[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 156 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7595-H7602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONTROL UNLAWFUL FUGITIVE FELONS ACT OF 2017
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 533, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2792) to amend the Social Security Act to make certain
revisions to provisions limiting payment of benefits to fugitive felons
under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the Social Security Act, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 533, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Ways and Means, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 2792
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Control Unlawful Fugitive
Felons Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. REVISIONS TO PROVISIONS LIMITING PAYMENT OF BENEFITS
TO FUGITIVE FELONS UNDER TITLE XVI OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.
(a) Fugitive Felon Warrant Requirement.--Section
1611(e)(4)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1382(e)(4)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``fleeing to avoid'' and inserting ``the
subject of an arrest warrant for the purpose of'';
(2) by striking ``the place from which the person flees''
the first place it appears and inserting ``the jurisdiction
issuing the warrant''; and
(3) by striking ``the place from which the person flees''
the second place it appears and inserting ``the
jurisdiction''.
(b) Probation and Parole Warrant Requirement.--Section
1611(e)(4)(A)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(4)(A)(ii))
is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) the subject of an arrest warrant for violating a
condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or
State law.''.
(c) Disclosure.--Section 1611(e)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1382(e)(5)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``any recipient of'' and inserting ``any
individual who is a recipient of (or would be such a
recipient but for the application of paragraph (4)(A))''; and
(2) by striking ``the recipient'' each place it appears and
inserting ``the individual''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective with respect to benefits payable for
months that begin on or after January 1, 2021.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs.
Noem) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Dakota.
General Leave
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on the bill currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from South Dakota?
There was no objection.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2792, the Control of Unlawful
Fugitive Felons Act of 2017. In 1996, Congress and President Clinton
worked together to reform welfare and reignite the American Dream for
families in need.
Aligned with this goal was a provision prohibiting a range of welfare
benefits--including Supplemental Security Income--to fugitive felons
and violators of probation and parole because safety net programs need
to be protected from abuse so they can remain in place for those
individuals who need them.
Individuals who evade justice violate the social contract that grants
them this safety net. Simply put, it is incoherent and self-defeating
that a nation of laws would pay a wanted person and prolong their
flight from justice. Unfortunately, due to a number of factors
involving the courts, these provisions have been watered down in recent
years and rendered ineffectual.
Through the CUFF Act, Congress can stand up, once again, on behalf of
our communities and affirm what every participant in our society should
understand: if you have an outstanding warrant for your arrest, you
have an obligation to face justice or clear your name.
This legislation not only stops benefits from going to those who are
not following the law, but it also helps law enforcement apprehend
those suspects. A 2007 report by SSA's inspector general found that
this policy aided law enforcement in apprehending almost 60,000
individuals who were evading arrest for outstanding warrants. In fact,
law enforcement thinks this policy is so effective that the Fraternal
Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the South
Dakota Sheriffs' Association have expressed support for the CUFF Act.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that this commonsense bill is
endorsed by law enforcement and has a proven track record of success, I
anticipate that my colleagues across the aisle may try to convince you
otherwise.
I have heard many of their arguments when the Ways and Means
Committee considered this bill and when the Rules Committee also
considered this bill.
So let's take each of those concerns in turn.
Some may say that this is an old, failed policy.
In reality, this policy has a long track record of success. In 2015,
the Social Security inspector general said, at a hearing, that this
bill would stop hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to
individuals with felony warrants.
Some may say this bill targets people with outdated warrants.
In reality, SSA already has a wide authority to exempt individuals if
the alleged offense is nonviolent and not drug related.
{time} 0930
Some may say that this bill would throw beneficiaries off the rolls
with no warning. In reality, the SSA provides beneficiaries advance
notice of 35 days before suspending SSI benefits, and there is a robust
appeal process for recipients who have had their benefits suspended.
Some may say that this policy is burdensome to law enforcement. In
reality, this bill is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, the
National Sheriffs' Association, and the South Dakota Sheriffs'
Association because it helps them do their job to locate individuals.
Finally, some may raise concerns that it targets minority populations
caught up in overcriminalization or overly harsh sentencing. To those
concerns, I say that these issues are absolutely important, and I look
forward to us having those conversations about criminal justice reforms
here in Congress. However, that conversation is outside the scope of
the legislation that we have before us today.
My legislation does not speak to the content of a warrant, just the
fact that one exists. The decision to grant a warrant is made by a
judge in a court of law, not by the Social Security Administration. It
should not be the duty of the American taxpayer to subsidize
individuals who are wanted by the police.
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, if an individual has an outstanding warrant,
it must be addressed and cleared. This bill does nothing to change
that.
Under my bill, nobody will lose their SSI benefits because of
misdemeanor offenses such as merely having a parking ticket, petty
theft, or even driving under the influence. This bill stops payments to
individuals who have outstanding warrants for felonies. These are
crimes like murder, rape, and kidnapping. It also stops payments to
individuals with probation and parole violations, limiting their
ability to evade arrest.
Supplemental Security Income is a lifeline to those who are in need.
We must ensure we are not further facilitating criminal activity in
communities that are all too often already struggling.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the time that we are spending to
consider this important legislation, and I appreciate the opportunity
to stand in support of my bill today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my mother used to say: Right is right if nobody is
right, and
[[Page H7596]]
wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. H.R. 2792 is wrong. It is cruel.
It is discriminatory.
I strongly oppose this Republican effort to strip low-income seniors
and those with severe disabilities of Supplemental Security Income
benefits, or SSI. I join in opposition with over 110 civil rights,
disability, and aging advocates who have warned that H.R. 2792's harsh
cuts will discriminate based on age, race, ethnicity, ability, income,
and will further criminalize poverty.
