[House Report 115-316]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


115th Congress  }                                           {  Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session    }                                           {  115-316

======================================================================

 
              CONTROL UNLAWFUL FUGITIVE FELONS ACT OF 2017

                                _______
                                

 September 21, 2017.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Brady of Texas, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2792]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred 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, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 
amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND...........................................2
          A. Purpose and Summary.................................     2
          B. Background and Need for Legislation.................     2
          C. Legislative History.................................     3
 II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL..........................................3
          Section 1: Short Title.................................     3
          Section 2: Revisions to Provisions Limiting Payments of 
              Benefits to Fugitive Felons Under Title XVI of the 
              Social Security Act................................     4
III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE...........................................7
 IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL......................................10
          A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects.............    10
          B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax 
              Expenditures Budget Authority......................    10
          C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget 
              Office.............................................    10
  V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE......16
          A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations....    16
          B. Statement of General Performance Goals and 
              Objectives.........................................    16
          C. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates...........    16
          D. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and 
              Limited Tariff Benefits............................    16
          E. Duplication of Federal Programs.....................    16
          F. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.................    17
 VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED...........17
VII. DISSENTING VIEWS................................................28

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

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.

                       I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND


                         A. Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2792, as amended, the ``Control Unlawful Fugitive 
Felons Act,'' as ordered reported by the Committee on Ways and 
Means on September 13, 2017, amends the Social Security Act to 
make certain revisions to provisions limiting payment of 
benefits to fugitive felons under title XVI.

                 B. Background and Need for Legislation

    Under the 1996 welfare reform law, fugitive felons and 
probation and parole violators were made ineligible for 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Similar provisions 
were also included in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and 
some housing assistance programs.
    In addition to being an important program integrity 
measure, this policy had the added benefit of helping law 
enforcement find thousands of criminals who had been evading 
the law. A 2007 report by the Social Security Administration's 
(SSA) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that ``the 
impact of this program reaches beyond Social Security to local 
communities across the United States. OIG efforts contributed 
to over 59,000 arrests since the program's inception in 
1996.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General, 
Semiannual Report to Congress, April 1, 2007-September 30, 2007, Page 
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, a series of court cases during the mid- to late-
2000's determined that SSA's enforcement of the law was too 
broad, primarily questioning SSA's interpretation of ``actively 
fleeing''. As a result of these cases, SSA only discontinues 
benefits to those who have escaped from prison or are avoiding 
imprisonment, significantly reducing the impact of the policy.
    H.R. 2792 restores 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.
    H.R. 2792 applies 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 a result of the court cases, SSA is now required to 
provide additional notice to individuals and the opportunity 
for them to establish ``good cause'' for not suspending 
benefits, protecting SSI recipients. If SSI benefits are 
suspended incorrectly, SSA has processes in place to restore 
benefits quickly.

                         C. Legislative History


Background

    H.R. 2792, the ``Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act,'' 
was introduced on June 6, 2017, by Representative Kristi Noem 
and Representative Sam Johnson, and was referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means.

Committee hearings

    On June 3, 2015, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human 
Resources held the hearing titled, ``Protecting the Safety Net 
from Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.''

Committee action

    The Committee on Ways and Means marked up H.R. 2792, the 
``Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act,'' on September 13, 
2017. The bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of 
Representatives, as amended, by a roll call vote of 23 yeas to 
14 nays.

                      II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL


                         Section 1: Short Title


                              PRESENT LAW

    No provision.

                        EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

    This Act may be cited as ``Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons 
Act of 2017''.

                           REASON FOR CHANGE

    The Committee believes that the short title accurately 
reflects the policy actions included in the legislation.

                             EFFECTIVE DATE

    These provisions are effective upon enactment.

  Section 2: Revisions to Provisions Limiting Payments of Benefits to 
       Fugitive Felons Under Title XVI of the Social Security Act


                (A) FUGITIVE FELON WARRANT REQUIREMENTS

                              PRESENT LAW

    Under current law, a person is not eligible for 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits during any month in 
which the person is ``fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody 
or confinement after conviction'' for a crime which is a 
felony, or in a state that does not classify crimes as 
felonies, punishable by death or imprisonment of more than one 
year (commonly referred to as the fugitive felon 
prohibition).\2\ A similar prohibition exists for Social 
Security Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OADSI) 
benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act\3\ and 
Special Benefits for World War II Veterans (SVB) under Title 
VIII of the Act\4\ and for a person serving as a representative 
payee for a beneficiary under any program administered by the 
Social Security Administration (SSA).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Section 1614(e)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1382(e)(4)(A)].
    \3\Section 202(x)(1)(A)(iv) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 402(x)(1)(A)(iv)].
    \4\Section 804(a)(2) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1004(a)(2)].
    \5\Sections 1631(a)(2)(B)(iii)(V) [for SSI], 205(j)(2)(C)(i)(V) 
[for OASDI], and 807(d)(1)(E) [for SVB] of the Social Security Act [42 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1683(a)(2)(B)(iii)(V), 405(j)(2)(C)(i)(V), and 
807(d)(1)(E)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prior to April 1, 2009, the SSA interpreted this provision 
to prohibit benefits to any person for whom an arrest warrant 
for a felony was active, regardless of whether or not there was 
any evidence or indication that the person was fleeing. 
Pursuant to the class-action settlement agreement in Martinez 
v. Astrue,\6\ the SSA, effective April 1, 2009, adopted the 
present policy of only applying the fugitive felon prohibition 
in SSI, OASDI, SVB, and representative payee cases in which a 
person has a felony arrest warrant for one of the following 
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Uniform Offense 
Classification Codes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Martinez v. Astrue, No. 08-CV-4735 CW (N.D. Cal. 2009). In an 
earlier case, Fowlkes v. Adamec [432 F.3d 90 (2d. Cir. 2005)], the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the SSA's 
interpretation of the fugitive felon prohibition was inconsistent with 
the statute because the SSA's policy did not require any finding that 
the person was fleeing from prosecution or punishment and that under 
the statute ``benefits may be suspended only as of the date of a 
warrant or order issued by a court or other authorized tribunal on the 
basis of a finding that an individual has fled or was fleeing from 
justice.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           4901: escape from custody;
           4902: flight to avoid prosecution or 
        confinement; and
           4999: flight-escape.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Social Security Administration, Program Operations Manual System 
(POMS), GN 02613.860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

    This subsection would change the fugitive felon provision 
for SSI payments and SSI representative payees only by removing 
all references to a person fleeing to avoid prosecution or 
punishment. Under this subsection, a person would be ineligible 
for SSI benefits (or to serve as an SSI representative payee) 
if the person was subject to an arrest warrant for a crime that 
is a felony, or in a state that does not classify crimes as 
felonies, punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one 
year, regardless of any consideration of whether or not the 
person was fleeing. This subsection would essentially codify 
the SSA's policy in effect before the Martinez settlement.

              (B) PROBATION AND PAROLE WARRANT REQUIREMENT

                              PRESENT LAW

    Under current law, a person is not eligible for SSI, OASDI, 
or SVB benefits during any month in which the person is 
``violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under 
federal or state law.''\8\ This prohibition also applies to a 
person serving as an SSI representative payee, but not a 
representative payee for any other Social Security program.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Sections 1611(e)(4)(A)(ii) [for SSI], 202(x)(1)(A)(v) [for 
OASDI], and 804(a)(3) [for SVB] of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1382(e)(4)(A)(ii), 404(x)(1)(A)(v), and 1004(a)(3)].
    \9\Section 1631(a)(2)(B)(iii)(V) of the Social Security Act [42 
U.S.C. Sec. 1683(a)(2)(B)(iii)(V).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prior to May 9, 2011, the SSA interpreted this provision to 
prohibit the payment of benefits to a person solely due to the 
presence of a warrant for one of the following NCIC Uniform 
Offense Classification Codes:
           5011: parole violation;
           5012: probation violation;
           8101: juvenile offenders--abscond while on 
        parole;
           8102: juvenile offenders--abscond while on 
        probation;
           9999: with an offense charge symbol of 
        probation or parole violation;
           ``blank:'' with an offense charge symbol of 
        probation or parole violation; and
           any other four-digit code, except 4901, 
        4902, or 4999, with an offense charge symbol of 
        probation or parole violation.
    In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 
held in Clark v. Astrue that the SSA policy of suspending 
benefits solely due to the presence of a warrant for a 
probation or parole violation was inconsistent with the 
probation and parole violation suspension provisions of the 
Social Security Act because the mere presence of a warrant is 
not evidence that a probation or parole violation has actually 
occurred.\10\ Pursuant to the Clark decision, on May 9, 2011, 
the SSA stopped its practice of suspending benefits solely on 
the basis of a probation or parole violation warrant.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Clark v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2010).
    \11\Social Security Administration, Program Operations Manual 
System (POMS), GN 02615.100.
    \12\Sections 1611(e)(5) [for SSI] and 202(x)(3)(C) [for OASDI] of 
the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1382(e)(5) and 
402(x)(3)(C)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

