U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–284 2016

PROTECTING THE SAFETY NET FROM WASTE, 

FRAUD, AND ABUSE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 3, 2015

Serial 114–HR04 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

JASON SMITH, Missouri 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan, 

Ranking Member 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JOYCE MYER, Staff Director 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana, Chairman 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota 

PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

JASON SMITH, Missouri 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of June 3, 2013 announcing the hearing ................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

PANEL ONE 

The Honorable Xavier Becerra, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. ........... 22 

The Honorable Kevin Brady, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. ............... 13 

The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. ........ 34 

The Honorable Sam Johnson, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. .............. 6 

The Honorable Tom Reed, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. ................... 27 

The Honorable David G. Reichert, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. ...... 18 

The Honorable James B. Renacci, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. ...... 30 

PANEL TWO 

Dan Bertoni, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 52 

Curt Eysink, Executive Director, Louisiana Workforce Commission .................. 75 

Patrick O’Carroll, Jr., Inspector General, Social Security Administration ......... 42 

Debra Rohlman, Vice President of Government Sales, Equifax Workforce Solutions ................................................................................................................... 84 

Rebecca Vallas, Director of Policy for Poverty to Prosperity Program, Center 

for American Progress ......................................................................................... 95 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, statement .......................................... 140 

Justice in Aging, statement .................................................................................... 146 

Northeast Michigan Community Mental Health Authority, letter ...................... 154 

Stephen A. McFadden, statement .......................................................................... 156 

Western Center on Law & Poverty, letter ............................................................. 167 

Work Opportunity Tax Credit Coalition. letter ..................................................... 172 

Work Opportunity Tax Credit Coalition, statement ............................................. 175 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Curt Eysink .............................................................................................................. 130 

GAO .......................................................................................................................... 135 

Debra Rohlman ........................................................................................................ 139 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
(1) 

PROTECTING THE SAFETY NET FROM WASTE, 

FRAUD, AND ABUSE 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2015 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Charles 

Boustany [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
2 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.001
3 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.002
4 

Chairman BOUSTANY. This committee will come to order. 

Welcome to today’s hearing on how we can protect key safety net 

programs from waste, fraud, and abuse. Today we will review risks 

involving Unemployment Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, which benefits low-income, elderly, and disabled individuals. 

Now, UI and SSI are very different programs. But there is one 

thing that they have in common. Each wastes billion of dollars in 

taxpayer funds every year due to their high improper payment 

rates. Specifically with regard to fiscal year 2014, SSI improperly 

paid $5.1 billion, while UI improperly paid $5.6 billion. 

This is a serious problem. I have a little video I want to play 

here. This is an investigative piece that was done by CNN that I 

believe explains how vulnerable the UI program is to abuse. So if 

we could have the video, please. 

[Video shown.] 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Since fiscal year 2007, SSI and UI im- proper payments have been near 10 percent, wasting nearly $100 

billion combined in taxpayer funds. I don’t see this as a partisan 

matter. OMB has placed both UI and SSI on their annual list of 

programs with the highest error rates since they started compiling 

such a list. 

Even worse, these error rates are not improving. They are getting worse. The UI error rate actually rose last year. And a 2012 

GAO report found that cumulative SSI overpayment debt rose 92 

percent in the prior decade, while overpayment recovery increased 

only 40 percent. One cause of higher error rates is that both programs place an emphasis on getting checks out of the door before 

verifying that they are going to the right person. 

Fortunately, we should be able to make progress there without 

harming those who need this vital help. And they need it right 

away. There is a way to deal with this. And as we learn from several of our witnesses, data systems exist that agencies can use to 

better prevent improper payments by identifying thieves, prison inmates, fugitives, people with significant earnings, people with significant savings, or others who simply should not be collecting 

these benefits. 

We are very fortunate to have a number of our colleagues joining 

us today to discuss specific proposals to protect these programs 

from abuse. So today we welcome all our witnesses and look forward to learning more about how we can both reduce improper 

payments and improve services for the Americans who truly are in 

need. 

So I look forward to hearing all the testimony and working with 

members on both sides of the aisle to do just that. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. With that, I am pleased to yield to the 

ranking member, Mr. Doggett, for his statement. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And I thank our colleagues for being here. 

I think that, for the most part, this is an issue on which we 

agree. If there is fraud, if there is wrongful payment, it needs to 

be eliminated so that those individuals these programs were designed to serve have their needs met. 

I think whether that fraud comes from billions of dollars that 

pharmaceutical companies improperly collect from Medicaid or 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
5 

Medicare or individual receipt of an incorrect monthly payment, 

Congress should do everything reasonable to prevent abuse. 

That is one of the reasons that I have been a sponsor of Mr. 

Becerra’s Social Security Fraud and Error Prevention Act, on which 

we have been seeking a hearing, and I hope we can secure a hearing on that bill in the near future to provide new enforcement tools. 

I think it is very important to not conflate identity theft, which 

we just heard about and which I believe not a single bill that we 

are discussing today addresses. It is an issue that Representative 

Johnson and I and Representative Brady addressed as it related to 

the Medicare identity and the use of Social Security numbers on 

Medicare. 

And I think it took us many years to address it. And it could not 

be done without some additional resources being allocated to address this problem. And that goes to the heart of the identity theft 

issue. There is a serious identity theft issue with the Internal Revenue Service as well. 

If these agencies are not funded to address these new technology 

crimes adequately, they cannot do their job. And that is something 

I believe we will hear about more from Representative DeLauro, 

from some of our other colleagues, the need to see that the resources are there to protect the taxpayer and prevent fraud. 

There is a difference between identity theft, fraud of some parent 

applying for benefits to which they are not entitled, and then that 

overpayment that occurs from a miscalculation. Some of those miscalculations, to some extent, get exaggerated by the fact that so little has been done to update SSI over the years. The SSI income 

and earnings limits have not been raised since the program was established in 1974. 

And while prompt payment and getting the check out the door 

may be criticized—and we certainly don’t want that to happen for 

identity theft—if you are a parent out there with a disabled child, 

you want to not have to wait indefinitely to get the resources that 

this program was designed to provide. 

The SSI asset limit has not been raised since the 1980s. These 

are decades-old standards that mean lower earnings, and assets 

trigger payments for beneficiaries in ways that were not conceived 

originally for the program. 

There are also other specifics that need to be addressed. Senators 

Wyden and Hatch in the Senate and Representative Marino and I 

here in the House have introduced the Ensuring Access to Clinical 

Trials Act as a result of contact from families who have children 

with cystic fibrosis and would like to continue the current law that 

is set to expire soon that allows some beneficiaries to exempt a 

small amount of their income when they are participating in medical trials from the income determination under SSI. 

On the whole, whether it is Mr. Reichert’s PERP bill—we don’t 

want to pay prisoners. That clearly is fraud, and we need to prevent it. I am surprised it hasn’t already become law—to some of 

the other ideas that are advanced, I agree with the chairman, we 

need to be working to do everything we can, explore every option 

to prevent fraud. 

But let’s also see some focus in this subcommittee on the deficiencies in the program from the standpoint of those who it is deVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:28 Oct 12, 2016 Jkt 021284 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\21284.XXX 21284

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
6 

signed to help. And there is much more work to be done in that 

area as well. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. 

Without objection, each member will have the opportunity to submit a written statement and have it included in the record. 

And I also want to remind our witnesses we are going to adhere 

to the 5-minute rule for oral statements. But rest assured that, 

without objection, all written testimony will be made part of the 

permanent record. 

We have two panels today. We will start with a very distinguished member panel. We have Congressman Sam Johnson, Congressman Kevin Brady, Congressman Dave Reichert, Congressman 

Xavier Becerra, Congressman Tom Reed, Congressman Jim 

Renacci, and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. 

Welcome. We are really glad to hear your testimony. We know 

you have done a lot of work in this area. And so we look forward 

to going through your testimony. 

Congressman Johnson, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SAM JOHNSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. 

You know, I appreciate you and Mr. Doggett holding this hearing 

today. Thank you. 

As the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, I have 

looked at Disability Insurance programs from nearly every angle 

and have seen how vulnerable the program is to waste, fraud, and 

abuse. And make no mistake. Waste, fraud, and abuse in the disability program is a problem, a problem for the American taxpayer 

and a problem for deserving beneficiaries. 

Social Security works hand in hand with a number of other programs that are run by the Federal Government. Because of this, 

many of the commonsense reforms that I have introduced also affect the program under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

I have enjoyed working with several of you on legislation to improve these programs, and I would like to discuss a number of 

them today. First, I want to discuss the Social Security Disability 

Insurance and Unemployment Benefits Double Dip Elimination Act 

of 2015. 

In a 2012 report, the Government Accountability Office found 

that, under current law, thousands of people have been able to receive benefits from both unemployment and disability at the same 

time. Both provide cash to workers, but for different reasons. Unemployment Insurance benefits are there for those workers who 

have lost their jobs, but are still able to work. However, when a 

worker is unable to work due to a severe medical condition that is 

expected to last at least a year or result in death, Disability Insurance benefits are there. 

Now, even though disability benefits are there for those who 

can’t work and unemployment benefits are there for those who can 

work, under current law, someone can receive both at the same 

time. That doesn’t make sense. That is why I introduced commonVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:28 Oct 12, 2016 Jkt 021284 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\21284.XXX 21284

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
7 

sense legislation to help preserve Social Security disability benefits 

only for those who cannot work. 

I also recently teamed up with a number of this subcommittee, 

Congressman Kristi Noem—thank you, Kristi—to introduce the 

Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2015. This legislation is 

just common sense. 

That is why similar bills passed the Congress in 1996 and 2004. 

Our bill would prevent felons fleeing a warrant as well as probation and parole violators from collecting Supplemental Security Income and Social Security. 

The legislation is simple. If you are fleeing prosecution, we aren’t 

going to give you the same benefits as law-abiding citizens. Our bill 

has built-in protections so that only serious criminals can be denied 

benefits. And Social Security has the authority to determine whether good cause exists for benefits to be restored when the matter is 

questionable. 

Americans won’t stand for criminals getting benefits, especially 

when Social Security will soon lack the money to pay full benefits. 

This bill has the support of the Social Security inspector general. 

I would also like to thank the law enforcement community in my 

district for supporting this bill. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit several statements of support from the police chiefs as well as the country sheriff from back home. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Without objection. 

[The information follows: The Honorable Sam Johnson] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
8 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.003
9 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Finally, I have worked closely with the chairman of this subcommittee, Chairman Boustany, on legislation that would help 

deter, punish, and prevent fraud in the Social Security system. 

The Disability Fraud Prevention Act of 2015 would impose additional penalties and charges for those who are defrauding the retirement, disability, or Supplemental Security Income programs. 

We have seen scandals in West Virginia, New York, and Puerto 

Rico where fraudsters stole millions of dollars. 

The legislation Chairman Boustany and I have produced is simple. If you commit fraud against Social Security, we will punish you 

and you will repay the money you took from the American taxpayer 

until it is made whole. 

All told, these bills combined would save almost $10 billion. Of 

that money, $6.5 billion would go to Social Security trust funds. 

With the Disability Insurance trust fund running out of money in 

a little over a year, Congress should act on these commonsense proposals. The American taxpayers expect nothing less. 

I want to thank Chairman Boustany and Congresswoman Noem 

for working with me on these proposals. And I want to thank you 

for inviting me today to discuss with you these important and commonsense measures. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Johnson follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
10 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.004
11 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.005
12 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.006
13 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Mr. Brady, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN BRADY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BRADY. Chairman Boustany, Ranking Member Doggett, all 

the subcommittee members, a good-paying job is the best solution 

to income inequality and ensures the ladder of success is open to 

every American willing to get a skill and work hard. 

A solid education, workforce training programs that actually perform in better connecting local workers with local jobs, that is the 

key to good-paying job. And it is even more important as millions 

of Americans continue to look for work in the worst economic recovery in half a century. 

So given our half-trillion dollar deficit that will only grow and 

the impact that has on future generations, when it comes to safety 

net programs, our principles should be clear. One, no Federal program should pay more than a job. Two, no Federal program should 

trap Americans in poverty. And, three, let’s fund programs that are 

proven to work and not a dime to those that don’t. 

Despite all the Federal programs, we have a lot of Americans 

still living below the poverty line. It is our job to not only protect 

taxpayers, but to redirect them towards the programs that actually 

get people to independence and out of poverty. 

Chairman Boustany talked about the stunning $5.6 billion in improper payments in Unemployment Insurance in 2014. That is as 

much as we spend for the entire Federal job training program. 

Think about it. We waste as much as we spend on all the programs 

to help get people back to work. 

Like Congressman Johnson and others on the panel today, I have 

two suggestions to help stretch those dollars and redirect them. 

The first one, relatively minor. Stop double dipping of unemployment benefits by furloughed Federal workers. 

