[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of H.R. 3759, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3759) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994,
and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
(1) Brown Amendment No. 1444, to delete funds for the costs
of electronic communications records management activities of
the Executive Office of the President.
(2) Murkowski Amendment No. 1445, to express the sense of
the Senate that Federal spending priorities need to be
reevaluated in light of the recent earthquake in California
and other frequently occurring natural disasters and that the
Presidential Election Campaign Fund checkoff should be
replaced with a checkoff for Federal disaster relief
assistance.
(3) Kerry Amendment No. 1452, to reduce the deficit for
fiscal years 1994 through 1998.
(4) Feingold Amendment No. 1453, to strike provisions
relating to appropriations for international peacekeeping.
(5) Durenberger Amendment No. 1454, to establish a national
disaster relief trust fund in the Treasury.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1452
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, if I may, I would like to say a few
words about amendment No. 1452, an amendment submitted by the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry].
The amendment offered by Senator Kerry would reduce the 1994
appropriations for national defense by about $4 billion. I believe the
Members of this body should recall that Congress has already reduced
DOD's budget in 1994 by more than $18 billion. Moreover, in each and
every year of the past 10 years, Congress has cut the funds provided
for defense. We have already cut defense spending drastically.
To graphically demonstrate what I am saying, Madam President, 3 years
ago the Army had 18 divisions; 2 years from now we will have 10. Three
years ago the Navy had nearly 600 ships; 2 years from now we will have
350 ships.
This applies to all services. We are now in the process of the
drawdown. As a result, this committee, ever since I have been chairman
of this subcommittee, has always come forth with an appropriated
recommendation which is vastly less than that requested by the
administration. So, as far as cuts are concerned, we have done that. In
fact, the bill before the Senate already rescinds more than $900
million from DOD. That is further reductions, beyond that of fiscal
year 1994, reductions that will tax the ability of the Department to
meet the base closure requirements. Cutting another $4 billion is
simply insupportable.
The amendment addresses specific programs which I would like to
consider individually. First, on the Trident missiles, section 1204 of
this amendment prohibits the use of any funds for the continued
procurement of Trident D-5 missiles or for the backfitting of older
submarines carrying the C-4 missiles to the D-5 configuration.
The Senate has already addressed this issue. We did so 3 months ago.
It voted against an amendment by Senator Bumpers to terminate the D-5
missile program in the fiscal year 1994 appropriations bill. In the
fiscal year 1994 defense appropriations bill, the Congress required the
President to review this program. The President has completed this
review and the President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly support
continuing the Trident D-5 missile program. The President has,
accordingly, requested funding to procure an additional 18 Trident D-5
missiles in fiscal year 1995.
Next, the Titan 4 missile launch system. The Kerry amendment would
also rescind $350 million from the fiscal year 1994 Titan 4 missile
program. Contrary to the intent of this amendment, the money proposed
for rescission was requested and appropriated for launch support costs
of missiles already built and long lead for future missiles. The
rescission of $350 million will not stop the production of Titan 4
missiles but will prevent the launch of national payloads.
The Titan 4 missile is our Nation's only heavy-lift missile in the
inventory. With a current maximum payload of 31,400 pounds, the Titan 4
is the only system that can launch, for example, MILSTAR satellites,
defense support program satellites, and certain classified payloads.
The production requirements of this missile are based upon the need to
launch these payloads into orbit. So, when the Department builds a
payload, it builds a missile to launch this payload.
So I think it would be shortsighted and wasteful to build a payload,
a satellite, and not the system because of this limitation. It takes up
to 3 years to build this missile and, if the missile production is
limited and there is a national strategic requirement to launch this
satellite, the Department may be unable to do this launch because of
the lack of the missile available for the launch.
So here we have a two-pronged program: one, to build a payload, which
in this case would be a satellite, and then to build a missile to carry
this satellite into the atmosphere. This amendment would say, cut out
the launch but not the payload. It just does not make sense.
Now if I may comment on another section that reduces funding for
intelligence programs, and this amendment would reduce such funding by
about $1 billion. Madam President, the intelligence budget has already
been cut by almost 18 percent over the past 2 years. An additional
reduction of $1 billion would severely hamper the intelligence
community's ability to provide decisionmakers and policymakers with
information on matters of vital concern to this country.
