Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2824) to amend title V of the Social Security Act to extend the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2792) to amend the Social Security Act to make certain revisions to provisions limiting payment of benefits to fugitive felons under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the Social Security Act; and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois for yielding and the gentlewoman from South Dakota for managing this bill.

The crux of this bill, however, is, again, to support and fund the multitrillion-dollar tax cuts that have just been introduced, that will give millions, if not billions, if not trillions, to the richest of Americans, and that is a very sad commentary.

I oppose the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act because it is not that. It will terminate essential benefits for poor people, deprive poor people of due process, and increase mass incarceration.

If the Rules Committee had simply taken my amendment, it would have remedied these criminal justice defects, which struck the arrest warrant language because it recklessly targets vulnerable people. This bill deprives citizens of due process, particularly where many poor individuals are completely unaware of a pending warrant.

Let me be very clear. What you have is a situation where you may have a mentally ill individual in a nursing home who now has a warrant that they are not aware of. You will then cut off their benefits.

What does that do to those families.

Prohibiting SSI payments to individuals with an outstanding warrant or parole or probation violation without due process is simply inhumane. This bill would terminate those benefits from very low-income seniors and people with disabilities. They may not even know that they have these warrants.

Now, I am a strong supporter of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program, and I tell you that the Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee had an amendment to pay for a 5-year reauthorization of that program, doubling the funding, by closing a tax loophole. They were not allowed to even vote on that amendment.

What does that say? This is a conspiracy.

There are 110 organizations that are against this, including the Alliance for Retired Americans, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Hand in Hand: The Domestic Employers Network, and the Coalition on Human Needs.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a document with the names of all of these organizations.

June 26, 2017.

Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the 119 undersigned

organizations, we urge you to oppose efforts to cut

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to offset the costs of the

Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program

(MIECHV program).

H.R. 2824 would reauthorize the MIECHV program, which funds

voluntary, evidence-based home visiting programs for at-risk

pregnant women and parents with young children up to

kindergarten entry. The current MIECHV program has

demonstrated beneficial outcomes associated with improved

maternal and child health, including increased access to

screening and early intervention for childhood disabilities.

Unfortunately, H.R. 2824 proposes to pay to extend this

valuable maternal and child home visiting program by cutting

off SSI entirely for certain adolescents and adults with

disabilities, as well as seniors.

H.R. 2824 would revive an old, failed policy that had

catastrophic effects for many people with disabilities and

seniors, employing procedures that did not withstand judicial

scrutiny. The Social Security Act currently prohibits SSI

payments to individuals fleeing from law enforcement to avoid

prosecution or imprisonment. The existing system is already

working to ensure that those who shouldn't be paid SSI

benefits don't receive them.

The proposed cut, Section 201 of H.R. 2824, would bar

payment of SSI benefits to people with an outstanding arrest

warrant for an alleged felony or for an alleged violation of

probation or parole. Most of the warrants in question are

decades old and involve minor infractions, including warrants

routinely issued when a person was unable to pay a fine or

court fee, or a probation supervision fee.

Based on prior experience with SSA's failed former policy,

the people who would be affected are those whose cases are

inactive and whom law enforcement is not pursuing. Many

people are not even aware that a warrant was issued for them,

as warrants are often not served on the individual. A very

high percentage of people who would lose benefits have mental

illness or intellectual disability. Many are unaware of the

violation, may not have understood the terms of parole or

probation, or may have other misunderstandings about their

case.

Warrant databases are notoriously inaccurate. Fourteen

percent of the arrest warrants processed by the federal

Warrant Information Network in 2004 were later dismissed by

the court or returned unexecuted. The state of Alabama, even

with an audit mechanism in place, reported a 13% error rate

in its arrest warrant databases. Due to these kinds of

inaccuracies, some people will have their SSI benefits cut

off as a result of mistaken identity, or paperwork errors,

which can take months or even years to resolve.

When this failed policy was previously implemented by SSA,

many of those who had their benefits cut off had no arrest

warrant outstanding against them. For example, Rosa Martinez,

the lead plaintiff in Martinez v. Astrue was, in 2008, a 52-

year old woman who received notice from SSA that she was

losing her disability benefits because of a 1980 arrest

warrant for a drug offense in Miami, Florida. Ms. Martinez

had never been to Miami, never been arrested, never used

illegal drugs, and is eight inches shorter than the person

described in the warrant. Despite an obvious case of mistaken

identity, Ms. Martinez was left without her sole source of

income. It was only after filing a lawsuit in federal court

that Ms. Martinez was able to have her benefits restored.

Resolving outstanding warrants can be very difficult and

costly. People often must go before a judge in the issuing

jurisdiction, and typically need counsel to assist them in

navigating the process. Often, people have moved in the

intervening years and live far away from the issuing

jurisdiction. The proposed offset would cut off all SSI

income. Losing this income will cause many people to become

homeless and unable to meet their basic needs, much less

resolve a warrant, a case of mistaken identity, or an error

in the warrant database. Completely cutting off SSI benefits

will leave people with little recourse to resolve an

outstanding warrant, representing a step backward in

bipartisan efforts towards criminal justice reform.

By relying on databases of outstanding arrest warrants,

this proposal seeks to punish people by presuming their

guilt, undermining the presumption of innocence that is the

bedrock of our criminal justice system. The existence of an

arrest warrant does not establish that any criminal conduct

has occurred. Many arrests do not result in criminal charges,

or the charges are eventually dismissed. Even if an

individual is charged and subsequently prosecuted, he or she

is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The proposed offset also will have a disproportionate

impact on people of color. People who are on probation are

particularly susceptible to having an outstanding arrest

warrant. Parolees and probationers are disproportionately

people of color--in 2015, 13% of adults on probation were

Hispanic, and 30% of adults on probation were African

American.

Finally, the proposed offset could harm some of the very

same children who we seek to help through home visiting. In

any given month, approximately 2.7 million children are

estimated to live with a family member who is a senior or

adult with a disability who receives SSI. These children's

families are overwhelmingly the same types of families served

by the MIECHV program: over 3 in 5 families with a SSI

recipient age 18 or older have a total family income below

150% of the federal poverty level, and SSI makes up on

average about 40 percent of these families' income. Cutting

off SSI income would put families at risk of being unable to

keep a roof over their heads, put food on the table, and meet

other basic needs--including children's and mothers' health

needs.