    This subsection would change the probation and parole 
violation suspension provision for SSI benefits and SSI 
representative payees only. The requirement that a person be 
violating a condition of his or her probation or parole to be 
ineligible for benefits would be changed to the requirement 
that the person merely have a warrant for a probation or parole 
violation. This subsection would essentially codify the SSA's 
policy in effect before the Clark decision.

                             (C) DISCLOSURE

                              PRESENT LAW

    Under current law, the SSA is required to disclose to any 
federal, state, or local law enforcement officer, upon request 
and if the location or apprehension of the beneficiary is 
within the officer's official duties, the current address, 
Social Security Number, and photograph (if applicable) of an 
individual receiving SSI or OASDI benefits. This disclosure is 
to be made if the officer notifies the SSA that the beneficiary 
is (1) fleeing to avoid prosecution or custody after conviction 
for a crime that is a felony (or in a state that does not 
classify crimes as felonies, punishable by death or 
imprisonment of more than one year) or (2) violating a 
condition of his or her probation or parole.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Section 1611(e)(5) [for SSI] and 202(x)(3)(C) [for OASDI] of 
the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1382(e)(5) and 
402(x)(3)(C)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

    This subsection would expand this provision to require the 
SSA to also disclose to law enforcement the current address, 
Social Security Number, and photograph (if applicable) of an 
individual who would be receiving SSI benefits if not for the 
fugitive felon or probation and parole prohibitions.

                           REASON FOR CHANGE

    The Committee believes that these provisions will restore 
the original intent of The Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, to discontinue 
Supplemental Security Income benefits for individuals who are 
``the subject of an arrest warrant'' compared to the previous 
language of ``fleeing to avoid'' arrest.
    The original intent emphasized that assistance through the 
SSI program is intended for the aged, blind, and disabled, and 
that those with outstanding arrest warrants for a felony or 
probation or parole violators should not be supported through 
federal benefits. These measures aim to improve cooperation 
between states, SSA, and law enforcement officials in locating 
and apprehending these individuals.
    It makes little sense to the Committee to limit the scope 
of this common sense restriction to only those who are actively 
on the run from law enforcement, and to not apply it as well to 
those who may no longer be actively on the run because they 
have successfully evaded law enforcement and their 
responsibilities under the law.
    H.R. 2792 prohibits SSI benefits to any individual who is 
the subject of: (1) an outstanding arrest warrant for a felony, 
or (2) an outstanding arrest warrant for violating a condition 
of prohibition or parole imposed under federal or state law. 
These provisions only apply to felony charges, or a crime 
carrying a minimum term of one or more years in prison. It is 
not the intent of this policy to punish individuals convicted 
of misdemeanors.
    In addition, the Committee expects SSA to continue and 
improve certain aspects of the implementation of this 
provision. Currently, SSA provides an ``advance notice'' to 
recipients containing information on why SSA is suspending 
payments and where, why, when the warrant was issued. This 
allows the individuals to use the period of time before 
payments are suspended to resolve the matter and to protest the 
decision to suspend payments. During this protest, the 
individual may also apply to SSA for a ``good cause'' exception 
to the suspension, adding an additional layer of protections 
for SSI recipients. Specifically, SSA may continue SSI payments 
to an individual whose criminal offense was non-violent and not 
drug related, not charged with a felony crime since the warrant 
was issued, and if law enforcement reports it will not act on 
the warrant. In addition, if recipients meet the above criteria 
and lacks the mental capacity to resolve the warrant, which 
includes, but is not limited to, those in a nursing home or 
mental treatment facility, SSA may continue to provide SSI 
payments without any disruption.
    If for some reason Social Security benefits are denied due 
to incorrect information, payments can be immediately restored 
once the affected individual resolves any outstanding issues 
with their local Social Security Administration field office. 
Recipients may also then be eligible for an underpayment, 
correcting for any missed payments.

                             EFFECTIVE DATE

    These provisions are effective on January 1, 2021.