You may remember that, during the temporary shutdown in 

2013, some Federal employees were furloughed and applied for and 

received unemployment benefits. The Federal employees were later 

provided retroactive pay, but some States considered paying their 

Federal workers twice for not working at all. 

The Furloughed Federal Employee Double Dip Elimination Act 

prevents that in the future. My guess is, while that is not looming 

on the horizon, some day it may. So let’s make it clear you don’t 

get paid twice for not working. 

But the bigger solution really is about unemployment. Another 

problem plaguing America in our unemployment program is illegal 

substance abuse. We want Americans to earn paychecks instead of 

collecting unemployment checks. Yet, one of the worst common reasons, most common reasons, individuals can’t return to work is due 

to the fact that they cannot pass a drug test. 

In the 2006 report, the Society for Human Resource Management 

said 84 percent of private employers conducted pre-employment 

drug testing. That has only grown mostly because of the Federal 

mandates dealing with security after 9/11. 

So with the majority of employers subjecting job applicants to 

drug testing, the Federal Government should allow States to incorVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:28 Oct 12, 2016 Jkt 021284 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\21284.XXX 21284

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
14 

porate drug testing into their UI programs if they believe it will 

help connect these individuals to full-time employment. 

The bottom line is that taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize drug use. 

If you are on illegal drugs, you are simply not job-ready. And, in 

short, the Federal unemployment program should be a drug-free 

zone. 

To address the problem, Congress has already passed legislation 

that the President signed, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012, supported by many lawmakers, Republicans 

and Democrats, on the Ways and Means Committee. It included a 

carefully crafted compromise that for the first time allowed States 

to screen and test unemployment recipients for illegal substances. 

Unfortunately, after years of inexcusable delay and roadblocks 

that ignored the language and intent of the law, the Department 

of Labor has issued proposed guidance on this provision. It is simply unworkable for States that are interested in drug testing their 

unemployment recipients and getting the help they need in getting 

them into a job. 

The bottom line is States are ready to implement the law that 

is on the books. The Federal Government must uphold its promise. 

My home State of Texas has already passed legislation and has 

been recognized by the White House for the innovative ways to get 

Texans back to work. 

But, again, the White House needs to apply the law, allow States 

like Texas and others to continue that innovation and get people 

back into work and making good wages rather than collecting benefit checks. 

Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and members, I am ready to 

work with the subcommittee as we go forward with these reforms. 

Thanks for having me here today. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Chairman Brady. And thank 

for your work in this area. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Brady follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
15 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.007
16 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.008
17 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.009
18 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Next, we will hear from Chairman 

Reichert. 

You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVE REICHERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Doggett, for inviting me here today to talk about 

the PERP Act. 

And I just want to take a moment to thank Matt and Ryan of 

your staff for the innovative acronym. That was, I think, accomplished on behalf of my past profession as a police officer. So PERP 

Act actually stands for Permanently Ending Receipt by Prisoners. 

So I thought that was pretty innovative on their part. 

I introduced this bill last Congress as chairman of the subcommittee with the full support of many of you that are sitting 

here today. And I appreciate Chairman Boustany’s continued support as well as Mr. Renacci’s for joining me once again in introducing this commonsense piece of legislation. 

The PERP Act is very straightforward. Understanding that the 

existing UI program rules that operate in all States, an individual 

must be able, they must be available, and they must be actively 

seeking work in order to be eligible to collect UI benefits, which are 

paid to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. 

Individuals confined in jails, prisons, and other penal institutions 

are, by definition, not able and not available to work and have historically been presumed to be not eligible for UI benefits. However, 

in recent years, thanks to news articles that have appeared in multiple States, it has become clear that this law is not being properly 

enforced. 

Headlines included from Illinois State, ‘‘More Than 2 million in 

Unemployment Benefits Went to Inmates’’; from New Jersey, 

‘‘Audit Says 20,000 Inmates Were Mistakenly Paid Nearly $24 million in State and Federal Benefits’’; from Pennsylvania, ‘‘Inmates 

Collect Millions in Unemployment Benefits in Philadelphia Jails’’; 

and, again, from South Carolina, ‘‘Government Waste: Inmates Collecting Millions in Fraudulent Unemployment Checks.’’ 

These articles and many others make clear that taxpayer money 

is being wasted on these payments by the millions. We must make 

it crystal clear that this is absolutely unacceptable. Incarcerated individuals should not be receiving unemployment benefits meant for 

individuals and families fallen on hard times and working to get 

back on their feet. 

States must be making affirmative efforts to end this abuse. 

Law-abiding taxpayers should never have to worry that their tax 

dollars are being spent on improper payments to those who have 

broken the same laws they work so hard to follow. 

The PERP Act resolves this problem by taking the following 

steps: Number one, it bars States from paying unemployment insurance checks to local, State, and Federal prisoners, strengthening 

a current implied prohibition because prisoners are not able and 

available for work, as I said; number two, it requires State UI 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
19 

agencies to regularly compare UI roles with currently available inmate rosters to ensure UI checks are not paid to current inmates. 

At a minimum, these States must access and use prisoner information that the Social Security Administration has collected and 

used since the late 1990s to prevent the payment of Supplemental 

Security Income, SSI, benefits checks to currently incarcerated individuals. This current data match is simple, it is quick, and it is 

efficient and can readily be replicated by States to ensure that UI 

benefit checks are not paid to prisoners. In 2011, the UI program paid out a total of $10.3 billion in improper payments. By ensuring that none of those payments continue to go to individuals in jails and prisons, we can take a major 

step towards increasing that total amount. By ending the reliance 

on self-reporting of ineligibility for UI benefits and, instead, requiring States to use already existing Federal databases of prisoners, 

we can create a simple, efficient, and affordable system. 

Again, I thank my Ways and Means Committee colleagues for listening to my testimony today and for the invitation to be here to 

share thoughts on this legislation. I appreciate your support. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the chairman for his testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Reichert follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
20 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.010
21 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.011
22 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Next, we will go to Congressman 

Becerra. Thank you. Another member of the Ways and Means 

Committee. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE XAVIER BECERRA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Doggett, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to talk 

about fighting errors and fraud in the programs Americans depend 

on. 

I want to begin by noting that the Social Security Administration 

has very effective tools to prevent fraud and errors, and these tools 

have been proven to work. What SSA does not have are the resources to fully deploy those tools to fight fraud and errors. 

Today, as I talk about my legislation, the Social Security Fraud 

and Errors Prevention Act of 2015, I also want to make sure to discuss how budget decisions Congress makes impact the SSA’s ability, the Administration’s ability, to use the effective tools it has developed for this purpose of fighting fraud and errors. 

Since 2010, the Social Security Administration’s local offices, the 

front lines against fraud and error, have lost more than 5,000 

skilled employees to budget cuts and dozens of local offices have 

closed their doors. And to the point of this hearing, as a result of 

budget cuts, the Social Security Administration has fewer fraud investigators on the beat now than it had 5 years ago. 

In each of the past 5 years, the Social Security Administration received an average of $1 billion less than it needed to manage Social Security and Supplemental Security Income programs. I said 

a billion, not a million. The Social Security Administration’s budget 

is lower now than it was in 2010, even though it is providing services to more than 7.5 million additional Americans today than in 

2010. 

In 2 of the last 4 years, this Congress has failed to allocate funding provided by the Budget Control Act for Social Security and SSI 

eligibility reviews, which have been demonstrated to save as much 

as $13 for every $1 we invest in those reviews to fight fraud. Using 

the most conservative estimates of return on investment, American 

taxpayers have lost between $2 billion and $6 billion because of 

this failure to act. 

Budget cuts are also undermining the customer service that 

American workers pay for with their tax dollars. Americans are 

waiting more than 2 weeks just to schedule an appointment in a 

Social Security office. Callers to Social Security’s 800 number wait 

an average of 22 minutes, and that is if they can get through at 

all. More than a third of the callers get a busy signal and give up 

before getting an operator. 

Processing time for applications for those who qualify on the 

basis of a disability are rising. Right now, over a million people are 

awaiting a hearing before an administrative law judge. And wait 

times are now in excess of 450 days. 

Time and again, the Social Security Administration has proven 

that it can fight effectively against fraud and errors if Congress 

just provides the resources. Recently, the Social Security AdminisVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:28 Oct 12, 2016 Jkt 021284 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\21284.XXX 21284

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
23 

tration discovered sophisticated fraud conspiracies in New York 

and Puerto Rico. Thanks to the investigators, hundreds of arrests 

have been made, benefits have been terminated, and improperly 

paid benefits are being recovered. 

The Social Security Administration has developed tools to prevent payment errors, ranging from simple prepayment reviews to 

sophisticated computer modeling that identify patterns of fraud 

and error. On average, using these tools saves more than $10 for 

every $1 the Social Security Administration invests in them. 

Last year, about 1,300 people were convicted of Social Security 

fraud based on investigations conducted by the Social Security Administration’s inspector general. The special Social Security Administration fraud prosecutors secured nearly $9 million in restitution 

for the Social Security trust fund. 

Nearly a year and a half ago, several members introduced a Social Security Fraud and Error Prevention Act, H.R. 1419, in this 

Congress. Our bill provides a secure stream of dedicated resources 

to ensure that Social Security can use its most effective proven 

tools to root out fraud and prevent waste and errors. It also incorporates the recommendations made by the Social Security Administration’s inspector general. 

We would make sure that there are pre- and post-payment case 

reviews to make sure that only those who are supposed to receive 

benefits get them. We would ensure that SSA has enough resources 

to recover overpayments and collect the monetary penalties that 

are assessed for fraud. 

We would guarantee the fraud investigation budget of the Social 

Security inspector general. And we would fund special prosecutors 

for Social Security in order to end the budget cuts that have let 

some criminals get away with fraud. 

Our bill would also expand Social Security’s ability to detect and 

punish fraud by expanding elite fraud-fighting units and increasing 

penalties against those who conspire to commit fraud, including 

those in a position of trust, such as doctors who provide false evidence of disability. 

The Ways and Means Committee has yet to consider our bill or 

any other plan to support the Social Security Administration’s efforts to reduce fraud and error, but we hope that we will have an 

opportunity soon to hold that type of a hearing to move forward 

with the Social Security Administration. 

Working together, we can secure Social Security dollars for those 

who paid them and earned them. And, Mr. Chairman, I think we 

all agree that we can move on this in a way that helps secure Social Security and all those services that we provide to people because they paid for them and earned them. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Congressman Becerra. We 

appreciate your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Becerra follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
24 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.012
25 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.013
26 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.014
27 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Next we will go to Congressman Reed, 

another valued member of the Ways and Means Committee. 

You may proceed, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM REED, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. REED. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Doggett and all the Members of the Subcommittee. 

As a former member of this subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss important reform measures within 

the Supplemental Security Income program. Too often, Federal 

policies directed at supporting individuals and families in poverty 

do not require results, leaving too many Americans in need with 

too few opportunities to break the cycle of poverty. 

What we do know is that education, even a high school diploma, 

is a key to higher earnings and a likelihood to be employed, which 

can help break the cycle of poverty that many youth in America are 

faced with. That is why I introduced H.R. 2511, the School Attendance Improves Lives, or SAIL, Act. 

The SAIL Act will require youth, ages 16 and 17, receiving Supplemental Security Income, SSI, to attend school with appropriate, 

but limited, exceptions when the health of the child does not permit school attendance. 

I care about our Nation’s youth, and I want them to reach adulthood with the skills they need to succeed. It is imperative to encourage and incentivize young people to stay in school and build a 

future full of opportunity, self-sufficiency, and economic success. 

This encouragement must begin with the parents of children receiving SSI. 

Parents must provide the best opportunities for their children to 

succeed. Letting children on SSI drop out of school is not fair to 

them, and it leaves them far less equipped to succeed as adults. It 

is for this reason that high school dropouts have the highest rate 

of unemployment today. 

My bill improves accountability within the SSI program to ensure children do not find themselves in this position. Roughly 66 

percent of youth on SSI are still in the program at age 19, which 

drastically increases the likelihood that they will remain on SSI 

well into their adulthood. 

One reason children on SSI continue to receive benefits for extensive lengths of time is that the program does not offer incentives 

for personal success. This measure is one way to ensure those receiving SSI continue toward the path of self-sufficiency. 

We can and must do better for those in this program. Thirty percent of children ages 17 and 18 on SSI are not attending school. 

By requiring children to remain in school as they receive SSI, these 

individuals will increase their likelihood of graduation, obtaining 

employment, and breaking that cycle of poverty that we all agree 

must be broken. Attending school enables these children to achieve 

their true potential. 

When poverty affects more than 46 million Americans, it is imperative that we work together to address this issue by giving 

those in need all the tools to empower themselves. Emphasizing 

education by including accountability measures within SSI is an 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
28 

important step, in my opinion, toward achieving this goal, and I 

offer it to the subcommittee for consideration and, hopefully, action 

soon here in the 114th congressional session. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Reed follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
29 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.015
30 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. 

Next we will go to Congressman Renacci, another member of the 

Ways and Means Committee. 