H.R. 2824 would also harm Social Security beneficiaries--

since over half of SSI recipients who are elderly, and almost

one-third of SSI recipients with disabilities, are Social

Security beneficiaries.

In closing, we reiterate that although the MIECHV program

has demonstrated beneficial outcomes, and reauthorization

must be a priority, it should not come at the expense of cuts

to SSI, which would harm seniors, adolescents and adults with

disabilities, and their families, and should not be raided as

a pay-for for an unrelated program. We urge the U.S. Congress

to reject any proposals to offset the costs of reauthorizing

the MIECHV program by cutting SSI benefits.

Sincerely,

National Organizations

AFL-CIO; AFSCME; Aging Life Care Association; Alliance for

Children's Rights; Alliance for Retired Americans; American

Academy of Pediatrics; American Psychological Association;

Association of Jewish Aging Services; Association of

University Centers

on Disabilities; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Center

for American Progress; Center for Law and Social Policy

(CLASP); Coalition on Human Needs; Consortium for Citizens

with Disabilities Social Security Task Force; Defending

Rights and Dissent; Easterseals; Economic Policy Institute

Policy Center; FedCURE; FORGE, Inc.; Gray Panthers.

Hand in Hand: The Domestic Employers Network; Harm

Reduction Coalition; Institute for Science and Human Values;

Justice in Aging; Justice Strategies; Latinos for a Secure

Retirement; Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights;

League of United Latin American Citizens; Legal Services for

Prisoners with Children; Lutheran Services in America

Disability Network; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and

Educational Fund, Inc.; National Alliance on Mental Illness;

National Association of Disability Representatives; National

Black Justice Coalition; National Center for Lesbian Rights;

National Center for Transgender Equality; National Committee

to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; National Council of

Churches; National Disability Rights Network.

National Employment Law Project; National LGBTQ Task Force

Action Fund; National Organization for Women; National

Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives

(NOSSCR); National Women's Law Center; Paralyzed Veterans of

America; People Demanding Action; PolicyWorks, Inc.; Polio

Survivors Association; Prison CONversation; Rainbow PUSH

Coalition; Resources for Independent Living; Root & Rebound;

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Service

Employees International Union; Social Security Works;

StoptheDrugWar.org; The Arc of the United States; Union for

Reform Judaism.

State/Local Organizations

2-1-1 California; ABD Productions/Skywatchers; ADAPT

Montana; Alameda County Community Food Bank; Berkeley Food

Network; BNICEH (Black Network In Children's Emotional

Health); California Association of Food Banks; California

Association of Public Authorities for In-Home Supportive

Services; California Church IMPACT; California Council of the

Blind; California Food Policy Advocates; California In-Home

Supportive Services Consumer Alliance; California Office of

the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman; California OneCare;

California Partnership; Californians for Disability Rights,

Inc.; Californians for SSI; Center for Independence of the

Disabled, NY; Coalition of California Welfare Rights

Organizations; Columbia Legal Services.

Community Legal Services of Philadelphia; Community Service

Society of New York; Communities Actively Living Independent

& Free; Disability Law Center, Massachusetts; Disability Law

Center, Utah; Disability Policy Consortium of Massachusetts;

Disability Rights California; DisAbility Rights Idaho;

Disability Rights New Jersey; Disability Rights North

Carolina; Disability Rights Wisconsin; Empire Justice Center;

Friends In Deed; GetTogether Adult Day Health Care Center;

Homeboy Industries; Hunger Action Los Angeles; IMPRUVE

(Independent Movement of Paratransit Riders for Unity,

Vehicles, Equality); Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles;

Kentucky Protection and Advocacy; Legal Aid Society of San

Mateo County.

Legal Council for Health Justice; Little Tokyo Service

Center; MFY Legal Services, Inc.; National Association of

Social Workers, California Chapter; Northern California

ADAPT; Ohio Association of Local Reentry Coalitions; Personal

Assistance Services Council; Public Counsel; PUEBLO People

United For a Better Life in Oakland; Pushing Limits Radio

(KPFA); Rubicon Programs; San Francisco Senior & Disability

Action; Senior and Disabled Fund of San Bernardino County;

Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County; Sonoma County

Homeless Action!; St. Anthony Foundation; St. Mary's Center;

UC Hastings Community Justice Clinics' Individual

Representation Clinic; Urban Justice Center; Western Center

on Law and Poverty.

In addition, let me share with you the reality of this: Rosa Martinez. Yes, the Social Security Administration was doing this before, but they had to stop it.

We are now reigniting it because Rosa Martinez filed a suit in 2008. She was a 52-year-old disabled woman from Redwood, California, who received a notice from SSA last December that she was losing her only source of income, her disability benefits, because of a 1980 arrest warrant for a drug offense in Miami, Florida.

Ms. Martinez has never been to Miami, has never been arrested, and has never used illegal drugs. In addition, she is 8 inches shorter than the Rosa Martinez identified in the warrant.

Do you want this random, reckless cutting off of SSI benefits because of misidentification? Identity theft is rampant. So this bill is failed, it is a failure, and it has a number of Achilles' heels that will not work.

The bill will also increase mass incarceration. We should allow law enforcement to do their job. I don't mind giving them the tools that they need, but I refuse to allow individuals to suffer because of this very abusive bill.

I kneeled on this floor because of injustice. This is a bill that is full of injustices.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2792.

I oppose this bill for the following reasons:

SSI is a needs-based program for people with limited income and resources.

It will terminate essential benefits of poor people.

It will deprive poor people of due process.

It will increase mass incarceration.

My amendment would have remedied these criminal justice defects in H.R. 2792, which struck the arrest warrant language because (1) it recklessly targets vulnerable and innocent individuals; (2) this bill deprives citizens of due process, particularly where many poor individuals are completely unaware of any pending warrant, and (3) there have been cases in which warrants were either decades old or, in many instances, it was a matter of a mistaken identity.

The bill amends the Social Security Act (SSA) to make certain revisions that limit payment of benefits to fugitive felons under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the (SSA), by prohibiting Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments to individuals with an outstanding felony warrant or parole or probation violation.

``Almost none of the individuals who would be affected by this provision are actual fugitives from justice and most of the warrants in question are many years old and involve minor infractions,'' the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities said in a letter to Senators who tried to implement this policy.