These issues include nuclear proliferation by North Korea--this has
been on the front pages for the past 3 or 4 months--peacekeeping
efforts in Bosnia and Somalia, as well as terrorist threats against
American citizens and property.
Congress has worked in close partnership with the intelligence
community to refine the intelligence budget without detrimentally
affecting this country's national security. This reduction, as proposed
in this amendment, would result in a termination of programs and
activities that are essential to the security of this Nation.
Next is the Ballistic Missile Defense Program. The Kerry amendment
proposes a rescission of $900 million. This, Madam President, will
throw the U.S. effort to develop missile defenses into chaos. Hearing
this, I suppose some of my colleagues would say, ``Why do we need
missile defenses?'' I am not talking about missile defenses against
intercontinental ballistic missiles. We are not talking about a defense
system to protect this Nation from missile launches from the old Soviet
Union.
The original Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in the fiscal
year 1994 budget was $3.637 billion. This organization has just now
completed a restructuring to accommodate the $1 billion reduction that
we imposed. This organization plans to spend over $1.6 billion to
develop theater missile defense systems to protect our deployed troops.
What are theater missile defense systems? During Desert Storm, we
heard much about the Scud missile. This is the missile system that can
knock down the Scud. The Patriot system is part of this Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization. We are not talking about the Minuteman
missile. We are talking about these smaller systems to protect our
deployed troops. If this rescission action is carried out, there will
be no funds for the management of these programs, for research and
technologists to make our theater missile defenses more effective. It
will just put it out of business. It was not too long ago when Members
of this body spent much time singing the praises of the Patriot,
concerning ourselves with the damaging potential of the Scud. This was
our answer to it, and now this amendment would cut it out.
Next, I would like to say a few words on the Follow-on Early Warning
System. Madam President, the amendment proposes to rescind funds from
this system, which we call FEWS. FEWS was planned to increase our
capability to provide early warning of missile launches to protect our
troops, protect our Nation, replacing the current Defense Support
Program Satellite Network.
The FEWS program continued during the early months of fiscal year
1994 while the Department reconsidered its plans for an upgrade of our
Early Warning Satellite Network.
Most of these funds are already obligated and over $70 million have
been spent. Any remaining funds will be required to transfer the FEWS
development to the Pentagon's restructured Early Warning Program, and
for other legitimate close-out costs. The Air Force has stated that the
FEWS program termination will exceed $20 million. Put simply, Madam
President, these funds have already been spent. So there is nothing to
rescind.
The next item is on Department of Defense recruiting. The Kerry
amendment proposes to reduce funds for DOD recruiting programs by about
$33 million. The amendment also calls for consolidating the military
services recruiting program. Based upon data and testimony that the
committee received from the Department during last year's budget
review, the Congress added about $60 million for recruiting.
Madam President, you may be wondering why is recruiting important? I
think we should remind ourselves that our military is made up of
volunteers. We are not drafting our young men and women. They are
volunteers. Less than 1 percent of the people of the United States
volunteer to serve in our behalf and stand in harm's way to protect our
interests.
In recruiting, obviously because of the demands upon our intellect--
after all, we are a high-technology military organization--we try to
recruit at least high school graduates and, if possible, a college
graduate. There are not too many of them. We try our best not to go
below that.
We have several categories, as I pointed out yesterday. Category 1
you very seldom recruit. This is the Albert Einstein of our Nation.
Category 2's are college graduates. A few would volunteer. But if we
ask ourselves would we urge our sons and daughters who are college
graduates to put on the uniform, I think the answer would be no. We
have plans for them and the plans do not include military service.
Category 3's are high school graduates. This makes up the bulk of our
military. We have tried to keep the recruiting of category 4's--these
are men and women with IQ's of less than 100--to a minimum, less than 1
percent; if at all possible, none at all. But we found it necessary
because of recruiting shortages to dip into category 4's. A year ago,
it was less than 1 percent. This year because of the drawdown, because
of the cut in expenditures, our recruiting of category 4's has gone up
to 11 percent.
I am concerned, Madam President. In the 1970's--and many of us look
back to that period with some horror when we found this Nation with
hollow military forces. By hollow forces, I will just give one example
which I provided yesterday.