                      III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE

    In compliance with the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the following statement is made concerning the 
vote of the Committee on Ways and Means during the markup 
consideration of H.R. 2792, the ``Control Unlawful Fugitive 
Felons Act,'' on September 13, 2017.
    An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered by 
Chairman Brady and adopted by voice vote (with a quorum being 
present).
    The amendment by Rep. Sewell to the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute to H.R. 2792, which would require SSI payments 
be made to those with felony arrest warrants or parole/
probation violations unless the Commissioner could certify that 
no one with a felony arrest warrant for court fees, supervision 
fees, or monetary fines would be impacted, was not agreed to by 
a roll call vote of 22 nays to 15 yeas (with a quorum being 
present). The vote was as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Representative             Yea      Nay     Present      Representative      Yea      Nay     Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brady........................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Neal...........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Johnson......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Levin..........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Nunes........................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Lewis..........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Tiberi.......................  .......  .......  .........  Mr. Doggett........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Reichert.....................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Thompson.......       X   .......  .........
Mr. Roskam.......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Larson.........  .......  .......  .........
Mr. Buchanan.....................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Blumenauer.....       X   .......  .........
Mr. Smith (NE)...................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Kind...........       X   .......  .........
Ms. Jenkins......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Pascrell.......       X   .......  .........
Mr. Paulsen......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Crowley........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Marchant.....................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Davis..........       X   .......  .........
Ms. Black........................  .......  .......  .........  Ms. Sanchez........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Reed.........................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Higgins........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Kelly........................  .......       X   .........  Ms. Sewell.........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Renacci......................  .......       X   .........  Ms. DelBene........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Meehan.......................  .......       X   .........  Ms. Chu............       X   .......  .........
Ms. Noem.........................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Holding......................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Smith (MO)...................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Rice.........................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Schweikert...................  .......       X   .........
Ms. Walorski.....................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Curbelo......................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Bishop.......................  .......       X   .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment by Mr. Davis to the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute to H.R. 2792, which would require SSI payments 
be made to those with felony arrest warrants or parole/
probation violations unless the Commissioner could certify that 
there will be no effects on race or ethnicity, was not agreed 
to by a roll call vote of 22 nays to 15 yeas (with a quorum 
being present). The vote was as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Representative             Yea      Nay     Present      Representative      Yea      Nay     Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brady........................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Neal...........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Johnson......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Levin..........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Nunes........................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Lewis..........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Tiberi.......................  .......  .......  .........  Mr. Doggett........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Reichert.....................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Thompson.......       X   .......  .........
Mr. Roskam.......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Larson.........  .......  .......  .........
Mr. Buchanan.....................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Blumenauer.....       X   .......  .........
Mr. Smith (NE)...................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Kind...........       X   .......  .........
Ms. Jenkins......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Pascrell.......       X   .......  .........
Mr. Paulsen......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Crowley........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Marchant.....................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Davis..........       X   .......  .........
Ms. Black........................  .......  .......  .........  Ms. Sanchez........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Reed.........................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Higgins........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Kelly........................  .......       X   .........  Ms. Sewell.........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Renacci......................  .......       X   .........  Ms. DelBene........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Meehan.......................  .......       X   .........  Ms. Chu............       X   .......  .........
Ms. Noem.........................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Holding......................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Smith (MO)...................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Rice.........................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Schweikert...................  .......       X   .........
Ms. Walorski.....................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Curbelo......................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Bishop.......................  .......       X   .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment by Mr. Crowley to the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute to H.R. 2792, which would require SSI payments 
be made to those with felony arrest warrants or parole/
probation violations unless the Commissioner could certify that 
no one would be at risk of becoming homeless due to the 
implementation of the provision, was not agreed to by a roll 
call vote of 22 nays to 15 yeas (with a quorum being present). 
The vote was as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Representative             Yea      Nay     Present      Representative      Yea      Nay     Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brady........................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Neal...........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Johnson......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Levin..........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Nunes........................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Lewis..........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Tiberi.......................  .......  .......  .........  Mr. Doggett........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Reichert.....................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Thompson.......       X   .......  .........
Mr. Roskam.......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Larson.........  .......  .......  .........
Mr. Buchanan.....................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Blumenauer.....       X   .......  .........
Mr. Smith (NE)...................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Kind...........       X   .......  .........
Ms. Jenkins......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Pascrell.......       X   .......  .........
Mr. Paulsen......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Crowley........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Marchant.....................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Davis..........       X   .......  .........
Ms. Black........................  .......  .......  .........  Ms. Sanchez........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Reed.........................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Higgins........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Kelly........................  .......       X   .........  Ms. Sewell.........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Renacci......................  .......       X   .........  Ms. DelBene........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Meehan.......................  .......       X   .........  Ms. Chu............       X   .......  .........
Ms. Noem.........................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Holding......................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Smith (MO)...................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Rice.........................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Schweikert...................  .......       X   .........
Ms. Walorski.....................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Curbelo......................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Bishop.......................  .......       X   .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment offered by Ms. Chu to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to H.R. 2792, which would require SSI 
payments be made to those with felony arrest warrants or 
parole/probation violations unless the Commissioner could 
certify that no one with a felony arrest warrant who has 
dementia or other cognitive impairments would be impacted, was 
not agreed to by a roll call vote of 22 nays to 15 yeas (with a 
quorum being present). The vote was as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Representative             Yea      Nay     Present      Representative      Yea      Nay     Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brady........................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Neal...........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Johnson......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Levin..........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Nunes........................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Lewis..........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Tiberi.......................  .......  .......  .........  Mr. Doggett........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Reichert.....................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Thompson.......       X   .......  .........
Mr. Roskam.......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Larson.........  .......  .......  .........
Mr. Buchanan.....................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Blumenauer.....       X   .......  .........
Mr. Smith (NE)...................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Kind...........       X   .......  .........
Ms. Jenkins......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Pascrell.......       X   .......  .........
Mr. Paulsen......................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Crowley........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Marchant.....................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Davis..........       X   .......  .........
Ms. Black........................  .......  .......  .........  Ms. Sanchez........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Reed.........................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Higgins........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Kelly........................  .......       X   .........  Ms. Sewell.........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Renacci......................  .......       X   .........  Ms. DelBene........       X   .......  .........
Mr. Meehan.......................  .......       X   .........  Ms. Chu............       X   .......  .........
Ms. Noem.........................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Holding......................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Smith (MO)...................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Rice.........................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Schweikert...................  .......       X   .........
Ms. Walorski.....................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Curbelo......................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Bishop.......................  .......       X   .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill, H.R. 2792, was ordered favorably reported to the 
House of Representatives as amended by a roll call vote of 23 
yeas to 14 nays (with a quorum being present). The vote was as 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Representative             Yea      Nay     Present      Representative      Yea      Nay     Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brady........................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Neal...........  .......       X   .........
Mr. Johnson......................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Levin..........  .......       X   .........
Mr. Nunes........................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Lewis..........  .......       X   .........
Mr. Tiberi.......................  .......  .......  .........  Mr. Doggett........  .......       X   .........
Mr. Reichert.....................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Thompson.......  .......       X   .........
Mr. Roskam.......................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Larson.........  .......  .......  .........
Mr. Buchanan.....................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Blumenauer.....  .......       X   .........
Mr. Smith (NE)...................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Kind...........       X   .......  .........
Ms. Jenkins......................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Pascrell.......  .......       X   .........
Mr. Paulsen......................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Crowley........  .......       X   .........
Mr. Marchant.....................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Davis..........  .......       X   .........
Ms. Black........................  .......  .......  .........  Ms. Sanchez........  .......       X   .........
Mr. Reed.........................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Higgins........  .......       X   .........
Mr. Kelly........................       X   .......  .........  Ms. Sewell.........  .......       X   .........
Mr. Renacci......................       X   .......  .........  Ms. DelBene........  .......       X   .........
Mr. Meehan.......................       X   .......  .........  Ms. Chu............  .......       X   .........
Ms. Noem.........................       X   .......  .........
Mr. Holding......................       X   .......  .........
Mr. Smith (MO)...................       X   .......  .........
Mr. Rice.........................       X   .......  .........
Mr. Schweikert...................       X   .......  .........
Ms. Walorski.....................       X   .......  .........
Mr. Curbelo......................       X   .......  .........
Mr. Bishop.......................       X   .......  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL


               A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects

    In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statement is made 
concerning the effects on the budget of the bill, H.R. 2792, as 
reported. The Committee agrees with the estimate prepared by 
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is included below.

B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures Budget 
                               Authority

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that the 
bill involves no new or increased budget authority. The 
Committee states further that the bill involves no new or 
increased tax expenditures.

      C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate 
prepared by the CBO, the following statement by CBO is 
provided.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 20, 2017.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2792, the Control 
Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Noah 
Meyerson.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2792--Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017

    Summary: H.R. 2792 would, beginning in calendar year 2021, 
expand the number of people who are considered ``fugitive 
felons'' and who would therefore be ineligible for benefits 
under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2792 would decrease direct 
spending by about $2.1 billion over the 2018-2027 period; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting the bill 
would not affect revenues.
    CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not 
increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of 
the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    H.R. 2792 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary effects of H.R. 2792 are shown in the following 
table. The effects of this legislation fall within budget 
functions 550 (health) and 600 (income security).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      2017       2018       2019       2020       2021       2022       2023       2024       2025       2026       2027    2017-2022  2017-2027
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          INCREASES OR DECREASES (-) IN DIRECT SPENDING
 
Supplemental Security Income:
    Estimated Budget Authority...................          0          0          0          0       -200       -280       -290       -300       -340       -370       -410       -480     -2,190
    Estimated Outlays............................          0          0          0          0       -200       -280       -290       -300       -340       -370       -410       -480     -2,190
 
Medicaid:
    Estimated Budget Authority...................          0          0          0          0         10         20         20         20         20         20         20         30        130
    Estimated Outlays............................          0          0          0          0         10         20         20         20         20         20         20         30        130
 