This bill is merely a continuation of President Trump's $1.7 trillion budget cuts of programs designed to help the millions of poor and low- income families that need these programs for survival.

Plainly stated, this bill will terminate SSI benefits of very low- income seniors and people with disabilities, because SSI is granted based on financial need.

In creating this bill, the sponsors essentially agree that it is best to incarcerate economically vulnerable people in order to fund the Maternal Infant Early Childhood Home Visiting program (MIECHV).

As the Center for Law and Social Policy, a nonprofit group focused on low-income Americans, previously reported of the Trump's budget scheme, this bill would likewise, create an overall assault on a wide range of ordinary Americans for the purpose of providing tax cuts to the wealthiest.

My Democratic colleagues on Ways and Means offered amendments to fully pay for a 5-year reauthorization of the MIECHV program and doubling the funding by closing a tax loophole called the ``stretch IRA''. Republicans however, would not let my colleagues vote on those amendments.

My amendment and those of my colleagues would have made this bad bill a lot more palatable.

Instead, the Republicans have chosen, once again, to lock people up, and do so in a manner that deprives poor people of their sole source of income, while purporting to safeguard against fugitive felons that are recipients of these SSI benefits.

This bill is unnecessary because under current law, SSI and Social Security payments are already prohibited to people fleeing prosecution or confinement.

Most alarming, this bill will terminate these benefits without any judicial determination of guilt, and thus, usurping recipients' rights to due process.

The presumption of ``innocent until proven guilty'' is the constitutional principle at the bedrock of our criminal justice system. This principle guarantees that the government cannot deprive citizens of their rights without due process of the law.

The bill maintains that payments could be immediately restored once the individual resolves any outstanding issues, a potentially lengthy and time-consuming process.

Ask the thousands of individuals swept under this broad policy if that is true. SSA already tried to implement this very ill-advised policy and it resulted in thousands of court challenges in 2009 forcing the agency to repay billions of dollars it had withheld from people deemed fugitives.

For example, Miami resident Joseph Sutrynowics' Social Security Disability Insurance benefits were halted in 2008 because of a bad check he'd written to cover groceries in Texas more than a decade earlier.

Under this policy, SSA agreed to repay $700 million in benefits that were withheld from 80,000 people whose benefits have been suspended or denied since January 1, 2007 in the Martinez v. Astrue case. SSA could also, reportedly, repay close to $1 billion in benefits to 140,000 individuals in the Clark v. Astrue case.

We have already tried this before and failed miserably. Let us not waste tax payers' money in litigation, while causing poor folks to go

hungry. As the old adage says: ``don't continue to do the same thing and expect a different result, that's insanity''.

Past experiences proved that this policy was detrimental then, and it is so now. It will further exacerbate the epic tragedy of mass incarceration, and the attendant costs incurred by taxpayers, particularly in the well-documented higher cost of incarcerating the elderly and those in poor health.

Even conservative coalitions like Freedom Works, American Conservative Union Foundation, Generation Opportunity, and Taxpayers Protection Alliance agreed that mass incarceration is extremely costly to taxpayers.

In addition to tax dollars in litigation fees, incarceration cost taxpayers $407.58 per person per day and $148,767 per person per year.

Criminalizing poor individuals, depriving them of their social security income benefits, and increasing the incarceration rate in this fashion will NOT solve the fugitive problem this bill purports it will do.

In fact, this bill will expand existing problems of mass incarceration by increasing the likelihood for recidivism. Statistics show that incarceration does not serve as deterrence, nor does it keep our communities safe.

For the reasons stated above, I oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 533, I call up the bill (H.R. 2792) to amend the Social Security Act to make certain revisions to provisions limiting payment of benefits to fugitive felons under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the Social Security Act, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2792, the Control of Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017. In 1996, Congress and President Clinton worked together to reform welfare and reignite the American Dream for families in need.

Aligned with this goal was a provision prohibiting a range of welfare benefits--including Supplemental Security Income--to fugitive felons and violators of probation and parole because safety net programs need to be protected from abuse so they can remain in place for those individuals who need them.

Individuals who evade justice violate the social contract that grants them this safety net. Simply put, it is incoherent and self-defeating that a nation of laws would pay a wanted person and prolong their flight from justice. Unfortunately, due to a number of factors involving the courts, these provisions have been watered down in recent years and rendered ineffectual.

Through the CUFF Act, Congress can stand up, once again, on behalf of our communities and affirm what every participant in our society should understand: if you have an outstanding warrant for your arrest, you have an obligation to face justice or clear your name.

This legislation not only stops benefits from going to those who are not following the law, but it also helps law enforcement apprehend those suspects. A 2007 report by SSA's inspector general found that this policy aided law enforcement in apprehending almost 60,000 individuals who were evading arrest for outstanding warrants. In fact, law enforcement thinks this policy is so effective that the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the South Dakota Sheriffs' Association have expressed support for the CUFF Act.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that this commonsense bill is endorsed by law enforcement and has a proven track record of success, I anticipate that my colleagues across the aisle may try to convince you otherwise.

I have heard many of their arguments when the Ways and Means Committee considered this bill and when the Rules Committee also considered this bill.

So let's take each of those concerns in turn.

Some may say that this is an old, failed policy.

In reality, this policy has a long track record of success. In 2015, the Social Security inspector general said, at a hearing, that this bill would stop hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to individuals with felony warrants.

Some may say this bill targets people with outdated warrants.

In reality, SSA already has a wide authority to exempt individuals if the alleged offense is nonviolent and not drug related.

Some may say that this bill would throw beneficiaries off the rolls with no warning. In reality, the SSA provides beneficiaries advance notice of 35 days before suspending SSI benefits, and there is a robust appeal process for recipients who have had their benefits suspended.

Some may say that this policy is burdensome to law enforcement. In reality, this bill is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the South Dakota Sheriffs' Association because it helps them do their job to locate individuals.

Finally, some may raise concerns that it targets minority populations caught up in overcriminalization or overly harsh sentencing. To those concerns, I say that these issues are absolutely important, and I look forward to us having those conversations about criminal justice reforms here in Congress. However, that conversation is outside the scope of the legislation that we have before us today.

My legislation does not speak to the content of a warrant, just the fact that one exists. The decision to grant a warrant is made by a judge in a court of law, not by the Social Security Administration. It should not be the duty of the American taxpayer to subsidize individuals who are wanted by the police.