I also strongly oppose the majority's decision to condition the
reauthorization of our successful home visiting program on this bill's
harm to the elderly and infirm.
SSI is only available to people who are elderly, who are severely
disabled, and who have little or no assets. The typical SSI recipient
lives on less than $750 a month. So, by design, H.R. 2792, will only
harm very poor, elderly, and disabled people. Within the population of
adult recipients of SSI, approximately 83 percent are disabled, one-
third are age 65 and older, and two-thirds are age 50 and older.
I reject proponents' claims that this bill will only target fugitive
felons. In reality, current law terminates benefits for fugitive
felons. This bill strikes the current restriction against fugitive
felons and, instead, expands the benefit cutoff beyond those who are
actually fleeing and encompasses everybody who had some unresolved run-
in with the justice system based on allegation, not conviction.
I reject proponents' claim that only individuals charged with violent
crimes or costly financial theft are affected by this bill. By
undermining the constitutional presumption of innocence and depriving
individuals of due process adjudication in a court of law, H.R. 2792
magnifies the deep inequities in our criminal justice system based on
race, ethnicity, and income.
As an African-American man, I am very familiar with the decades of
research documenting the racial-ethnic discrimination in our justice
system. As an advocate for criminal justice reform, I know the dozens
of studies documenting the faulty criminal justice data system on which
benefit terminations will pivot solely because this bill removes due
process by adjudication.
I reject proponents' claim that no one who has a misdemeanor or minor
offense will be harmed. No uniform threshold for a felony exists.
Indeed, four States--Florida, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey--
have the lowest thresholds in the country, defining felonies as losses
of $300 or less, which is vastly different than the $2,500 threshold
set in Texas and Wisconsin. This bill cuts off an elderly or disabled
person's lifeline benefits for a decades-old offense of $300.
Also, we know that courts across the country are criminalizing
poverty and raising revenue with fines and fees. Individuals on
probation for misdemeanor offenses like vagrancy, shoplifting, and
traffic violations get probation and fines or fees. When poor people
can't pay these fees, arrest warrants are issued for a violation of
their probation. As in the past, H.R. 2792 clearly terminates SSI
benefits for such alleged violations without any due process.
I urge my colleagues to do what they know is right: stand up for our
most vulnerable citizens, honor their most fundamental rights, and
oppose H.R. 2792.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters of
support. One is from the over 330,000 members of the National Fraternal
Order of Police, and the other is from the National Sheriffs'
Association.
National Fraternal Order of Police,
Washington, DC, June 29, 2017.
Hon. Kristi L. Noem,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Samuel R. Johnson,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Noem and Johnson: I am writing on
behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to
advise you of our support for H.R. 2792, the ``Control
Unlawful Fugitive Felons (CUFF) Act.''
In August 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act into
law, which restricted the eligibility of fugitive felons, and
probation and parole violators for Social Security benefits.
The Social Security Administration's Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) reported that this law has contributed to over
59,000 arrests since the inception of the program in 1996.
However, three different court decisions have eroded the
law's effectiveness and the original intent of Congress,
allowing fugitives to continue to collect benefits while on
the run. This legislation will restore the original intent of
the law by prohibiting an individual who is the subject of an
outstanding arrest warrant for a felony or parole violation
from receiving Social Security benefits.
The legislation will apply only to felony charges and amend
the Social Security Act to make clear that the suspension of
benefits is not just in cases of ``escape, flight to avoid
prosecution, or confinement, and flight-escape.'' The
American taxpayer should not be forced to support those who
are evading justice.
On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal
Order of Police, thank you for your support for law
enforcement. If I can be of any further assistance, please do
not hesitate to contact me or Jim Pasco, my Senior Advisor,
in my Washington office.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.
____
National Sheriffs' Association,
Alexandria, VA, June 20, 2017.
Hon. Dave Reichert,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reichert: On behalf of the National Sheriffs'
Association, I write today to endorse H.R. 2792, the
``Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons (CUFF) Act.'' Too often,
criminal felons receive federal benefits they are not
entitled to collect. We believe this clarifying legislation
will help remediate this recurring problem and strike the
right balance.
The bill does a number of important things including:
amending the Social Security Act to prohibit an individual
who is the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant for a
felony or parole violation from receiving Social Security
Benefits; restoring the original intent of the 1996 law,
revising current law to discontinue benefits for individuals
who are ``the subject of an arrest warrant . . .'' compared
to the previous language of ``fleeing to avoid'' arrest,
which was the main legal challenge; and applying only to
felony charges, or a crime carrying a minimum term of one or
more years in prison. This policy does not intend to punish
individuals convicted of misdemeanors, such as outstanding
parking tickets, as some have alleged.
Like you, I believe this is a commonsense bill that will
give more Americans piece of mind in knowing that tax dollars
aren't supporting criminal activity through continued
benefits to those breaking the law. I applaud your efforts on
this issue and look forward to working with you to ensure the
passage of this key legislation.
Sincerely,
Jonathan F. Thompson,
Executive Director and CEO.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is all about Republicans refusing to pay for
an important public service that they know works. It is about their
meager 6 percent solution, where they decline to extend services that
empower families, that support young children and their parents, to
extend that to the other 94 percent of eligible Americans, despite the
fact that there is evidence-based indication that these services
perform so well, and in one area, helped to prevent child abuse. It is
about their refusal to respond in a fiscally responsible manner to
support this program, despite what their own experts say about the
effectiveness of the program.
So, instead of providing a reliable source of necessary funding for
public services, Republicans insist upon being willing to remove life-
sustaining resources from some of our country's most vulnerable
citizens. It is really a punitive, mean-spirited effort to demonize the
poor.
