69–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 115–316 

CONTROL UNLAWFUL FUGITIVE FELONS ACT OF 2017 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2017.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BRADY of Texas, from the Committee on Ways and Means, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2792] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 2792) to amend the Social Security Act to make certain 

revisions to provisions limiting payment of benefits to fugitive felons under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the Social Security Act, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND ............................................................... 2 

A. Purpose and Summary ..................................................................... 2 

B. Background and Need for Legislation ............................................. 2 

C. Legislative History ............................................................................ 3 

II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL ................................................................... 3 

Section 1: Short Title ............................................................................. 3 

Section 2: Revisions to Provisions Limiting Payments of Benefits 

to Fugitive Felons Under Title XVI of the Social Security Act .. 4 

III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE .................................................................... 7 

IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL ............................................................ 10 

A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects ...................................... 10 

B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures Budget Authority .................................................................. 10 

C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office ....... 10 

V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF 

THE HOUSE .............................................................................................. 16 

A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ................. 16 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
2 

B. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives ............. 16 

C. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates ................................ 16 

D. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited 

Tariff Benefits ................................................................................. 16 

E. Duplication of Federal Programs ..................................................... 16 

F. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings .............................................. 17 

VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED 17 

VII. DISSENTING VIEWS ................................................................................... 28 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017’’. 

SEC. 2. REVISIONS TO PROVISIONS LIMITING PAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO FUGITIVE FELONS 

UNDER TITLE XVI OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. 

(a) FUGITIVE FELON WARRANT REQUIREMENT.—Section 1611(e)(4)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(4)(A)(i)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘fleeing to avoid’’ and inserting ‘‘the subject of an arrest warrant for the purpose of’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘the place from which the person flees’’ the first place it appears and inserting ‘‘the jurisdiction issuing the warrant’’; and 

(3) by striking ‘‘the place from which the person flees’’ the second place it appears and inserting ‘‘the jurisdiction’’. 

(b) PROBATION AND PAROLE WARRANT REQUIREMENT.—Section 1611(e)(4)(A)(ii) of 

such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(4)(A)(ii)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(ii) the subject of an arrest warrant for violating a condition of probation or 

parole imposed under Federal or State law.’’. 

(c) DISCLOSURE.—Section 1611(e)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(5)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘any recipient of’’ and inserting ‘‘any individual who is a recipient of (or would be such a recipient but for the application of paragraph (4)(A))’’; 

and 

(2) by striking ‘‘the recipient’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘the individual’’. 

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall be effective 

with respect to benefits payable for months that begin on or after January 1, 2021. 

I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND 

A. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 2792, as amended, the ‘‘Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons 

Act,’’ as ordered reported by the Committee on Ways and Means 

on September 13, 2017, amends the Social Security Act to make 

certain revisions to provisions limiting payment of benefits to fugitive felons under title XVI. 

B. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Under the 1996 welfare reform law, fugitive felons and probation 

and parole violators were made ineligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Similar provisions were also included in 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and some housing assistance 

programs. 

In addition to being an important program integrity measure, 

this policy had the added benefit of helping law enforcement find 

thousands of criminals who had been evading the law. A 2007 report by the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that ‘‘the impact of this program 

reaches beyond Social Security to local communities across the 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
3 

1Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General, Semiannual Report to Congress, April 1, 2007–September 30, 2007, Page 16. 

United States. OIG efforts contributed to over 59,000 arrests since 

the program’s inception in 1996.’’ 1

However, a series of court cases during the mid- to late-2000’s 

determined that SSA’s enforcement of the law was too broad, primarily questioning SSA’s interpretation of ‘‘actively fleeing’’. As a 

result of these cases, SSA only discontinues benefits to those who 

have escaped from prison or are avoiding imprisonment, significantly reducing the impact of the policy. 

H.R. 2792 restores the original intent of the 1996 law, revising 

current law to discontinue benefits for individuals who are ‘‘the 

subject of an arrest warrant . . .’’ compared to the previous language of ‘‘fleeing to avoid’’ arrest, which was the main legal challenge. 

H.R. 2792 applies only to felony charges, or a crime carrying a 

minimum term of one or more years in prison. This policy does not 

intend to punish individuals convicted of misdemeanors, such as 

outstanding parking tickets. 

As a result of the court cases, SSA is now required to provide additional notice to individuals and the opportunity for them to establish ‘‘good cause’’ for not suspending benefits, protecting SSI recipients. If SSI benefits are suspended incorrectly, SSA has processes 

in place to restore benefits quickly. 

C. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Background 

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

Ways and Means. 

Committee hearings 

On June 3, 2015, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human 

Resources held the hearing titled, ‘‘Protecting the Safety Net from 

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.’’ 

Committee action 

The Committee on Ways and Means marked up H.R. 2792, the 

‘‘Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act,’’ on September 13, 2017. 

The bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives, as amended, by a roll call vote of 23 yeas to 14 nays. 

II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL 

SECTION 1: SHORT TITLE

PRESENT LAW

No provision. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

This Act may be cited as ‘‘Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act 

of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
4 

2Section 1614(e)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(4)(A)]. 

3Section 202(x)(1)(A)(iv) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(1)(A)(iv)]. 

4Section 804(a)(2) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. § 1004(a)(2)]. 

5Sections 1631(a)(2)(B)(iii)(V) [for SSI], 205(j)(2)(C)(i)(V) [for OASDI], and 807(d)(1)(E) [for 

SVB] of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. §§ 1683(a)(2)(B)(iii)(V), 405(j)(2)(C)(i)(V), and 

807(d)(1)(E)]. 6Martinez v. Astrue, No. 08–CV–4735 CW (N.D. Cal. 2009). In an earlier case, Fowlkes v. 

Adamec [432 F.3d 90 (2d. Cir. 2005)], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded 

that the SSA’s interpretation of the fugitive felon prohibition was inconsistent with the statute 

because the SSA’s policy did not require any finding that the person was fleeing from prosecution or punishment and that under the statute ‘‘benefits may be suspended only as of the date 

of a warrant or order issued by a court or other authorized tribunal on the basis of a finding 

that an individual has fled or was fleeing from justice.’’ 7Social Security Administration, Program Operations Manual System (POMS), GN 02613.860. 

REASON FOR CHANGE

The Committee believes that the short title accurately reflects 

the policy actions included in the legislation. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

These provisions are effective upon enactment. 

SECTION 2: REVISIONS TO PROVISIONS LIMITING PAYMENTS OF BENEFITS TO FUGITIVE FELONS UNDER TITLE XVI OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

(A) FUGITIVE FELON WARRANT REQUIREMENTS

PRESENT LAW

Under current law, a person is not eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits during any month in which the person 

is ‘‘fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after 

conviction’’ for a crime which is a felony, or in a state that does not 

classify crimes as felonies, punishable by death or imprisonment of 

more than one year (commonly referred to as the fugitive felon prohibition).2 A similar prohibition exists for Social Security Old-Age, 

Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OADSI) benefits under Title II 

of the Social Security Act 3 and Special Benefits for World War II 

Veterans (SVB) under Title VIII of the Act 4 and for a person serving as a representative payee for a beneficiary under any program 

administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA).5

Prior to April 1, 2009, the SSA interpreted this provision to prohibit benefits to any person for whom an arrest warrant for a felony was active, regardless of whether or not there was any evidence or indication that the person was fleeing. Pursuant to the 

class-action settlement agreement in Martinez v. Astrue,6 the SSA, 

effective April 1, 2009, adopted the present policy of only applying 

the fugitive felon prohibition in SSI, OASDI, SVB, and representative payee cases in which a person has a felony arrest warrant for 

one of the following National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 

Uniform Offense Classification Codes: 

• 4901: escape from custody; 

• 4902: flight to avoid prosecution or confinement; and 

• 4999: flight-escape.7

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

This subsection would change the fugitive felon provision for SSI 

payments and SSI representative payees only by removing all refVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:36 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR316.XXX HR316

SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
5 

8Sections 1611(e)(4)(A)(ii) [for SSI], 202(x)(1)(A)(v) [for OASDI], and 804(a)(3) [for SVB] of the 

Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. §§ 1382(e)(4)(A)(ii), 404(x)(1)(A)(v), and 1004(a)(3)]. 9Section 1631(a)(2)(B)(iii)(V) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. § 1683(a)(2)(B)(iii)(V). 