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, if an individual has an outstanding warrant, it must be addressed and cleared. This bill does nothing to change that.

Under my bill, nobody will lose their SSI benefits because of misdemeanor offenses such as merely having a parking ticket, petty theft, or even driving under the influence. This bill stops payments to individuals who have outstanding warrants for felonies. These are crimes like murder, rape, and kidnapping. It also stops payments to individuals with probation and parole violations, limiting their ability to evade arrest.

Supplemental Security Income is a lifeline to those who are in need. We must ensure we are not further facilitating criminal activity in communities that are all too often already struggling.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the time that we are spending to consider this important legislation, and I appreciate the opportunity to stand in support of my bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters of support. One is from the over 330,000 members of the National Fraternal Order of Police, and the other is from the National Sheriffs' Association.

National Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, June 29, 2017.

Hon. Kristi L. Noem,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Samuel R. Johnson,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives Noem and Johnson: I am writing on

behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to

advise you of our support for H.R. 2792, the ``Control

Unlawful Fugitive Felons (CUFF) Act.''

In August 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act into

law, which restricted the eligibility of fugitive felons, and

probation and parole violators for Social Security benefits.

The Social Security Administration's Office of the Inspector

General (OIG) reported that this law has contributed to over

59,000 arrests since the inception of the program in 1996.

However, three different court decisions have eroded the

law's effectiveness and the original intent of Congress,

allowing fugitives to continue to collect benefits while on

the run. This legislation will restore the original intent of

the law by prohibiting an individual who is the subject of an

outstanding arrest warrant for a felony or parole violation

from receiving Social Security benefits.

The legislation will apply only to felony charges and amend

the Social Security Act to make clear that the suspension of

benefits is not just in cases of ``escape, flight to avoid

prosecution, or confinement, and flight-escape.'' The

American taxpayer should not be forced to support those who

are evading justice.

On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal

Order of Police, thank you for your support for law

enforcement. If I can be of any further assistance, please do

not hesitate to contact me or Jim Pasco, my Senior Advisor,

in my Washington office.

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury,

National President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify exactly what this legislation does.

This legislation will take SSI benefits from individuals and stop those payments to those who have felony arrest warrants or who have violated their probation and parole.

I want to go through the process so that everybody recognizes that there is plenty of time for individuals to go through the appeal process. Notice is given if there is a warrant that they need to get rectified with the jurisdiction that has authority. So let me step through this process.

Step one is through the Office of Inspector General. Law enforcement agencies give OIG information about individuals who have outstanding felony arrest warrants or who are violating conditions of probation or parole.

Then OIG compares this information to its computer files of individuals receiving these dollars or serving as representative payees. If there is a match, OIG verifies the identity of the individual, ensures that the warrants for the individual are still active, works with local law enforcement to attempt to locate the person, and then OIG refers the cases to SSA to begin the suspension process.

When this process gets to the Social Security Administration, SSA sends an advance notice to the individual. This notice proposes the suspension of benefit payments and informs the individual of their right to appeal the suspension decision, payment continuation, and the timeframe to take such actions after receiving the advance notice.

This notice includes why the SSA is suspending benefits and where, why, and when the warrant was issued. If SSA finds out, through a data match, 35 days is given for the individual to protest. If the individual protests, SSA will not suspend benefits until it figures out if the individual qualifies for a good cause exception. If the individual does not appeal his or her advance notice, then the SSA will suspend the benefits.

If the individual does appeal and gives his or her advance notice and provides evidence for the payment continuation, the SSA verifies the evidence and then continues the payments.

Other things that we should know about this legislation and what this includes is that warrants may only be resolved in the issuing jurisdiction. Grounds for dismissal of a warrant include identity theft, administrative error, and the individual's own move from the jurisdiction, especially if low income.

Warrants for misdemeanors remain warrants for misdemeanors and cannot become felonies. There is also latitude for the Commissioner to make decisions in special areas where there may be something to be considered, such as dementia or low-income abilities.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been thoroughly vetted. We are making sure that the only people who are denied their SSI benefits are those who have felony warrants for their arrest or have violated probation or parole and have not gotten straight with law enforcement and rectified that past infraction.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I live in the State of South Dakota. I have some of the poorest counties in the Nation in my State, and they happen to be my Native American Tribes. They face 80 to 90 percent unemployment, poverty like no other place in the country, and they are isolated. They also have very high drug and crime rates.

In fact, we have seen a record number of murders in these communities, especially on the Pine Ridge Reservation, in this calendar year, and it is deeply discouraging and disheartening to me to think of someone who could have committed a murder in one of my communities in the State of South Dakota, that there is a felony warrant out for their arrest, and that we may not be able to find them. This bill will fix that situation.

If that individual is receiving SSI payments, that helps law enforcement locate those individuals who have gone out and committed crimes against innocent people. Rape, murder, kidnapping, they all happen in my Native

American Tribes, and this helps law enforcement find them and bring them to justice. It is one of the important things that this legislation will help us do in some of our most vulnerable communities.

I also recognize that the previous speaker talked about the fact that we need criminal justice reforms, and that is a very good debate that we should be having in Congress. But this is not the bill to talk about criminal justice reforms because this is not germane to the discussion that we are having today.

I wanted to speak for a minute on what is good cause because there is latitude for good cause within statute today, and I think there is some confusion as to exactly how this bill would be interpreted when it is signed into law.

In some cases, the SSI will not suspend or seek an overpayment of payments for good cause exceptions. There are two types of good cause exceptions that already exist in statute. The mandatory good cause exception is the SSA cannot suspend payments if a court has found an individual not guilty or has dismissed charges. If a court has vacated the warrant or issued any similar exoneration, then they cannot suspend payments. They also cannot suspend payments if there is a mistaken identity due to identity fraud.

The other exception in statute today is discretionary good cause exceptions. The SSA may suspend benefits for mitigating circumstances under two options:

Option A is the individual must prove that the criminal offense was nonviolent and not drug related. We also have that the individual has not been convicted of a felony crime since the warrant was issued, and the other point is that the law enforcement agency that issued the warrant reports that it will not act on the warrant. That is other exceptions for good cause.