You may proceed sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES RENACCI, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Doggett, members of the Human Resources Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss member initiatives to restore program integrity in UI and SSI. 

In 2010, the good people of northeast Ohio elected me to represent them in Washington, and I thank them for the opportunity 

to help change business as usual. 

Since taking office, I have sought to work with both Republicans 

and Democrats alike to help advance the pro-growth policies we 

need to get America’s economy moving again and to provide faith 

in the idea of the American Dream: If you work hard, you can be 

successful. 

This is why I firmly believe that we must place progress over politics and work together to end the job-crushing politics that have 

consumed Washington and choked progress toward economic recovery. 

I am honored to serve on the Ways and Means Committee with 

many colleagues in this room today. We continue to work to implement smart policies aimed at stabilizing our entitlement programs 

and simplifying our Federal tax system, among other things. 

The focus of this hearing is finding ways to reduce waste, fraud, 

and abuse in the UI and SSI systems. And I applaud my colleagues 

who are testifying with me on their efforts to improve program integrity. 

Over the last several years, we have been discouraged by some 

of the worst job reports we have seen in recent times. Though the 

unemployment rate has ticked down, it is largely due to our 

shrinking labor force. The lesson learned is clear: We must turn to 

pro-growth solutions that will help northeast Ohioans and Americans across the country get back to work. 

That is why I introduced the Flexibility to Promote Reemployment Act with my friend John Carney from Delaware, a co-founder 

of a bipartisan working group that he and I had founded 4 years 

ago. 

This bipartisan bill would encourage job creation by providing 

States with more flexibility to help unemployed individuals collect 

paychecks instead of benefit checks. 

Under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 

the Department of Labor was granted waiver authority within the 

Unemployment Insurance program. The waivers allowed unprecedented flexibility in the use of State UI funds, enabling States to 

operate demonstration projects designed to assist the unemployed 

in their efforts to reenter the workforce. 

To date, Texas is the only State that has applied for a waiver, 

and its application was swiftly denied. Many States have described 

the rigorous application process created by the Department of 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
31 

Labor as onerous and time-consuming, including my State, Ohio. 

So, today, no State is participating. 

At a time when too many continue to struggle with unemployment, we should be doing everything we can to help incite growth 

and investment in our local communities. It is time for the Department of Labor to go back to the drawing board and reassess its application requirements. 

The Flexibility to Promote Reemployment Act would require the 

Department of Labor to do just that, benefiting both employers and 

employees. It would implement a series of reforms to the current 

waiver in an attempt to make it more appealing to States, increasing States’ flexibility to help unemployed individuals find employment. 

Among the reforms in the Flexibility to Promote Reemployment 

Act, this bill would clarify application requirements and demonstration activities, allow for greater transparency in the demonstration determination process, and require an evaluation from 

the Department of Labor with cooperation by the States. Additionally, this legislation further extends the deadline for waiver applications to 2019. 

It is critical that we reduce the unnecessary Washington red tape 

that stands in the way of job growth in Ohio’s 16th District and 

throughout the country. A good place to start is by working with 

States to make unemployment programs more effective to both job 

seekers and job creators. 

Encouraging job creation is not a partisan issue. Democrats and 

Republicans alike agree we must advance policies that will fuel the 

economic recovery we so desperately need. 

I fully expect that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 

support the Flexibility to Promote Reemployment Act, and I look 

forward to seeing this bipartisan, commonsense legislation swiftly 

moved through the legislative process. 

Again, thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to 

working with all of my colleagues to advance many of the initiatives discussed today. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank my colleague for his testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Renacci follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
32 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.016
33 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.017
34 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Next, we will go to Congresswoman 

DeLauro. 

You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROSA DELAURO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a 

pleasure to join with you and Ranking Member Doggett and the 

distinguished members of the Ways and Means Committee, all of 

whom are colleagues on this panel as well this morning. 

I thank you for inviting me to testify about two of the most important programs in our social safety net, Supplemental Security 

Income and Unemployment Insurance. 

We must not lose sight of the people these programs are there 

to help. Millions of American families rely on them every day to 

make ends meet, and they make a real difference. 

SSI supports low-income seniors and people living with disabilities, including families who need extra help to raise a disabled 

child. For a great many people, SSI is a critical piece that helps 

them to live their lives day to day. 

UI helps workers who lose their job through no fault of their own 

to continue putting food on the table, paying their bills, and raising 

their families. And despite an improving economy, millions of 

Americans still need that support to get through a tough period in 

their lives. 

Both programs help the economy as recipients spend their benefits on the necessities of life. I hope and I know we can agree that 

these benefits should always be there for struggling families who 

need them. Eliminating fraud and abuse is a critical part of keeping these programs strong for the vast majority of recipients whose 

need is all too genuine. 

Clearly, those who break the law should be prosecuted, and we 

all agree to that. However, as the ranking member on the Labor, 

HHS, Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I must highlight 

the damage years of budget cuts have done, including to the very 

programs that are designed to root out fraud and abuse. 

At the Department of Labor, the Labor, HHS, Education bill 

funds activities known as, quote, ‘‘reemployment eligibility assessment and reemployment services,’’ or REARES. These programs 

help beneficiaries to access reemployment services, but they also 

identify and remove individuals who are not eligible for UI. In this 

way, every dollar invested in REARES saves the UI system an estimated $3 to $4 in benefits. 

In the 2010 budget resolution, we provided a $50 million cap adjustment for these anti-fraud activities. It is estimated by OMB to 

have saved more than $200 million in State UI funds. Unfortunately, American taxpayers no longer recoup all of those savings 

because the Budget Control Act eliminated the cap adjustment. 

So my first suggestion to this committee is to convince our colleagues on the Budget Committee to reinstate the cap adjustment 

and then to double it. If we do that, we can save taxpayers $400 

million each year, $4 billion over the next decade. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
35 

And the Social Security Administration, which oversees SSI, the 

Labor, HHS, Education bill, funds two program integrity initiatives: continuing disability reviews, known as CDRs, and SSI redeterminations. For every $1 invested, SSI redeterminations save 

about $4. CDRs save around $15. 

In the 2015 budget, the President asked for more than $1.7 billion for these cost-cutting initiatives. Because of the years of underfunding of SSA’s operating budget, the subcommittee had to cut the 

request by $211 million, another casualty of budget austerity. As 

a result, taxpayers are missing out on a potential savings of more 

than $2 billion. 

My second suggestion to the committee is to increase the allocation for Labor, HHS appropriations bill so we can fully fund the 

President’s request. Some of my colleagues may think the solution 

is to take more funds from SSA’s operating budget. That would be 

a mistake. SSA’s operating budget has already been cut by more 

than $1.2 billion in real terms since 2010. SSA has lost 11,000 staff 

between 2010–2013, has closed at least 64 field offices in the last 

5 years. 

You need to talk to seniors in your district to think about what 

these closures mean. People are forced to spend seven times as long 

on the phone to reach an SSA agent. Five times as many callers 

are faced with a busy signal. The average wait for a disability 

hearing decision is now more than 15 months. 

We cannot expect SSA to do more with less. It can only do less 

with less. I agree that fraud and abuse needs to be stamped out, 

but we need to not slash the SSA’s operating budget to do it. 

I would leave you with this: The allocation—I know it is not in the purview of the Ways and Means Committee—is $3.7 billion 

lower than it was for 2015. That means less for the Department 

of Labor, less for SSA. 

I believe it is the wrong direction. And what we can do is we can 

prevent errors and, at the same time, root out fraud and abuse, but 

without hurting hard-working Americans and the services that 

they have earned. 

So I ask you to keep those programs in mind as you move forward. The programs are too important to be allowed to wither. We 

need to root out that fraud and abuse. We do not need to do it in 

a way that undermines these programs for millions of families who 

support them. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. We thank you for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Congresswoman DeLauro follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
36 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.018
37 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.019
38 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.020
39 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.021
40 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.022
41 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.023
42 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I want to at this point thank all the 

members for the great work you have done in this area and for 

your testimony and appearing before the committee today. 

At this point we will refrain from questions. We know we can 

talk to you on the House floor or whenever to further discuss these 

items. So at this point we thank you. 

And we will call up our second panel. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. We are very pleased to welcome our next 

panel. This is a very distinguished panel who I believe will lend 

tremendous expertise to the discussion of this topic and potential 

pathways forward. 

First, we will be hearing from Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr., Inspector 

General, Social Security Administration. 

Welcome. 

Next, Dan Bertoni, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income 

Security issues, from the Government Accountability Office. 

Thirdly, Mr. Curt Eysink, from my home State of Louisiana, 

where he serves as Executive Director of the Louisiana Workforce 

Commission. He will bring a State perspective to this. 

Fourth, we have Debra Rohlman, Vice President of Government 

Sales, Equifax Workforce Solutions, considerable private sector expertise. 

Last, but certainly not least, Rebecca Vallas, Director of Policy, 

Poverty to Prosperity Program, Center for American Progress. 

We welcome all of you. This will be a good, lively debate and discussion. We appreciate the expertise that you all bring to this. 

So, with that, we will start with you, Mr. O’Carroll. 

I would ask each of you to try to adhere to the 5-minute rule for 

your oral testimony. As I said earlier, your written testimony will 

be made a part of the record in total. 

So, Mr. O’Carroll, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK P. O’CARROLL, JR., INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Good morning, Chairman Boustany, Ranking 

Member Doggett, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 

for the invitation to testify. 

Last September, police in Richmond, Virginia, issued an arrest 

warrant for a man who had committed serious crimes. The suspect 

was wanted for, amongst other crimes, carjacking, using a firearm 

to commit a felony, and malicious wounding. Within weeks, a U.S. 

Marshal’s fugitive task force, along with OIG special agents, located and arrested the man in Virginia. 

Because this fugitive received SSI payments, the task force found 

him with an assist of our Fugitive Enforcement Program. Through 

information sharing and collaboration with law enforcement agencies across the country, this program has helped bring thousands 

of fugitives to justice. 

In the past, SSA would have suspended this fugitive’s SSI payments based on the felony arrest warrant from Richmond. But 

since he was wanted for carjacking rather than for fleeing justice, 

SSA could not take action to stop his payments until he was behind 

bars. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
43 

For many years, we have worked with local law enforcement to 

locate fugitive felons and help SSA cut off their payments. However, since 2009, two court decisions have dramatically limited 

SSA’s ability to stop these payments. I discuss these decisions further in my written testimony, but they essentially stopped SSA 

from suspending payments unless someone is wanted specifically 

for flight or escape. 

As I said, the effect has been dramatic. In 2009, SSA suspended 

benefits for more than 58,000 individuals. In 2014, after the court 

decisions, SSA suspended benefits for 830 individuals. The court 

decisions did not affect our ability to share locator information with 

law enforcement. And we continue to help those agencies in their 

efforts to apprehend fugitives. 

Your subcommittee, with support from the Subcommittee on Social Security, recently introduced the Control Unlawful Fugitive 

Felons Act. This law would again discontinue payments to individuals who are the subject of an outstanding felony arrest warrant. 

The Social Security Act also prohibits payments to prisoners, and 

we have a long history of overseeing and improving the agency’s efforts in this area. Some of our earliest audit work recommended 

that SSA improve collection of prisoner information and pursue 

agreements to obtain this information. 

Because of our work, SSA now has agreements to obtain prisoner 

data from 50 States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and thousands 

of local corrections facilities. SSA matches this inmate data against 

its payment records every month to make sure that prisoners don’t 

receive a check. SSA estimates that it suspends benefits to about 

60,000 prisoners each year, saving about $500 million per year. 

This success story is a good example of the potential that data 

matches for ensuring that SSA payment accuracy. 

For many years, my office has recommended these matches to 

SSA. For example, we work with Homeland Security to match Customs travel data to SSA records, an estimated $150 million in overpayments to SSI recipients based on their absence from the United 

States for more than 30 days. 

And as your subcommittee knows, we recently reviewed SSA’s 

process for removing self-employment earnings from SSI recipient 

records and notifying the IRS of this discrepancy. We recommended 

that SSA work with the IRS to identify earned income tax credit 

fraud. 

Unfortunately, we in SSA are limited in our ability to secure 

data matches under the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act. We have proposed an exemption from the CMPPA only for 

data matches intended to identify fraud and waste. One current 

House proposal, the Inspector General Empowerment Act, includes 

this exemption. 

In conclusion, SSI payment accuracy is a high priority for my office. The program is a critical safety net for the most vulnerable 

citizens in our society. We must also not forget that we are accountable to the taxpayers who fund this program to ensure that 

only those who are eligible can receive these payments. 

I appreciate your interest in improving the integrity of the SSI 

program. We look forward to collaborating with your subcommittee 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
44 

on the best ways to do this effectively. Thank you again for the invitation to testify, and I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you very much, Mr. O’Carroll. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Carroll follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
45 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.024
46 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.025
47 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.026
48 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.027
49 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.028
50 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.029
51 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.030
52 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Mr. Bertoni, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL BERTONI, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. BERTONI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Doggett, Members of the Subcommittee. Good morning. 

