HR-10557-119
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ)
What it does
The bill would repeal the parts of federal law (31 U.S.C. 3716(c)(3)) that let the government collect old debts by reducing Social Security benefit payments, and would declare those provisions void. It would extend the same protection to Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance benefits. It would apply to any offset collected on or after enactment, including for debts that arose earlier. The bill's title also refers to Black Lung benefits, and other limits may apply.
Who benefits
Social Security beneficiaries, including retirees, disabled workers and survivors, who owe federal debts such as overpayments or defaulted student loans and would no longer see benefits reduced. Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance recipients with similar debts. Low-income older adults who depend on benefits as their main income. Family members who share household finances with affected beneficiaries.
Who is hurt
The Treasury and federal agencies that currently recover money through benefit offsets, such as the Education Department for defaulted student loans and the Social Security Administration for overpayments, and which would lose that collection tool. Taxpayers who may bear the cost of uncollected debts. Debt-collection contractors and programs that rely on offset revenue. Agencies would need to rely on other, possibly slower or less effective, collection methods.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Social Security benefits are meant to cover basic living costs, and that reducing them to repay old debts pushes older and disabled people toward poverty. They contend that Section 207 of the Social Security Act already protects benefits from most creditors, and that offset has hit people with long-ago student loans and overpayments they could not easily repay, as reports from the Government Accountability Office have documented.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the government has a duty to recover money it is owed, and that removing offset would weaken collection of student loans and benefit overpayments, shifting costs to other taxpayers. They contend that offsets already include protected minimum amounts and hardship options, and that a blanket bar, including for debts arising before enactment, could reduce repayment incentives, as budget estimators have noted for collection tools generally.
Constitutional context
Congress's spending power and its authority over federal property and debts under Article I, Section 8 support setting the terms on which the government collects what it is owed. Because the bill would apply to existing claims, it could prompt retroactivity questions, though Flemming v. Nestor (1960) held that Social Security recipients have no accrued property right in benefits that bars Congress from changing the rules.
Checks and balances
Congress would remove a collection tool from the executive branch, namely Treasury and benefit-paying agencies, which would lose offset authority; courts would retain their usual role in reviewing agency collection actions.
Historical precedent
The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 authorized offset of Social Security benefits, reversing earlier limits, and this bill would repeal that authority.