Option B, the individual must prove all of these factors: if the criminal offense was nonviolent and not drug related; the individual has not been convicted of a felony crime since the warrant was issued; the warrant is the existing warrant and was issued 10 or more years ago and the individual lacks the mental capacity to resolve the warrant, which includes those living in a nursing home or mental treatment facility.

So as we have listened to opponents of this bill talk, they have discussed all of these issues as to how these benefits could be taken away from individuals that are clearly covered by good cause exceptions that are already in statute, and those situations are not relevant to the debate that we are having today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers should not be subsidizing those who have felony warrants for their arrest or violating parole and probation.

I wanted to remind everyone today that in 1996, the same provision was amended into other programs that we have at the Federal Government level. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families--cash welfare--has these same provisions included in that program.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--SNAP or food stamps--has these same provisions in the program. Housing programs, such as public housing, Section 8 vouchers, project-based Section 8, all have these same provisions in that program.

In addition, there are similar provisions added to Social Security disability and retirement programs, and the Department of Veterans Affairs benefits has this same provision that we are putting back into statute today when it comes to SSI payments.

Mr. Speaker, you can clearly see that this is bringing this program up to the same level of accountability to taxpayers and not subsidizing those who commit crimes against innocent individuals, and is an entirely appropriate debate here today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources. I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to remind everyone that the bill we are debating here today would suspend SSI benefits for those who have felony warrants for their arrest and those who have violated probation or parole. That is the discussion that we are having here today. And let's go back over, in summary, what the policy actually does and says.

This policy should not be thought of in isolation. This is part of a larger effort to reauthorize the evidence-based, outcome-focused Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program.

H.R. 2824, which passed this Chamber on Tuesday, will be joined with this bill upon passage. It helps to improve the lives of families in at-risk communities, focusing on the first years of a child's life.

Unlike most Federal social programs, MIECHV funding is tied to real results, which ensures limited taxpayer dollars are actually delivering the intended results and helping those that are most in need.

Under current law, the program is 100 percent federally funded, but H.R. 2824 introduces a Federal match similar to what States must already do in other social programs, such as foster care,

Medicaid, child support enforcement, childcare, and others. The rest of the package ensures this program remains a shining example of evidence- based policy by expecting the program to continue to demonstrate effective outcomes. That reauthorization is fully offset by the bill that we are considering here today, H.R. 2792.

Instead of focusing on our Nation's debt, we should be doing more of what we are doing right here in these bills: prioritizing Federal spending and focusing on what works by improving the integrity of one program to provide funding for another.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the CUFF Act is commonsense. The American taxpayer should not subsidize individuals who are fleeing from law enforcement.

Because the Social Security Administration already possesses in place processes that will ensure due process and protect beneficiaries, claims about this bill are overblown and, quite frankly, they are wrong.

I am proud that this bill is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the South Dakota Sheriffs' Association.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2824.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2824, the Increasing Opportunity and Success for Children and Parents Through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act. This bill would reauthorize the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, known as MIECHV, for 5 years and make sure the program continues to focus on results.

I would like to note, this bill represents the first full reauthorization proposal Congress has considered for this program.

The Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee, which I chair, held a hearing on the program earlier this year. We solicited feedback from stakeholders, marked up a bill in committee, and today we are debating this bill on the floor. This is how Congress is supposed to work, and this bill is an example of Congress getting its work done.

The MIECHV Program helps support State and local efforts to provide voluntary, evidence-based home visiting services to parents and children living in communities that put them at risk of poor social and health outcomes, including in rural areas like those I represent.

Unlike many other programs that focus on money spent or people served, this program focuses on achieving real results for families. Specifically, this program promotes school readiness of young children, increases economic self-sufficiency of families, improves prenatal health and birth outcomes, and prevents childhood abuse and neglect.

Madam Chair, I have had the opportunity to see firsthand what home visiting looks like. In March, I spent time in Nebraska with the Panhandle Public Health District's Healthy Families America program in western Nebraska. The program focuses on improving the economic success and school readiness of vulnerable children and families in three Nebraska counties: Scotts Bluff, Morrill, and Box Butte.

During my visit, I met with Dawn, one of the program participants, who told me what it was like for her to work with a home visitor. Her home visitor helped her find a stable home and a steady income to provide for her growing family. These are the types of outcomes we should be expecting when we have programs to help those who are struggling to get ahead.

MIECHV works because funding is tied to evidence. Unfortunately, MIECHV is the exception, as few Federal social programs have been evaluated at all, and almost none condition funding on evidence of whether the program actually works.

In the Better Way agenda put forward by House Republicans last year, we proposed doing more of what MIECHV does: measuring how well programs are working to focus funding on those which produce real results. When we spend limited taxpayer dollars to help those in need, we must make sure we are spending money on effective programs. To do otherwise is a disservice to both taxpayers as well as those we are seeking to help.

On March 15 of this year, the Human Resources Subcommittee held a hearing on MIECHV. In the hearing, we heard from those with firsthand experience with home visiting programs, and their input was invaluable as we developed this proposal.

Both before and after the hearing, we sought input from States and others about how the program was working and how it could be improved and strengthened. These conversations also informed the bill before us today.

I should also note, there is broad bipartisan support for MIECHV, including from dozens of national organizations and hundreds of State and local organizations, including business leaders, law enforcement officers, faith-based groups, healthcare providers, child welfare advocacy organizations, and early education providers.

While I understand some of my colleagues would like to continue this program or even increase its funding without an offset, under the rules that govern this Chamber and our current deficits, it would be irresponsible and against the rules of this Chamber to fund this program without finding ways to reduce spending elsewhere. That is why we are considering this as part of a package of two bills today: this bill and the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017, which will be considered later this week during its own debate.

Instead of increasing our Nation's debt, we should be doing more of what we are doing here today: prioritizing Federal spending and focusing on what works by improving the integrity of one program to provide funding for another.

Madam Chair, I am grateful for the time we are spending here today to consider the reauthorization of this important program, and I appreciate the opportunity to stand in support of this bill today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, September 18, 2017.

Hon. Kevin Brady,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Brady: I write concerning H.R. 2824,

Increasing Opportunity through

Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act, which was additionally

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I wanted to notify you that the Committee will forgo action

on H.R. 2824 so that it may proceed expeditiously to the

House floor for consideration. This is done with the

understanding that the Committee's jurisdictional interests

over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or

altered. In addition, the Committee reserves the right to

seek conferees on H.R. 2824 and requests your support when

such a request is made.