Let's look at who will be hurt by this retread proposal, because they
tried this a few years ago and it was rejected.
SSI, or Supplemental Security Income, is an initiative to help some
of our most disadvantaged Americans. The SSI program pays modest cash
benefits that can be obtained only by, essentially, showing that you
have got nothing--well, not exactly nothing. You can have total assets
other than your home of $2,000. You can't have more than $735 a month
in income. If you are younger than 65, you must be disabled, perhaps a
victim of cancer, chronic heart failure, or blindness.
[[Page H7597]]
There is strict enforcement of these standards, with over 70 percent of
those who apply being denied.
What kind of person will they finance this child abuse prevention
program from? Well, the 50-year-old man who had an arrest warrant--this
is a true case--that had been issued when he failed to show up for
court.
Why did he do that? Shouldn't he be punished?
Well, it turns out he was in a coma at the time that the arrest
warrant was issued. He was unable to breathe without a long plastic
tube surgically inserted in his throat and connected to an oxygen tank
on his wheelchair. By the time his case was resolved before a judge,
the medical supply company was taking away the breathing equipment.
Or Rosa Martinez, who got confused with another Rosa Martinez, and
she had to go to court even though she wasn't the person being accused.
Each of these people and so many others, like those suffering from
dementia in a nursing home and who may never have been convicted of
anything, are the type of people from whom they will take resources in
order to fund a necessary program.
Republicans on our committee are so motivated by their rigid ideology
that they would not even permit a discussion with our staff of how to
move forward on this initiative unless we committed to funding every
dollar by taking it away from some other vital social service program
within our committee's jurisdiction.
It ought not be necessary to rob Paula in order to provide valuable
services to little Pauline. Even when they know how much is at stake,
such as child abuse and disadvantaged children, and even when we have a
way to address those problems and prevent that abuse, they won't add a
single dollar of additional revenue.
Mr. Davis and I offered a variety of different ways to pay for this
program and to actually see it serve more than 6 percent of eligible
people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Alabama). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. You don't have to raise taxes. For one of those
different ways, just enforce our current law. If someone receives an
alimony payment, require documentation so they will know and the IRS
will know that that money is due. That will raise a significant amount
of money that would fund much of this reauthorization.
But because they are so opposed to adding a dollar to serve even an
effective program, they take from the person with dementia at the
nursing home. It is wrong. It demonizes people who deserve to be
treated fairly.
We should reject this bill.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify exactly what this legislation does.
This legislation will take SSI benefits from individuals and stop
those payments to those who have felony arrest warrants or who have
violated their probation and parole.
I want to go through the process so that everybody recognizes that
there is plenty of time for individuals to go through the appeal
process. Notice is given if there is a warrant that they need to get
rectified with the jurisdiction that has authority. So let me step
through this process.
Step one is through the Office of Inspector General. Law enforcement
agencies give OIG information about individuals who have outstanding
felony arrest warrants or who are violating conditions of probation or
parole.
Then OIG compares this information to its computer files of
individuals receiving these dollars or serving as representative
payees. If there is a match, OIG verifies the identity of the
individual, ensures that the warrants for the individual are still
active, works with local law enforcement to attempt to locate the
person, and then OIG refers the cases to SSA to begin the suspension
process.
When this process gets to the Social Security Administration, SSA
sends an advance notice to the individual. This notice proposes the
suspension of benefit payments and informs the individual of their
right to appeal the suspension decision, payment continuation, and the
timeframe to take such actions after receiving the advance notice.
{time} 0945
This notice includes why the SSA is suspending benefits and where,
why, and when the warrant was issued. If SSA finds out, through a data
match, 35 days is given for the individual to protest. If the
individual protests, SSA will not suspend benefits until it figures out
if the individual qualifies for a good cause exception. If the
individual does not appeal his or her advance notice, then the SSA will
suspend the benefits.
If the individual does appeal and gives his or her advance notice and
provides evidence for the payment continuation, the SSA verifies the
evidence and then continues the payments.
Other things that we should know about this legislation and what this
includes is that warrants may only be resolved in the issuing
jurisdiction. Grounds for dismissal of a warrant include identity
theft, administrative error, and the individual's own move from the
jurisdiction, especially if low income.
Warrants for misdemeanors remain warrants for misdemeanors and cannot
become felonies. There is also latitude for the Commissioner to make
decisions in special areas where there may be something to be
considered, such as dementia or low-income abilities.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has been thoroughly vetted. We are making sure
that the only people who are denied their SSI benefits are those who
have felony warrants for their arrest or have violated probation or
parole and have not gotten straight with law enforcement and rectified
that past infraction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), an icon for human rights.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
this bill. For many years, I have been a proud member to serve on the
Ways and Means Committee, the oldest committee in the U.S. Congress.
Our committee has a responsibility to put people before politics. We
have a commitment to act in the best interest of all, not just a select
few. Most importantly, we have a duty to protect and preserve the
United States Constitution.
Today, Mr. Speaker, it hurts my soul that our committee will pass a
bill that attacks the constitutional principle that you are innocent
until proven guilty.
Where is the reason? Where is the compassion? What is the purpose?
How can you gamble with the livelihood of those who are most in need?
How can we punish the sick, the disabled, and the elderly? How can we
pass a bill that targets Latinos, African Americans, and Native
Americans? Mr. Speaker, how can you rob Peter to pay Paul?
Mr. Speaker, I urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this mean and spiteful bill. It should never have seen the
light of day. The American people deserve better, much better. We can
do better. This bill should not be on the floor of the House. It is not
worthy of the paper that it is written on.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I live in the State of South Dakota. I have some of the
poorest counties in the Nation in my State, and they happen to be my
Native American Tribes. They face 80 to 90 percent unemployment,
poverty like no other place in the country, and they are isolated. They
also have very high drug and crime rates.