Very few Americans recall that during that period, about one-third of
our naval vessels were not ready for combat. These were not old,
decrepit ships; these were brand new ships. But we did not have the
personnel to man these vessels because over one-third of our recruits,
about 35 percent of our recruits, were category 4. College graduates
were not volunteering; high school graduates were not volunteering. So
we had to depend upon category 4's to fill the slots in our ranks. Now
we are up to 11 percent, Madam President.
We also have an ongoing survey to determine the propensity to
recruit, the propensity to enlist of the young men and women of the
United States.
In 1 year's time, this propensity has dropped 40 percent. We have
been doing the survey in high schools throughout this land.
We all agree that a military is necessary. If it is necessary and we
cannot get manpower through the voluntary system, then I suppose we
will have to revive our Selective Service System, drafting young men
and women.
I hope that the Members of this body consider this very seriously--
drafting.
Today, we still have the finest military that we have had since the
founding of this Nation. This little amendment may be the beginning of
a real downgrade of our military.
The next amendment, if I may touch on it, is Navy antisubmarine
warfare P-3 aircraft squadrons. This amendment proposes to reduce the
numbers of P-3 aircraft squadrons by limiting expenditures. It says
that funding cannot be expended to support more than 31 squadrons after
fiscal year 1995, 26 after fiscal year 1996, 23 after fiscal year 1997,
and 18 after fiscal year 1998. It also says that the President would
have authority to waive this limitation if he feels that national
security interests would so dictate.
We have been speaking of micromanaging the Defense Department. This
is clearly micromanaging the Defense Department without any input from
our military commanders.
Changes in the numbers of P-3 squadrons should be examined in the
context of defense force structure requirements, not in a rescission
bill. I hope that we will keep this in mind when we consider the Kerry
amendment.
Finally, the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences. Madam
President, as you are well aware, I already addressed this issue at
length yesterday, and I stand by that statement. It would wipe out this
medical school.
Just a reminder. As I indicated just a few minutes ago, recruiting
and retaining qualified personnel is one of our biggest problems. The
area that is most severely impacted by recruiting and retaining would
be in the area of professionals--physicians. We should ask ourselves
how many physicians are we aware of who are willing to place his or her
life in a military career and serve this Nation when he or she see
their brothers and sisters out in the public sector making 5, 10 times
the income that they are making, driving a lovely Mercedes Benz, living
in palatial homes. There are not too many.
We set up this medical school to recruit and retain men and women who
wish to make military medicine a career, and we have been fortunate.
Sixty percent of the physicians who served in Desert Storm were
graduates of this medical school. And when one speaks of retention,
these statistics are amazing. In the class of 1981, over 90 percent of
the graduates are still in uniform, whereas, of Air Force Academy
graduates, about 52 percent are in uniform; West Point graduates, about
50 percent are in uniform; and Navy graduates, about the same number.
We are fortunate to have 50 percent of the class of 1981 from the
service academies still in uniform. But just think, military
physicians, over 90 percent. These are the men and women who pleaded to
go out to Desert Storm. We had difficulty convincing those physicians
in the Reserve units to go out there: What will happen to my patients?
What will happen to my practice?
This amendment will wipe out this school. Talk about cost-
effectiveness.
This is a very important amendment. I hope that when we consider the
Kerry amendment, we will keep in mind the following: I am certain,
whether we like it or not, we will have to consider the events that are
now unfolding in Bosnia. I think it would be wise to anticipate that we
may be soon considering air strikes, air strikes by our United States
Air Force and Navy attack aircraft against Serbian artillery positions.
At a time like this, is it prudent to reduce funds for the very
intelligence programs which we need to identify these targets? This
amendment would do that. It would blind our pilots. Is this the time to
cut the satellite programs that give our forces warning of attacks? I
hope that we will keep this in mind. It is on the front pages of every
paper. Are we or are we not going to participate in the bombing of
Bosnia? If we do and this amendment passes, then we are putting
blindfolds over our pilots' eyes.
Madam President, if we expect the 1 percent of our Nation to risk
their lives and stand in harm's way, the least we can do is to provide
them with all of the resources necessary so that they can carry out
their mission and get home to their loved ones. We cannot do any less.
This amendment would take away their protection, and I am not prepared
to do that.
I urge all Members to vote against this amendment.
It is not a problem then for consideration at this time. I hope the
time will come, Madam President, when we can slash the Defense
Department to almost nothing, when peace will come upon this planet.