10 Clark v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2010). 11Social Security Administration, Program Operations Manual System (POMS), GN 

02615.100. 

erences to a person fleeing to avoid prosecution or punishment. 

Under this subsection, a person would be ineligible for SSI benefits 

(or to serve as an SSI representative payee) if the person was subject to an arrest warrant for a crime that is a felony, or in a state 

that does not classify crimes as felonies, punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year, regardless of any consideration 

of whether or not the person was fleeing. This subsection would essentially codify the SSA’s policy in effect before the Martinez settlement. 

(B) PROBATION AND PAROLE WARRANT REQUIREMENT

PRESENT LAW

Under current law, a person is not eligible for SSI, OASDI, or 

SVB benefits during any month in which the person is ‘‘violating 

a condition of probation or parole imposed under federal or state 

law.’’ 8 This prohibition also applies to a person serving as an SSI 

representative payee, but not a representative payee for any other 

Social Security program.9

Prior to May 9, 2011, the SSA interpreted this provision to prohibit the payment of benefits to a person solely due to the presence 

of a warrant for one of the following NCIC Uniform Offense Classification Codes: 

• 5011: parole violation; 

• 5012: probation violation; 

• 8101: juvenile offenders—abscond while on parole; 

• 8102: juvenile offenders—abscond while on probation; 

• 9999: with an offense charge symbol of probation or parole 

violation; 

• ‘‘blank:’’ with an offense charge symbol of probation or parole violation; and 

• any other four-digit code, except 4901, 4902, or 4999, with 

an offense charge symbol of probation or parole violation. 

In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held 

in Clark v. Astrue that the SSA policy of suspending benefits solely 

due to the presence of a warrant for a probation or parole violation 

was inconsistent with the probation and parole violation suspension provisions of the Social Security Act because the mere presence of a warrant is not evidence that a probation or parole violation has actually occurred.10 Pursuant to the Clark decision, on 

May 9, 2011, the SSA stopped its practice of suspending benefits 

solely on the basis of a probation or parole violation warrant.11

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

This subsection would change the probation and parole violation 

suspension provision for SSI benefits and SSI representative payees only. The requirement that a person be violating a condition of 

his or her probation or parole to be ineligible for benefits would be 

changed to the requirement that the person merely have a warrant 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
6 

12Sections 1611(e)(5) [for SSI] and 202(x)(3)(C) [for OASDI] of the Social Security Act [42 

U.S.C. §§ 1382(e)(5) and 402(x)(3)(C)]. 

for a probation or parole violation. This subsection would essentially codify the SSA’s policy in effect before the Clark decision. 

(C) DISCLOSURE

PRESENT LAW

Under current law, the SSA is required to disclose to any federal, 

state, or local law enforcement officer, upon request and if the location or apprehension of the beneficiary is within the officer’s official 

duties, the current address, Social Security Number, and photograph (if applicable) of an individual receiving SSI or OASDI benefits. This disclosure is to be made if the officer notifies the SSA 

that the beneficiary is (1) fleeing to avoid prosecution or custody 

after conviction for a crime that is a felony (or in a state that does 

not classify crimes as felonies, punishable by death or imprisonment of more than one year) or (2) violating a condition of his or 

her probation or parole.12

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

This subsection would expand this provision to require the SSA 

to also disclose to law enforcement the current address, Social Security Number, and photograph (if applicable) of an individual who 

would be receiving SSI benefits if not for the fugitive felon or probation and parole prohibitions. 

REASON FOR CHANGE

The Committee believes that these provisions will restore the 

original intent of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, to discontinue Supplemental Security Income benefits for individuals who are ‘‘the subject of an arrest warrant’’ compared to the previous language of ‘‘fleeing to 

avoid’’ arrest. 

The original intent emphasized that assistance through the SSI 

program is intended for the aged, blind, and disabled, and that 

those with outstanding arrest warrants for a felony or probation or 

parole violators should not be supported through federal benefits. 

These measures aim to improve cooperation between states, SSA, 

and law enforcement officials in locating and apprehending these 

individuals. 

It makes little sense to the Committee to limit the scope of this 

common sense restriction to only those who are actively on the run 

from law enforcement, and to not apply it as well to those who may 

no longer be actively on the run because they have successfully 

evaded law enforcement and their responsibilities under the law. 

H.R. 2792 prohibits SSI benefits to any individual who is the 

subject of: (1) an outstanding arrest warrant for a felony, or (2) an 

outstanding arrest warrant for violating a condition of prohibition 

or parole imposed under federal or state law. These provisions only 

apply to felony charges, or a crime carrying a minimum term of one 

or more years in prison. It is not the intent of this policy to punish 

individuals convicted of misdemeanors. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
7 

In addition, the Committee expects SSA to continue and improve 

certain aspects of the implementation of this provision. Currently, 

SSA provides an ‘‘advance notice’’ to recipients containing information on why SSA is suspending payments and where, why, when 

the warrant was issued. This allows the individuals to use the period of time before payments are suspended to resolve the matter 

and to protest the decision to suspend payments. During this protest, the individual may also apply to SSA for a ‘‘good cause’’ exception to the suspension, adding an additional layer of protections for 

SSI recipients. Specifically, SSA may continue SSI payments to an 

individual whose criminal offense was non-violent and not drug related, not charged with a felony crime since the warrant was 

issued, and if law enforcement reports it will not act on the warrant. In addition, if recipients meet the above criteria and lacks the 

mental capacity to resolve the warrant, which includes, but is not 

limited to, those in a nursing home or mental treatment facility, 

SSA may continue to provide SSI payments without any disruption. 

If for some reason Social Security benefits are denied due to incorrect information, payments can be immediately restored once 

the affected individual resolves any outstanding issues with their 

local Social Security Administration field office. Recipients may 

also then be eligible for an underpayment, correcting for any 

missed payments. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

These provisions are effective on January 1, 2021. 

III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE 

In compliance with the Rules of the House of Representatives, 

the following statement is made concerning the vote of the Committee on Ways and Means during the markup consideration of 

H.R. 2792, the ‘‘Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act,’’ on September 13, 2017. 

An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered by 

Chairman Brady and adopted by voice vote (with a quorum being 

present). 

The amendment by Rep. Sewell to the amendment in the nature 

of a substitute to H.R. 2792, which would require SSI payments be 

made to those with felony arrest warrants or parole/probation violations unless the Commissioner could certify that no one with a 

felony arrest warrant for court fees, supervision fees, or monetary 

fines would be impacted, was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 

22 nays to 15 yeas (with a quorum being present). The vote was 

as follows: 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Brady .................................. ......... X ............. Mr. Neal ................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Johnson ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Levin .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Nunes ................................. ......... X ............. Mr. Lewis .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Tiberi .................................. ......... ......... ............. Mr. Doggett .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Reichert .............................. ......... X ............. Mr. Thompson .......................... X ......... .............

Mr. Roskam ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Larson ................................ ......... ......... .............

Mr. Buchanan ........................... ......... X ............. Mr. Blumenauer ....................... X ......... .............

Mr. Smith (NE) .......................... ......... X ............. Mr. Kind ................................... X ......... .............

Ms. Jenkins ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Pascrell .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Paulsen ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Crowley .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Marchant ............................ ......... X ............. Mr. Davis .................................. X ......... .............


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
8 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Ms. Black .................................. ......... ......... ............. Ms. Sa ́ nchez ............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Reed ................................... ......... X ............. Mr. Higgins .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Kelly .................................... ......... X ............. Ms. Sewell ................................ X ......... .............

Mr. Renacci ............................... ......... X ............. Ms. DelBene ............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Meehan ............................... ......... X ............. Ms. Chu .................................... X ......... .............

Ms. Noem .................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Holding ............................... ......... X .............

Mr. Smith (MO) ......................... ......... X .............

Mr. Rice .................................... ......... X .............

Mr. Schweikert .......................... ......... X .............

Ms. Walorski ............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Curbelo ............................... ......... X .............