I am pleased to discuss our work in the Supplemental Security 

Income program and issues affecting program integrity which, left 

unchecked, increase the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse. Last year, SSA paid almost $56 billion to over 8 million SSI recipients. Given the size of the program, even small errors in benefit 

payments can result in substantial loss to taxpayers. 

My statement is based on a body of work conducted over several 

years and describes SSA’s challenges with ensuring SSI program 

integrity. 

In summary, the agency faces real challenges in preventing and 

detecting overpayment. To ensure that only eligible individuals receive benefits, follow-up reviews after benefits are granted provide 

an important check on growth and are key to program integrity. 

Federal law requires that SSA conduct periodic continuing disability reviews, or CDRs, to determine whether recipients have 

medically improved and to cease benefits as appropriate. However, 

last year SSA reported a backlog of 1.3 million reviews. 

Moreover, we found that adult reviews declined by 70 percent. 

Those for children with mental impairments fell by 80 percent. We 

also noted that 435,000 child cases with mental impairments were 

overdue a CDR, oftentimes for many years, including thousands 

originally deemed likely to medically improve within 12 to 18 

months. 

We recommended that SSA address this backlog and calculated the agency would save $3 billion over 5 years as a result. Since the 

report was issued, the agency has increased the number of child 

CDRs conducted annually and plans to eliminate the backlog. However, it is unclear whether it will continue to use any new funding 

increases to review children most likely to medically improve. 

Beyond untimely reviews, overpayments can also occur when recipient bank account and wage information is incomplete or outdated. The unreported value of bank accounts and wages represent 

nearly 40 percent of all SSI overpayments. 

While the agency has developed tools to better capture banking 

and wage information, there are limitations. For example, the 

agency now has electronic access to recipient banking data. It can 

query this information when determining benefit eligibility. However, this data is not entirely complete, and staff rely on recipients 

to self-report such accounts and the amounts of funds in them. 

SSA also uses telephone wage reporting to capture recipient 

wage information to adjust benefits to prevent improper payments. 

However, the accuracy of this information is also limited due to recipient self-reporting and SSA’s inability to process wage information for those with multiple employers. 

Beyond prevention, the agency has also had difficulties with 

overpayment recovery and management of its waiver process. Generally, recipients must repay overpaid benefits, but can request a 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
53 

waiver under certain circumstances. SSA approves about 76 percent of all waiver requests. And documentation and management 

oversight is limited. 

Specifically, we found that staff can approve waiver requests of $2,000 or less without any supervisory approval. We recommended 

that SSA review this policy and amend it to improve program integrity. The agency agreed with our recommendation, but has not 

taken action, despite a 2015 internal study that showed 50 percent 

of such waiver decisions were incorrect. 

To improve oversight, we also recommended that SSA study 

waiver activity to identify patterns specific to its regions, field offices, and even individual staff. Unfortunately, the agency declined 

to conduct such analyses and will continue to be limited in its efforts to recover overpaid taxpayer dollars. 

Finally, I would be remiss in not stating that SSI program complexity has been a longstanding challenge, contributing to high administrative costs and risk of overpayments. Beyond documenting 

income and resources, staff must also apply a complex set of rules 

to assess recipients’ living arrangements and other financial support received. 

In prior work, we have cited program complexity as a major driver of payment errors, program abuse, and excessive administrative 

costs. In light of this longstanding issue, we have begun work for 

this subcommittee, examining potential options and barriers to 

streamline policies for calculating recipient benefits. 

As we proceed, we will continue to work closely with you in your 

efforts to enhance the design and integrity of the SSI program. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I am happy to answer 

any questions that you may have. Thank you. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Bertoni. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bertoni follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
54 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.031
55 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.032
56 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.033
57 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.034
58 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.035
59 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.036
60 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.037
61 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.038
62 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.039
63 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.040
64 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.041
65 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.042
66 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.043
67 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.044
68 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.045
69 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.046
70 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.047
71 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.048
72 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.049
73 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.050
74 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.051
75 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Mr. Eysink, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF CURT EYSINK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

LOUISIANA WORKFORCE COMMISSION 

Mr. EYSINK. Thank you, Chairman Boustany, Ranking Member 

Doggett, and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to 

share with you some of the progress Louisiana has made in reducing fraud, waste, and abuse in the Unemployment Insurance system and, also, to suggest an approach which may improve the performance of the system while lowering its costs across the country. 

That focus should be on reemployment activities. During the 

Great Recession, it became apparent that claimants who got help 

from the State and local staff in all of our offices got a good result 

faster than those who relied only on our self-service tools to look 

for work entirely on their own. 

Now in Louisiana they must appear almost every 2 weeks during 

the first 10 weeks of their claims for coaching, labor market information, job search assistance, assessments or other services identified in their customized reemployment plans. They must conduct 

certain fundamental job search actions in our system so that we 

can continue to validate their eligibility. 

And it is working. About 75 percent of otherwise eligible claimants initially fail to meet the requirements and their benefits are 

suspended. Only about one-third of those with suspensions returned to the system to comply and resume their benefits. That 

means about half of all claimants who receive an initial payment 

are quickly disqualified. Crosschecks against our wage records and 

new hires databases shows that only a small percentage of those 

who are disqualified, in the single digits, do not return to work. 

Last year an analysis by Louisiana State University economists 

showed that, since we launched this program, our trust fund has 

grown in the tens of millions of dollars, more than they could account for by the strengthening of our economy. Louisiana’s unemployment rate is 1.2 percentage points higher than the national average, but the average duration of benefits is more than a week 

less. 

Congress deserves a lot of credit for this approach. You launched 

and funded the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment Program 

to help States and their claimants recover from the Great Recession. Our brand is blended with that program. It is more intense 

and it more tightly integrates unemployment insurance with workforce development and job placement. It is proving to work well in 

better economic times, also. We are not the only State experimenting with variations of this theme, but more States should join 

us. 

Another very important benefit of having people show up in person and prove they are who they claim they are is that it blocks 

them from being able to use others’ identities for fraud. This is as 

true for identity theft rings as it is for an individual who borrows 

the identity of a friend or a relative who is incarcerated. And if 

they are already working, they can’t show up to try to maintain eligibility for benefits. 

This summer we will launch the second phase in the modernization of our Unemployment Insurance system. It will greatly inVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:28 Oct 12, 2016 Jkt 021284 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\21284.XXX 21284

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
76 

crease automation, reduce costs, and improve integrity by, among 

other things, building in 40 different crossmatches with State, Federal, and private databases. These crossmatches will verify each 

claimant’s identify in realtime and force claimants to address discrepancies before they can complete their claim. 

Mr. EYSINK. Those discrepancies, for example, could be a Social 

Security number that doesn’t match their name or birth number 

associated with it or it could be that the claimant identify matches 

a prison inmate. 

I want to give you an example of a crossmatch that is really 

working today, as proposed to us by Texas and jointly developed by 

our two States. Many claimants work in one State and live in the 

other across the border. Those claimants still have to register for 

work in the State in which they leave. 

Well, we weekly swap information on those claimants and those 

who don’t register are disqualified. So far, since that program 

began 3 years ago, we have together avoided $36.7 million, an estimate, of improper payments in our two States. The total programming and implementation cost was just $43,000. 

We are also instituting the same kinds of integrity on the employer side. We have a portal which they have to use to file their 

wage records. When they file, we validate the identity of the employer, but also the identities of their staff members who engage 

in that system, so that nobody can commit fraud from that side or 

file false reports. It has improved our error rate dramatically and 

lowered our costs. 

Finally, I want to talk about—I leave you with one thought. I do 

not believe that States have to choose between good customer service and paying claims timely, on one hand, and UI integrity, on the 

other. It does take time and money to rebuild a broken system, but 

it is possible to improve service and integrity at the same time. 

And the investment is returned many times over. In 2008, our system ranked very poorly, 52nd or 53rd against other States, for 

many indicators, other states Guam, Puerto Rico and D.C. 

Today we are doing much, much better. Our improper payment 

rate has been cut to about the OMB threshold and continues to improve. We have reduced the duration of claims, and we are a national leader, I believe, in identifying misclassified workers. 

The cost burden of our Unemployment Insurance system as a 

percentage of payroll is the second lowest amongst the States. We 

could not have made these improvements without the persistence 

and support of the Department of Labor and the great ideas and 

lessons learned from many other States. Such collaboration, along 

with the State’s ability to develop solutions that best fit their own 

circumstances, are keys to the continued improvement of the entire 

system. 

I am happy to answer any questions. And thank you for your 

time today. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you for sharing the Louisiana experience with us and for the leadership you have provided in that 

regard. So thank you. I appreciate you being here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eysink follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
77 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.052
78 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.053
79 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.054
80 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.055
81 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.056
82 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.057
83 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.058
84 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Ms. Rohlman, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DEBRA ROHLMAN, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

GOVERNMENT SALES, EQUIFAX WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS 

Ms. ROHLMAN. Good morning, Chairman Boustany, Ranking 

Member Doggett, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Debra Rohlman, and I serve as Vice President of Government Sales Solutions and Client Relations for Equifax Workforce Solutions, a subsidiary of Atlanta-based Equifax, Inc., which 

is based in Congressman Lewis’ district. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and provide information related to the employment and income verification 

services that Equifax Workforce Solutions provides State and Federal agencies to assist in their administration of public assistance 

programs. 

Separate from our traditional credit-reporting business, our automated employment and income verification service is provided 

through our proprietary database known as The Work Number. 

This database, which is governed by all applicable Federal and 

State regulations, is comprised of the current payroll data of thousands of employers with the salary information of their workforces. 

Equifax is then able to deliver a streamline, secure, and timely 

transfer of information between employers and verifiers that ultimately benefits the consumer by accelerating the decision process 

on their loan or government benefit while freeing the employer 

from the disruption of verification requests. 

In 2014, we provided over 18 million verifications to government 

entities, including agencies in all 50 States and Washington, D.C. 

We help these agencies by providing data for applicants of various 

programs, such as SNAP, TANF, CHIP, Medicaid, UI, SSI, as well 

as for child support enforcement and states and local housing authorities. 

My written testimony provides a more detailed overview of how 

we work with these and other Federal agencies. We commend the 

bipartisan efforts to address the issues around implementation of 

Treasury’s Do Not Pay portal, originally intended to reduce improper payments, yet hindered by statutory privacy concerns. 

I would now like to address the potential changes that should be 

considered to improve the efficacy of the UI and SSI programs. 

In SSI, one area where change is needed is the frequency in 

which benefit charges against employers, unemployment accounts 

are issued. Our data indicates improper payments are more easily 

identified and addressed when State UI agencies provide benefitcharged statements with a weekly breakdown of data versus some 

agencies’ practices of quarterly or even annual data. We would welcome the committee’s support in requiring all States to provide 

weekly UI benefit charge detail. 

The second area where opportunity exists is the format of wage 

audit and earnings verification forms. The majority of UI agencies 

require wage data be provided in a weekly, Sunday through Saturday, format. In practice, this is not a common payroll frequency 

and often results in complex recalculations by employers, incorrect 

data provided or simply noncompliance. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
85 

If UI agencies would accept wage information in an employer’s 

customary format at the initial earnings wage audit and pursue a 

detailed breakdown only on actual or suspected fraud cases, compliance would improve. We would encourage the committee to require 

State UI agencies’ consideration of more traditional payroll systems, verification databases, and technologies. 

In regard to the current SSI verifications process, there are two 

areas that can be improved. First, SSI verifications are currently 

performed on a manual per-applicant basis that is both labor- and 

time-intensive. 

We would welcome the committee’s support in expanding the 

SSA’s use of commercial databases to allow batch verifications of 

applicants. This batch process would ensure that every SSI applicant is checked on a monthly basis for any changes to their employment or income and, therefore, preventing potential improper benefit payments. 

Second, due to statutory limitations, SSI is only permitted to 

verify income for eligibility at initial application and for annual redetermination because an applicant’s job status can change a number of times throughout a year. 

Congress should consider passing legislation that would allow 

the SSA to verify income with a third-party database on a monthly 

basis in a batch format instead of annually on a per-applicant 

basis. 

In closing, Equifax encourages the committee to review the program improvement recommendations I highlighted today and in my 

written testimony. We stand committed to helping State and Federal agencies make eligibility determinations, reduce improper payments, improve service, and increase overall program integrity. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome your 

questions. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. We thank you, Ms. Rohlman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rohlman follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
86 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.059
87 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.060
88 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.061
89 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.062
90 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.063
91 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.064
92 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.065
93 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.066
94 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.067
95 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Next we will go to Ms. Vallas. 

