[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: January 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
{time} 1500
SSI ABUSE MUST STOP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to bring to the
attention of the Speaker of the House, and the American people, a
serious flaw in our SSI, our disability payments. The taxpayers are
subsidizing, and I repeat, the taxpayers of our country are subsidizing
drug addicts and alcohol abuse addicts through the SSI Program,
unwittingly. We are fostering their habits and keeping them in their
habits.
How is this happening? It appears we have learned from those who
administer the law in this field that under one of the titles of the
Social Security System, a person who, as a worker is deemed to be
disabled and goes on SSI because of his drug addiction, can stay on
that for life and receive SSI benefits for life without any treatment,
while another section of the Social Security program calls for benefits
for drug addicts if they receive treatment, and treatment is made a
condition of receiving the benefits of SSI.
But both of them are failing. Why? Well, on the one hand, as I just
explained, a drug addict can go for life receiving additional moneys
from the taxpayers, and he can further his habit and remain a burden on
society, never once having to seek treatment.
On the other hand, another flaw has occurred. The individual on SSI,
who has to have treatment as part of the conditions, avoids that
treatment in several different ways. Why? Because the law calls for a
representative payee to be the recipient of the moneys for that drug
addict who is supposed to be getting treatment. But the recipient can
be the individual's brother, his bartender, his best friend, anybody
who can be named as representative payee. And what happens is that that
representative payee really turns over the money to that same addict
who can go without treatment again and the system.
We fail in two regards there: We fail to provide treatment for the
addict who really needs it; and second, we see a waste of taxpayers'
money in subsidizing a habit of alcohol or addition to drugs.
My proposal, which will be forthcoming before the Chamber and for
which I request cosponsorship, is always follows. Perhaps we can do it
through a change of regulations, but if not, through a statute that
will do the following:
No. 1, it will make it definitely a condition of payment of SSI
benefits for drug addiction under either title, a condition of that
benefit will be attendance at, and receipt of, treatment at a treatment
center, No. 1.
No. 2, this new set of guidelines will have it solidly stated that a
representative payee no longer can be an individual designated by the
drug addict or the person who is going to receive the benefits, but it
will have to be some facility, some entity that offers drug treatment
and gives that very same treatment that is a condition of the receipt
of the benefits in the first place.
In that way, we will do those two things that the law is intended to
do. We will be providing treatment for those who need it so that they
can get off the drug addiction in the first place and become a hard-
working law-abiding citizen, while at the same time we preserve the
status of the law in providing for representative's payees to be the
institution that will be rendering the treatment.
I hope to prepare such legislation very quickly. But in the meantime,
I am going to ask the Social Security Administration to verify the
loopholes that we have found and to offer suggestions on how we can
quickly close them.
____________________