Mr. Bishop ................................ ......... X .............

The amendment by Mr. Davis to the amendment in the nature 

of a substitute to H.R. 2792, which would require SSI payments be 

made to those with felony arrest warrants or parole/probation violations unless the Commissioner could certify that there will be no 

effects on race or ethnicity, was not agreed to by a roll call vote 

of 22 nays to 15 yeas (with a quorum being present). The vote was 

as follows: 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Brady .................................. ......... X ............. Mr. Neal ................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Johnson ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Levin .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Nunes ................................. ......... X ............. Mr. Lewis .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Tiberi .................................. ......... ......... ............. Mr. Doggett .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Reichert .............................. ......... X ............. Mr. Thompson .......................... X ......... .............

Mr. Roskam ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Larson ................................ ......... ......... .............

Mr. Buchanan ........................... ......... X ............. Mr. Blumenauer ....................... X ......... .............

Mr. Smith (NE) .......................... ......... X ............. Mr. Kind ................................... X ......... .............

Ms. Jenkins ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Pascrell .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Paulsen ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Crowley .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Marchant ............................ ......... X ............. Mr. Davis .................................. X ......... .............

Ms. Black .................................. ......... ......... ............. Ms. Sa ́ nchez ............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Reed ................................... ......... X ............. Mr. Higgins .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Kelly .................................... ......... X ............. Ms. Sewell ................................ X ......... .............

Mr. Renacci ............................... ......... X ............. Ms. DelBene ............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Meehan ............................... ......... X ............. Ms. Chu .................................... X ......... .............

Ms. Noem .................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Holding ............................... ......... X .............

Mr. Smith (MO) ......................... ......... X .............

Mr. Rice .................................... ......... X .............

Mr. Schweikert .......................... ......... X .............

Ms. Walorski ............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Curbelo ............................... ......... X .............

Mr. Bishop ................................ ......... X .............

The amendment by Mr. Crowley to the amendment in the nature 

of a substitute to H.R. 2792, which would require SSI payments be 

made to those with felony arrest warrants or parole/probation violations unless the Commissioner could certify that no one would be 

at risk of becoming homeless due to the implementation of the provision, was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 22 nays to 15 yeas 

(with a quorum being present). The vote was as follows: 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Brady .................................. ......... X ............. Mr. Neal ................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Johnson ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Levin .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Nunes ................................. ......... X ............. Mr. Lewis .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Tiberi .................................. ......... ......... ............. Mr. Doggett .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Reichert .............................. ......... X ............. Mr. Thompson .......................... X ......... .............


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
9 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Roskam ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Larson ................................ ......... ......... .............

Mr. Buchanan ........................... ......... X ............. Mr. Blumenauer ....................... X ......... .............

Mr. Smith (NE) .......................... ......... X ............. Mr. Kind ................................... X ......... .............

Ms. Jenkins ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Pascrell .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Paulsen ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Crowley .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Marchant ............................ ......... X ............. Mr. Davis .................................. X ......... .............

Ms. Black .................................. ......... ......... ............. Ms. Sa ́ nchez ............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Reed ................................... ......... X ............. Mr. Higgins .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Kelly .................................... ......... X ............. Ms. Sewell ................................ X ......... .............

Mr. Renacci ............................... ......... X ............. Ms. DelBene ............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Meehan ............................... ......... X ............. Ms. Chu .................................... X ......... .............

Ms. Noem .................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Holding ............................... ......... X .............

Mr. Smith (MO) ......................... ......... X .............

Mr. Rice .................................... ......... X .............

Mr. Schweikert .......................... ......... X .............

Ms. Walorski ............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Curbelo ............................... ......... X .............

Mr. Bishop ................................ ......... X .............

The amendment offered by Ms. Chu to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2792, which would require SSI payments be made to those with felony arrest warrants or parole/probation violations unless the Commissioner could certify that no one 

with a felony arrest warrant who has dementia or other cognitive 

impairments would be impacted, was not agreed to by a roll call 

vote of 22 nays to 15 yeas (with a quorum being present). The vote 

was as follows: 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Brady .................................. ......... X ............. Mr. Neal ................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Johnson ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Levin .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Nunes ................................. ......... X ............. Mr. Lewis .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Tiberi .................................. ......... ......... ............. Mr. Doggett .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Reichert .............................. ......... X ............. Mr. Thompson .......................... X ......... .............

Mr. Roskam ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Larson ................................ ......... ......... .............

Mr. Buchanan ........................... ......... X ............. Mr. Blumenauer ....................... X ......... .............

Mr. Smith (NE) .......................... ......... X ............. Mr. Kind ................................... X ......... .............

Ms. Jenkins ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Pascrell .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Paulsen ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Crowley .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Marchant ............................ ......... X ............. Mr. Davis .................................. X ......... .............

Ms. Black .................................. ......... ......... ............. Ms. Sa ́ nchez ............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Reed ................................... ......... X ............. Mr. Higgins .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Kelly .................................... ......... X ............. Ms. Sewell ................................ X ......... .............

Mr. Renacci ............................... ......... X ............. Ms. DelBene ............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Meehan ............................... ......... X ............. Ms. Chu .................................... X ......... .............

Ms. Noem .................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Holding ............................... ......... X .............

Mr. Smith (MO) ......................... ......... X .............

Mr. Rice .................................... ......... X .............

Mr. Schweikert .......................... ......... X .............

Ms. Walorski ............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Curbelo ............................... ......... X .............

Mr. Bishop ................................ ......... X .............

The bill, H.R. 2792, was ordered favorably reported to the House 

of Representatives as amended by a roll call vote of 23 yeas to 14 

nays (with a quorum being present). The vote was as follows: 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Brady .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Neal ................................... ......... X .............

Mr. Johnson ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Levin .................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Nunes ................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Lewis .................................. ......... X .............


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
10 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Tiberi .................................. ......... ......... ............. Mr. Doggett .............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Reichert .............................. X ......... ............. Mr. Thompson .......................... ......... X .............

Mr. Roskam ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Larson ................................ ......... ......... .............

Mr. Buchanan ........................... X ......... ............. Mr. Blumenauer ....................... ......... X .............

Mr. Smith (NE) .......................... X ......... ............. Mr. Kind ................................... X ......... .............

Ms. Jenkins ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Pascrell .............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Paulsen ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Crowley .............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Marchant ............................ X ......... ............. Mr. Davis .................................. ......... X .............

Ms. Black .................................. ......... ......... ............. Ms. Sa ́ nchez ............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Reed ................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Higgins .............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Kelly .................................... X ......... ............. Ms. Sewell ................................ ......... X .............

Mr. Renacci ............................... X ......... ............. Ms. DelBene ............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Meehan ............................... X ......... ............. Ms. Chu .................................... ......... X .............

Ms. Noem .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Holding ............................... X ......... .............

Mr. Smith (MO) ......................... X ......... .............

Mr. Rice .................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Schweikert .......................... X ......... .............

Ms. Walorski ............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Curbelo ............................... X ......... .............

Mr. Bishop ................................ X ......... .............

IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL 

A. COMMITTEE ESTIMATE OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS

In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statement is made concerning the effects on the budget of the bill, H.R. 2792, as reported. 

The Committee agrees with the estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is included below. 

B. STATEMENT REGARDING NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX

EXPENDITURES BUDGET AUTHORITY

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee states that the bill involves no new or increased budget authority. The Committee states 

further that the bill involves no new or increased tax expenditures. 

C. COST ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

OFFICE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate prepared by 

the CBO, the following statement by CBO is provided. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, September 20, 2017. 

Hon. KEVIN BRADY, 

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2792, the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
11 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Noah Meyerson. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, Director. 

Enclosure. 