    Total:
        Estimated Budget Authority...............          0          0          0          0       -190       -260       -270       -280       -320       -350       -390       -450     -2,060
        Estimated Outlays........................          0          0          0          0       -190       -260       -270       -280       -320       -350       -390       -450     -2,060
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: The Social Security Administration (SSA) 
currently withholds SSI payments for recipients who are 
considered fleeing felons (people for whom there is an active 
arrest warrant for ``crimes of flight''). H.R. 2792 would 
expand the groups of people ineligible to receive payments to 
those who have an active arrest warrant for a felony or for a 
parole or probation violation.
    Under the Social Security Act, a person is not eligible for 
SSI payments during any month in which the person is ``fleeing 
to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after 
conviction'' for a crime that is a felony or during any month 
in which the person is ``violating a condition of probation or 
parole imposed under federal or state law.'' SSA originally 
interpreted this provision to prohibit payments to any 
recipients with an active arrest warrant for a felony or for a 
violation of parole or probation. Following two court cases 
(Martinez v. Astrue in 2009 and Clark v. Astrue in 2010), SSA 
adjusted its policies and now suspends payments only when the 
warrant is for ``crimes of flight,'' such as escape from 
custody or flight to avoid prosecution. (Similar prohibitions 
on payment exist for Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability 
Insurance; H.R. 2792 would not affect those programs.)
    H.R. 2792 would amend the Social Security Act to 
essentially reinstate, for SSI recipients, the policy of 
suspending benefits for all people with active warrants for 
felonies or violations of probation or parole. The bill would 
take effect in calendar year 2021.
    Based on data provided by SSA about the number of payments 
that were withheld when SSA prohibited payment to all people 
with the relevant types of arrest warrants and the number that 
are withheld under current policy, CBO estimates that the bill 
would reduce the SSI monthly caseload by roughly 30,000 
recipients. CBO projects that the affected individuals would 
lose federal payments that are, on average, 10 percent higher 
than the average federal SSI payment. The withheld monthly 
benefits would average about $700 in 2022. On that basis, CBO 
estimates that total federal SSI payments would be reduced by 
$2.2 billion over the 2018-2027 period.
    Most SSI recipients are automatically eligible for 
Medicaid, which is a joint federal-state program that pays for 
health care services for low-income individuals. Under H.R. 
2792, individuals who would no longer receive their SSI 
benefits also would stop receiving Medicaid benefits under 
their eligibility for SSI. However many of those people would 
be eligible for other reasons. CBO estimates that about three 
quarters of the people who would stop receiving SSI benefits 
under H.R. 2792 would be able to retain their Medicaid 
eligibility under other criteria that have the same average 
federal matching rate as for those who are eligible for SSI 
(about 57 percent). Therefore, CBO does not expect any change 
in federal Medicaid spending for the most of the individuals 
who stop receiving SSI benefits under the bill. Of the 
remaining one quarter of people affected by the bill, CBO 
estimates that most would gain eligibility through the 
Affordable Care Act's optional state expansion of Medicaid 
coverage. At least 90 percent of the cost for people in that 
eligibility group is paid for by the federal government. The 
additional federal costs for those people would be larger than 
the federal savings generated from the small number of people 
who would not be able to qualify for Medicaid under other 
criteria and would thus lose all access to Medicaid under the 
bill. CBO estimates that, on net, federal Medicaid spending 
would increase by $130 million over the 2018-2027 period.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those 
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table.

                             CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 2792 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      2017       2018       2019       2020       2021       2022       2023       2024       2025       2026       2027    2017-2022  2017-2027
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 NET DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT
 
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact...................          0          0          0          0       -190       -260       -270       -280       -320       -350       -390       -450     -2,060
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO 
estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2792 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Noah Meyerson (SSI) 
and Andrea Noda (Medicaid); Impact on state, local, and tribal 
governments: Zachary Byrum; Impact on the private sector: Paige 
Piper/Bach.
    Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

     V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE


          A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee made findings and 
recommendations that are reflected in this report.

        B. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, Committee establishes the 
following performance related goals and objectives for this 
legislation: To limit the paying of benefits to fugitive felons 
under Title XVI (Supplemental Security Income) of the Social 
Security Act.

              C. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates

    This information is provided in accordance with section 423 
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-
4). The Committee has determined that the bill does not contain 
Federal mandates on the private sector. The Committee has 
determined that the bill does not impose a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate on State, local, or tribal 
governments.

  D. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
                                Benefits

    With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed 
the provisions of the bill, and states that the provisions of 
the bill do not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits within the meaning of the 
rule.

                   E. Duplication of Federal Programs

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that no 
provision of the bill establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program; (2) a program included in any report 
from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant 
to section 21 of Public Law 111-139; or (3) a program related 
to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance, published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Pub. L. No. 95-220, as amended by Pub. L. No. 
98-169).

                 F. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    In compliance with Sec. 3(i) of H. Res. 5 (115th Congress), 
the following statement is made concerning directed rule 
makings: The Committee advises that the bill requires no 
directed rulemakings within the meaning of such section.

       VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                          SOCIAL SECURITY ACT



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
   TITLE XVI--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND 
DISABLED

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   Part A--Determination of Benefits

                 ELIGIBILITY FOR AND AMOUNT OF BENEFITS

                   Definition of Eligible Individual

  Sec. 1611. (a)(1) Each aged, blind, or disabled individual 
who does not have an eligible spouse and--
          (A) whose income, other than income excluded pursuant 
        to section 1612(b), is at a rate of not more than 
        $1,752 (or, if greater, the amount determined under 
        section 1617) for the calendar year 1974 or any 
        calendar year thereafter, and
          (B) whose resources, other than resources excluded 
        pursuant to section 1613(a), are not more than (i) in 
        case such individual has a spouse with whom he is 
        living, the applicable amount determined under 
        paragraph (3)(A), or (ii) in case such individual has 
        no spouse with whom he is living, the applicable amount 
        determined under paragraph (3)(B),
shall be an eligible individual for purposes of this title.
  (2) Each aged, blind, or disabled individual who has an 
eligible spouse and
          (A) whose income (together with the income of such 
        spouse), other than income excluded pursuant to section 
        1612(b), is at a rate of not more than $2,628 (or, if 
        greater, the amount determined under section 1617) for 
        the calendar year 1974, or any calendar year 
        thereafter, and
          (B) whose resources (together with the resources of 
        such spouse), other than resources excluded pursuant to 
        section 1613(a), are not more than the applicable 
        amount determined under paragraph (3)(A),
shall be an eligible individual for purposes of this title.
  (3)(A) The dollar amount referred to in clause (i) of 
paragraph (1)(B), and in paragraph (2)(B), shall be $2,250 
prior to January 1, 1985, and shall be increased to $2,400 on 
January 1, 1985, to $2,550 on January 1, 1986, to $2,700 on 
January 1, 1987, to $2,850 on January 1, 1988, and to $3,000 on 
January 1, 1989.
  (B) The dollar amount referred to in clause (ii) of paragraph 
(1)(B), shall be $1,500 prior to January 1, 1985, and shall be 
increased to $1,600 on January 1, 1985, to $1,700 on January 1, 
1986, to $1,800 on January 1, 1987, to $1,900 on January 1, 
1988, and to $2,000 on January 1, 1989.

                          Amounts of Benefits

  (b)(1) The benefit under this title for an individual who 
does not have an eligible spouse shall be payable at the rate 
of $1,752 (or, if greater, the amount determined under section 
1617) for the calendar year 1974 and any calendar year 
thereafter, reduced by the amount of income, not excluded 
pursuant to section 1612(b), of such individual.
  (2) The benefit under this title for an individual who has an 
eligible spouse shall be payable at the rate of $2,628 (or, if 
greater, the amount determined under section 1617) for the 
calendar year 1974 and any calendar year thereafter, reduced by 
the amount of income, not excluded pursuant to section 1612(b), 
of such individual and spouse.