You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF REBECCA VALLAS, DIRECTOR OF POLICY OF 

THE POVERTY TO PROSPERITY PROGRAM, CENTER FOR 

AMERICAN PROGRESS 

Ms. VALLAS. Thank you, Chairman Boustany, Ranking Member 

Doggett, and Members of the Subcommittee for the invitation to 

appear today. My name is Rebecca Vallas, and I am the Director 

of Policy for the Poverty to Prosperity Program at the Center for 

American Progress. 

Without our Nation’s safety net, America’s poverty rate would be 

twice as high as it is today and more than 40 million more Americans would be poor. In addition to mitigating poverty and hardship 

in the short term, our safety net is also an investment that pays 

long-term dividends. 

For example, children, helped by programs such as the EITC and 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program have improved 

health, are more likely to graduate high school and attend college, 

and have increased employment and earnings as adults. 

A strong safety net is of the utmost importance to us all, given 

that fully half of Americans will experience at least 1 year of poverty or near poverty at some point during our working years, a figure that rises to a whopping 80 percent if you include unemployment and needing to turn to the safety net. 

Unemployment Insurance, Social Security Disability Insurance, 

and Supplemental Security Income are some of our Nation’s most 

effective antipoverty tools. While the benefits that these programs 

provide are modest, they are nothing short of a lifeline. 

UI replaces less than half of wages for the typical worker, but 

it protected 5 million hard-hit Americans from poverty in 2009, at 

the height of the Great Recession, and it prevented 1.4 million foreclosures between 2008 and 2012. 

Disability Insurance benefits are so modest that 1.6 million beneficiaries live in poverty. But without DI, more than 4 million disabled worker beneficiaries would be poor. 

SSI benefits are even more modest, on average, just $541 per 

month, half the Federal poverty line for an individual. But for 

many beneficiaries, these benefits are the difference between having a roof over their heads and being out on the streets. SSI is also 

particularly vital for families caring for children with the most significant disabilities and severe health conditions. 

As we seek to ensure a strong safety net, ensuring program integrity must be a top priority. Thankfully, these programs have rigorous safeguards to root out improper payments and have payment 

accuracy rates of over 90 percent. 

It is important to keep in mind that the vast majority of improper payments are not due to fraud, which comprises just a tiny 

fraction of overpaid benefits in these programs. We must work together to ensure that payment error rates remain as low as possible, and providing DOL and SSA with adequate administrative 

funding is of critical importance to achieving that goal. 

Unfortunately, appropriators have long deprived these agencies 

of the resources they need to perform critical program integrity acVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:28 Oct 12, 2016 Jkt 021284 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\21284.XXX 21284

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
96 

tivities that pay for themselves many, many times over in the long 

run. 

The Social Security Fraud and Error Prevention Act introduced 

by Mr. Becerra and Ranking Member Doggett would ensure that 

SSA has the administrative resources it needs as well as taking 

other important steps, such as heightening the penalties for defrauding Social Security, keeping evidence from fraud-committing 

doctors out of the disability determination process with limited 

good-cause exceptions, putting CDI units in all 50 States and more. 

These are crucial steps with bipartisan support, and I would urge 

Congress to swiftly pass these important legislation. 

Importantly, we must take a hard look at proposals that aim to 

enhance program integrity to ensure that they will not lead to unintended consequences. For example, the SAIL Act, which we heard 

about earlier, raises significant concerns along these lines. 

Education is, without question, the key to success, and ensuring 

that all young people have access to a high-quality education must 

be a foremost national priority. 

However, as currently constructed, this bill would penalize our 

Nation’s most vulnerable youth for experiencing legitimate and understandable interruptions in their schooling. H.R. 918, the DI/UI 

Double Dip Elimination Act also raises serious concerns along 

these lines. 

Policymakers and elected officials on both sides of the aisle have 

long shared the goal of helping people with disabilities to work. 

However, this bill would undermine this bipartisan objective by 

punishing beneficiaries who do attempt to return to work. 

Finally and fundamentally, in addition to keeping fraud and 

abuse as rare as possible, achieving the goal of program integrity 

also requires that we address egregious backlogs so that Americans 

with severe health conditions need not die by the thousands waiting for the benefits that they need, as is currently happening 

across the United States, that State UI phone systems work properly so that unemployed workers can timely access jobless benefits 

while seeking to get back on their feet, and that beneficiaries do 

not get hit with large overpayments, despite doing everything 

right, due to massive delays in processing work reports. Adequate 

administrative resources are critical to keeping these basic promises to the American people. 

In addition, I discuss in detail in my written testimony several 

commonsense steps that would strengthen vital programs while 

also reducing improper payments, such as simplifying Social Security’s work rules, improving its earning reporting and recording 

systems, using computer algorithms to prevent overpayments before they happen instead of just to detect them after the fact, and, 

finally, reforming SSI’s outdated asset limits, which have not 

budged in nearly 3 decades, as well as the program’s income counting rules, which also have not changed since the program was established. 

I look forward to working with the members of this subcommittee 

to ensure program integrity in our safety net. Thank you. And I am 

happy to take any questions that you may have. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. We thank you for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vallas follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
97 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.068
98 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.069
99 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.070
100 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.071
101 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.072
102 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.073
103 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.074
104 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.075
105 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.076
106 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.077
107 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.078
108 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.079
109 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.080
110 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.081
111 

Chairman BOUSTANY. And we thank all of you for your very 

profound testimony. 

Now we will move to a series of questions. And I will start by 

stepping back for a moment. 

I showed a video at the very beginning. I know that Mr. 

O’Carroll and Mr. Bertoni have been looking at this problem for 

quite some time. 

Mr. Eysink, from a State perspective, Ms. Rohlman from 

Equifax’s perspective on this, are those concerns valid? Is this a serious problem? 

Obviously, the CNN investigative piece depicted what appears to 

be a very serious problem. We have heard numbers. Is it your view 

that this is a serious problem, a growing problem? 

Mr. EYSINK. It is a serious problem, and it is, I think, where 

we have to be more vigilant in the future than we have been today. 

I think that is the next frontier in fraud prevention, is these rings 

that get very sophisticated about the data that they get through 

hacking or whatever means and then use it to defraud our systems. 

But I think, at least I hope, that our approach of requiring claimants to show up in person will allow us to stop any claims like that 

very quickly. I think validating identities and so forth with all of 

our crossmatches up front will prevent many of them from getting 

the claim through the first screen. 

And the other, I think, requirement in every State that would 

prevent a lot of this, too, is the work registration requirement. It 

is unlikely that somebody who has a system to defraud Unemployment Insurance directly is also going to be able to meet the work 

registration requirement which, in most cases, is an entirely different system, and that needs to be enforced very widely. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I think in your oral testimony you mentioned some costs associated with the reforms Louisiana had implemented. 

Is this—I mean, the general cost of what you’re proposing, is it 

unduly expensive for the States to implement? 

Mr. EYSINK. It is very expensive and difficult for States that 

have not yet moved off of their old mainframe systems to implement these crossmatches and all these other interfaces. I think the 

States—and I think it is in the teens now that have launched these 

new systems. We are in process. 

It gets much easier when it is a Web-based system dealing with 

a Web-based system. But there is a cost associated with that that 

will have to be borne. The benefits are great to the trust funds, but 

the cost is borne on the administrative side. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Could you give us an order of magnitude 

on cost. 

Mr. EYSINK. For us, we are going to spend close to $10 million 

to modernize our system. Other States could spend considerably 

more than that, depending on the route they have taken or the 

method that they are taking, working with other States or not or 

going alone. Several States have tried and failed. So they are having to duplicate those costs again. It can easily get into the tens 

of millions per State. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Ms. Rohlman, do you want to comment? 

Same questions, basically. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
112 

Ms. ROHLMAN. Sure. So I would agree definitely that this is a 

serious problem. We know that the improper payment rate remains 

over 11 percent. Much of what has been said about the modernization of systems is necessary. 

The Department of Labor has certainly been trying to address 

this issue and others, again, with the database, as I mentioned in 

my testimony about Do Not Pay, how that database was trying to 

reduce improper payments as well. Definitely something that needs 

improvement. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. What is a reasonable amount of time to 

get these new systems in place? 

Mr. EYSINK. It can take—for us, it is going to take, probably by 

the time we are done, a little over 3 years to make that whole transition. 

I would say there are some relatively unsophisticated things 

States can do to protect against some kinds of fraud, for instance, 

scan for sequential Social Security numbers. It sounds obvious, but 

some of these rings just crank them out like that. The other thing 

is multiple claims from seemingly unrelated people going to the 

same addresses. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. And implementing the personal appearance requirement, was that an expensive endeavor or was it difficult to implement? 

Mr. EYSINK. It was difficult to implement because it required 

a change in practices and culture in our one-stops around the 

State. They didn’t schedule. It was all walk-in traffic. 

But now we have to schedule those visits when they have low 

walk-in traffic so that people don’t get stacked up and wait. They 

have to do some activities in a classroom style. But these are just 

logistics issues. 

There is some expense in that it requires staff and many officers 

who they really could not afford to have at the time. There are 

some facilities expenses. Not all of them are really equipped for 

that volume of people. But these are logistics issues that can and 

should be solved. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Mr. O’Carroll and Mr. Bertoni, the two 

of you have been looking at these problems systematically. I know, 

Mr. O’Carroll, we spoke in the office not long ago about some of 

this. 

And, I mean, there are specific bills that have been proposed. 

You heard some of the testimony from members. There are other 

bills out there. I think you heard what my home State of Louisiana 

is doing. 

Could you comment further on these kinds of steps to get program integrity in place. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Yes, Chairman. One of the things that I mentioned in my testimony is the legislation on allowing IGs to be exempt from the Computer Matching Act. 

And the reasoning behind it is pretty much as we were talking 

before with identity theft, that, in government databases, we know 

and have a lot of identifying information about individuals that the 

agencies can share with each other, which would identify who the 

person is and make sure that the right person is getting the right 

benefits. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
113 

So, in that regard, that would be—one of the bills is the IG Empowerment Act. But of the bills that are being proposed by this 

committee here, all of them—the Fraud Act, the CUFF Act—each 

of those are going after the facilitators, the organized groups that 

are going out there trying to defraud us. 

I think that is a major step in the right direction and then making sure that the people that are fleeing from us aren’t going out 

there doing more crimes while we are still giving them checks. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Mr. Bertoni. 

Mr. BERTONI. I think, in general, we need to move into a 21stcentury verification system. So many times we hear about recipients self-reporting without third-party verification across numerous 

programs across government. I have been reporting on it for 20 

years. 

So we need to move into the realm of data cross-matching. We 

need to create interfaces, whether it be State to Federal, Federal 

to Federal, Federal to State, you know, whatever needs to happen. 

We need to triangulate data so we have corroboration of what people are attesting to. 

As an example on the UI side, we talk about face-to-face interaction. I can go on the Internet and go to a Web site in Hong Kong 

and get the highest grade driver’s license that will pass TSA 

screening and TSA—you know, whatever their verification devices, 

have that in my pocket, walk into an Unemployment Insurance 

agency, present that. They look at the picture. It matches the license. And we are good to go. 

What you need to do is verify that license with a third party. So 

with an interface with a DMV, a driver’s license entity, if you ran 

that and that picture comes back in an online mode and, if the 

technologies are there, you could see that there was a disconnect 

between that person’s face on the license and the one that the 

DMV has. So a classic example of data crossmatching that could 

work. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Seemingly simple solutions, yet we are 

still fighting with this identity theft issue. I certainly appreciate 

the input and the insights you provided. 

I am now pleased yield to my ranking member, Mr. Doggett, for 

questions. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to each of our witnesses for their testimony. 

You know, I am as outraged as anyone by the notion that someone who’s incarcerated is getting public benefits when public benefits are under such siege here and in many State capitals and there 

is so much need out there. 

But I think it is apparent from the testimony that we don’t get 

law enforcement in this area any less expensively than we get it 

for any other kind of crime. Whether it is identity theft, whether 

it is getting, as you were saying, Mr. Bertoni, triangulation data, 

the States cannot be expected to do this for free and neither can 

the Federal Government. 

And so, while I am in favor of and probably will have an opportunity to vote for a number of the measures discussed this morning, really, they don’t begin to scratch the surface of this issue the 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
114 

way providing the resources to the law enforcement agencies involved here, as, particularly, Ms. DeLauro and Mr. Becerra pointed 

out in their testimony here, unless we do that. So if there really 

is a desire to prevent fraud, to prevent overpayment, we would provide the funding necessary for these agencies do their job. 

As much as is the case with the Internal Revenue Service, it is 

always difficult to defend additional appropriations for an agency 

that generally is so disliked across the American public, but we are 

losing billions of dollars a year because we are not providing the 

money for the IRS to deal with tax fraud. And the same thing applies here. 

I appreciate the testimony of all of our witnesses. I am going to 

address my questions to Ms. Vallas. 

First, just draw attention, if you would, to the difference here between identity theft, overpayment, and fraud. And how on the overpayment side does this occur? And what can we do to prevent the 

miscalculation that may occur there quite innocently, but that has 

an impact? 