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

Summary: H.R. 2792 would, beginning in calendar year 2021, expand the number of people who are considered ‘‘fugitive felons’’ and 

who would therefore be ineligible for benefits under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2792 would decrease direct 

spending by about $2.1 billion over the 2018–2027 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting the bill would not 

affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase 

net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

H.R. 2792 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effects of H.R. 2792 are shown in the following table. The effects of this legislation fall within budget functions 550 (health) 

and 600 (income security). 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
12 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2017–2022 2017–2027 

INCREASES OR DECREASES (¥) IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Supplemental Security Income: 

Estimated Budget Authority ............................................. 0 0 0 0 ¥200 ¥280 ¥290 ¥300 ¥340 ¥370 ¥410 ¥480 ¥2,190 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 0 0 0 0 ¥200 ¥280 ¥290 ¥300 ¥340 ¥370 ¥410 ¥480 ¥2,190 

Medicaid: 

Estimated Budget Authority ............................................. 0 0 0 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 130 Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 0 0 0 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 130 Total: 

Estimated Budget Authority .................................... 0 0 0 0 ¥190 ¥260 ¥270 ¥280 ¥320 ¥350 ¥390 ¥450 ¥2,060 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 0 0 0 ¥190 ¥260 ¥270 ¥280 ¥320 ¥350 ¥390 ¥450 ¥2,060 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
13 

Basis of estimate: The Social Security Administration (SSA) currently withholds SSI payments for recipients who are considered 

fleeing felons (people for whom there is an active arrest warrant 

for ‘‘crimes of flight’’). H.R. 2792 would expand the groups of people 

ineligible to receive payments to those who have an active arrest 

warrant for a felony or for a parole or probation violation. 

Under the Social Security Act, a person is not eligible for SSI 

payments during any month in which the person is ‘‘fleeing to 

avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction’’ for a 

crime that is a felony or during any month in which the person is 

‘‘violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under federal 

or state law.’’ SSA originally interpreted this provision to prohibit 

payments to any recipients with an active arrest warrant for a felony or for a violation of parole or probation. Following two court 

cases (Martinez v. Astrue in 2009 and Clark v. Astrue in 2010), 

SSA adjusted its policies and now suspends payments only when 

the warrant is for ‘‘crimes of flight,’’ such as escape from custody 

or flight to avoid prosecution. (Similar prohibitions on payment 

exist for Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; H.R. 2792 

would not affect those programs.) 

H.R. 2792 would amend the Social Security Act to essentially reinstate, for SSI recipients, the policy of suspending benefits for all 

people with active warrants for felonies or violations of probation 

or parole. The bill would take effect in calendar year 2021. 

Based on data provided by SSA about the number of payments 

that were withheld when SSA prohibited payment to all people 

with the relevant types of arrest warrants and the number that are 

withheld under current policy, CBO estimates that the bill would 

reduce the SSI monthly caseload by roughly 30,000 recipients. CBO 

projects that the affected individuals would lose federal payments 

that are, on average, 10 percent higher than the average federal 

SSI payment. The withheld monthly benefits would average about 

$700 in 2022. On that basis, CBO estimates that total federal SSI 

payments would be reduced by $2.2 billion over the 2018–2027 period. 

Most SSI recipients are automatically eligible for Medicaid, 

which is a joint federal-state program that pays for health care 

services for low-income individuals. Under H.R. 2792, individuals 

who would no longer receive their SSI benefits also would stop receiving Medicaid benefits under their eligibility for SSI. However 

many of those people would be eligible for other reasons. CBO estimates that about three quarters of the people who would stop receiving SSI benefits under H.R. 2792 would be able to retain their 

Medicaid eligibility under other criteria that have the same average federal matching rate as for those who are eligible for SSI 

(about 57 percent). Therefore, CBO does not expect any change in 

federal Medicaid spending for the most of the individuals who stop 

receiving SSI benefits under the bill. Of the remaining one quarter 

of people affected by the bill, CBO estimates that most would gain 

eligibility through the Affordable Care Act’s optional state expansion of Medicaid coverage. At least 90 percent of the cost for people 

in that eligibility group is paid for by the federal government. The 

additional federal costs for those people would be larger than the 

federal savings generated from the small number of people who 

would not be able to qualify for Medicaid under other criteria and 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
14 

would thus lose all access to Medicaid under the bill. CBO estimates that, on net, federal Medicaid spending would increase by 

$130 million over the 2018–2027 period. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
15 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 2792 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2017–2022 2017–2027 

NET DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact ............................................... 0 0 0 0 ¥190 ¥260 ¥270 ¥280 ¥320 ¥350 ¥390 ¥450 ¥2,060 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
16 

Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net direct 

spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10- 

year periods beginning in 2028. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2792 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Noah Meyerson (SSI) and 

Andrea Noda (Medicaid); Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Zachary Byrum; Impact on the private sector: Paige Piper/ 

Bach. 

Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE 

RULES OF THE HOUSE 

A. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee made findings and recommendations that are reflected in this report. 

B. STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, Committee establishes the following performance related goals and objectives for this legislation: To limit 

the paying of benefits to fugitive felons under Title XVI (Supplemental Security Income) of the Social Security Act. 

C. INFORMATION RELATING TO UNFUNDED MANDATES

This information is provided in accordance with section 423 of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104–4). 

The Committee has determined that the bill does not contain Federal mandates on the private sector. The Committee has determined that the bill does not impose a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate on State, local, or tribal governments. 

D. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND

LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed the provisions of the bill, and states that the provisions of the bill do not 

contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits within the meaning of the rule. 

E. DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee states that no provision 

of the bill establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a program of the Federal 

Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program; 

(2) a program included in any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
17 

Law 111–139; or (3) a program related to a program identified in 

the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, published 

pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Pub. L. No. 95– 

220, as amended by Pub. L. No. 98–169). 

F. DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

In compliance with Sec. 3(i) of H. Res. 5 (115th Congress), the 

following statement is made concerning directed rule makings: The 

Committee advises that the bill requires no directed rulemakings 

within the meaning of such section. 

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

REPORTED 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE XVI—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE 

AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED 

* * * * * * * 

PART A—DETERMINATION OF BENEFITS

ELIGIBILITY FOR AND AMOUNT OF BENEFITS

Definition of Eligible Individual 

SEC. 1611. (a)(1) Each aged, blind, or disabled individual who 

does not have an eligible spouse and— 

(A) whose income, other than income excluded pursuant to 

section 1612(b), is at a rate of not more than $1,752 (or, if 

greater, the amount determined under section 1617) for the 

calendar year 1974 or any calendar year thereafter, and 

(B) whose resources, other than resources excluded pursuant 

to section 1613(a), are not more than (i) in case such individual 

has a spouse with whom he is living, the applicable amount determined under paragraph (3)(A), or (ii) in case such individual 

has no spouse with whom he is living, the applicable amount 

determined under paragraph (3)(B), 

shall be an eligible individual for purposes of this title. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
18 

(2) Each aged, blind, or disabled individual who has an eligible 

spouse and 

(A) whose income (together with the income of such spouse), 

other than income excluded pursuant to section 1612(b), is at 

a rate of not more than $2,628 (or, if greater, the amount determined under section 1617) for the calendar year 1974, or 

any calendar year thereafter, and 

(B) whose resources (together with the resources of such 

spouse), other than resources excluded pursuant to section 

1613(a), are not more than the applicable amount determined 

under paragraph (3)(A), 

shall be an eligible individual for purposes of this title. 

(3)(A) The dollar amount referred to in clause (i) of paragraph 

(1)(B), and in paragraph (2)(B), shall be $2,250 prior to January 1, 

1985, and shall be increased to $2,400 on January 1, 1985, to 

$2,550 on January 1, 1986, to $2,700 on January 1, 1987, to $2,850 

on January 1, 1988, and to $3,000 on January 1, 1989. 

(B) The dollar amount referred to in clause (ii) of paragraph 

(1)(B), shall be $1,500 prior to January 1, 1985, and shall be increased to $1,600 on January 1, 1985, to $1,700 on January 1, 

1986, to $1,800 on January 1, 1987, to $1,900 on January 1, 1988, 

and to $2,000 on January 1, 1989. 

Amounts of Benefits 

(b)(1) The benefit under this title for an individual who does not 

have an eligible spouse shall be payable at the rate of $1,752 (or, 

if greater, the amount determined under section 1617) for the calendar year 1974 and any calendar year thereafter, reduced by the 

amount of income, not excluded pursuant to section 1612(b), of 

such individual. 

