[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15184-15193]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 15185]]

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 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.

[[Page 15186]]

  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. 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

[[Page 15187]]

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

[[Page 15188]]

locate those individuals who have gone out and committed crimes against 
innocent people. Rape, murder, kidnapping, they all happen in my Native 
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

[[Page 15189]]

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, 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,

[[Page 15190]]

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, 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

[[Page 15191]]

     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 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

[[Page 15192]]

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.
  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

[[Page 15193]]

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.

                          ____________________