I would appreciate your response confirming this

understanding with respect to H.R. 2824 and ask that a copy

of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the

House floor.

Sincerely,

Greg Walden,

Chairman.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Madam Chair, I just want to add for the Record that the State of Florida matches their funds more than 2 to 1 already, so I am anxious to present the data here as it becomes necessary and is helpful to the exchange here.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I would like to take this time to thank my colleagues for taking the time to consider the reauthorization of this important program.

The MIECHV Program has bipartisan support due to its focus on achieving real results for families. This program works because its funding is tied to real evidence. It is imperative that we continue this program in a responsible way, partnering with States to increase the program's success.

I might repeat that for emphasis. It is imperative that we continue this program in a responsible way--a reasonable way, I will add--as we partner with States to increase the program's success. This bill shows how we can prioritize our Federal spending, focusing on programs with evidence that shows they actually work.

I look forward to moving this bill forward to reauthorize the MIECHV Program so more Americans can get the help they need to get ahead.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, this amendment seeks to establish a careful balance between two competing views in regards to where and how home visiting programs

should be operated. The law requires States to operate home visiting programs in areas of highest need. However, some States expressed concern that they have been required to operate home visiting programs in areas where they were likely to fail, as they were not permitted to take into account staff and community resources and other requirements of a home visiting model when choosing where to operate.

In the bill I introduced with my colleagues, we allowed States to take these considerations into account, and States were generally pleased with this change. However, since the introduction of the bill, we have received additional feedback that some changes might be needed to make sure States could take into account these factors but not simply avoid serving actual areas with the highest need, including rural areas and remote areas that I represent, as well as others.

During the Ways and Means markup of this bill, Representative Sewell offered an amendment to address this problem. Although we did not include her actual amendment in the reported bill, as we did not have enough time to review it and consider any unintended consequences, Representative Sewell and I have been able to review her proposal since the markup and discuss its implications. I am pleased today to offer this bipartisan amendment to address the concerns she and others have raised.

Specifically, this amendment, combined with the language in the underlying bill, allows States to take into account staffing, community resources, and other requirements when determining how to operate their home visiting programs, while requiring that they operate at least one home visiting model in those communities with a high need for services. This ensures States do not shy away from some of the most difficult areas, which are often those that need home visiting services the most.

I am glad we have been able to work together on this bipartisan amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment as well as the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, I am grateful that Ms. Sewell and I could work together to come up with this amendment. I certainly urge its adoption as we do move forward with the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, since the creation of the MIECHV Program, States have been required to demonstrate their home visiting programs result in measurable improvements in six benchmark areas specified in the law.

One of the benchmark areas States can choose to focus on is ``improvements in family economic self-sufficiency.'' Yet, as the result of changes made last year under the prior Presidential administration, ``economic self-sufficiency'' no longer means what you think it means--increasing work and earnings. Instead, it was defined as whether you have health insurance or are in school.

Clearly, this is not what Congress meant when the program was created and included the concept of economic self-sufficiency. So this bill would make sure that States, if they choose to focus on family economic self-sufficiency as one of the four benchmarks of the six, would measure employment and earnings as a part of that metric.

Again, States can choose among six different benchmarks when they decide which home visiting programs to operate and what goals they would like to achieve within those previously established by Congress. They don't have to choose this metric, as I mentioned earlier. However, when they do explicitly set out to increase economic self-sufficiency-- emphasis on the economic--information on work and earnings must be part of what is measured to determine whether they have achieved their goal. I believe it is absolutely critical that this intent be restored in the law.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment as well as support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, that is designed to serve families with young children living in communities at risk of a range of negative outcomes.

Today, HHS allocates money for MIECHV based on the share of children under age 5 in families at or below 100 percent of the Federal poverty line living in each State and territory.

It is imperative that the distribution of funds is done using the most accurate and up-to-date information so we can use our limited resources to target those most in need.

I thank the sponsors of this amendment, Representatives Murphy, Gonzalez-Colon, and Velazquez, for bringing this issue to our attention and for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment and the underlying bill so that we can help children.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of H.R. 2824, the Increasing Opportunity Through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act; and H.R. 2792, the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017.

The first measure, H.R. 2824, reauthorizes the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, or MIECHV, and provides pregnant women and families access to resources to improve maternal and child health and promotes child development.

I am glad to see this bill getting the attention that I think we all agree it deserves, considering the important role the program plays in all of our communities. However, my concern is that, once again, we are witnessing my Republican friends take a policy that should garner broad, bipartisan support and instead scuttle the effort by playing politics.

H.R. 2824's State matching provision is a threat to the core existence of this program. Because of this change from the past authorization, I fear that many States will lose Federal funding and will be forced to cut off home visiting services altogether.

Where do you propose poorer States with lower investments in home visiting get the money to meet the matching requirements?

Then, Mr. Speaker, what about Tribal programs? They are especially vulnerable to the devastation that will be wrought by making them come up with a 30 percent match. Native American communities struggle enough, as it is, without having to put up with these absurd requirements.

I do compliment Mrs. Noem for fighting along with our colleague on the Rules Committee, Tom Cole, for a 5-year hiatus before they would have to make the match. But as one who represents two Tribes, the Seminoles and the Miccosukees, I don't even think, after 5 years, their vulnerability to devastation is going to be avoided.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why are my Republican colleagues again choosing to abandon bipartisanship in favor of partisan politics?

Our goals should be to reauthorize the vital program, not change long-established and successful policies that will hurt the most vulnerable in our country.

This program, as traditionally reauthorized, puts families first in order to strengthen communities and improve outcomes for kids and their families. Without the MIECHV Program, at-risk families will suffer.

I strongly support moving quickly to reauthorize this program before it expires on September 30, 2017. But adding a provision that will make it impossible for many States to fully participate in this program is not only not the way forward, it is downright dangerous.

The second measure is H.R. 2792. It is a sidecar bill, as its only purpose in being considered is to offset the cost of the MIECHV Program.

H.R. 2792 would reinstate an old, failed policy that had damaging effects for many seniors and people with disabilities by taking away Supplemental Security Income benefits from every individual who has an outstanding felony warrant, regardless of the seriousness of the alleged violation, the age of the warrant, or the condition of the recipient.