(2) The benefit under this title for an individual who has an eligible spouse shall be payable at the rate of $2,628 (or, if greater, the 

amount determined under section 1617) for the calendar year 1974 

and any calendar year thereafter, reduced by the amount of income, not excluded pursuant to section 1612(b), of such individual 

and spouse. 

Period for Determination of Benefits 

(c)(1) An individual’s eligibility for a benefit under this title for 

a month shall be determined on the basis of the individual’s (and 

eligible spouse’s, if any) income, resources, and other relevant characteristics in such month, and, except as provided in paragraphs 

(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6), the amount of such benefit shall be determined for such month on the basis of income and other characteristics in the first or, if the Commissioner of Social Security so determines, second month preceding such month. Eligibility for and the 

amount of such benefits shall be redetermined at such time or 

times as may be provided by the Commissioner of Social Security. 

(2) The amount of such benefit for the month in which an application for benefits becomes effective (or, if the Commissioner of Social Security so determines, for such month and the following 

month) and for any month immediately following a month of ineligibility for such benefits (or, if the Commissioner of Social Security 

so determines, for such month and the following month) shall— 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
19 

(A) be determined on the basis of the income of the individual and the eligible spouse, if any, of such individual and 

other relevant circumstances in such month; and 

(B) in the case of the first month following a period of ineligibility in which eligibility is restored after the first day of such 

month, bear the same ratio to the amount of the benefit which 

would have been payable to such individual if eligibility had 

been restored on the first day of such month as the number of 

days in such month including and following the date of restoration of eligibility bears to the total number of days in such 

month. 

(3) For purposes of this subsection, an increase in the benefit 

amount payable under title II (over the amount payable in the preceding month, or, at the election of the Commissioner of Social Security, the second preceding month) to an individual receiving benefits under this title shall be included in the income used to determine the benefit under this title of such individual for any month 

which is— 

(A) the first month in which the benefit amount payable to 

such individual under this title is increased pursuant to section 

1617, or 

(B) at the election of the Commissioner of Social Security, 

the month immediately following such month. 

(4)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), if the Commissioner of Social Security determines that reliable information is currently 

available with respect to the income and other circumstances of an 

individual for a month (including information with respect to a 

class of which such individual is a member and information with 

respect to scheduled cost-of-living adjustments under other benefit 

programs), the benefit amount of such individual under this title 

for such month may be determined on the basis of such information. 

(B) The Commissioner of Social Security shall prescribe by regulation the circumstances in which information with respect to an 

event may be taken into account pursuant to subparagraph (A) in 

determining benefit amounts under this title. 

(5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), any income which is 

paid to or on behalf of an individual in any month pursuant to (A) 

a State program funded under part A of title IV, (B) section 472 

of this Act (relating to foster care assistance), (C) section 412(e) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act (relating to assistance for refugees), (D) section 501(a) of Public Law 96–422 (relating to assistance for Cuban and Haitian entrants), or (E) the Act of November 

2, 1921 (42 Stat. 208), as amended (relating to assistance furnished 

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs), shall be taken into account in determining the amount of the benefit under this title of such individual (and his eligible spouse, if any) only for that month, and 

shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of the 

benefit for any other month. 

(6) The dollar amount in effect under subsection (b) as a result 

of any increase in benefits under this title by reason of section 1617 

shall be used to determine the value of any in-kind support and 

maintenance required to be taken into account in determining the 

benefit payable under this title to an individual (and the eligible 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
20 

spouse, if any, of the individual) for the 1st 2 months for which the 

increase in benefits applies. 

(7) For purposes of this subsection, an application of an individual for benefits under this title shall be effective on the later 

of— 

(A) the first day of the month following the date such application is filed, or 

(B) the first day of the month following the date such individual becomes eligible for such benefits with respect to such 

application. 

(8) The Commissioner of Social Security may waive the limitations specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (e)(1) on 

an individual’s eligibility and benefit amount for a month (to the 

extent either such limitation is applicable by reason of such individual’s presence throughout such month in a hospital, extended 

care facility, nursing home, or intermediate care facility) if such 

waiver would promote the individual’s removal from such institution or facility. Upon waiver of such limitations, the Commissioner 

of Social Security shall apply, to the month preceding the month 

of removal, or, if the Commissioner of Social Security so determines, the two months preceding the month of removal, the benefit 

rate that is appropriate to such individual’s living arrangement 

subsequent to his removal from such institution or facility. 

(9)(A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), any nonrecurring 

income which is paid to an individual in the first month of any period of eligibility shall be taken into account in determining the 

amount of the benefit under this title of such individual (and his 

eligible spouse, if any) only for that month, and shall not be taken 

into account in determining the amount of the benefit for any other 

month. 

(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), payments to an individual 

in varying amounts from the same or similar source for the same 

or similar purpose shall not be considered to be nonrecurring income. 

(10) For purposes of this subsection, remuneration for service 

performed as a member of a uniformed service may be treated as 

received in the month in which it was earned, if the Commissioner 

of Social Security determines that such treatment would promote 

the economical and efficient administration of the program authorized by this title. 

Special Limits on Gross Income 

(d) The Commissioner of Social Security may prescribe the circumstances under which, consistently with the purposes of this 

title, the gross income from a trade or business (including farming) 

will be considered sufficiently large to make an individual ineligible 

for benefits under this title. For purposes of this subsection, the 

term ‘‘gross income’’ has the same meaning as when used in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. 

Limitation on Eligibility of Certain Individuals 

(e)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), (E), 

and (G), no person shall be an eligible individual or eligible spouse 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
21 

for purposes of this title with respect to any month if throughout 

such month he is an inmate of a public institution. 

(B) In any case where an eligible individual or his eligible spouse 

(if any) is, throughout any month (subject to subparagraph (G)), in 

a medical treatment facility receiving payments (with respect to 

such individual or spouse) under a State plan approved under title 

XIX, or an eligible individual is a child described in section 

1614(f)(2)(B), or, in the case of an eligible individual who is a child 

under the age of 18, receiving payments (with respect to such individual) under any health insurance policy issued by a private provider of such insurance the benefit under this title for such individual for such month shall be payable (subject to subparagraph 

(E))— 

(i) at a rate not in excess of $360 per year (reduced by the 

amount of any income not excluded pursuant to section 

1612(b)) in the case of an individual who does not have an eligible spouse; 

(ii) in the case of an individual who has an eligible spouse, 

if only one of them is in such a facility throughout such month, 

at a rate not in excess of the sum of— 

(I) the rate of $360 per year (reduced by the amount of 

any income, not excluded pursuant to section 1612(b), of 

the one who is in such facility), and 

(II) the applicable rate specified in subsection (b)(1) (reduced by the amount of any income, not excluded pursuant 

to section 1612(b), of the other); and 

(iii) at a rate not in excess of $720 per year (reduced by the 

amount of any income not excluded pursuant to section 

1612(b)) in the case of an individual who has an eligible 

spouse, if both of them are in such a facility throughout such 

month. 

For purposes of this subsection, a medical treatment facility that 

provides services described in section 1917(c)(1)(C) shall be considered to be receiving payments with respect to an individual under 

a State plan approved under title XIX during any period of ineligibility of such individual provided for under the State plan pursuant 

to section 1917(c). 

(C) As used in subparagraph (A), the term ‘‘public institution’’ 

does not include a publicly operated community residence which 

serves no more than 16 residents. 

(D) A person may be an eligible individual or eligible spouse for 

purposes of this title with respect to any month throughout which 

he is a resident of a public emergency shelter for the homeless (as 

defined in regulations which shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Social Security); except that no person shall be an eligible 

individual or eligible spouse by reason of this subparagraph more 

than 6 months in any 9-month period. 

(E) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), any individual 

who— 

(i)(I) is an inmate of a public institution, the primary purpose of which is the provision of medical or psychiatric care, 

throughout any month as described in subparagraph (A), or 

(II) is in a medical treatment facility throughout any month 

as described in subparagraph (B), 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
22 

(ii) was eligible under section 1619(a) or (b) for the month 

preceding such month, and 

(iii) under an agreement of the public institution or the medical treatment facility is permitted to retain any benefit payable by reason of this subparagraph, 

may be an eligible individual or eligible spouse for purposes of this 

title (and entitled to a benefit determined on the basis of the rate 

applicable under subsection (b)) for the month referred to in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i) and, if such subclause still applies, for 

the succeeding month. 