                  Period for Determination of Benefits

  (c)(1) An individual's eligibility for a benefit under this 
title for a month shall be determined on the basis of the 
individual's (and eligible spouse's, if any) income, resources, 
and other relevant characteristics in such month, and, except 
as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6), the 
amount of such benefit shall be determined for such month on 
the basis of income and other characteristics in the first or, 
if the Commissioner of Social Security so determines, second 
month preceding such month. Eligibility for and the amount of 
such benefits shall be redetermined at such time or times as 
may be provided by the Commissioner of Social Security.
  (2) The amount of such benefit for the month in which an 
application for benefits becomes effective (or, if the 
Commissioner of Social Security so determines, for such month 
and the following month) and for any month immediately 
following a month of ineligibility for such benefits (or, if 
the Commissioner of Social Security so determines, for such 
month and the following month) shall--
          (A) be determined on the basis of the income of the 
        individual and the eligible spouse, if any, of such 
        individual and other relevant circumstances in such 
        month; and
          (B) in the case of the first month following a period 
        of ineligibility in which eligibility is restored after 
        the first day of such month, bear the same ratio to the 
        amount of the benefit which would have been payable to 
        such individual if eligibility had been restored on the 
        first day of such month as the number of days in such 
        month including and following the date of restoration 
        of eligibility bears to the total number of days in 
        such month.
  (3) For purposes of this subsection, an increase in the 
benefit amount payable under title II (over the amount payable 
in the preceding month, or, at the election of the Commissioner 
of Social Security, the second preceding month) to an 
individual receiving benefits under this title shall be 
included in the income used to determine the benefit under this 
title of such individual for any month which is--
          (A) the first month in which the benefit amount 
        payable to such individual under this title is 
        increased pursuant to section 1617, or
          (B) at the election of the Commissioner of Social 
        Security, the month immediately following such month.
  (4)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), if the Commissioner of 
Social Security determines that reliable information is 
currently available with respect to the income and other 
circumstances of an individual for a month (including 
information with respect to a class of which such individual is 
a member and information with respect to scheduled cost-of-
living adjustments under other benefit programs), the benefit 
amount of such individual under this title for such month may 
be determined on the basis of such information.
  (B) The Commissioner of Social Security shall prescribe by 
regulation the circumstances in which information with respect 
to an event may be taken into account pursuant to subparagraph 
(A) in determining benefit amounts under this title.
  (5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), any income which 
is paid to or on behalf of an individual in any month pursuant 
to (A) a State program funded under part A of title IV, (B) 
section 472 of this Act (relating to foster care assistance), 
(C) section 412(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(relating to assistance for refugees), (D) section 501(a) of 
Public Law 96-422 (relating to assistance for Cuban and Haitian 
entrants), or (E) the Act of November 2, 1921 (42 Stat. 208), 
as amended (relating to assistance furnished by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs), shall be taken into account in determining the 
amount of the benefit under this title of such individual (and 
his eligible spouse, if any) only for that month, and shall not 
be taken into account in determining the amount of the benefit 
for any other month.
  (6) The dollar amount in effect under subsection (b) as a 
result of any increase in benefits under this title by reason 
of section 1617 shall be used to determine the value of any in-
kind support and maintenance required to be taken into account 
in determining the benefit payable under this title to an 
individual (and the eligible spouse, if any, of the individual) 
for the 1st 2 months for which the increase in benefits 
applies.
  (7) For purposes of this subsection, an application of an 
individual for benefits under this title shall be effective on 
the later of--
          (A) the first day of the month following the date 
        such application is filed, or
          (B) the first day of the month following the date 
        such individual becomes eligible for such benefits with 
        respect to such application.
  (8) The Commissioner of Social Security may waive the 
limitations specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
subsection (e)(1) on an individual's eligibility and benefit 
amount for a month (to the extent either such limitation is 
applicable by reason of such individual's presence throughout 
such month in a hospital, extended care facility, nursing home, 
or intermediate care facility) if such waiver would promote the 
individual's removal from such institution or facility. Upon 
waiver of such limitations, the Commissioner of Social Security 
shall apply, to the month preceding the month of removal, or, 
if the Commissioner of Social Security so determines, the two 
months preceding the month of removal, the benefit rate that is 
appropriate to such individual's living arrangement subsequent 
to his removal from such institution or facility.
  (9)(A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), any 
nonrecurring income which is paid to an individual in the first 
month of any period of eligibility shall be taken into account 
in determining the amount of the benefit under this title of 
such individual (and his eligible spouse, if any) only for that 
month, and shall not be taken into account in determining the 
amount of the benefit for any other month.
  (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), payments to an 
individual in varying amounts from the same or similar source 
for the same or similar purpose shall not be considered to be 
nonrecurring income.
  (10) For purposes of this subsection, remuneration for 
service performed as a member of a uniformed service may be 
treated as received in the month in which it was earned, if the 
Commissioner of Social Security determines that such treatment 
would promote the economical and efficient administration of 
the program authorized by this title.

                     Special Limits on Gross Income

  (d) The Commissioner of Social Security may prescribe the 
circumstances under which, consistently with the purposes of 
this title, the gross income from a trade or business 
(including farming) will be considered sufficiently large to 
make an individual ineligible for benefits under this title. 
For purposes of this subsection, the term ``gross income'' has 
the same meaning as when used in chapter 1 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1954.