In fact, we have seen a record number of murders in these
communities, especially on the Pine Ridge Reservation, in this calendar
year, and it is deeply discouraging and disheartening to me to think of
someone who could have committed a murder in one of my communities in
the State of South Dakota, that there is a felony warrant out for their
arrest, and that we may not be able to find them. This bill will fix
that situation.
If that individual is receiving SSI payments, that helps law
enforcement locate those individuals who have gone out and committed
crimes against innocent people. Rape, murder, kidnapping, they all
happen in my Native
[[Page H7598]]
American Tribes, and this helps law enforcement find them and bring
them to justice. It is one of the important things that this
legislation will help us do in some of our most vulnerable communities.
I also recognize that the previous speaker talked about the fact that
we need criminal justice reforms, and that is a very good debate that
we should be having in Congress. But this is not the bill to talk about
criminal justice reforms because this is not germane to the discussion
that we are having today.
I wanted to speak for a minute on what is good cause because there is
latitude for good cause within statute today, and I think there is some
confusion as to exactly how this bill would be interpreted when it is
signed into law.
In some cases, the SSI will not suspend or seek an overpayment of
payments for good cause exceptions. There are two types of good cause
exceptions that already exist in statute. The mandatory good cause
exception is the SSA cannot suspend payments if a court has found an
individual not guilty or has dismissed charges. If a court has vacated
the warrant or issued any similar exoneration, then they cannot suspend
payments. They also cannot suspend payments if there is a mistaken
identity due to identity fraud.
The other exception in statute today is discretionary good cause
exceptions. The SSA may suspend benefits for mitigating circumstances
under two options:
Option A is the individual must prove that the criminal offense was
nonviolent and not drug related. We also have that the individual has
not been convicted of a felony crime since the warrant was issued, and
the other point is that the law enforcement agency that issued the
warrant reports that it will not act on the warrant. That is other
exceptions for good cause.
Option B, the individual must prove all of these factors: if the
criminal offense was nonviolent and not drug related; the individual
has not been convicted of a felony crime since the warrant was issued;
the warrant is the existing warrant and was issued 10 or more years ago
and the individual lacks the mental capacity to resolve the warrant,
which includes those living in a nursing home or mental treatment
facility.
So as we have listened to opponents of this bill talk, they have
discussed all of these issues as to how these benefits could be taken
away from individuals that are clearly covered by good cause exceptions
that are already in statute, and those situations are not relevant to
the debate that we are having today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, MIECHV Program is an
effective evidence-based program that I am proud to support because I
know it results in healthier families and stronger communities, but I
am shocked at the way Republicans are choosing to pay for it.
Instead of enacting commonsense tax changes that could easily raise
the needed revenue, Republicans have reached to the bottom of the
barrel to find vulnerable people to harm.
In order to come up with a way to pay for this important bipartisan
program, they are choosing to take Supplemental Security Income away
from vulnerable seniors, low-income individuals, or those with
disabilities; and they are doing it by maligning them as fugitives and
felons just because they have an outstanding warrant. But the truth is
a very different story.
The people who will be hurt by this bill are not hardened criminals.
They haven't even had their day in court yet. In fact, many may not
even know about the warrant because the police have decided that it is
not worth pursuing. That is because the warrants are for small issues
like writing a bad check or failing to appear for a hearing many years
ago.
Worse, these individuals are elderly, poor, or sick. They deserve
support and help, not to be treated as a piggybank. Actually,
piggybanks generally indicate savings. This is a policy equivalent of
reaching into a couch cushion for change. We are talking about
individuals who have a warrant from when they were a teenager or
somebody with a mental illness who may not even remember the incident
in question. This is cruel and unbecoming of this Congress.
I know because we have tried this before. The last time this penalty
was used, it meant catastrophe for very low-income people with
disabilities and for seniors. It hurt people like J.H., a Californian
with an intellectual disability and other mental impairments. J.H. had
his SSI benefits stopped because of an Ohio warrant issued when he was
12 years old and running away to escape an abusive stepfather. This 4-
foot-7-inch-tall, 85-pound boy was charged with assault for kicking a
staff member at a detention center where he was being held until his
mother could pick him up. Many years later, he had no recollection of
the incident or the charges, but his SSI benefits were stopped
nonetheless.
Is that really how we want to pay for home visitations: Impoverishing
one person to help another?
That is why I worked to curb this bill's negative effects, by
offering amendments that would protect those with dementia or keep it
from increasing homelessness. Unfortunately, Republicans rejected both
my amendments on a party line basis, so now we are stuck with this
overly broad punitive bill that I cannot support.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, taxpayers should not be subsidizing those who have
felony warrants for their arrest or violating parole and probation.
I wanted to remind everyone today that in 1996, the same provision
was amended into other programs that we have at the Federal Government
level. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families--cash welfare--has these
same provisions included in that program.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--SNAP or food stamps--has
these same provisions in the program. Housing programs, such as public
housing, Section 8 vouchers, project-based Section 8, all have these
same provisions in that program.
In addition, there are similar provisions added to Social Security
disability and retirement programs, and the Department of Veterans
Affairs benefits has this same provision that we are putting back into
statute today when it comes to SSI payments.
Mr. Speaker, you can clearly see that this is bringing this program
up to the same level of accountability to taxpayers and not subsidizing
those who commit crimes against innocent individuals, and is an
entirely appropriate debate here today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time
I have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 15 minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from South Dakota has 18 minutes
remaining.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2792, the
hopelessly misnamed Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act.