Mr. Speaker, over 110 national, State, and local organizations have warned that H.R. 2792 is a cruel bill that could have catastrophic consequences for some of our most vulnerable citizens.

Everyone can agree that dangerous criminals should not receive public benefits while fleeing justice. In fact, the Social Security Administration already provides regular notification to law enforcement of any beneficiary who has an outstanding warrant. This bill, on the other hand, despite its title, would harm seniors and people with severe disabilities, not felons.

Mr. Speaker, a larger issue at hand is not simply the dangerous policy changes in the first bill, nor the failed unnecessary policy found in the second, but rather the partisan manner in which these bills are being considered, especially in the face of the laundry list of items that this body needs to urgently address in a bipartisan manner.

We do not have the luxury of time to debate the majority's attempts to legislate failed and dangerous policies that will threaten families.

We should be acting in the most exigent fashion to address issues such as ascertaining the full scope of Hurricane Maria's devastation on Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and what we need to do to make our brothers and sisters in those areas whole again.

We should not be spending our time taking a partisan approach to a program that provides pregnant women and families access to resources to improve maternal and child health. Rather, we should be working across the aisle to address the real pressing issues facing our country.

Congress should be addressing the plight of the millions of American citizens living in total devastation in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Five days after Hurricane Maria decimated what Hurricane Irma had spared, 15,000 people remain in government shelters, thousands of homes are destroyed, roads are blocked, bridges buckled, and a dam in Puerto Rico is on the edge of collapse, threatening the lives of nearly 70,000 people with flash flooding. Two hospitals in the Virgin Islands have been destroyed, and lest I

not mention that we have not dealt adequately with what is required in Texas and in southwest Louisiana and in Florida.

Today, in my office, numerous representatives of government officials and organizations came to present issues concerning ongoing matters having to do with their concerns in our area. The Speaker of the House and the chairman of appropriations were with several of us in the Florida delegation last week to review and view the damage that has occurred in the Keys. And here we are, rather than dealing with a humanitarian crisis as towns are left without fresh water, power, and fuel, we are dealing with a dangerous bill that will address vulnerable people in a negative way.

Officials reported that 1,360 of Puerto Rico's 1,600 telephone cell towers are down. The same holds in the Virgin Islands. With 85 percent of aboveground and underground phone and internet cables knocked out-- the same in the Virgin Islands--officials still had not had communication with 9 of the 78 municipalities. It has been difficult or nearly impossible for individuals to reach or connect with their loved ones.

Let me make something very clear that many Members of the House do not understand. Everybody cries that FEMA should do all of the things that we would want it to do as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but FEMA today is dealing with 30 disasters in this country.

I sat here a moment ago and heard our colleague from Montana describe over a million acres of fire ongoing there. In southern California, there is an extraordinary fire that is taking place in that particular area.

This devastation, these disasters as in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and elsewhere are only cracks of the service of the long to-do list that Congress is confronted with. The list is long and time is short.

In addition to the MIECHV program, which the majority has decided to undermine here today, at the end of the week, the Children's Health and Insurance Program--CHIP, the Children's Health and Insurance Program-- Medicare provisions, and the Community Health Centers Fund all expire without any discussion at all in this House. We are leaving not only our constituents, young and old, and the American people in a quandary about their health insurance or treatment facilities, but adding unnecessary anxiety to their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the snowball is only going to grow with the end of the calendar year looming right around the corner.

Let me just remind my colleagues in the majority what needs to be addressed by December 8: reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program--I don't know what that was yesterday that they were trying to do with the FAA authorization--an absolute necessity in the wake of these devastating storms; keeping the government open and EPA pesticide registration fees. And by the end of the year, we must also act to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, which we now know plays a critical role in the fundamental aspects of our democracy.

The Affordable Care Act's annual fee on health insurance providers needs to be addressed, important for the health of the marketplace, and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund financing rate.

Now, Democrats stand ready to work in a bipartisan fashion to address each and every one of the matters that I just talked about, and all of them must pass pieces of legislation. What we are witnessing today is a clear indication that my Republican friends do not share the same spirit, but would rather play politics.

Let me just add one little bit about that. In the other body, the United States Senate, we saw an example of partisan politics play out to its extreme, and it is not likely that there is going to be an important measure dealing with the healthcare of Americans coming from the United States Senate back to this body that passed something that was an awful bill earlier in the year.

But what did it do?

It caused Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray, who were working on bipartisan measures, to stop their bipartisan efforts so that we could go forward in the Senate on a partisan measure that is going nowhere. People sent us here to work together. They did not send us here to be partisan in every one of our moves. What we are witnessing here today is another example of partisanship.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague will support the DelBene amendment, which will eliminate the matching funds for Tribes altogether. I mentioned that earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is shameful that President Trump would end the DACA program without a single thought to the consequences

this decision would have on the 800,000 young lives this program protects.

Do the American people even want DACA to end?

The answer is clearly no.

According to a Politico/Morning Consult poll: ``Support for allowing these immigrants to remain in the United States spans across party lines: 84 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Independents, and 69 percent of Republicans think they should stay.''

Congress must act to protect our DREAMers.

Well, Mr. Speaker, here is our chance to rectify President Trump's heartless decision and restore the American people's faith in us. If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, through the Chair, I would advise my friend from Texas that I have no further speakers and that I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We stand here today with a to-do list a mile long, and we don't have much time to cross items off that list. By kicking the can down the road on nearly every past piece of legislation, this Republican majority has shown itself completely unable to govern. They have abdicated their duty to the American people to accomplish even the most basic of legislative tasks: passing a budget. Without Democratic help, they wouldn't be able to even keep the lights on.

My sincere hope is that the next time we meet we will take up legislation that provides some much-needed relief to our brothers and sisters in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, as well as my home State of Florida and Texas and southwest Louisiana; and address the other disasters that are occurring throughout our country, more specifically having to do with wildfires in Montana, in Oregon, and in California; and that we will begin the process of addressing every single one of the needs of this Nation, particularly its health and its healthcare in a bipartisan way.

My colleagues on this side of the aisle stand ready to do so. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 533 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 533 provides for the consideration of two bills which were reported by the House Ways and Means Committee.

For the first bill, H.R. 2792, the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order and makes in order no further amendments to the legislation. However, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit.