But much as we dream about that moment, that has not arrived yet. As
long as we are confronted with madmen, terrorists, and countries with
strained agendas, I think it would be prudent on the part of the United
States to maintain a ready force of men and women who are willing to
stand in harm's way.
Madam President, I am ready to yield the floor. I gather the Senator
from Maine has an amendment.
Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside.
Amendment No. 1455
(Purpose: To amend titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act to
provide that any proceeds from certain criminal activities demonstrate
an ability to engage in substantial gainful activity)
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], for himself, Mr. Dole,
Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Thurmond, and Mr. D'Amato,
proposes an amendment numbered 1455.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following:
. (a) Section 223(d)(4) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 423(d)(4)) is amended by inserting the following after
the first sentence: ``If an individual engages in a criminal
activity to support substance abuse, any proceeds derived
from such activity shall demonstrate such individual's
ability to engage in substantial gainful activity.''.
(b) Section 1614(a)(3)(D) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1382(a)(3)(D)) is amended by inserting the following
after the first sentence: ``If an individual engages in a
criminal activity to support substance abuse, any proceeds
derived from such activity shall demonstrate such
individual's ability to engage in substantial gainful
activity.''.
(c) The amendments made by this section shall apply to
disability determinations conducted on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself, Senators Dole, Kassebaum, D'Amato, Thurmond, and Gorton.
From time to time, astounding examples of absurd Federal spending
policies come to light and stop us in our tracks. The amendment that I
am offering today to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill
addresses a situation that would certainly make anyone's top 20 list of
how to waste tax dollars and, at the same time, undermine our efforts
in the war against crime and illegal drugs.
I offer it today in a very limited form from the statement I made
just a few days ago. I took the floor 2 days ago to point out that the
President had announced a $1.5 trillion budget proposal, and that his
national drug strategy would shift the emphasis from drug-control
efforts and interdiction toward treatment and rehabilitation.
I wish to point out to my colleagues that we now have a program in
place through the Social Security Administration that keeps money
flowing to alcoholics and drug addicts.
Earlier this week I released the results of a year-long investigation
conducted by my staff on the Special Committee on Aging which revealed
that last year, the Federal Government paid over $1.4 billion in
benefits under the Social Security Disability Insurance Program [DI]
and the Supplemental Security Income Program [SSI] to drug addicts and
alcoholics.
Amazingly, fewer than one-third of the drug addicts and alcoholics
receiving SSI and DI payments are under any requirements for
rehabilitation or monitoring by the SSA on how they use the cash
provided by the Federal Government--leaving no controls in place on the
$1.1 billion in payments being made to drug addicts and alcoholics who
are on the SSI and disability insurance rolls.
The results of our investigation probably come to no surprise to
anyone with common sense: When we give cash to drug addicts, they will
use it to buy more drugs. But that, Mr. President, is the essence of
the disability policy that we have in effect today.
When Congress allowed drug and other substance abusers to receive
disability benefits under the SSI and disability insurance programs, it
placed two condition son these benefits. First, that the drug addict or
alcoholic receive treatment; and second, that a third party, such as a
friend or relative, or even an institution, receive the benefits on
behalf of the addict or alcoholic, in order to prevent the money from
simply being used to fuel a drug habit.
As we reported earlier this week, however, our instigation found that
the system has failed to keep money out of the hands of addicts and
alcoholics, and few of these addicts are receiving any treatment.
Instead, the money keeps flowing, and the addicts keep drinking,
snorting, or shooting our federal dollars away.
Today I will be announcing comprehensive legislation to address the
many problems uncovered in our investigation. But this amendment is
really quite limited in nature. It takes the first step toward reform
by prohibiting the Social Security Administration from providing cash
benefits to drug dealers and other criminals who are using Social
Security funds to feed their habits.
Under the current SSI and disability insurance programs, a claimant
is ineligible for benefits if he or she is found to be able to engage
in substantial gainful activity.
Given the street value of drugs these days, it seems like simple
common sense to conclude that any income from dealing drugs should be
gainful activity. But, as we have learned from our investigation,
common sense does not apply when it comes to how we spend the
taxpayers' dollars, especially in the Social Security disability
programs.
Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that illegal
drug dealing under some circumstances does not constitute substantial
gainful activity under the Social Security Act, thereby allowing some
drug dealers continued access to disability benefits.