As has become sadly routine in this Chamber under Republican rule,
this bill considers those merely accused of a crime as if they were
convicted felons without bothering with little niceties like due
process. Having dispensed with basic constitutional protections, the
bill then cuts off vital government assistance to some of the most
vulnerable people in our society.
Under current law, the Social Security Administration helps law
enforcement track down individuals with an outstanding arrest warrant
for an alleged felony or an alleged violation of probation or parole.
Those who are actively fleeing law enforcement can also have their
Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, benefits terminated. Under this
bill, however, SSI benefits, which serve as a lifeline for low-income
seniors and people with disabilities, would be terminated, whether or
not people are actually attempting to evade justice.
The mere issuance of a warrant or an alleged parole violation with no
arrest,
[[Page H7599]]
no trial, and no conviction would be enough to cut off vital benefits
to the neediest among us. This is not just unconstitutional, it is
inhumane. The bill would ensure that many low-income seniors and people
with disabilities will lose their benefits unfairly and unnecessarily.
The vast majority of people affected by this bill have outstanding
warrants that law enforcement chooses not to bother serving, often
because they are for very old or minor offenses. Many people do not
even know that an arrest warrant has been issued for them, but this
bill would consider them as felons fleeing justice.
Many warrants are issued on the basis of mistaken identity,
inaccuracies, or paperwork errors. It can take months to resolve such
errors, which might involve traveling to a distant jurisdiction, hiring
an attorney, and working through an overloaded court system.
And supporters of this bill expect people living on less than $750 a
month to do all of this: to go to a different jurisdiction, to hire an
attorney, to do all of this while the benefits they rely on to subsist
are cut off?
That is outrageous.
{time} 1000
We heard from the gentlewoman from South Dakota about various
exceptions to the bill, you can go through this process and that
process. With what attorney? With what money? Does this bill have an
appropriation in it to supply attorneys for people faced with this
cutoff, people who, by definition, are the poorest people, who can't
afford an attorney?
This legislation is a blatant violation of due process, and it will
cause untold suffering to the people who need our help the most. At a
time when Republicans are unveiling their proposal for massive tax cuts
for the wealthy, this bill is a shameful illustration of the majority's
priorities.
It is also a shameful illustration of something we have seen on this
floor too often, and that is the assumption that anyone accused of
something is guilty and that we don't have to bother with a trial, we
don't have to bother with proof, and we don't have to bother with due
process. That eviscerates much of the reason for the existence of this
country, to vindicate due process, to give people rights and not to
assume that anyone who a judge or someone thinks may have committed a
crime is automatically guilty. We believe in due process in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this bill's defeat.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human
Resources. I thank him for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
2792 and to thank the gentlewoman from South Dakota for her tremendous
effort on this piece of legislation.
This is a good bill which improves existing law and sends an
important message: taxpayers should not provide benefits to individuals
wanted by the police under outstanding warrants or parole violations
for felonies or other serious crimes. Let me say that again. This
improves existing, actually, bipartisan law, and it is not a new
concept. It only applies to individuals with outstanding warrants for
serious crimes.
The bill provides 4 years for the Social Security Administration to
implement this law and to ensure benefits are not unfairly or
improperly discontinued.
It also provides a process under which SSA notifies beneficiaries of
issues with an outstanding warrant or parole violation and provides
time for them to address the concern with law enforcement.
In addition, SSA is empowered to provide compassionate allowances for
those with serious disabilities or medical concerns who are unable to
clear their warrant in a timely fashion.
Mr. Speaker, this is a narrow bill which protects both law-abiding
beneficiaries and taxpayers. It is important that we have these funds
to help the needy families who are benefiting from the MIECHV program,
the home visitation program, a unique Federal program that actually
shows that it makes a positive difference in the lives of young people
and young families.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we look at the entire issue in a
fiscally responsible way, where we have the funds through this bill to
pay for the needs among needy families across America.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the gentleman from Illinois
for yielding and for his tireless leadership for families everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2792, the so-called
Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act. This cruel and misguided bill
would terminate Supplemental Security Income benefits for vulnerable
seniors and people with disabilities who have an outstanding warrant.
Let me be clear. This is a horrible bill. It is mean-spirited and it
is unfair. Despite this bill's misleading title, Americans who would be
harmed by this bill are not felons and they are not fugitives.
In reality, this bill would rip benefits from individuals who haven't
been arrested, tried, or even convicted. They have only been accused.
This violates the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty, and
it would terminate benefits without due process.
What is worse, most of these outstanding warrants are decades old and
involve minor infractions when people are unable to pay for court fines
and fees. This is awful.
This bill criminalizes families living in poverty, and it
disproportionately harms communities of color. One in five SSI
recipients are African Americans. Without this critical program,
believe you me, African Americans will struggle even more.
Make no mistake; cutting off SSI benefits would put all families at
risk of being unable to keep a roof over their heads, put food on the
table, and meet other basic needs. And for what? To pay for the
Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program.
We know that this is an important program and helps millions of
struggling families, but we cannot afford to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Lives are at risk here. This is as sinister as it gets.
Taking an ax to these lifesaving benefits is cruel and heartless.
That is why 120 civil rights, disability, and retirement organizations
oppose this, including the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the
National Council of Churches, and the National Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentlewoman.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, this should really be a wake-up call to this
Chamber to defeat this bill immediately. Instead of ramming through a
bill that would push more people into poverty, we should be working to
create good-paying jobs and expand opportunities for all.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this mean-
spirited and heartless bill.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to remind everyone that the bill we are debating here
today would suspend SSI benefits for those who have felony warrants for
their arrest and those who have violated probation or parole. That is
the discussion that we are having here today. And let's go back over,
in summary, what the policy actually does and says.
