[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1273-E1274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2824, INCREASING OPPORTUNITY AND 
 SUCCESS FOR CHILDREN AND PARENTS THROUGH EVIDENCE-BASED HOME VISITING 
    ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2792, CONTROL UNLAWFUL 
          FUGITIVE FELONS ACT OF 2017; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 26, 2017

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rules 
governing this underlying bill, H.R. 2792, introduced by Rep. Kristi 
Noem (R-SD) and Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX).
  I oppose the bill for the following reasons:
  SSI is a needs-based program for people with limited income and 
resources.
  It will terminate essential benefits of poor people.
  It will deprive poor people of due process.
  It will increase mass incarceration.
  My amendment would have remedied these criminal justice defects in 
H.R. 2792, which struck the arrest warrant language because (1) it 
recklessly targets vulnerable and innocent individuals; (2) this bill 
deprives citizens of due process, particularly where many poor 
individuals are completely unaware of any pending warrant, and (4) 
there have been cases in which warrants were either decades old or, in 
many instances, it was a matter of a mistaken identity.
  The underlying bill amends the Social Security Act (SSA) to make 
certain revisions that limit payment of benefits to fugitive felons 
under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the (SSA), by prohibiting 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments to individuals with an 
outstanding felony warrant or parole or probation violation.
  Almost none of the individuals who would be affected by this 
provision are actual fugitives from justice and most of the warrants in 
question are many years old and involve minor infractions,'' the 
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities said in a letter to Senators 
who tried to implement this policy.
  This bill is merely a continuation of President Trump's $1.7 trillion 
budget cuts of programs designed to help the millions of poor and low-
income families that need these programs for survival.
  Plainly stated, this bill will terminate SSI benefits of very low-
income seniors and people with disabilities, because SSI is granted 
based on financial need.
  In creating this bill, the sponsors essentially agree that it is best 
to incarcerate economically vulnerable people in order to fund the 
Maternal Infant Early Childhood Home Visiting program (MIECHV).
  As the Center for Law and Social Policy, a nonprofit group focused on 
low-income Americans, previously reported of the Trump's budget scheme, 
this bill would likewise, create an overall assault on a wide range of 
ordinary Americans for the purpose of providing tax cuts to the 
wealthiest.
  My Democratic colleagues on Ways and Means offered amendments to 
fully pay for a 5-year reauthorization of the MIECHV program and 
doubling the funding by closing a tax loophole called the ``stretch 
IRA''. Republicans however, would not let my colleagues vote on those 
amendments.
  My amendment and those of my colleagues would have made this bad bill 
a lot more palatable.
  Instead, the Republicans have chosen, once again, to lock people up, 
and do so in a manner that deprives poor people of their sole source of 
income, while purporting to safeguard against fugitive felons that are 
recipients of these SSI benefits.
  This bill is unnecessary because under current law, SSI and Social 
Security payments are already prohibited to people fleeing prosecution 
or confinement.
  Most alarming, this bill will terminate these benefits without any 
judicial determination of guilt, and thus, usurping recipients' rights 
to due process.
  The presumption of ``innocent until proven guilty'' is the 
constitutional principle at the bedrock of our criminal justice system. 
This principle guarantees that the government cannot deprive citizens 
of their rights without due process of the law.
  The bill maintains that payments could be immediately restored once 
the individual resolves any outstanding issues, a potentially lengthy 
and time-consuming process.
  Ask the thousands of individuals swept under this broad policy if 
that is true. SSA already tried to implement this very ill-advised 
policy and it resulted in thousands of court challenges in 2009 forcing 
the agency to repay billions of dollars it had withheld from people 
deemed fugitives.
  For example, Miami resident Joseph Sutrynowics' Social Security 
Disability Insurance benefits were halted in 2008 because of a bad 
check he'd written to cover groceries in Texas more than a decade 
earlier.
  Under this policy, SSA agreed to repay $700 million in benefits that 
were withheld from 80,000 people whose benefits have been suspended or 
denied since January 1, 2007 in the Martinez v. Astrue case. SSA could 
also, reportedly, repay close to $1 billion in benefits to 140,000 
individuals in the Clark v. Astrue case.
  We have already tried this before and failed miserably. Let us not 
waste tax payers' money in litigation, while causing poor folks to go 
hungry. As the old adage says: ``don't continue to do the same thing 
and expect a different result, that's insanity''.
  Past experiences proved that this policy was detrimental then, and it 
is so now. It will further exacerbate the epic tragedy of mass 
incarceration, and the attendant costs incurred by taxpayers, 
particularly in the well-documented higher cost of incarcerating the 
elderly and those in poor health.

[[Page E1274]]

  Even conservative coalitions like Freedom Works, American 
Conservative Union Foundation, Generation Opportunity, and Taxpayers 
Protection Alliance agreed that mass incarceration is extremely costly 
to taxpayers.
  In addition to tax dollars in litigation fees, incarceration cost 
taxpayers $407.58 per person per day and $148,767 per person per year.
  Criminalizing poor individuals, depriving them of their social 
security income benefits, and increasing the incarceration rate in this 
fashion will not solve the fugitive problem this bill purports it will 
do.
  In fact, this bill will expand existing problems of mass 
incarceration by increasing the likelihood for recidivism. Statistics 
show that incarceration does not serve as deterrence, nor does it keep 
our communities safe.
  For the reasons stated above, I oppose this Rule and the underlying 
bill.

                          ____________________