Ms. VALLAS. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

I would reiterate, as you have and as others have this morning, 

the importance of keeping in mind the difference between an overpayment, which can be an accident or a miscalculation, and fraud, 

which really does require the intent to defraud a system or a program. And the vast majority of overpayments in the programs we 

are discussing this morning are not due to fraud. They are due to 

administrative error, miscalculations and so forth. 

And I will give you one example which ties in very much with 

administrative resources or the lack thereof, which you mentioned 

in your question. 

One significant consequence of years of appropriators depriving 

the Social Security Administration of the resources it needs in 

order to keep up with its workload is that there is now a significant 

and massive delay in processing beneficiary’s earnings reports. 

The most recent statistic that I have heard from the agency is 

that the delay in processing a beneficiary’s work report, how much 

they earned, is now 270 days, or 9 months. That is how long it sits 

on someone’s desk waiting to be processed. 

So a DI or SSI beneficiary can do absolutely everything right, 

faithfully report his or her earnings, and, yet, still get hit with a 

massive overpayment that is not his or her fault and that really 

is just a mistake months later. 

Another leading cause of needless overpayment is the outdated 

asset limits and income limits that you mentioned, Congressman, 

in the SSI program. They have barely budged from where they 

were set in the 1970s. 

And so beneficiaries are effectively prohibited from having even 

modest, just precautionary, savings just in case there’s a leaky roof 

or their water heater breaks. They cannot even have more than 

$2,000 in the bank. So, as a result, what we are seeing is overpayments that would never have occurred under the original intent of 

the SSI program. And the same is true with the income rules as 

well. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
115 

Mr. DOGGETT. And who are these SSI beneficiaries? We don’t 

have any here today. But what kind of people are we talking 

about? 

Ms. VALLAS. Well, it is really worth mentioning and reiterating 

how strict the disability standard is. So, in addition to the 2 million 

very-low-income seniors who receive SSI benefits, we are also talking about individuals with the most significant disabilities, the 

most severe illnesses, many of them actually terminally ill, people 

with significant cerebral palsy, Alzheimer’s, severe mental illness 

and so forth. 

And these are individuals so have largely nothing else to turn to, 

nothing else to rely on. And so SSI benefits really are for them. It 

is the difference between having a roof over their head, being out 

on the street. It can enable people to afford needed copays on lifesustaining medications. I can’t reiterate the importance of the SSI 

program to its beneficiaries. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. YOUNG. [Presiding.] I will yield myself 5 minutes. The 

chairman had to step out. I thank all of the panelists for your testimony today. Very informative, each of you. 

I think all of us agree our safety net programs have to reflect our 

values. And those values, I think collectively as a country, are 

about regarding every single American as an asset to be realized 

and not a liability to be written off. 

That is really the function of these safety net programs. And to 

the extent to which we can further improve the integrity of these 

programs, the better we realize that overall objective. 

In a previous life, I worked as a management consultant. And, 

specifically, I did most of my work in the state and local government space. So I have some appreciation for the value that the private sector can add with respect to project management, program 

integrity, innovation, technology, implementation, and business 

process redesign. 

So I was very much struck by Ms. Rohlman’s testimony and the 

good work, Equifax, your company, is doing to improve program integrity especially through the automated income and employment 

verification services that you offer through your proprietary database, The Work Number. 

Your solutions facilitate a delivery of a streamlined, secure, and 

timely transfer of information between employers, on the one hand, 

and verifiers to help ensure that we have an accelerated decisionmaking process of an individual’s government benefit eligibility. 

This means cutting through bureaucratic red tape, reducing program abuse. There is less back-and-forth under your process, less 

waste of paperwork and human resources, and we can spend more 

time helping people who really need a hand up instead of trying 

to verify employment and income. 

I would like Ms. Rohlman kindly to elaborate on specifically how 

your automated verification services can improve the process to assist individuals who are at need at the State and Federal level. 

Ms. ROHLMAN. Certainly, and thanks for your question. 

We actually work with the State of Indiana today on all of your 

other benefit programs. We are integrated with your systems 

today. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
116 

And to give an example of how that works, someone comes into 

an office, a case worker pulls up their data, and if we have employment and income information on them, it goes straight into your 

system at that point in time. 

You can see if, in fact, we have employment and income available. You can see if there have been changes if they were in a 

month before and X wages were reported and now Y wages are reported. It helps to make decisions that are necessary to allow those 

benefits to be applied. 

For UI purposes, we are not working with the State today, but 

one of the actions that was underway in the past was both—I mentioned Do Not Pay and that process. We have also met with the Department of Labor—we do that on an ongoing basis—and spoke 

with them about modernizing systems, their efforts towards data 

analytics in the future, and definitely working with Web-based 

verification systems. 

They are very familiar with our database and believe that it can 

provide tremendous value in this space, once again, to just make 

sure that we are not only relying on self-reporting and trust, but 

that the data is there and use of databases and commercial databases both from private, public, State, Federal back and forth can 

work. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

We are here to improve program integrity. And so I would be remiss if I didn’t ask you in my remaining minutes which I yielded 

to myself what sort of barriers Equifax encounters in various 

States. 

I can recall, as a management consultant, there would be different risk factors in every implementation, every project, some of 

them legislative, others regulatory, some human resource. 

How can we help improve program integrity, working with companies and other entities like yours? 

Ms. ROHLMAN. Great question, because we see this a lot. 

Modernization of systems is something that is underway in many 

States. It does take a while. Definitely the legislative statutory requirements around data sharing are necessary. 

I know that we work with SSA today and, again, they are not 

allowed to use batch. Our system for batch verifications is on a perapplicant basis, and it is all because of a statutory requirement 

that they are not allowed to do that. 

Again, DOL expects that same issue. Do Not Pay ran into that. 

We did work with Treasury in the past. And, again, it is a statutory requirement that we believe can be changed pretty simply. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Very helpful. 

I now yield to Mrs. Noem. 

Mrs. NOEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Inspector General, could you tell me why we are not allowed to 

use batch. I guess I wanted to follow up on that question a little 

bit to see if you could give us a little bit of insight as to why that 

is not able to be utilized or maybe some historical perspective. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Yes, Congresswoman. That kind of falls under 

the Computer Matching Act. The purpose of that act when it was 

initially passed was that it was for the privacy of the citizen. And 

they were feeling that, if government was using all this informaVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:28 Oct 12, 2016 Jkt 021284 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\21284.XXX 21284

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
117 

tion that they had, that it would be used unfairly towards the citizenry. 

But what we are saying is that we would like the exemptions for 

that to be done on antifraud initiatives, not for blanket information 

on citizens, but just to be able to compare that information. And 

most of it is against the batches. 

So, as an example, we can do one-on-one queries of other agency 

databases, but when we get into doing it in batch form, all we can 

use it for is audits. We can’t use it for antifraud initiatives. We 

can’t use it for that. 

Mrs. NOEM. Okay. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. So that is why we are asking for the exemption 

for not only the IG, but also for the agency to be able to use it for 

antifraud and abuse. 

Mrs. NOEM. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that insight. 

I take it very seriously that our job here today is to try to discuss 

the programs that we have out there, the dollars that are being 

spent, and make sure that we do restore integrity where there is 

opportunity to do that. 

The Congressional Budget Office reports that fugitive felons will receive up to $5 billion in Social Security and SSI benefits in the 

next decade unless we enact reforms such as the CUFF Act, which 

the Inspector General has referenced earlier, and which I am cosponsoring with Congressman Johnson. 

Inspector General, could you tell us a little bit about the history 

of this provision and then—I know you talked about that in your 

opening statement—also, the court cases and the impact that they 

have had on actions that have been taken. 

But I wanted to give you another opportunity to go a little bit 

deeper into that to see how we can put this kind of—why this legislation would be necessary to make sure that we could take the action to not continue payments whether they are not justified to felons. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Congresswoman, that bill—well, in 1996, the 

bill was passed that fleeing felons wouldn’t be able to receive benefits. That was for the SSI program. And then, in 2005, it was applied to all of SSA’s programs. So it would be, also, the other programs of SSA. And then, in 2009, what happened was there were 

several court decisions. 

The court decisions were basically saying that the terminology of 

the bill was ‘‘fleeing felons,’’ and the belief was that, if a person 

was not fleeing, that they would not be liable to having their benefits cut off. And so that one, which is called the Martinez settlement, went into effect. 

And then, at that point there, just to give you a little bit of idea 

of the sizing it, we were talking about 50,000 people were ineligible 

up until Martinez. And then, at that point, we are at about 800— 

well, we had identified about 50,000 people that were ineligible. 

And now, with all the different constraints that are put on it in relation to fleeing, we are down to about 800. 

Mrs. NOEM. Do you have any idea of the dollar amount change 

that that encompassed? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Yeah. We were talking—let me think. I have 

that somewhere right here in front of me. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
118 

Congresswoman, let me get back to you on that. I should have 

it right here. 

Mrs. NOEM. Sure. That is okay. You can certainly get that to 

me in the future. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. I do have it in front of me right now. 

We were talking improper payments of about—$321 million was 

our original audit, and it has gone down to about $14 million. 

Mrs. NOEM. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. O’Carroll, do you support the CUFF Act, which would amend 

the Social Security Act to prohibit Titles II and XVI from being 

paid to felons? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Yes. We not only support it, but we have 

helped on some of the technical work on developing it. 

Mrs. NOEM. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

And I appreciate the committee bringing this to the hearing 

today and other bills that will help prevent abuse and improper 

payments going forward. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. [Presiding.] I thank the gentlelady. 

Next we will go to Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

this morning. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here. 

Ms. Rohlman, thank you for coming all the way from Atlanta to 

be here and to testify. 

Ms. Vallas, as we work to prevent overpayment, you have cautioned us about avoiding unintended consequences, that they end 

up hurting qualified disability or UI claimants. 

Can you review for us proposals that might end up being benefit 

cuts for very needy Americans as opposed to reduction in fraud and 

abuse. 

Ms. VALLAS. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

I did mention that in my written testimony and in my opening 

statement because I think it is important that we take great care 

as we work together in a bipartisan fashion to root out fraud and 

abuse that we not unwittingly move forward legislation that would 

carry with it unintended consequences that could weaken these 

vital programs and really serve as benefit cuts for the neediest 

Americans. 

I mentioned the SAIL Act, which I have great concerns could result in interruption of SSI for children with significant disabilities 

who face very legitimate and understandable interruptions in their 

schooling. So, for example, many SSI beneficiaries are too sick for 

full-time school. Many are actually terminally ill. Back in 2013, 7 

percent of the SSI child caseload was terminated due to the death 

of the child. 

Other reasons for interruptions in school can include homelessness and poverty, which can lead to movement, geographic mobility, a high risk of needing to enroll in different schools. Students 

with disabilities are also substantially more likely to be bullied 

than their peers, which can lead to gaps in school enrollment. 

And, finally, students with disabilities are disproportionately 

likely to be suspended or expelled from school, which then the 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
119 

SAIL Act could result in a destabilization of the family’s income at 

the very time when they are also dealing with school discipline. 

You mentioned the Double Dip Elimination Act, which pertains 

to Unemployment Insurance and Disability Insurance, and I have 

significant concerns about that piece of legislation as well. 

First, Social Security’s disability programs contain strong work 

supports and incentives for those who may be able to return to 

work. And so people who receive Social Security disability benefits 

are permitted and, in fact, encouraged to work. As a result, they 

can experience job loss. It can end up resulting in Unemployment 

Insurance eligibility. 

And what we really don’t want to do here is to take a step backwards and to create work disincentives for disabled worker beneficiaries who, I think, on a bipartisan basis, we all want to work 

together to encourage and support in returning to work if they are 

able. 

There are other reasons I have detailed in my written testimony 

of why I am concerned about that bill as well. 

And, finally, I would mention the CUFF Act, which came up previously. And while the Social Security Act appropriately prohibits 

individuals who are fleeing to avoid law enforcement from receiving 

Social Security or SSI benefits, it is important to keep in mind that 

the previous SSA policy of terminating benefits anytime they had 

a match with a database that revealed an outstanding warrant had 

significant problems in its approach. 

First, SSA frequently suspended or denied benefits in cases 

where warrants were so old that the law enforcement entity had 

no intention of pursuing them anymore, decades-old warrants. 

Second of all, there were frequent cases of mistaken identity because of unreliability of criminal records databases. 

So, for example, Rosa Martinez, a 52-year-old disabled woman, in 

2008 was notified that she would lose her disability benefits because of a 1980 arrest warrant for a drug offense in Miami, Florida. Now, it came to light that Ms. Martinez had never been arrested in her life, had never used illegal drugs, and had never even 

been to Miami. 

These are the kinds of people whose lives would be negatively 

impacted by returning to the overbroad policy that SSA rightfully 

reversed subsequent to the court decisions that the IG mentioned. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for your response. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Meehan, you are recognized. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the chairman. 

And I thank all of the panelists for their attention to this issue. 