            Limitation on Eligibility of Certain Individuals

  (e)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), 
(E), and (G), no person shall be an eligible individual or 
eligible spouse for purposes of this title with respect to any 
month if throughout such month he is an inmate of a public 
institution.
  (B) In any case where an eligible individual or his eligible 
spouse (if any) is, throughout any month (subject to 
subparagraph (G)), in a medical treatment facility receiving 
payments (with respect to such individual or spouse) under a 
State plan approved under title XIX, or an eligible individual 
is a child described in section 1614(f)(2)(B), or, in the case 
of an eligible individual who is a child under the age of 18, 
receiving payments (with respect to such individual) under any 
health insurance policy issued by a private provider of such 
insurance the benefit under this title for such individual for 
such month shall be payable (subject to subparagraph (E))--
          (i) at a rate not in excess of $360 per year (reduced 
        by the amount of any income not excluded pursuant to 
        section 1612(b)) in the case of an individual who does 
        not have an eligible spouse;
          (ii) in the case of an individual who has an eligible 
        spouse, if only one of them is in such a facility 
        throughout such month, at a rate not in excess of the 
        sum of--
                  (I) the rate of $360 per year (reduced by the 
                amount of any income, not excluded pursuant to 
                section 1612(b), of the one who is in such 
                facility), and
                  (II) the applicable rate specified in 
                subsection (b)(1) (reduced by the amount of any 
                income, not excluded pursuant to section 
                1612(b), of the other); and
          (iii) at a rate not in excess of $720 per year 
        (reduced by the amount of any income not excluded 
        pursuant to section 1612(b)) in the case of an 
        individual who has an eligible spouse, if both of them 
        are in such a facility throughout such month.
For purposes of this subsection, a medical treatment facility 
that provides services described in section 1917(c)(1)(C) shall 
be considered to be receiving payments with respect to an 
individual under a State plan approved under title XIX during 
any period of ineligibility of such individual provided for 
under the State plan pursuant to section 1917(c).
  (C) As used in subparagraph (A), the term ``public 
institution'' does not include a publicly operated community 
residence which serves no more than 16 residents.
  (D) A person may be an eligible individual or eligible spouse 
for purposes of this title with respect to any month throughout 
which he is a resident of a public emergency shelter for the 
homeless (as defined in regulations which shall be prescribed 
by the Commissioner of Social Security); except that no person 
shall be an eligible individual or eligible spouse by reason of 
this subparagraph more than 6 months in any 9-month period.
  (E) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), any individual 
who--
          (i)(I) is an inmate of a public institution, the 
        primary purpose of which is the provision of medical or 
        psychiatric care, throughout any month as described in 
        subparagraph (A), or
          (II) is in a medical treatment facility throughout 
        any month as described in subparagraph (B),
          (ii) was eligible under section 1619(a) or (b) for 
        the month preceding such month, and
          (iii) under an agreement of the public institution or 
        the medical treatment facility is permitted to retain 
        any benefit payable by reason of this subparagraph,
may be an eligible individual or eligible spouse for purposes 
of this title (and entitled to a benefit determined on the 
basis of the rate applicable under subsection (b)) for the 
month referred to in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i) and, 
if such subclause still applies, for the succeeding month.
  (F) An individual who is an eligible individual or an 
eligible spouse for a month by reason of subparagraph (E) shall 
not be treated as being eligible under section 1619(a) or (b) 
for such month for purposes of clause (ii) of such 
subparagraph.
  (G) A person may be an eligible individual or eligible spouse 
for purposes of this title, and subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall 
not apply, with respect to any particular month throughout 
which he or she is an inmate of a public institution the 
primary purpose of which is the provision of medical or 
psychiatric care, or is in a medical treatment facility 
receiving payments (with respect to such individual or spouse) 
under a State plan approved under title XIX or, in the case of 
an individual who is a child under the age of 18, under any 
health insurance policy issued by a private provider of such 
insurance, if it is determined in accordance with subparagraph 
(H) or (J) that--
          (i) such person's stay in that institution or 
        facility (or in that institution or facility and one or 
        more other such institutions or facilities during a 
        continuous period of institutionalization) is likely 
        (as certified by a physician) not to exceed 3 months, 
        and the particular month involved is one of the first 3 
        months throughout which such person is in such an 
        institution or facility during a continuous period of 
        institutionalization; and
          (ii) such person needs to continue to maintain and 
        provide for the expenses of the home or living 
        arrangement to which he or she may return upon leaving 
        the institution or facility.
The benefit of any person under this title (including State 
supplementation if any) for each month to which this 
subparagraph applies shall be payable, without interruption of 
benefit payments and on the date the benefit involved is 
regularly due, at the rate that was applicable to such person 
in the month prior to the first month throughout which he or 
she is in the institution or facility.
  (H) The Commissioner of Social Security shall establish 
procedures for the determinations required by clauses (i) and 
(ii) of subparagraph (G), and may enter into agreements for 
making such determinations (or for providing information or 
assistance in connection with the making of such 
determinations) with appropriate State and local public and 
private agencies and organizations. Such procedures and 
agreements shall include the provision of appropriate 
assistance to individuals who, because of their physical or 
mental condition, are limited in their ability to furnish the 
information needed in connection with the making of such 
determinations.
  (I)(i) The Commissioner shall enter into an agreement, with 
any interested State or local institution comprising a jail, 
prison, penal institution, or correctional facility, or with 
any other interested State or local institution a purpose of 
which is to confine individuals as described in section 
202(x)(1)(A)(ii), under which--
          (I) the institution shall provide to the 
        Commissioner, on a monthly basis and in a manner 
        specified by the Commissioner, the first, middle, and 
        last names, social security account numbersor taxpayer 
        identification numbers, prison assigned inmate numbers, 
        last known addresses, dates of birth, confinement 
        commencement dates, dates of release or anticipated 
        dates of release, dates of work release, and, to the 
        extent available to the institution, such other 
        identifying information concerning the inmates of the 
        institution as the Commissioner may require for the 
        purpose of carrying out this paragraph and clause (iv) 
        of this subparagraph and the other provisions of this 
        title; and
          (II) the Commissioner shall pay to any such 
        institution, with respect to each individual who 
        receives in the month preceding the first month 
        throughout which such individual is an inmate of the 
        jail, prison, penal institution, or correctional 
        facility that furnishes information respecting such 
        individual pursuant to subclause (I), or is confined in 
        the institution (that so furnishes such information) as 
        described in section 202(x)(1)(A)(ii), a benefit under 
        this title for such preceding month, and who is 
        determined by the Commissioner to be ineligible for 
        benefits under this title by reason of confinement 
        based on the information provided by such institution, 
        $400 (subject to reduction under clause (ii)) if the 
        institution furnishes the information described in 
        subclause (I) to the Commissioner within 30 days after 
        the date such individual becomes an inmate of such 
        institution, or $200 (subject to reduction under clause 
        (ii)) if the institution furnishes such information 
        after 30 days after such date but within 90 days after 
        such date.
  (ii) The dollar amounts specified in clause (i)(II) shall be 
reduced by 50 percent if the Commissioner is also required to 
make a payment to the institution with respect to the same 
individual under an agreement entered into under section 
202(x)(3)(B).
  (iii) The Commissioner shall provide, on a reimbursable 
basis, information obtained pursuant to agreements entered into 
under clause (i) to any Federal or federally-assisted cash, 
food, or medical assistance program for eligibility and other 
administrative purposes under such program, for statistical and 
research activities conducted by Federal and State agencies, 
and to the Secretary of the Treasury for the purposes of tax 
administration, debt collection, and identifying, preventing, 
and recovering improper payments under federally funded 
programs.
  (iv) Payments to institutions required by clause (i)(II) 
shall be made from funds otherwise available for the payment of 
benefits under this title and shall be treated as direct 
spending for purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
  (v)(I) The Commissioner may disclose information received 
pursuant to this paragraph to any officer, employee, agent, or 
contractor of the Department of the Treasury whose official 
duties require such information to assist in the 
identification, prevention, and recovery of improper payments 
or in the collection of delinquent debts owed to the United 
States, including payments certified by the head of an 
executive, judicial, or legislative paying agency, and payments 
made to individuals whose eligibility, or continuing 
eligibility, to participate in a Federal program (including 
those administered by a State or political subdivision thereof) 
is being reviewed.
  (II) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 552a of title 
5, United States Code, or any other provision of Federal or 
State law, the Secretary of the Treasury may compare 
information disclosed under subclause (I) with any other 
personally identifiable information derived from a Federal 
system of records or similar records maintained by a Federal 
contractor, a Federal grantee, or an entity administering a 
Federal program or activity and may redisclose such comparison 
of information to any paying or administering agency and to the 
head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the head of any State 
agency charged with the administration of prisons with respect 
to inmates whom the Secretary of the Treasury has determined 
may have been issued, or facilitated in the issuance of, an 
improper payment.
  (III) The comparison of information disclosed under subclause 
(I) shall not be considered a matching program for purposes of 
section 552a of title 5, United States Code.
  (J) For the purpose of carrying out this paragraph, the 
Commissioner of Social Security shall conduct periodic computer 
matches with data maintained by the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services under title XVIII or XIX. The Secretary shall 
furnish to the Commissioner, in such form and manner and under 
such terms as the Commissioner and the Secretary shall mutually 
agree, such information as the Commissioner may request for 
this purpose. Information obtained pursuant to such a match may 
be substituted for the physician's certification otherwise 
required under subparagraph (G)(i).
  (2) No person shall be an eligible individual or eligible 
spouse for purposes of this title if, after notice to such 
person by the Commissioner of Social Security that it is likely 
that such person is eligible for any payments of the type 
enumerated in section 1612(a)(2)(B), such person fails within 
30 days to take all appropriate steps to apply for and (if 
eligible) obtain any such payments.
  (3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the criteria 
being used by the Commissioner of Social Security in 
determining when a husband and wife are to be considered two 
eligible individuals for purposes of this title and when they 
are to be considered an eligible individual with an eligible 
spouse, the State agency administering or supervising the 
administration of a State plan under any other program under 
this Act may (in the administration of such plan) treat a 
husband and wife living in the same medical treatment facility 
described in paragraph (1)(B) as though they were an eligible 
individual with his or her eligible spouse for purposes of this 
title (rather than two eligible individuals), after they have 
continuously lived in the same such facility for 6 months, if 
treating such husband and wife as two eligible individuals 
would prevent either of them from receiving benefits or 
assistance under such plan or reduce the amount thereof.
  (4)(A) No person shall be considered an eligible individual 
or eligible spouse for purposes of this title with respect to 
any month if during such month the person is--
          (i) [fleeing to avoid] the subject of an arrest 
        warrant for the purpose of prosecution, or custody or 
        confinement after conviction, under the laws of [the 
        place from which the person flees] the jurisdiction 
        issuing the warrant, for a crime, or an attempt to 
        commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of 
        [the place from which the person flees] the 
        jurisdiction, or, in jurisdictions that do not define 
        crimes as felonies, is punishable by death or 
        imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year regardless of 
        the actual sentence imposed; or
          [(ii) violating a condition of probation or parole 
        imposed under Federal or State law.]
          (ii) the subject of an arrest warrant for violating a 
        condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal 
        or State law.
  (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Commissioner shall, 
for good cause shown, treat the person referred to in 
subparagraph (A) as an eligible individual or eligible spouse 
if the Commissioner determines that--
          (i) a court of competent jurisdiction has found the 
        person not guilty of the criminal offense, dismissed 
        the charges relating to the criminal offense, vacated 
        the warrant for arrest of the person for the criminal 
        offense, or issued any similar exonerating order (or 
        taken similar exonerating action), or
          (ii) the person was erroneously implicated in 
        connection with the criminal offense by reason of 
        identity fraud.
  (C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Commissioner may, 
for good cause shown based on mitigating circumstances, treat 
the person referred to in subparagraph (A) as an eligible 
individual or eligible spouse if the Commissioner determines 
that--
          (i) the offense described in subparagraph (A)(i) or 
        underlying the imposition of the probation or parole 
        described in subparagraph (A)(ii) was nonviolent and 
        not drug-related, and
          (ii) in the case of a person who is not considered an 
        eligible individual or eligible spouse pursuant to 
        subparagraph (A)(ii), the action that resulted in the 
        violation of a condition of probation or parole was 
        nonviolent and not drug-related.
  (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (other than 
section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section 
1106(c) of this Act), the Commissioner shall furnish any 
Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, upon the 
written request of the officer, with the current address, 
Social Security number, and photograph (if applicable) of [any 
recipient of] any individual who is a recipient of (or would be 
such a recipient but for the application of paragraph (4)(A)) 
benefits under this title, if the officer furnishes the 
Commissioner with the name of [the recipient] the individual, 
and other identifying information as reasonably required by the 
Commissioner to establish the unique identity of [the 
recipient] the individual, and notifies the Commissioner that--
          (A) [the recipient] the individual is described in 
        clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (4)(A); and
          (B) the location or apprehension of [the recipient] 
        the individual is within the officer's official duties.