This policy should not be thought of in isolation. This is part of a
larger effort to reauthorize the evidence-based, outcome-focused
Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program.
H.R. 2824, which passed this Chamber on Tuesday, will be joined with
this bill upon passage. It helps to improve the lives of families in
at-risk communities, focusing on the first years of a child's life.
Unlike most Federal social programs, MIECHV funding is tied to real
results, which ensures limited taxpayer dollars are actually delivering
the intended results and helping those that are most in need.
Under current law, the program is 100 percent federally funded, but
H.R. 2824 introduces a Federal match similar to what States must
already do in other social programs, such as foster care,
[[Page H7600]]
Medicaid, child support enforcement, childcare, and others. The rest of
the package ensures this program remains a shining example of evidence-
based policy by expecting the program to continue to demonstrate
effective outcomes. That reauthorization is fully offset by the bill
that we are considering here today, H.R. 2792.
Instead of focusing on our Nation's debt, we should be doing more of
what we are doing right here in these bills: prioritizing Federal
spending and focusing on what works by improving the integrity of one
program to provide funding for another.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman
from Illinois for yielding and the gentlewoman from South Dakota for
managing this bill.
The crux of this bill, however, is, again, to support and fund the
multitrillion-dollar tax cuts that have just been introduced, that will
give millions, if not billions, if not trillions, to the richest of
Americans, and that is a very sad commentary.
I oppose the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act because it is not
that. It will terminate essential benefits for poor people, deprive
poor people of due process, and increase mass incarceration.
If the Rules Committee had simply taken my amendment, it would have
remedied these criminal justice defects, which struck the arrest
warrant language because it recklessly targets vulnerable people. This
bill deprives citizens of due process, particularly where many poor
individuals are completely unaware of a pending warrant.
Let me be very clear. What you have is a situation where you may have
a mentally ill individual in a nursing home who now has a warrant that
they are not aware of. You will then cut off their benefits.
What does that do to those families.
Prohibiting SSI payments to individuals with an outstanding warrant
or parole or probation violation without due process is simply
inhumane. This bill would terminate those benefits from very low-income
seniors and people with disabilities. They may not even know that they
have these warrants.
Now, I am a strong supporter of the Maternal, Infant, and Early
Childhood Home Visiting program, and I tell you that the Democrats on
the Ways and Means Committee had an amendment to pay for a 5-year
reauthorization of that program, doubling the funding, by closing a tax
loophole. They were not allowed to even vote on that amendment.
What does that say? This is a conspiracy.
There are 110 organizations that are against this, including the
Alliance for Retired Americans, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, Hand in Hand: The Domestic Employers Network, and the Coalition
on Human Needs.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a document with the names of all
of these organizations.
June 26, 2017.
Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the 119 undersigned
organizations, we urge you to oppose efforts to cut
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to offset the costs of the
Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program
(MIECHV program).
H.R. 2824 would reauthorize the MIECHV program, which funds
voluntary, evidence-based home visiting programs for at-risk
pregnant women and parents with young children up to
kindergarten entry. The current MIECHV program has
demonstrated beneficial outcomes associated with improved
maternal and child health, including increased access to
screening and early intervention for childhood disabilities.
Unfortunately, H.R. 2824 proposes to pay to extend this
valuable maternal and child home visiting program by cutting
off SSI entirely for certain adolescents and adults with
disabilities, as well as seniors.
H.R. 2824 would revive an old, failed policy that had
catastrophic effects for many people with disabilities and
seniors, employing procedures that did not withstand judicial
scrutiny. The Social Security Act currently prohibits SSI
payments to individuals fleeing from law enforcement to avoid
prosecution or imprisonment. The existing system is already
working to ensure that those who shouldn't be paid SSI
benefits don't receive them.
The proposed cut, Section 201 of H.R. 2824, would bar
payment of SSI benefits to people with an outstanding arrest
warrant for an alleged felony or for an alleged violation of
probation or parole. Most of the warrants in question are
decades old and involve minor infractions, including warrants
routinely issued when a person was unable to pay a fine or
court fee, or a probation supervision fee.
Based on prior experience with SSA's failed former policy,
the people who would be affected are those whose cases are
inactive and whom law enforcement is not pursuing. Many
people are not even aware that a warrant was issued for them,
as warrants are often not served on the individual. A very
high percentage of people who would lose benefits have mental
illness or intellectual disability. Many are unaware of the
violation, may not have understood the terms of parole or
probation, or may have other misunderstandings about their
case.
Warrant databases are notoriously inaccurate. Fourteen
percent of the arrest warrants processed by the federal
Warrant Information Network in 2004 were later dismissed by
the court or returned unexecuted. The state of Alabama, even
with an audit mechanism in place, reported a 13% error rate
in its arrest warrant databases. Due to these kinds of
inaccuracies, some people will have their SSI benefits cut
off as a result of mistaken identity, or paperwork errors,
which can take months or even years to resolve.
When this failed policy was previously implemented by SSA,
many of those who had their benefits cut off had no arrest
warrant outstanding against them. For example, Rosa Martinez,
the lead plaintiff in Martinez v. Astrue was, in 2008, a 52-
year old woman who received notice from SSA that she was
losing her disability benefits because of a 1980 arrest
warrant for a drug offense in Miami, Florida. Ms. Martinez
had never been to Miami, never been arrested, never used
illegal drugs, and is eight inches shorter than the person
described in the warrant. Despite an obvious case of mistaken
identity, Ms. Martinez was left without her sole source of
income. It was only after filing a lawsuit in federal court
that Ms. Martinez was able to have her benefits restored.
