
recipients and those who serve as representatives for recipients.
Furthermore, H.R. 743 will make a number of technical changes
designed to reduce Social Security fraud and abuse.
Mr. Speaker, I will close my statement for the record with supporting
H.R. 743.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the hard work
of our nation's teachers, particularly in El Paso, Texas, which I
proudly represent. My community, like many other communities across the
country, are suffering from a teacher shortage. Our schools lack
teachers in many important areas of study, such as math, science, and
special education. Meanwhile, teacher salaries are still insufficient
and it is difficult to recruit qualified personnel when salaries are
not atttractive.
I know full well the effort and hard work that teachers dedicate to
their students. My wife was a teacher for many years and my daughter,
who just completed her doctorate degree in education, is currently an
administrator at a local school district. I believe the teaching
profession is one of the most honorable professions. I credit our
teachers with laying the foundation for the future of our country and
the world. In addition to teaching children the basic skills they need,
teachers are an important guiding force for our children. After
parents, they are one of the greatest influences on children. We
therefore need to make sure we have well-qualified and well-paid
teachers educating students.
As you know Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill before us would reduce
the spousal Social Security benefits for countless teachers. H.R. 743
also affects school support personnel, police officers, firefighters,
and other public servants. At a time when multi-billion dollar tax
breaks are being given to our country's top income earners, our
teachers and other public servants would be penelized through this
bill. These are people we should be protecting. We should not make them
pay for the tax cuts we give those who are more fortunate. This bill
negatively affects teachers and other public servants in my state of
Texas. For that reason I will be voting against this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have co-sponsored H.R. 594, a bill introduced by my
colleague Mr. McKeon that will eliminate the Government Pension Offset
and the Windfall Elimination Provisions that target our teachers and
other public servants by denying them the opportunity to retain their
full spousal Social Security benefits.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 743 and continue to
support our teachers.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am firmly committed to protecting Social
Security for current recipients and for those who will be retiring in
the near future. So, I want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Social Security, Mr. Shaw for his efforts to strengthen the
financial security of our Nation's retirement system. I support the
Social Security Protection Act, and I was pleased to support this bill
when it passed the House unanimously last year. It is unfortunate that
the House and Senate couldn't work out a final version before the end
of the 107th Congress.
This bill stops fugitive felons from receiving benefits. The CBO
estimates we will pay over $500 million to fugitive felons over the
next 10 years from the Social Security trust funds.
The Social Security Administration appoints representatives payees
for many beneficiaries to help manage their financial affairs when they
are not able. This bill protects these beneficiaries from
representative payees who may misuse their benefits.
Mr. Speaker, this bill helps put the Security back in Social Security
and I look forward to its passage.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 743. I
do so, not because I oppose ending Social Security fraud and abuse, but
because of a section that is damaging to state and municipal employees.
Section 418 is bad for teachers, police officers, fire fighters and
other state and local workers in Texas who receive government pensions
that are currently being reduced because of the Government Pension
Offset provision of the Social Security Act. Section 418 would require
experienced public servants to quit their jobs prematurely and work for
the private sector for the 5 years before they retire in order to avoid
the offset. We all know that our Nation has a critical shortage of
teachers and public safety personnel. This provision will only
exacerbate the problem.
The teachers of Texas have been writing and calling my office to
protest this long-standing offset provision that is taking away Social
Security benefits that they and their spouses have earned. At a time
when federal and state budgets for education are being slashed, this is
just one more slap in the face to those who are working hard to educate
our children. We need to let them know that education is a national
priority and that we value their dedication.
Instead of this bill that will provide no relief for these
hardworking public servants, I urge the majority to bring H.R. 594,
introduced by Congressman McKeon and which I proudly co-sponsor, to the
House floor for a vote. This legislation would repeal both the
Government Pension Offset and the ``Windfall Elimination Provision'',
another portion of the Social Security Act that is penalizing state and
local government employees.
I encourage my colleagues to move quickly to bring real relief to
teachers and other public employees by considering H.R. 594 or failing
that, by bringing H.R. 743 to the floor under regular order so that
this damaging Section 418 provision can be removed. Our public servants
deserves no less.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to register my
strong support for the Social Security Protection Act of 2003 (H.R.
743).
While I recognize there are differences between Republicans and
Democrats on how to address the long-term solvency problems facing
Social Security, I am pleased to see that we can work together to
address other important issues facing the program.
H.R. 743 is a common-sense bill that provides the Social Security
Administration with the necessary resources and tools to fight fraud
and abuse. Along with other provisions in the bill, this will save
taxpayers $656 million over ten years. In addition, the legislation
improves the landmark Ticket to Work law to help people with
disabilities find work.
H.R. 743 also adds Kentucky to the list of states that offer divided
retirement systems. In January, the former governments of the City of
Louisville and Jefferson County merged. Since the merger was approved
by the people of Jefferson County in November 2000, local and state
officials have been working together to ensure that the transition was
without problems. All indications are that it has been a success.
[[Page H1550]]
One important issue, however, that needs to be addressed is how to
provide Social Security and Medicare coverage to hazardous duty
employees working for the county and the city. Since January 6, 2003,
all officers are considered a single group for Social Security coverage
purposes. Prior to the merger some police officers and firefighters
contributed to Medicare, but not Social Security. Some contributed to
both; others neither.
As we can see, ensuring fair and equal coverage presents a serious
challenge to the new government. After working with all interested
parties, it was agreed that a divided retirement system is the
solution. Currently 21 states use this system.
Under a divided retirement system, each employee will decide whether
or not to pay into Social Security. All new employees hired after the
system is in place would automatically be enrolled in Social Security.
The Kentucky Division of Social Security has started the education
process with representatives from the Social Security Administration
and the groups that represents the hazardous duty employees. Last year,
the Kentucky General Assembly adopted a bill that allows this system to
go forward as soon as Congress approves this legislation and President
Bush signs it into law.
In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member
Matsui for including this important provision in H.R. 743 and urge my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 743, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________