Suspension of Payments to Individuals Who Are Outside the United States

  (f)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no 
individual (other than a child described in section 
1614(a)(1)(B)(ii)) shall be considered an eligible individual 
for purposes of this title for any month during all of which 
such individual is outside the United States (and no person 
shall be considered the eligible spouse of an individual for 
purposes of this title with respect to any month during all of 
which such person is outside the United States). For purposes 
of the preceding sentence, after an individual has been outside 
the United States for any period of 30 consecutive days, he 
shall be treated as remaining outside the United States until 
he has been in the United States for a period of 30 consecutive 
days.
  (2) For a period of not more than 1 year, the first sentence 
of paragraph (1) shall not apply to any individual who--
          (A) was eligible to receive a benefit under this 
        title for the month immediately preceding the first 
        month during all of which the individual was outside 
        the United States; and
          (B) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
        Commissioner of Social Security that the absence of the 
        individual from the United States will be--
                  (i) for not more than 1 year; and
                  (ii) for the purpose of conducting studies as 
                part of an educational program that is--
                          (I) designed to substantially enhance 
                        the ability of the individual to engage 
                        in gainful employment;
                          (II) sponsored by a school, college, 
                        or university in the United States; and
                          (III) not available to the individual 
                        in the United States.

           Certain Individuals Deemed To Meet Resources Test

  (g) In the case of any individual or any individual and his 
spouse (as the case may be) who--
          (1) received aid or assistance for December 1973 
        under a plan of a State approved under title I, X, XIV, 
        or XVI,
          (2) has, since December 31, 1973, continuously 
        resided in the State under the plan of which he or they 
        received such aid or assistance for December 1973, and
          (3) has, since December 31, 1973, continuously been 
        (except for periods not in excess of six consecutive 
        months) an eligible individual or eligible spouse with 
        respect to whom supplemental security income benefits 
        are payable,
the resources of such individual or such individual and his 
spouse (as the case may be) shall be deemed not to exceed the 
amount specified in sections 1611(a)(1)(B) and 1611(a)(2)(B) 
during any period that the resources of such individual or such 
individual and his spouse (as the case may be) does not exceed 
the maximum amount of resources specified in the State plan, as 
in effect for October 1972, under which he or they received 
such aid or assistance for December 1973.

             Certain Individuals Deemed To Meet Income Test

  (h) In determining eligibility for, and the amount of, 
benefits payable under this section in the case of any 
individual or any individual and his spouse (as the case may 
be) who--
          (1) received aid or assistance for December 1973 
        under a plan of a State approved under title X or XVI,
          (2) is blind under the definition of that term in the 
        plan, as in effect for October 1972, under which he or 
        they received such aid or assistance for December 1973,
          (3) has, since December 31, 1973, continuously 
        resided in the State under the plan of which he or they 
        received such aid or assistance for December 1973, and
          (4) has, since December 31, 1973, continuously been 
        (except for periods not in excess of six consecutive 
        months) an eligible individual or an eligible spouse 
        with respect to whom supplemental security income 
        benefits are payable,
there shall be disregarded an amount equal to the greater of 
(A) the maximum amount of any earned or unearned income which 
could have been disregarded under the State plan, as in effect 
for October 1972, under which he or they received such aid or 
assistance for December 1973, and (B) the amount which would be 
required to be disregarded under section 1612 without 
application of this subsection.

      Application and Review Requirements for Certain Individuals

  (i) For application and review requirements affecting the 
eligibility of certain individuals, see section 1631(j).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         VII. DISSENTING VIEWS

    Over 110 national, state, and local groups representing 
seniors, people with disabilities, children, and families have 
contacted the Committee to warn us that H.R. 2792 is a cruel 
bill that could have catastrophic consequences for some of our 
most vulnerable citizens. In addition, civil right groups 
strongly oppose the bill because it would magnify the serious 
racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities in our criminal 
justice system.
    We agree that dangerous criminals should not be supported 
by public benefits while fleeing justice. However, under 
current law, the Social Security Administration (SSA) already 
provides regular notification to law enforcement of the 
whereabouts of any Social Security or Supplemental Security 
Income (SSI) beneficiary who has an outstanding arrest warrant 
for an alleged felony or an alleged violation of a condition of 
probation or parole. After notification, law enforcement 
officials can, and do, use that information to arrest 
individuals so that our legal system can determine whether they 
are guilty. However, past experience has revealed that, in many 
cases, law enforcement officials choose not to arrest these 
individuals, despite having their names and addresses, as the 
warrants essentially are inactive.
    Law enforcement also informs SSA when it is unable to 
arrest individuals who are actual fugitives charged with 
fleeing or escaping. When they do, SSA terminates benefits. 
That is current law.
    Despite the title of the bill, the seniors and people with 
severe disabilities who would be harmed by this bill are not 
felons, as the Chairman acknowledged at our markup. They are 
people who have been accused of a felony, or accused of a 
parole or probation violation. They have not been tried or 
convicted of the offense underlying the warrant. In many 
instances, they are not even accused of committing a felony, as 
probation can result from a misdemeanor offense alone.
    In the United States of America, individuals are innocent 
until proven guilty. H.R. 2792 would create a severe new 
punishment--loss of basic income--for individuals who have only 
been accused of a crime--not tried or convicted--and whom law 
enforcement did not seek to arrest after being notified of 
their whereabouts and their receipt of Social Security or SSI.
    The Majority's only answer to the clear danger that this 
bill would cut off the last lifeline for people in nursing 
homes, individuals with dementia or other cognitive 
impairments, and those at risk of being homeless was to cite 
the very limited discretionary authority already in existing 
law for the Commissioner of Social Security to hear appeals and 
grant exceptions in narrow circumstances. This glib response 
ignores SSA's average waiting time of 600 days for appeals 
hearings. Also, this policy of ``cut off benefits first, let 
them appeal later'' ignores the reality of the people who 
receive SSI, many of whom have cognitive impairments and 
limited education, and all of whom have no resources to fall 
back on as they wait years to have their income restored.
    Past experience with this policy was that many vulnerable 
individuals who pose no danger to the community, and who often 
were not even aware that warrants for long-ago, alleged 
offenses still (or ever) existed, lost benefits they needed to 
survive. Despite this, the Majority failed to hold a hearing on 
H.R. 2792 to examine the problem they are trying to solve or 
learn about potentially harmful consequences before moving to 
enact this bill.
    If the Majority had held a hearing, they would have learned 
that, in the past, individuals who lost benefits under this 
policy included individuals who had dementia or severe 
intellectual disability; who were confined to wheelchairs and 
tethered to oxygen tanks; who years ago were charged with theft 
of $50; whose arrest warrant related to their own attempted 
suicide; whose charge was kicking a staff member at a detention 
center when they ran away from an abusive stepfather at age 12; 
or were wrongly identified, having a different gender, Social 
Security number, and race than the accused individual, yet had 
to hire an attorney before SSA would restore benefits. We 
believe that a better understanding of the issue would have 
resulted in adoption of many of our amendments, particularly 
Ms. Chu's amendment to ensure that the policy did not take 
effect if it would result in people with dementia and other 
cognitive impairments losing their basic income.
    Therefore, we opposed H.R. 2792.
                                           Richard E. Neal,
                                                    Ranking Member.
                              ----------                              