(F) An individual who is an eligible individual or an eligible 

spouse for a month by reason of subparagraph (E) shall not be 

treated as being eligible under section 1619(a) or (b) for such 

month for purposes of clause (ii) of such subparagraph. 

(G) A person may be an eligible individual or eligible spouse for 

purposes of this title, and subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not 

apply, with respect to any particular month throughout which he 

or she is an inmate of a public institution the primary purpose of 

which is the provision of medical or psychiatric care, or is in a medical treatment facility receiving payments (with respect to such individual or spouse) under a State plan approved under title XIX or, 

in the case of an individual who is a child under the age of 18, 

under any health insurance policy issued by a private provider of 

such insurance, if it is determined in accordance with subparagraph (H) or (J) that— 

(i) such person’s stay in that institution or facility (or in that 

institution or facility and one or more other such institutions 

or facilities during a continuous period of institutionalization) 

is likely (as certified by a physician) not to exceed 3 months, 

and the particular month involved is one of the first 3 months 

throughout which such person is in such an institution or facility during a continuous period of institutionalization; and 

(ii) such person needs to continue to maintain and provide 

for the expenses of the home or living arrangement to which 

he or she may return upon leaving the institution or facility. 

The benefit of any person under this title (including State supplementation if any) for each month to which this subparagraph 

applies shall be payable, without interruption of benefit payments 

and on the date the benefit involved is regularly due, at the rate 

that was applicable to such person in the month prior to the first 

month throughout which he or she is in the institution or facility. 

(H) The Commissioner of Social Security shall establish procedures for the determinations required by clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (G), and may enter into agreements for making such determinations (or for providing information or assistance in connection with the making of such determinations) with appropriate 

State and local public and private agencies and organizations. Such 

procedures and agreements shall include the provision of appropriate assistance to individuals who, because of their physical or 

mental condition, are limited in their ability to furnish the information needed in connection with the making of such determinations. 

(I)(i) The Commissioner shall enter into an agreement, with any 

interested State or local institution comprising a jail, prison, penal 

institution, or correctional facility, or with any other interested 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
23 

State or local institution a purpose of which is to confine individuals as described in section 202(x)(1)(A)(ii), under which— 

(I) the institution shall provide to the Commissioner, on a 

monthly basis and in a manner specified by the Commissioner, 

the first, middle, and last names, social security account 

numbersor taxpayer identification numbers, prison assigned inmate numbers, last known addresses, dates of birth, confinement commencement dates, dates of release or anticipated 

dates of release, dates of work release, and, to the extent available to the institution, such other identifying information concerning the inmates of the institution as the Commissioner 

may require for the purpose of carrying out this paragraph and 

clause (iv) of this subparagraph and the other provisions of 

this title; and 

(II) the Commissioner shall pay to any such institution, with 

respect to each individual who receives in the month preceding 

the first month throughout which such individual is an inmate 

of the jail, prison, penal institution, or correctional facility that 

furnishes information respecting such individual pursuant to 

subclause (I), or is confined in the institution (that so furnishes 

such information) as described in section 202(x)(1)(A)(ii), a benefit under this title for such preceding month, and who is determined by the Commissioner to be ineligible for benefits 

under this title by reason of confinement based on the information provided by such institution, $400 (subject to reduction 

under clause (ii)) if the institution furnishes the information 

described in subclause (I) to the Commissioner within 30 days 

after the date such individual becomes an inmate of such institution, or $200 (subject to reduction under clause (ii)) if the institution furnishes such information after 30 days after such 

date but within 90 days after such date. 

(ii) The dollar amounts specified in clause (i)(II) shall be reduced 

by 50 percent if the Commissioner is also required to make a payment to the institution with respect to the same individual under 

an agreement entered into under section 202(x)(3)(B). 

(iii) The Commissioner shall provide, on a reimbursable basis, information obtained pursuant to agreements entered into under 

clause (i) to any Federal or federally-assisted cash, food, or medical 

assistance program for eligibility and other administrative purposes under such program, for statistical and research activities 

conducted by Federal and State agencies, and to the Secretary of 

the Treasury for the purposes of tax administration, debt collection, 

and identifying, preventing, and recovering improper payments 

under federally funded programs. 

(iv) Payments to institutions required by clause (i)(II) shall be 

made from funds otherwise available for the payment of benefits 

under this title and shall be treated as direct spending for purposes 

of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 

(v)(I) The Commissioner may disclose information received pursuant to this paragraph to any officer, employee, agent, or contractor of the Department of the Treasury whose official duties require such information to assist in the identification, prevention, 

and recovery of improper payments or in the collection of delinquent debts owed to the United States, including payments certified by the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative paying 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
24 

agency, and payments made to individuals whose eligibility, or continuing eligibility, to participate in a Federal program (including 

those administered by a State or political subdivision thereof) is 

being reviewed. 

(II) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 552a of title 5, 

United States Code, or any other provision of Federal or State law, 

the Secretary of the Treasury may compare information disclosed 

under subclause (I) with any other personally identifiable information derived from a Federal system of records or similar records 

maintained by a Federal contractor, a Federal grantee, or an entity 

administering a Federal program or activity and may redisclose 

such comparison of information to any paying or administering 

agency and to the head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the 

head of any State agency charged with the administration of prisons with respect to inmates whom the Secretary of the Treasury 

has determined may have been issued, or facilitated in the issuance 

of, an improper payment. 

(III) The comparison of information disclosed under subclause (I) 

shall not be considered a matching program for purposes of section 

552a of title 5, United States Code. 

(J) For the purpose of carrying out this paragraph, the Commissioner of Social Security shall conduct periodic computer matches 

with data maintained by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under title XVIII or XIX. The Secretary shall furnish to the 

Commissioner, in such form and manner and under such terms as 

the Commissioner and the Secretary shall mutually agree, such information as the Commissioner may request for this purpose. Information obtained pursuant to such a match may be substituted for 

the physician’s certification otherwise required under subparagraph 

(G)(i). 

(2) No person shall be an eligible individual or eligible spouse for 

purposes of this title if, after notice to such person by the Commissioner of Social Security that it is likely that such person is eligible 

for any payments of the type enumerated in section 1612(a)(2)(B), 

such person fails within 30 days to take all appropriate steps to 

apply for and (if eligible) obtain any such payments. 

(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the criteria 

being used by the Commissioner of Social Security in determining 

when a husband and wife are to be considered two eligible individuals for purposes of this title and when they are to be considered 

an eligible individual with an eligible spouse, the State agency administering or supervising the administration of a State plan under 

any other program under this Act may (in the administration of 

such plan) treat a husband and wife living in the same medical 

treatment facility described in paragraph (1)(B) as though they 

were an eligible individual with his or her eligible spouse for purposes of this title (rather than two eligible individuals), after they 

have continuously lived in the same such facility for 6 months, if 

treating such husband and wife as two eligible individuals would 

prevent either of them from receiving benefits or assistance under 

such plan or reduce the amount thereof. 

(4)(A) No person shall be considered an eligible individual or eligible spouse for purposes of this title with respect to any month if 

during such month the person is— 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
25 

(i) øfleeing to avoid¿ the subject of an arrest warrant for the 

purpose of prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction, under the laws of øthe place from which the person flees¿ 

the jurisdiction issuing the warrant, for a crime, or an attempt 

to commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of øthe 

place from which the person flees¿ the jurisdiction, or, in jurisdictions that do not define crimes as felonies, is punishable by 

death or imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year regardless 

of the actual sentence imposed; or 

ø(ii) violating a condition of probation or parole imposed 

under Federal or State law.¿ 

(ii) the subject of an arrest warrant for violating a condition 

of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law. 

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Commissioner shall, 

for good cause shown, treat the person referred to in subparagraph 

(A) as an eligible individual or eligible spouse if the Commissioner 

determines that— 

(i) a court of competent jurisdiction has found the person not 

guilty of the criminal offense, dismissed the charges relating to 

the criminal offense, vacated the warrant for arrest of the person for the criminal offense, or issued any similar exonerating 

order (or taken similar exonerating action), or 

(ii) the person was erroneously implicated in connection with 

the criminal offense by reason of identity fraud. 