Resolving outstanding warrants can be very difficult and
costly. People often must go before a judge in the issuing
jurisdiction, and typically need counsel to assist them in
navigating the process. Often, people have moved in the
intervening years and live far away from the issuing
jurisdiction. The proposed offset would cut off all SSI
income. Losing this income will cause many people to become
homeless and unable to meet their basic needs, much less
resolve a warrant, a case of mistaken identity, or an error
in the warrant database. Completely cutting off SSI benefits
will leave people with little recourse to resolve an
outstanding warrant, representing a step backward in
bipartisan efforts towards criminal justice reform.
By relying on databases of outstanding arrest warrants,
this proposal seeks to punish people by presuming their
guilt, undermining the presumption of innocence that is the
bedrock of our criminal justice system. The existence of an
arrest warrant does not establish that any criminal conduct
has occurred. Many arrests do not result in criminal charges,
or the charges are eventually dismissed. Even if an
individual is charged and subsequently prosecuted, he or she
is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The proposed offset also will have a disproportionate
impact on people of color. People who are on probation are
particularly susceptible to having an outstanding arrest
warrant. Parolees and probationers are disproportionately
people of color--in 2015, 13% of adults on probation were
Hispanic, and 30% of adults on probation were African
American.
Finally, the proposed offset could harm some of the very
same children who we seek to help through home visiting. In
any given month, approximately 2.7 million children are
estimated to live with a family member who is a senior or
adult with a disability who receives SSI. These children's
families are overwhelmingly the same types of families served
by the MIECHV program: over 3 in 5 families with a SSI
recipient age 18 or older have a total family income below
150% of the federal poverty level, and SSI makes up on
average about 40 percent of these families' income. Cutting
off SSI income would put families at risk of being unable to
keep a roof over their heads, put food on the table, and meet
other basic needs--including children's and mothers' health
needs.
H.R. 2824 would also harm Social Security beneficiaries--
since over half of SSI recipients who are elderly, and almost
one-third of SSI recipients with disabilities, are Social
Security beneficiaries.
In closing, we reiterate that although the MIECHV program
has demonstrated beneficial outcomes, and reauthorization
must be a priority, it should not come at the expense of cuts
to SSI, which would harm seniors, adolescents and adults with
disabilities, and their families, and should not be raided as
a pay-for for an unrelated program. We urge the U.S. Congress
to reject any proposals to offset the costs of reauthorizing
the MIECHV program by cutting SSI benefits.
Sincerely,
National Organizations
AFL-CIO; AFSCME; Aging Life Care Association; Alliance for
Children's Rights; Alliance for Retired Americans; American
Academy of Pediatrics; American Psychological Association;
Association of Jewish Aging Services; Association of
University Centers
[[Page H7601]]
on Disabilities; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Center
for American Progress; Center for Law and Social Policy
(CLASP); Coalition on Human Needs; Consortium for Citizens
with Disabilities Social Security Task Force; Defending
Rights and Dissent; Easterseals; Economic Policy Institute
Policy Center; FedCURE; FORGE, Inc.; Gray Panthers.
Hand in Hand: The Domestic Employers Network; Harm
Reduction Coalition; Institute for Science and Human Values;
Justice in Aging; Justice Strategies; Latinos for a Secure
Retirement; Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights;
League of United Latin American Citizens; Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children; Lutheran Services in America
Disability Network; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.; National Alliance on Mental Illness;
National Association of Disability Representatives; National
Black Justice Coalition; National Center for Lesbian Rights;
National Center for Transgender Equality; National Committee
to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; National Council of
Churches; National Disability Rights Network.
National Employment Law Project; National LGBTQ Task Force
Action Fund; National Organization for Women; National
Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives
(NOSSCR); National Women's Law Center; Paralyzed Veterans of
America; People Demanding Action; PolicyWorks, Inc.; Polio
Survivors Association; Prison CONversation; Rainbow PUSH
Coalition; Resources for Independent Living; Root & Rebound;
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Service
Employees International Union; Social Security Works;
StoptheDrugWar.org; The Arc of the United States; Union for
Reform Judaism.
State/Local Organizations
2-1-1 California; ABD Productions/Skywatchers; ADAPT
Montana; Alameda County Community Food Bank; Berkeley Food
Network; BNICEH (Black Network In Children's Emotional
Health); California Association of Food Banks; California
Association of Public Authorities for In-Home Supportive
Services; California Church IMPACT; California Council of the
Blind; California Food Policy Advocates; California In-Home
Supportive Services Consumer Alliance; California Office of
the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman; California OneCare;
California Partnership; Californians for Disability Rights,
Inc.; Californians for SSI; Center for Independence of the
Disabled, NY; Coalition of California Welfare Rights
Organizations; Columbia Legal Services.
Community Legal Services of Philadelphia; Community Service
Society of New York; Communities Actively Living Independent
& Free; Disability Law Center, Massachusetts; Disability Law
Center, Utah; Disability Policy Consortium of Massachusetts;
Disability Rights California; DisAbility Rights Idaho;
Disability Rights New Jersey; Disability Rights North
Carolina; Disability Rights Wisconsin; Empire Justice Center;
Friends In Deed; GetTogether Adult Day Health Care Center;
Homeboy Industries; Hunger Action Los Angeles; IMPRUVE
(Independent Movement of Paratransit Riders for Unity,
Vehicles, Equality); Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles;
Kentucky Protection and Advocacy; Legal Aid Society of San
Mateo County.