I mean, obviously, the safety nets are there for a purpose. And 

so our objective is not to just indiscriminately go across the ground, 

so to speak, and try to disrupt where it is appropriate. 

But you have each given very telling testimony about just, really, 

frankly, remarkable inefficiencies in the way we share data and 

otherwise allow people to utilize the system in a way. I hesitate to 

use the word ‘‘manipulate’’ because we do know there are some people that may be caught in unemployment, employment. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
120 

But there is also a lot of people that take advantage of the system, the earned income tax credit being filed at one point in time 

and then later filing for unemployment benefits. So we have examples in which there are two separate documents filed to the same 

agencies that are by their very nature competing with each other. 

Ms. Rohlman, you are in the private sector, and a lot of what I 

am hearing here is the inefficiency or inability for databases to talk 

to each other. What should we be doing better? 

Because in the private sector I am amazed at how quickly information changes. All I have to do is do a search on something and 

now I have companies coming to me trying to sell me products because I have looked at something. And people are making evaluations while I am using a credit card. They are looking at databases. 

What’s missing in our system that we are so incapable? 

Ms. ROHLMAN. So I would say again that the ability to use 

commercial databases and to share data between those—there is no 

question the value of data matching and data sharing. Again, the 

privacy laws in some cases that have been referred to are already 

prohibiting that sharing between the databases. 

Mr. MEEHAN. What about the privacy laws? What is there that 

needs to be fixed in that that could allow us to catch appropriate 

protection for people’s privacy, but identify those who are acting 

fraudulently? 

Ms. ROHLMAN. I can share what I am aware of. We did hear 

this, again, from the Department of Labor, we heard this from 

Treasury, Department of Labor as it relates specifically to UI, 

Treasury as it related to the Do Not Pay, and SSA as it refers to 

our agreement with SSA that we are in every day. 

There is a statutory provision that does not allow them to share 

with the commercial database specifically for the batch matching 

with SSA. I know that there is something in their 2016 budget 

which will help to revise that. So certainly looking at that would 

be the first thing I would do. 

The DOL and Do Not Pay—I mention Do Not Pay only because, 

again, their first efforts were around UI integrity. We did engage 

with Do Not Pay, Treasury, the Federal Reserve Bank, St. Louis 

and Kansas City. We had initial matching going back and forth. 

We were in production with two States, Utah and Arizona. It had 

to be stopped because they were not allowed to share between the 

State and the Federal Government. The law governing Do Not Pay, 

for example, only allowed them to share with Federal agencies. So 

it did not allow them to work with the state agencies and share the 

data that we—— 

Mr. MEEHAN. Notwithstanding that many of these programs 

are Federal programs that are operated through the States. So the 

State’s acting as an agent for the Federal Government in many of 

these or at least working as a supplementary source. So they are 

complementing each other. But many are working simultaneously 

already. 

Ms. ROHLMAN. Correct. So the UI program, again, as it was 

written in the Do Not Pay—and we did hear the same thing from 

Department of Labor—there is a provision that—again, I am outside my area of expertise because of the law in this case, but they 

continued to say repeatedly it was a statutory provision not allowVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:28 Oct 12, 2016 Jkt 021284 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\21284.XXX 21284

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
121 

ing them to share data between the States and the Federal agency 

and it was related to the Privacy Act. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, this issue alone—Mr. O’Carroll, Mr. 

Bertoni, others, do you have any comments that would supplement 

that or any observations in this area? 

Mr. BERTONI. I would say there is no blanket answer. I would 

think you would have to look at each individual desire to match 

databases with the circumstances and the laws associated with it. 

A good example is the Death Master File. Right now Social Security Administration, per law, in the Social Security Act, there is a 

little line in there that says, if it is data that is reported from the 

States, it comes from state vital statistics agencies, SSA is prohibited from sharing that information with everyone but seven or 

eight Federal benefit-paying agencies. 

So if you are not a Federal benefit-paying agency, you can’t get 

that state information. DEA for drug enforcement purposes, Department of Homeland Security for other purposes, can’t get the 

full death data. They have to get an abbreviated file. 

So, again, on an individual fact basis, you are going to run into 

these quirks in the law that prevent full interface. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Congressman, one of the things you were talking about was the earned income tax credits as an example. 

Just to give you an example of where computer matching would 

help, you have the Department of Treasury that sends out the 

check for the earned income tax credit, which is the same one that 

is sending out the benefit checks for Social Security on it, and they 

don’t match the two. And when—— 

Mr. MEEHAN. So within their own database they should be running that check as a first kind of screen against—— 

Mr. O’CARROLL. But, again, since it is two benefit programs, 

they are not allowed to match on that one. It gets very complicated. 

Another one is that Department of Labor can be giving government unemployment benefits to a person and then SSA at the 

same time will be giving them disability payments on it where the 

two agencies aren’t matching again. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, it appears there are certainly a lot of windows. 

I appreciate your testimony in this area and your observations 

built out of your experience. It is very important for us to be able 

to find the ways to alleviate this. 

Thank you 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Davis, you are recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, let me thank 

you and the ranking member for calling this hearing. 

You know, I grew up during an era when people put a great deal 

of emphasis on the notion that an ounce of prevention was worth 

much more than a pound of cure and that, if you could prevent 

things from happening, then, of course, you would experience the 

benefit of that. 

Mr. O’Carroll and Mr. Bertoni, both of you have been engaged in 

this effort to ferret out what we call waste, fraud, and abuse for 

quite some time. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
122 

In your experiences, what have you found the most? Has it been 

waste? Has it been fraud? Has it been abuse that you could just 

categorize? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Congressman Davis, I will take a first crack at 

that. 

Yes. We have improper payments, and a big portion of improper 

payments can be accidental, can be because of laws, rules, whatever, that makes that money go out before it is validated. And 

then, you know, it is very difficult to bring back. 

Our biggest concern and one of the things that we have been trying to do is to assess what part is fraud and what part is just 

straight improper payment, accidental, intentional, or whatever. It 

is very difficult. 

And Chairman Johnson on the Subcommittee for Social Security 

has asked us to try to size the amount of fraud in SSA, and we 

have taken attempts for it. It is very difficult. We are in the process of doing it now. We would be one of the first government agencies to do it because it is so difficult to show. 

I guess the one thing I try to remind everybody is, although 

fraud is a very small percentage of the improper payments, when 

you are dealing with billions of dollars in terms of payments, it is 

still a very high number and it outrages the public. 

Mr. BERTONI. In terms of fraud, historically, in trying to define 

it, I think even SSA defines it very narrowly. It is only after it has 

been pursued and conviction has been obtained. That is fraud. 

But the funnel starts very large. There is the allegation. There 

is some sifting through the information. Cases go out. Others stay. 

The funnel keeps narrowing down to what is suspected fraud. It is 

picked up by a justice. It is prosecuted. That is fraud. 

But that larger funnel is sort of the waste and the abuse where 

things start. I believe there is a lot more of the waste and a lot 

more abuse. If the agency is supposed to be doing something and 

if they don’t and it results in an overpayment situation or wasted 

Federal dollars, that is waste. 

If a recipient who is supposed to be reporting their work activities, their wages, a change in their wages, their resources, they 

know the program rules, they don’t and they do that consistently 

or egregiously multiple times, now we are getting down to abuse. 

So, in my view, I think this funnel includes all of it, fraud, waste, 

and abuse. And I do believe the waste and abuse factor is larger 

than a lot of folks want to admit. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Eysink, I am going to ask you. What has been 

the most effective in the State of Louisiana in your experiences? 

Mr. EYSINK. I think having people show up is what has been 

most effective for us. But I think that there are a couple of other 

things, too. And I agree entirely with the description of what is 

fraud, waste and abuse. 

There are two sources of improper payments. One is clearly as 

a result of errors and, therefore, is wasteful. And that is when employers who pay all of the UI taxes don’t report timely or comprehensively to requests for information so that we can accurately 

adjudicate those claims. We have to do a better job of training our 

adjudicators, but employers hold the biggest key to solving that 

issue, and that is wasteful. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
123 

Abuse. It is the law that, when somebody who is receiving benefits goes back to work, once they start earning, they are not eligible 

anymore. But, in their mind, they translate that often into the fact 

that they hadn’t received their first paycheck yet. So they still try 

to claim for the first week or two that they worked before they got 

their first check. 

No question about whether that is fraud or abuse. Did they really know, had they been through that before, you know, and so 

forth. And then there is obviously fraud where people just out and 

out set out to get money that they are not due and they know that. 

In the abuse case, employers hold the key to that, too, and that 

is reporting to state and national directors of new hires as soon as 

they hire somebody and give us the start date through those databases so we can crossmatch. But those are bigger leakages of 

money out of the system than fraud. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time has 

expired. So I yield back. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. 

I go next to Mr. Smith. You are recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here today for your testimony. 

I want to focus my remarks on the Unemployment Insurance because this program provides cash benefits for people in the State 

of Missouri through the payroll taxes. 

In the fiscal year 2014, the improper payment rate was 11.6 percent. It included $5.6 billion. To me, that is completely unacceptable and very awful. 

I think about it from the perspective that, if I went to McDonald’s and ordered an extra value meal, I would have over a 10 percent chance of having an incorrect order. Or if I went to my local 

bank and wanted to deposit my funds or to withdraw some funds, 

what if the bank was wrong more than 10 percent of the time in 

the amount that they gave me or the amount that they took out 

of my account? That would be completely unacceptable. 

What do you think Members of Congress would think whenever 

they received their check every month that it was 10 percent less 

than what they were expecting? Or what about any, any, individual 

working from day to day on their paycheck got 10 percent less? 

The American people don’t accept this and it is just not absolutely right. It is unacceptable. When you look at more than $200 

billion of Federal money being inappropriately or fraudulently 

spent, that is a problem. 

The Department of Labor has set a goal of reducing their annual 

and proper payment rate from 11.6 percent to 11.3 for 2015. 

Ms. Rohlman, do you think that is good enough? 

Ms. ROHLMAN. I would say that Department of Labor is working diligently to combat fraud. I think there are a couple of small 

things that could be done I mention in my testimony that could 

have a dramatic impact. 

First of all, again, I mention about the reporting system, again, 

the weekly breakdown of data. If, in fact, States were encouraged 

by the Department of Labor to provide weekly reporting, it would 

help. Today there are only 14 States who provide weekly breakVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:28 Oct 12, 2016 Jkt 021284 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\21284.XXX 21284

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
124 

down of data. It may be on a quarterly basis, but it at least comes 

back weekly. So it does help the employers. 

Another thing that could be done from a small process perspective is relaxation of the rules about the format for wage audits and 

those verification forms. Today it is a requirement in most States 

to have a Sunday to Saturday reporting back to the UI agency. 

And, in fact, that is very outdated logic, actually. 

Our data shows that there are between 20 and 30 percent of employers who report weekly, but it may not necessarily be Sunday, 

Saturday. It may be Monday, Sunday or it may be et cetera. And 

the traditional formats for employers are semimonthly and they are 

biweekly. We find that about two-thirds of employers are reporting 

that way. 

So if there was just a tweak, which was allowed to use the data 

that is available and then only process those or send to investigation those where there is a dramatic difference in the data matching that is seen in UI reporting, it would make much more efficient 

use of the process and of investigator resources. And we strongly 

believe it would reduce improper payments. 

Mr. SMITH. So you think just relaxing the rules, what you said, 

basically, modifying it, which is in the power of the Department of 

Labor, would probably reduce improper payments by how much? 

Ms. ROHLMAN. I don’t have an exact number, sir. But if Department of Labor allowed that direction to the States and let them 

slow that down and say, ‘‘You can relax these rules,’’ we definitely 

believe that compliance would go up. 

It would allow more time to provide the benefits to those who deserve them, but then also to focus on those where there may, in 

fact, be a discrepancy. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Eysink, would you respond to that. 

Mr. EYSINK. Yes, Congressman. First, I want to point out that 

all improper payments are not fraud and that improper payments 

can occur when everybody is acting in good faith, and often they 

do. 

For instance, there could be a decision made in adjudication to 

award Unemployment Insurance claims and later on during the 

process, after the claimant has started to receive benefits, those 

awards are overturned for—as I say, in cases where there is just 

a difference of opinion on how the facts should be applied to that 

case. 

Also, many of these improper payments are recovered. We and, 

I think, nearly all States, if not all States now, recover or seize 

overpayments from tax refunds, both State and Federal, and we recover millions of dollars that way every year. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you a quick question, then. The $5.6 billion that is used as improper payments in 2014, would that mean 

that there was actually, in fact, more improper payments above 

$5.6 billion and they factored in the money that they did recover 

or is the recovered amount included in the $5.6 billion? 

Mr. EYSINK. The recovered amounts are not included in the 

numbers reported for States and what their improper payments 

are. So I doubt that they are included in that $5.6 million, but I 

can’t tell you for sure. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
125 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. 