(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Commissioner may, 

for good cause shown based on mitigating circumstances, treat the 

person referred to in subparagraph (A) as an eligible individual or 

eligible spouse if the Commissioner determines that— 

(i) the offense described in subparagraph (A)(i) or underlying 

the imposition of the probation or parole described in subparagraph (A)(ii) was nonviolent and not drug-related, and 

(ii) in the case of a person who is not considered an eligible 

individual or eligible spouse pursuant to subparagraph (A)(ii), 

the action that resulted in the violation of a condition of probation or parole was nonviolent and not drug-related. 

(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (other than section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section 1106(c) 

of this Act), the Commissioner shall furnish any Federal, State, or 

local law enforcement officer, upon the written request of the officer, with the current address, Social Security number, and photograph (if applicable) of øany recipient of¿ any individual who is a 

recipient of (or would be such a recipient but for the application of 

paragraph (4)(A)) benefits under this title, if the officer furnishes 

the Commissioner with the name of øthe recipient¿ the individual, 

and other identifying information as reasonably required by the 

Commissioner to establish the unique identity of øthe recipient¿ 

the individual, and notifies the Commissioner that— 

(A) øthe recipient¿ the individual is described in clause (i) or 

(ii) of paragraph (4)(A); and 

(B) the location or apprehension of øthe recipient¿ the individual is within the officer’s official duties. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
26 

Suspension of Payments to Individuals Who Are Outside the 

United States 

(f)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no individual (other than a child described in section 1614(a)(1)(B)(ii)) 

shall be considered an eligible individual for purposes of this title 

for any month during all of which such individual is outside the 

United States (and no person shall be considered the eligible 

spouse of an individual for purposes of this title with respect to any 

month during all of which such person is outside the United 

States). For purposes of the preceding sentence, after an individual 

has been outside the United States for any period of 30 consecutive 

days, he shall be treated as remaining outside the United States 

until he has been in the United States for a period of 30 consecutive days. 

(2) For a period of not more than 1 year, the first sentence of 

paragraph (1) shall not apply to any individual who— 

(A) was eligible to receive a benefit under this title for the 

month immediately preceding the first month during all of 

which the individual was outside the United States; and 

(B) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of 

Social Security that the absence of the individual from the 

United States will be— 

(i) for not more than 1 year; and 

(ii) for the purpose of conducting studies as part of an 

educational program that is— 

(I) designed to substantially enhance the ability of 

the individual to engage in gainful employment; 

(II) sponsored by a school, college, or university in 

the United States; and 

(III) not available to the individual in the United 

States. 

Certain Individuals Deemed To Meet Resources Test 

(g) In the case of any individual or any individual and his spouse 

(as the case may be) who— 

(1) received aid or assistance for December 1973 under a 

plan of a State approved under title I, X, XIV, or XVI, 

(2) has, since December 31, 1973, continuously resided in the 

State under the plan of which he or they received such aid or 

assistance for December 1973, and 

(3) has, since December 31, 1973, continuously been (except 

for periods not in excess of six consecutive months) an eligible 

individual or eligible spouse with respect to whom supplemental security income benefits are payable, 

the resources of such individual or such individual and his spouse 

(as the case may be) shall be deemed not to exceed the amount 

specified in sections 1611(a)(1)(B) and 1611(a)(2)(B) during any period that the resources of such individual or such individual and 

his spouse (as the case may be) does not exceed the maximum 

amount of resources specified in the State plan, as in effect for October 1972, under which he or they received such aid or assistance 

for December 1973. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
27 

Certain Individuals Deemed To Meet Income Test 

(h) In determining eligibility for, and the amount of, benefits 

payable under this section in the case of any individual or any individual and his spouse (as the case may be) who— 

(1) received aid or assistance for December 1973 under a 

plan of a State approved under title X or XVI, 

(2) is blind under the definition of that term in the plan, as 

in effect for October 1972, under which he or they received 

such aid or assistance for December 1973, 

(3) has, since December 31, 1973, continuously resided in the 

State under the plan of which he or they received such aid or 

assistance for December 1973, and 

(4) has, since December 31, 1973, continuously been (except 

for periods not in excess of six consecutive months) an eligible 

individual or an eligible spouse with respect to whom supplemental security income benefits are payable, 

there shall be disregarded an amount equal to the greater of (A) 

the maximum amount of any earned or unearned income which 

could have been disregarded under the State plan, as in effect for 

October 1972, under which he or they received such aid or assistance for December 1973, and (B) the amount which would be required to be disregarded under section 1612 without application of 

this subsection. 

Application and Review Requirements for Certain Individuals 

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

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
(28) 

VII. DISSENTING VIEWS 

Over 110 national, state, and local groups representing seniors, 

people with disabilities, children, and families have contacted the 

Committee to warn us that H.R. 2792 is a cruel bill that could have 

catastrophic consequences for some of our most vulnerable citizens. 

In addition, civil right groups strongly oppose the bill because it 

would magnify the serious racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities in our criminal justice system. 

We agree that dangerous criminals should not be supported by 

public benefits while fleeing justice. However, under current law, 

the Social Security Administration (SSA) already provides regular 

notification to law enforcement of the whereabouts of any Social 

Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiary who 

has an outstanding arrest warrant for an alleged felony or an alleged violation of a condition of probation or parole. After notification, law enforcement officials can, and do, use that information to 

arrest individuals so that our legal system can determine whether 

they are guilty. However, past experience has revealed that, in 

many cases, law enforcement officials choose not to arrest these individuals, despite having their names and addresses, as the warrants essentially are inactive. 

Law enforcement also informs SSA when it is unable to arrest 

individuals who are actual fugitives charged with fleeing or escaping. When they do, SSA terminates benefits. That is current law. 

Despite the title of the bill, the seniors and people with severe 

disabilities who would be harmed by this bill are not felons, as the 

Chairman acknowledged at our markup. They are people who have 

been accused of a felony, or accused of a parole or probation violation. They have not been tried or convicted of the offense underlying the warrant. In many instances, they are not even accused 

of committing a felony, as probation can result from a misdemeanor 

offense alone. 

In the United States of America, individuals are innocent until 

proven guilty. H.R. 2792 would create a severe new punishment— 

loss of basic income—for individuals who have only been accused 

of a crime—not tried or convicted—and whom law enforcement did 

not seek to arrest after being notified of their whereabouts and 

their receipt of Social Security or SSI. 

The Majority’s only answer to the clear danger that this bill 

would cut off the last lifeline for people in nursing homes, individuals with dementia or other cognitive impairments, and those at 

risk of being homeless was to cite the very limited discretionary authority already in existing law for the Commissioner of Social Security to hear appeals and grant exceptions in narrow circumstances. 

This glib response ignores SSA’s average waiting time of 600 days 

for appeals hearings. Also, this policy of ‘‘cut off benefits first, let 

them appeal later’’ ignores the reality of the people who receive 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
29 

SSI, many of whom have cognitive impairments and limited education, and all of whom have no resources to fall back on as they 

wait years to have their income restored. 

Past experience with this policy was that many vulnerable individuals who pose no danger to the community, and who often were 

not even aware that warrants for long-ago, alleged offenses still (or 

ever) existed, lost benefits they needed to survive. Despite this, the 

Majority failed to hold a hearing on H.R. 2792 to examine the problem they are trying to solve or learn about potentially harmful consequences before moving to enact this bill. 

If the Majority had held a hearing, they would have learned that, 

in the past, individuals who lost benefits under this policy included 

individuals who had dementia or severe intellectual disability; who 

were confined to wheelchairs and tethered to oxygen tanks; who 

years ago were charged with theft of $50; whose arrest warrant related to their own attempted suicide; whose charge was kicking a 

staff member at a detention center when they ran away from an 

abusive stepfather at age 12; or were wrongly identified, having a 

different gender, Social Security number, and race than the accused individual, yet had to hire an attorney before SSA would restore benefits. We believe that a better understanding of the issue 

would have resulted in adoption of many of our amendments, particularly Ms. Chu’s amendment to ensure that the policy did not 

take effect if it would result in people with dementia and other cognitive impairments losing their basic income. 