Legal Council for Health Justice; Little Tokyo Service
Center; MFY Legal Services, Inc.; National Association of
Social Workers, California Chapter; Northern California
ADAPT; Ohio Association of Local Reentry Coalitions; Personal
Assistance Services Council; Public Counsel; PUEBLO People
United For a Better Life in Oakland; Pushing Limits Radio
(KPFA); Rubicon Programs; San Francisco Senior & Disability
Action; Senior and Disabled Fund of San Bernardino County;
Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County; Sonoma County
Homeless Action!; St. Anthony Foundation; St. Mary's Center;
UC Hastings Community Justice Clinics' Individual
Representation Clinic; Urban Justice Center; Western Center
on Law and Poverty.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. In addition, let me share with you the reality of
this: Rosa Martinez. Yes, the Social Security Administration was doing
this before, but they had to stop it.
We are now reigniting it because Rosa Martinez filed a suit in 2008.
She was a 52-year-old disabled woman from Redwood, California, who
received a notice from SSA last December that she was losing her only
source of income, her disability benefits, because of a 1980 arrest
warrant for a drug offense in Miami, Florida.
Ms. Martinez has never been to Miami, has never been arrested, and
has never used illegal drugs. In addition, she is 8 inches shorter than
the Rosa Martinez identified in the warrant.
Do you want this random, reckless cutting off of SSI benefits because
of misidentification? Identity theft is rampant. So this bill is
failed, it is a failure, and it has a number of Achilles' heels that
will not work.
The bill will also increase mass incarceration. We should allow law
enforcement to do their job. I don't mind giving them the tools that
they need, but I refuse to allow individuals to suffer because of this
very abusive bill.
I kneeled on this floor because of injustice. This is a bill that is
full of injustices.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2792.
I oppose this 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 (3)
there have been cases in which warrants were either decades old or, in
many instances, it was a matter of a mistaken identity.
The 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
[[Page H7602]]
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.
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 bill.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a member of the
Ways and Means Committee.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to
H.R. 2792, the misleadingly titled Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act
of 2017, which would prohibit the payment of Supplemental Security
Income benefits to anyone with an unresolved arrest warrant for an
alleged violation of a condition of probation or parole or an alleged
felony offense.
H.R. 2792's title falsely claims to target fugitive felons. In fact,
fugitive felons are already prohibited from receiving benefits under
current law. If this bill were enacted, some of our country's most
vulnerable low-income seniors and disabled Americans, who are neither
fugitives nor felons, would not be able to get their SSI benefits.
While proponents of H.R. 2792 continue to claim that the bill only
targets violent fugitive felons, H.R. 2792 threatens many other
individuals, like those who received arrest warrants because of an
inability to pay court fines or fees. Just last week, the United States
Commission on Civil Rights published a report, titled, ``Targeted Fines
and Fees Against Low-Income Communities of Color: Civil Rights and
Constitutional Implications,'' which found that many local
jurisdictions rely on court fees or other fines to support their
municipal budgets, including fees charged to those under court
supervision.
Some of the people charged with these fees are elderly or disabled
SSI beneficiaries who are unable to work and have no way to pay court
costs. When they cannot pay, a warrant is routinely issued for their
arrest. If this bill were enacted, these people would lose their SSI
benefits, which is the only source of income for many of these low-
income disabled individuals.
During the markup of H.R. 2792, I offered a commonsense amendment
which would have prevented SSI benefits from being cut off if the
result would be the loss of benefits for individuals whose arrest
warrants were issued for nonpayment of court costs. Unfortunately, my
Republican colleagues rejected the amendment, as well as all other
Democratic amendments to this bill.
I stand united with over 119 national, State, and local organizations
who oppose efforts to cut SSI benefits, and I urge opposition to the
final passage of this bill.
Further, I would like to go on the record to say that we should have
a clean reauthorization of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood
Home Visiting program, MIECHV, which expires on September 30. The
majority's decision to tie home visiting to this harmful cut for our
most vulnerable citizens only makes this harder to accomplish.
MIECHV programs are proven programs, evidence-based programs that
work. We actually should reauthorize these programs, but we should not
tie it to this horrible bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the bill.
{time} 1015
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2792 is a harsh, unfair bill. It would undermine
the foundation of American justice, innocent until proven guilty, and
it would do so for Americans who are impoverished and already at a
severe disadvantage because of age, disability, education, race, and
ethnicity. It would strip people of basic income, in many cases all
they have to live on, based on a mere accusation.
I reject the majority's contention that people in nursing homes,
people with dementia and cognitive impairments, and others with nowhere
else to turn will not be harmed by this bill because of the very
limited authority current law gives the Social Security commissioner to
issue good cause exemptions.
We know the good cause process is complicated and very difficult to
navigate. Not surprisingly, the last time the policy was in effect,
only a tiny fraction of the people who lost their basic income were
able to follow the instructions in the six-page letter from SSA and
apply for relief, the good cause process that the majority repeatedly
touts, as few as 10 days before benefit termination. SSI recipients
have extremely limited financial resources and are severely disabled,
elderly.
Resolving errors within the criminal justice system is a long process
that typically must be done in the geographic jurisdiction of the court
and necessitates legal costs.
The goal of H.R. 2792 is the same: raise $2.1 billion by cutting off
benefits for tens of thousands of impoverished, elderly, and disabled
people, be they cognitively impaired, victims of mistaken identity,
facing homelessness, those who committed minor offenses, or those who
are too poor to pay their court fees and fines.
Mr. Speaker, there are no protections in this bill. There is no
reason, no rational benefit, but there are instances where individuals
will be forced to suffer even more than they currently do, so let's not
cut off their Social Security Income benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, the CUFF Act is commonsense. The American
taxpayer should not subsidize individuals who are fleeing from law
enforcement.
Because the Social Security Administration already possesses in place
processes that will ensure due process and protect beneficiaries,
claims about this bill are overblown and, quite frankly, they are
wrong.
I am proud that this bill is supported by the Fraternal Order of
Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the South Dakota
Sheriffs' Association.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 533, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________