Next we go to Mr. Crowley. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the panelists for your testimony today. And I also want 

to thank the previous panel made up of Members of the House. I 

appreciate the interest and engagement on these issues. 

The hearing announcement is described as—and I quote—‘‘Protecting the Safety Net from Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.’’ And I appreciate very much, Mr. Chairman, the titling of the hearing today. 

I think these are all noble goals. I don’t think any of us, whether 

Democrat or Republican, wants to see waste, fraud, and abuse taking place in crucial social programs like Supplemental Security Income or Unemployment Insurance. 

Frankly, I would like to see more hearings begin with protecting 

the safety net. Maybe we can start by protecting it from budget 

cuts and sequestration to start. 

But back to waste, fraud, and abuse, as I said, this is something 

that we all, if we don’t agree on, we all certainly should agree on. 

But how we approach this problem makes an important difference. 

For example, look at Social Security. The Social Security inspector 

general’s office of investigations supports the front line investigators fighting Social Security fraud. But in 3 of the past 5 years, the 

majority has cut the inspector general’s budget. That means we lost 

experienced investigators and now have fewer people helping to 

fight fraud than we did 5 years ago. 

In other cases, programs haven’t been updated as needed, which 

would reduce the rate of overpayments. So in some ways, we are 

limiting our ability to fight fraud and abuse. Beyond that, I want 

to make sure we all understand what we are talking about when 

we say fraud and abuse. Not every overpayment is fraud. And not 

every unusual circumstance is abuse. These are important programs that can make the difference between supporting a family 

and falling further behind in poverty. These benefits are needed 

and not enjoyed. They are appreciated, not savored. Somehow, over 

the years, there has become this legend of people who would rather 

receive unemployment benefits than work, that somehow they are 

content to live happily off these government funds without facing 

any hardship. These kinds of myths do a disservice to the hardworking Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their 

own and rely on these funds to make ends meet. Ms. Vallas, let me 

ask you to clarify, what is the average unemployment benefit per 

month? 

Ms. VALLAS. Thank you for the question, Congressman. The average weekly unemployment benefit at the end of 2014 was $317, 

which comes to $1,268 per month. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And what is the Federal poverty level for a family of three? 

Ms. VALLAS. For a family of three, the Federal poverty level in 

2014, so we can compare apples to apples, was $1,649 per month. 

Mr. CROWLEY. So, in other words, the unemployment benefits 

don’t even keep a family above the poverty level, is that correct? 

Ms. VALLAS. That is exactly right. That is the case for many 

families unfortunately. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
126 

Mr. CROWLEY. So all these mythical people who are abusing 

the program, who are gaming the system and committing fraud, 

which is an actual crime with actual penalties, they are still not 

even meeting the basic poverty level, is that correct? 

Ms. VALLAS. That is correct, Congressman. 

Mr. CROWLEY. What about disability insurance? How much of 

a windfall is that? How much per month? 

Ms. VALLAS. The average, well, I should say, first, for the typical worker, a DI benefit replaces less than half of their previous 

earnings. So for most folks, it really is a significant drop in their 

standard of living. The average DI benefit in this year, 2015, is 

$1,165 per month, which is just over the Federal poverty level for 

an individual. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Can you tell us more about the people who receive disability benefits? How many live in poverty even with the 

benefits provided by the Federal Government? 

Ms. VALLAS. Even with the benefits, because they are so modest, fully 1.6 million DI beneficiaries live in poverty, that is 1 in 

5 DI beneficiaries. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And these are people with severe, life-changing 

disabilities or illnesses, is that correct? 

Ms. VALLAS. That is correct. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. I know some have tried to dismiss 

these conditions as just anxiety and backaches. And that simply 

isn’t the case. Yes, fraud and abuse happens. Our Founding Fathers recognized the propensity in human nature. And we should 

make sure we are giving our agencies the tools they need and have 

asked for to fight real incidents of fraud and abuse and I would 

also add waste. I just want to make sure that we all understand 

this. Because as we focus on reducing real fraud and abuse, let’s 

make sure we are not putting additional hurdles in the way of benefiting the people who need these benefits to help them survive. 

Going back to my initial statement about protecting the safety 

net, that is also critical, protecting the safety net, while at the 

same time addressing and going after those who would abuse it, 

going after those who would commit fraud. They need to be fully 

prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But not losing sight of the 

millions of individuals and their families who rely upon this to eke 

by, not to get rich off the Government, but to simply make ends 

meet if they can possibly do that. They certainly can’t do that in 

Woodside, Queens on this level of payment. So with that, Mr. 

Chairman, I will yield back. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentlemen. Mr. Dold, you 

are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly want to 

thank all of our witnesses for coming and for your testimony today. 

And really the topic that we are talking about, I am going to agree 

with Mr. Crowley, in talking about protecting the safety net, that 

is a goal that we all share. And, frankly, when we look at the 

abuse, when we look at the fraud that happens out there, the people that it hurts the most are the folks that need the safety net 

the most. And ultimately, I think what we want is we want confidence, we want confidence in the system, that it is going to work, 

that the Government is actually out there working. And when we 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
127 

have the, what we are looking at is billions of dollars in terms of 

just payments, improper payments paid out, Mr. Smith was talking 

about, it is about 10 percent, 9.2 percent for SSI and 11.6 percent 

for UI. He is talking about a McDonalds on this thing. I would talk 

about it as if you are driving a car and you know, 1 in 10 doesn’t 

work or is recalled, we are going to have a big problem. And so I 

recognize that some of these overpayments or mispayments can be 

rectified. My hope is, is that we do, that we root out this waste, 

fraud, and abuse. What I am really looking for from each and every 

one of you, from your subject matter expertise, is what can we do? 

We want to come up with solutions to these problems so that this 

number gets as close to zero as possible, so that we can end waste, 

fraud, and abuse. 

And, certainly, Ms. Rohlman, your idea about trying to make 

sure that the government is accepting the private sector data in a 

way that it is easy for them to do it makes all the sense in the 

world. Many of you who were here to listen to the first panel that 

had a number of pieces of legislation. Ms. Vallas, you talked a little 

bit about some concerns that you had. But I would be interested 

from all of you, in terms of the five different pieces of legislation, 

from permanently ending receipt by prisoners or the PERP Act, 

The Furloughed Federal Employee Double Dip Elimination Act, the 

School Attendance Improves Lives Act, the Flexibility to Promote 

Reemployment Act, and the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons. Of 

these, you know, which of these pieces of legislation has merit in 

your eyes that we should be really trying to focus and move forward? Because, today, if we come and you talk and we don’t have 

an action item going forward about how to really solve these problems in a bipartisan way, then it was really more of a waste of 

time. And that is not what we are looking to do. We need to solve 

some problems. 

Mr. O’Carroll, we can start with you? Are there some merit in 

some of the pieces of legislation that you look at? Can you pick 

your top two or three that you think may be worthy of moving forward? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Yes, Congressman. As was mentioned before, 

is that we are in favor of, you know the CUFF Act, we assisted on 

that. One of the things that I wanted to correct, too, was when I 

was asked by Congresswoman Noem on the dollars of it, was that 

at the time of 2009, when they kicked in with Martinez, there was 

about $500 million in savings on it. And since that act, it has been 

reduced by about two-thirds of that. I just wanted to correct what 

I had said before and my numbers on that. Anyway, in terms of 

the other acts, the Fraud Act is one that we are particularly interested in because it is going after the facilitators, it is going after 

those people that make a business out of stealing money from the 

Government and facilitating other people to do it, and making sure 

that, you know, one, when they are caught, they are going to be 

sentenced correctly, and, two, that the money is going to be 

brought back to the Government. So of all the acts, that and the 

CUFF Act would be the two I am most familiar with. 

Mr. DOLD. Okay. Mr. Bertoni. 

Mr. BERTONI. I would defer. I don’t think we have done enough 

analysis to endorse or really weigh in on much. I would say that 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
128 

what the Congress can do is do what you are doing. I think your 

oversight role, to hold agencies accountable for doing what they 

said they were going to do. Certainly the appropriations process, 

you can direct funds to areas of greatest vulnerability. We have 

looked at the CDR process. We have given the agency some direction as to how they can mine that data and to work certain subpopulations of the data that would give them a significant return 

on the investment. 

You have already done that with age-18 redeterminations and 

low-weight babies. The return on investment, the cessation rate 

there is 52 percent and 60 percent, respectively. We have put some 

other subpopulations on the table. A speech and language delay for 

children, 38 percent return on investment for CDRs. Mood disorders, 39 percent investment. 

So there are ways that you can through the appropriations process target funds to specific areas where the agency can be more effective in their reviews. And by removing some of these cases, the 

program can become less costly. You can also remove a lot of these 

children from the roles that could benefit from being in a different 

track, not labeled as being Special Ed, just mainstream them and 

getting them the supports they need to be successful. So I think 

there is opportunities in your role to direct the agency to areas 

where they can be most effective. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you. Mr. Eysink. 

Mr. EYSINK. Thank you. As with any good idea, I wish I had 

had it before the person really had it. I think both the name, to 

call it the PERP Act, I think that is great. In Louisiana, we prevent people from getting hunting and fishing licenses if they have 

defrauded our UI system. So anything that gets to people to what 

they want to do, that is going to, you know, what their passion is, 

if we put a barrier and the barrier is paying what they owe before 

they can go do what they want to do, I think that would be helpful. 

I think continuing to push forward with the development of the 

Unemployment Insurance Integrity Center of Excellence, which is 

being stood up now, I think that is very important, particularly as 

we get to the new frontier of fraud schemes that are much more 

sophisticated, and requiring collaboration amongst the States, all of 

the States, the Federal Government, and all of its agencies that are 

relevant to these particular programs. 

And then another big thing I think, you know, we have spoken 

and there was some very good questions about the difficulty in 

interfacing with different databases. There are databases that all 

of the States should be able to easily interface with. It doesn’t 

make sense to me that all 50 States need to go develop their own 

contract, if it is a commercial database, or their own particular little interface, if it is a Federal database that we all should be connecting with. So I would advocate for the Department of Labor to 

get information from States on what those databases should be and 

to develop a single interface with that entity so that we are all connecting the same way. And maybe that could be made available 

through existing means that now, maybe through the National Association of State Workforce Agencies which operate some of those 

tools on behalf of all States and the Federal Government. There 

might be easier ways to actually connect these databases together. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
129 

Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of time but I just 

don’t want to let—— 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Yes, briefly. 

Ms. ROHLMAN. Briefly, I would start with the Reemployment 

Act. I think that that begins to build the integrity from one end 

to the other of the process. And then continuing with the UI New 

York Center of Excellence and, again, helping that to define the 

processes and those databases that would help all the States, 

again, from one central location makes complete sense. 

Mr. DOLD. Ms. Vallas. 

Ms. VALLAS. Thank you, Congressman. I would begin with Mr. 

Becerra and Mr. Doggett’s Social Security Fraud and Error Prevention Act. CAP fully supports this bill which appropriately heightens 

the penalties for fraud, puts special fraud-fighting units in all 50 

States, and targets bad apples without ensnaring law abiding applicants and beneficiaries. Importantly, it also provides SSA with 

the critical administrative funding that it needs to do important 

program integrity work such as CDRs and processing work reports 

which, I mentioned, are now currently suffering significant delays, 

which I think really is crucial to the bipartisan goal of rooting out 

fraud and abuse to the extent possible. 

Mr. DOLD. I appreciate it. I thank you all for your testimony 

and appreciate it and look forward to working with you all. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Well we thank you. This concludes all 

questioning. I want to thank the members and our witnesses for 

being here today. This was outstanding testimony, very helpful to 

us as we try to grapple with these difficult problems. So thank you 

for being here. Members may have additional questions that they 

will submit to you. And, if so, I would ask that you try to get answers back within 2 weeks so we can complete the record. With 

that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions for the record follow:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
130 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.082
131 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.083
132 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.084
133 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.085
134 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.086
135 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.087
136 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.088
137 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.089
138 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.090
139 

f 

[Submissions for the record follow:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.091
140 

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Statement 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.092
141 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.093
142 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.094
143 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.095
144 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.096
145 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.097
146 

Justice in Aging, Statement 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.098
147 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.099
148 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.100
149 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.101
150 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.102
151 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.103
152 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.104
153 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.105
154 

Northeast Michigan Community Mental Health Authority, Letter 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.106
155 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.107
156 

Stephen A. McFadden, Statement 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.108
157 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.109
158 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.110
159 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.111
160 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.112
161 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.113
162 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.114
163 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.115
164 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.116
165 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.117
166 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.118
167 

Western Center on Law & Poverty, Letter 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.119
168 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.120
169 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.121
170 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.122
171 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.123
172 

Work Opportunity Tax Credit Coalition, Letter 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.124
173 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.125
174 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.126
175 

Work Opportunity Tax Credit Coalition, Statement 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.127
176 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.128
177 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.129
178 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.130
179 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.131
180 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.132
181 

Æ 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 21284.133