Therefore, we opposed H.R. 2792. 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Ranking Member. 

MR. CHAIRMAN: On H.R. 2792, I am in full agreement with the 

dissenting views of my Democratic colleagues. Had I been present 

for the votes on the amendments submitted by my Democratic colleagues, I would have supported them. 

Had I been present for the vote on reporting H.R. 2792 out of the 

Committee, I would have voted No. 

JOHN B. LARSON, Member of Congress. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
30 

ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS 

In addition to the overall concerns outlined by the Ranking Member that H.R. 2792 would harm poor seniors and people with disabilities, we express deep concerns that this bill: (1) directly contradicts the constitutional presumption of innocence; (2) deprives 

individuals of due process and lowers the legal standard for deprivation of government benefits based on a mere accusation rather 

than conviction; (3) increases the likelihood of errors in termination 

of SSI benefits; (4) magnifies the deep inequities in our criminal 

justice system based on race, ethnicity, and income; and (5) decreases the overall safety of our communities. 

H.R. 2792 assumes all individuals accused of a crime and issued 

an arrest warrant for a felony or for a violation of a condition of 

probation or parole are guilty. This directly contradicts the constitutional presumption of innocence and deprives individuals of 

due process via adjudication of guilt or innocence based on a simple 

accusation rather than a conviction. The conviction—not an accusation of a crime—should be the predicate for the loss of benefits. The 

denial of due process then deprives the individual of government 

benefits based on accusations rather than conviction, in direct contradiction of volumes of case law. 

In addition, the denial of due process based on accusation—rather than conviction—increases the likelihood of termination errors, 

which the adjudication process could have addressed. Multiple federal, state, and organization studies demonstrate the inaccuracies 

of criminal justice databases. For example, a 2016 Minnesota Law 

Review article focused on the inaccuracies of criminal justice data 

bases and noted the lack of evidence of accurate arrest warrant information in state and local databases. A 2015 report by the Government Accountability Office noted that an FBI audit in 2012 

found that 10 states had 50% or fewer of their criminal justice 

records that included final dispositions and that another FBI audit 

for 2011–2013 indicated that 12 of the 44 states examined had data 

systems that failed federal data accuracy requirements. A 2013 report by the Legal Action Center focused on problems with criminal 

records, including a 2007 study by the Bronx Defenders in which 

62% of a random sample of New York State records had at least 

one significant error and 32% had multiple errors. 

Further, the denial of due process based on accusation rather 

than conviction increases the likelihood of harm to individuals who 

are racial/ethnic minorities and/or poor, harm that the adjudication 

process could have limited The racial and ethnic biases of the 

criminal justice system are well-documented, including the following examples discussed during Committee markup: 

• A 2015 report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New 

York University School of Law reviewing research related to 

racial/ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system indicated the following: Although Caucasians are more likely to 

sell drugs and equally likely to use drugs, African Americans 

are arrested almost four times as often as white individuals for 

selling drugs and twice as often for drug possession; African 

American and Latino defendants are more than twice as likely 

as their white counterparts to experience pretrial detention; 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
31 

African American and Latino individuals experience longer parole and probation periods than their white counterparts, increasing the likelihood of low-level or technical violations; and 

African American and Latino persons experience greater hardship from criminal justice collections and fees. • The Sentencing Project released a report this month showing the Black/White disparities in juvenile incarceration have 

grown in recent years. Black youth were more than five times 

as likely as white youth to be detained or committed. According to this study, in six states (New Jersey, Wisconsin, Montana, Delaware, Connecticut, and Massachusetts), black youth 

were at least ten times as likely to be held in placement as 

white youth. • A 2009 National Council on Crime and Delinquency report 

found that Native Americans were admitted to prison over four 

times and arrested at 1.5 times the rate as whites. 

The denial of due process based on accusation—rather than conviction—also criminalizes poverty. Increasingly, costs associated 

with the criminal justice system have escalated dramatically causing disproportionate harm to individuals with limited financial resources. No uniform threshold for a felony exists, giving states wide 

latitude to define offenses involving relatively low monetary values 

as criminal felonies. A report by the Marshall Project indicated 

that, although dozens of states have increased their felony thresholds since 2000 to better capture the cost of goods, 13 states have 

not and four of these states—Florida, Massachusetts, Virginia and 

New Jersey—have the lowest thresholds in the country defining 

felonies as losses of $300 or less—vastly different than the $2,500 

thresholds set in Texas or Wisconsin. Additionally, individuals on 

probation for underlying misdemeanor offenses (e.g., vagrancy, 

shoplifting, traffic violations) can violate probation due to inability 

to pay court fees, restitution, or fines, resulting in an arrest warrant for an alleged violation of probation. 

Under H.R. 2792, these individuals would lose SSI benefits due 

to such alleged violations. In contrast to the Majority’s assurances 

during markup that only individuals charged with violent offenses 

or costly financial theft could have felony arrest warrants or violations of probation or parole, we remain deeply alarmed that the 

classification of small property crimes or non-payment of fees and 

fines could easily result in the loss of SSI benefits to the elderly 

and disabled without due process, consistent with the harm caused 

when SSA terminated benefits for outstanding arrest warrants in 

the past. 

By denying the right and protections of due process, this legislation contradicts the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. 

Constitution. The deprivation of government benefits based on accusation rather than conviction also threatens the safety of our 

communities by increasing the likelihood of crime and recidivism. 

If we terminate vital benefits that impoverished individuals who 

are disabled and elderly use for food and shelter, the probability is 

great that they will turn to crime to meet their basic needs, decreasing community safety by increasing crime. 

Despite these concerns, the Majority rejected every and all 

amendments to protect vulnerable SSI recipients against disparate 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS
32 

harm based on income or race/ethnicity. Specifically, the Majority 

rejected an amendment requiring the Commissioner of Social Security to certify that the policy will not have a disparate impact due 

to race or ethnicity prior to implementation as well as a separate 

amendment requiring the Commissioner of Social Security—prior 

to implementation—to certify that the policy will not result in the 

loss of benefits for individuals for whom an arrest warrant was 

issued for nonpayment of court fees, supervisions, or monetary 

fines. 

Further, the Majority claimed that the very limited authority 

given to the Social Security Commissioner under current law to 

issue ‘‘good cause exemptions’’ was sufficient to prevent unfair and 

hardship-inducing loss of benefits. That authority provides 35 days 

between notification of intent to terminate benefits and actual benefit termination for persons with extremely limited financial resources who are severely disabled or elderly, and who may no 

longer live in the jurisdiction where the warrant was issued. The 

timeline is impractical and unfair. Resolving errors within the 

criminal justice system is a long-process that typically must be 

done in the geographic jurisdiction of the court and necessitates 

legal counsel. 

In the past when SSA applied the arrest-warrant termination 

standard, many affected individuals were unaware of outstanding 

arrest warrants in other states, the resolution of which required 

travel and long wait times for court dates. Given that SSI is only 

available to people who are low-income elderly and disabled, 35 

days is insufficient time for individuals with limited financial resources, poor health, and mental or physical impairments to hire 

counsel and resolve complicated criminal justice problems, even if 

the Commissioner were able to act on all the exemption requests 

for people unfairly targeted in a timely manner. 

Given these concerns, we strongly oppose H.R. 2792. This meanspirited legislation will: (1) deprive government benefits for poor, 

elderly, and disabled individuals in direct contradiction of the constitutional presumption of innocence; (2) deny these vulnerable 

adults due process and lower the legal standard for deprivation of 

government benefits based on a mere accusation rather than a conviction; (3) increase the likelihood of wrongful termination; (4) magnify the deep inequities in our criminal justice system based on 

race, ethnicity, and income; and (5) decrease the overall safety of 

our communities. Passing this bill would result in devastating consequences for the individuals affected and those who love and care 

for them. 

DANNY K. DAVIS. 

LLOYD DOGGETT. 

JOHN LEWIS. 

TERRI SEWELL. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with REPORTS