    Mr. Chairman: On H.R. 2792, I am in full agreement with the 
dissenting views of my Democratic colleagues. Had I been 
present for the votes on the amendments submitted by my 
Democratic colleagues, I would have supported them.
    Had I been present for the vote on reporting H.R. 2792 out 
of the Committee, I would have voted No.
                                            John B. Larson,
                                                Member of Congress.
                      ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS

    In addition to the overall concerns outlined by the Ranking 
Member that H.R. 2792 would harm poor seniors and people with 
disabilities, we express deep concerns that this bill: (1) 
directly contradicts the constitutional presumption of 
innocence; (2) deprives individuals of due process and lowers 
the legal standard for deprivation of government benefits based 
on a mere accusation rather than conviction; (3) increases the 
likelihood of errors in termination of SSI benefits; (4) 
magnifies the deep inequities in our criminal justice system 
based on race, ethnicity, and income; and (5) decreases the 
overall safety of our communities.
    H.R. 2792 assumes all individuals accused of a crime and 
issued an arrest warrant for a felony or for a violation of a 
condition of probation or parole are guilty. This directly 
contradicts the constitutional presumption of innocence and 
deprives individuals of due process via adjudication of guilt 
or innocence based on a simple accusation rather than a 
conviction. The conviction--not an accusation of a crime--
should be the predicate for the loss of benefits. The denial of 
due process then deprives the individual of government benefits 
based on accusations rather than conviction, in direct 
contradiction of volumes of case law.
    In addition, the denial of due process based on 
accusation--rather than conviction--increases the likelihood of 
termination errors, which the adjudication process could have 
addressed. Multiple federal, state, and organization studies 
demonstrate the inaccuracies of criminal justice databases. For 
example, a 2016 Minnesota Law Review article focused on the 
inaccuracies of criminal justice data bases and noted the lack 
of evidence of accurate arrest warrant information in state and 
local databases. A 2015 report by the Government Accountability 
Office noted that an FBI audit in 2012 found that 10 states had 
50% or fewer of their criminal justice records that included 
final dispositions and that another FBI audit for 2011-2013 
indicated that 12 of the 44 states examined had data systems 
that failed federal data accuracy requirements. A 2013 report 
by the Legal Action Center focused on problems with criminal 
records, including a 2007 study by the Bronx Defenders in which 
62% of a random sample of New York State records had at least 
one significant error and 32% had multiple errors.
    Further, the denial of due process based on accusation 
rather than conviction increases the likelihood of harm to 
individuals who are racial/ethnic minorities and/or poor, harm 
that the adjudication process could have limited The racial and 
ethnic biases of the criminal justice system are well-
documented, including the following examples discussed during 
Committee markup:
           A 2015 report by the Brennan Center for 
        Justice at New York University School of Law reviewing 
        research related to racial/ethnic disparities in the 
        criminal justice system indicated the following: 
        Although Caucasians are more likely to sell drugs and 
        equally likely to use drugs, African Americans are 
        arrested almost four times as often as white 
        individuals for selling drugs and twice as often for 
        drug possession; African American and Latino defendants 
        are more than twice as likely as their white 
        counterparts to experience pretrial detention; African 
        American and Latino individuals experience longer 
        parole and probation periods than their white 
        counterparts, increasing the likelihood of low-level or 
        technical violations; and African American and Latino 
        persons experience greater hardship from criminal 
        justice collections and fees.
           The Sentencing Project released a report 
        this month showing the Black/White disparities in 
        juvenile incarceration have grown in recent years. 
        Black youth were more than five times as likely as 
        white youth to be detained or committed. According to 
        this study, in six states (New Jersey, Wisconsin, 
        Montana, Delaware, Connecticut, and Massachusetts), 
        black youth were at least ten times as likely to be 
        held in placement as white youth.
           A 2009 National Council on Crime and 
        Delinquency report found that Native Americans were 
        admitted to prison over four times and arrested at 1.5 
        times the rate as whites.
    The denial of due process based on accusation--rather than 
conviction--also criminalizes poverty. Increasingly, costs 
associated with the criminal justice system have escalated 
dramatically causing disproportionate harm to individuals with 
limited financial resources. No uniform threshold for a felony 
exists, giving states wide latitude to define offenses 
involving relatively low monetary values as criminal felonies. 
A report by the Marshall Project indicated that, although 
dozens of states have increased their felony thresholds since 
2000 to better capture the cost of goods, 13 states have not 
and four of these states--Florida, Massachusetts, Virginia and 
New Jersey--have the lowest thresholds in the country defining 
felonies as losses of $300 or less--vastly different than the 
$2,500 thresholds set in Texas or Wisconsin. Additionally, 
individuals on probation for underlying misdemeanor offenses 
(e.g., vagrancy, shoplifting, traffic violations) can violate 
probation due to inability to pay court fees, restitution, or 
fines, resulting in an arrest warrant for an alleged violation 
of probation.
    Under H.R. 2792, these individuals would lose SSI benefits 
due to such alleged violations. In contrast to the Majority's 
assurances during markup that only individuals charged with 
violent offenses or costly financial theft could have felony 
arrest warrants or violations of probation or parole, we remain 
deeply alarmed that the classification of small property crimes 
or non-payment of fees and fines could easily result in the 
loss of SSI benefits to the elderly and disabled without due 
process, consistent with the harm caused when SSA terminated 
benefits for outstanding arrest warrants in the past.
    By denying the right and protections of due process, this 
legislation contradicts the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of 
the U.S. Constitution. The deprivation of government benefits 
based on accusation rather than conviction also threatens the 
safety of our communities by increasing the likelihood of crime 
and recidivism. If we terminate vital benefits that 
impoverished individuals who are disabled and elderly use for 
food and shelter, the probability is great that they will turn 
to crime to meet their basic needs, decreasing community safety 
by increasing crime.
    Despite these concerns, the Majority rejected every and all 
amendments to protect vulnerable SSI recipients against 
disparate harm based on income or race/ethnicity. Specifically, 
the Majority rejected an amendment requiring the Commissioner 
of Social Security to certify that the policy will not have a 
disparate impact due to race or ethnicity prior to 
implementation as well as a separate amendment requiring the 
Commissioner of Social Security--prior to implementation--to 
certify that the policy will not result in the loss of benefits 
for individuals for whom an arrest warrant was issued for 
nonpayment of court fees, supervisions, or monetary fines.
    Further, the Majority claimed that the very limited 
authority given to the Social Security Commissioner under 
current law to issue ``good cause exemptions'' was sufficient 
to prevent unfair and hardship-inducing loss of benefits. That 
authority provides 35 days between notification of intent to 
terminate benefits and actual benefit termination for persons 
with extremely limited financial resources who are severely 
disabled or elderly, and who may no longer live in the 
jurisdiction where the warrant was issued. The timeline is 
impractical and unfair. 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 
counsel.
    In the past when SSA applied the arrest-warrant termination 
standard, many affected individuals were unaware of outstanding 
arrest warrants in other states, the resolution of which 
required travel and long wait times for court dates. Given that 
SSI is only available to people who are low-income elderly and 
disabled, 35 days is insufficient time for individuals with 
limited financial resources, poor health, and mental or 
physical impairments to hire counsel and resolve complicated 
criminal justice problems, even if the Commissioner were able 
to act on all the exemption requests for people unfairly 
targeted in a timely manner.
    Given these concerns, we strongly oppose H.R. 2792. This 
mean-spirited legislation will: (1) deprive government benefits 
for poor, elderly, and disabled individuals in direct 
contradiction of the constitutional presumption of innocence; 
(2) deny these vulnerable adults due process and lower the 
legal standard for deprivation of government benefits based on 
a mere accusation rather than a conviction; (3) increase the 
likelihood of wrongful termination; (4) magnify the deep 
inequities in our criminal justice system based on race, 
ethnicity, and income; and (5) decrease the overall safety of 
our communities. Passing this bill would result in devastating 
consequences for the individuals affected and those who love 
and care for them.
                                   Danny K. Davis.
                                   Lloyd Doggett.
                                   John Lewis.
                                   Terri Sewell.