For H.R. 2824, the Increasing Opportunity and Success for Children and Parents through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The Rules Committee made in order four amendments to H.R. 2824, one Republican amendment, two Democratic amendments, and one bipartisan amendment. Finally, the rule provides for the customary motion to recommit with or without instructions.

H.R. 2792, the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017, amends the Social Security Act to give the Social Security Administration the necessary tools to prevent Federal benefits and payments from being made to persons who are actually on the run from the law.

Many people might hear this and think: Why would the government ever continue to pay someone who is actively fleeing from law enforcement?

It is a legitimate question, and it has an unfortunate answer.

In 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act into law. One major provision of this reform bill was a restriction on the ability of fugitive felons and probation and parole violators from receiving Social Security benefits.

Similar provisions have been included in other Federal entitlement programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. This policy was expanded in 2004, with the passage of the Social Security Protection Act.

However, subsequent to the passage of these commonsense reforms, several judges in cases from the mid-2000s ruled that the Social Security Administration's interpretation of these provisions was too broad and limited the Social Security Administration's ability to curtail payments to three narrow categories of fugitives, namely: escape, flight to avoid prosecution or confinement, and flight escape.

The bill before the House today, H.R. 2792, would restore Congress' original intent to the reforms passed under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. Specifically, H.R. 2792 would prohibit an individual who is the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant for a felony or parole violation from receiving monthly Social Security income payments. This applies only to felony charges or a crime carrying a minimum term of 1 year or more in prison.

This legislation would not punish individuals convicted of a misdemeanor, such as outstanding parking tickets. In fact, some people have falsely claimed that.

Individuals who have potentially committed a felony or a parole violation should not be able to use taxpayer dollars to evade capture. Providing the Social Security Administration with the tools in H.R. 2792 is a commonsense way to show that the Federal Government is sincere in its commitment to being a good steward of Federal taxpayer dollars. The Social Security benefits can be restored once the individual resolves the outstanding issues related to his or her warrant or parole violation.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from South Dakota, Kristi Noem, for her work on this legislation, and I urge Members of the House to support this worthy bill.

The second bill in today's rule, H.R. 2824, the Increasing Opportunity Through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act, extends funding for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, which is more commonly referred to as MIECHV.

The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program is an important program that provides low-income families with opportunities to receive home-visiting services to help support a child's first years. These services range from prenatal care to early childhood services and allow for children to grow up in healthy homes.

As not only a physician but a physician who specialized in obstetrics and gynecology, I did spend 25 years working with pregnant women and families to help ensure that all mothers could deliver and raise healthy children. As an OB/GYN, I know the best way to ensure that a child succeeds is to invest in long-term services and to ensure that the child receives access to appropriate care.

Because of the Nurse-Family Partnership's work, 90 percent of all babies who are supported by the organization are born full term, 95 percent of those babies receive all their immunizations by 24 months, and nearly 89 percent of those mothers breastfeed their newborns.

These are important milestones for newborn children that can have lasting impacts on their health for the rest of their lives, and it is important that we support initiatives that support vital, lifesaving programs like these.

Furthermore, the program succeeds by not only supporting the health and well-being of children, but by supporting pregnant women and mothers as well. In my home State of Texas, the reported incidence of maternal mortality has increased in recent years, in part, as the State has collected more comprehensive data on causes of death up to a year after childbirth.

While no amount of maternal mortality is ever acceptable, the new data has shown us that the causes for maternal mortality in the State have shifted away from those traditional acute cases that I was familiar with during my residency back in the 1970s. There were illnesses such as pregnancy-induced hypertension, hemorrhage, and infection during pregnancy. Now it is different. We have cardiac disease, suicide, and opioid overdose, which oftentimes occurs in the months after childbirth.

By supporting children in their first years, MIECHV can not only help children live healthy lives, but help mothers live healthy lives as well, so that they can continue to be there for their children.

The MIECHV Program and organizations like the Nurse-Family Partnership succeed because they identify families in need that do not have readily available care and work to provide services in home settings.

Families cannot raise healthy children without access to care. When families cannot find providers in their area, MIECHV grant recipients are there to provide that support.

H.R. 2824 builds upon the successes of the MIECHV Program by tailoring the program to ensure that it can continue to help families that truly need the help.

For example, H.R. 2824 requires for States receiving MIECHV grants to conduct statewide needs assessments by 2020, in order to reaffirm which populations and communities should receive these services. The last time such an assessment was required was in 2010.

As the needs of populations of States have evolved over these past 10 years, so should the program as well. It is important to ensure that tax dollars continue to be invested efficiently, and this bill ensures that MIECHV can continue to do so.

Additionally, H.R. 2824 provides additional opportunities for States to promote quality and enhanced outcomes. The bill updates the program by allowing for States to promote models that will have greater impact on multiple sites and locations, thus expanding the reach of grants and providing States with the opportunity to reimburse grant recipients based on the quality and outcomes associated with their programs.

I certainly want to thank members of the Ways and Means Committee for the work they have put into this bill. It is a smart bill that continues a Federal program for low-income families that actually has evidence of its effectiveness and, furthermore, links future funding to the assurance of greater cost-effectiveness.

This program serves as a model for Federal programs to help low- income families and children. I want to thank Chairman Smith and Chairman Brady for their efforts on this bill.

For these reasons, I encourage everyone in this body to support this rule and the underlying bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk again just for a minute about the second bill in today's rule, H.R. 2824, the Increasing Opportunity and Success for Children and Parents through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act, that does extend funding for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program.

I just wanted to talk for a minute about some of the results that we have seen in these program grants and, at this point, reference my home State of Texas to see how they have performed.

The Nurse-Family Partnership is a community-based home services group that supports pregnant women and new mothers in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. They have used grants from this program to support women through both the promotion of preventive and prenatal services for pregnant women, like connecting women to physicians, helping them get medications, and through the utilization of risk reduction services such as smoking cessation.

Again, I tell you this to reiterate that these are good programs. This is a good program that we are reauthorizing today and it is worthy of our attention and support.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of two important pieces of legislation to restore sanity to the administration of the Social Security program and to provide critical tools for disadvantaged homes in helping families raise their children with the best possible practices.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady, Mrs. Noem, and Mr. Smith for the work on each of their respective pieces of legislation, and I urge Members of this body to support both bills and the rule which will provide for their consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.