The discussion by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Raymond
Corrao versus Donna E. Shalala is enough to make a taxpayer's blood
boil.
Even though the SSI claimant in the case admitted that he obtains up
to $600 worth of heroin daily for up to three people and receives
approximately 1\1/2\ grams of heroin per day, worth about $150, the
court found that he was not engaged in substantial activity--and
therefore he was eligible for disability benefits.
While the court conceded that it is possible under current law to
disqualify a claimant for benefits when he or she earns money by
engaging in illegal activity, the tortured application of SSA rules is
almost comical--but for the fact that it wastes hard-earned taxpayers'
dollars.
The court found that since the claimant's drug dealing ``took only 25
to 45 minutes,'' it did not constitute substantial activity.
The court also found that the drug dealing by the claimant did ``not
require any significant mental or physical exertion * * * [he] did no
planning prior to these purchases but instead was contacted by
purchasers when they desired some drugs.''
In short, because of the relatively light work the claimant had to do
to deal drugs, the court determined that he was not engaged in
``substantial gainful activity'' and was therefore eligible for
benefits.
Here is an individual who is sitting at home waiting for calls to
come in from his friends, putting them in connection with heroin
dealers, acquiring the heroin, and getting a slice for himself of $150
a day. But according to the court, he is entitled to continue to
receive unlimited benefits under the disability program, without
getting treatment, without getting rehabilitation, and without having
any supervision of his use of the funds. It simply is revenue sharing
for drug addicts.
Madam President, I think this case illustrates how twisted our system
has become. The message our current law sends to drug dealers is:
First, if you are a drug addict, the Federal Government will pay you
cash to buy more drugs and it is very likely that we will never check
up on you to see how you are using the money.
Second, if you stop using drugs and get better, we will stop paying
you.
And, third, even if we know you are dealing drugs or making money
from other crimes, we will still pay you tax dollars.
Madam President, this just does not make sense, and today we can take
action to stop this shameful waste of taxpayers' dollars.
The amendment we are offering today states that any proceeds derived
from criminal activity to support substance abuse--no matter how small,
or how long they take to make--constitute substantial gainful activity
regardless of the circumstances, thereby making drug dealers ineligible
for disability benefits.
Last month, the Social Security Administration issued a ruling
establishing that this is the policy that should be followed, and other
courts have adopted this position. Because the Ninth Circuit ruling
illustrates that courts can find drug dealing not to be substantial
gainful activity, it is crucial that we act now to clarify the law, so
that all proceeds from criminal activity constitute substantial gainful
activity.
The amendment we are offering today takes the first step by
addressing one of the most obvious flaws in the disability program--
allowing drug dealers to use Federal funds to keep their illegal
activities going.
I hope my colleagues will support it. I ask unanimous consent the
``Investigative Staff Report'' and a letter from Citizens Against
Government Waste be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Tax Dollars Aiding and Abetting Addiction: Social Security Disability
and SSI Cash Benefits to Drug Addicts and Alcoholics
(By Senator William S. Cohen)
executive summary
In early 1993, the Minority staff of the Senate Special
Committee on Aging initiated an investigation of abuses in
the payment of Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) and
supplemental security income (SSI) benefits to drug addicts
and alcoholics. This investigation was begun in response to
disturbing reports from many close to the disability and SSI
process that there is widespread abuse of these programs by
addicts and alcoholics, and that in many cases these benefits
are being used directly to fuel drug and alcohol abuse.
Major findings
Based on extensive investigation by the Minority Committee
staff and the General Accounting Office (GAO), we conclude
that major problems exist in the current practice of paying
cash DI and SSI benefits to drug addicts and alcoholics, and
that far too few protections are in place to protect
taxpayers' dollars from going directly to perpetuate--rather
than treat--addiction. Our investigation has found that the
``word on the street'' is that SSI benefits are an easy
source of cash for drugs and alcohol, and that the current
laxity in the program allows widespread manipulation of this
system by addicts and alcoholics.
Our investigation concludes that hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars are being paid to substance abusers without
any controls in place to ensure that they receive treatment
or do not use these dollars to fuel their addiction.
Specifically, according to the GAO, an estimated 250,000
drug addicts and alcoholics (including those who are
receiving benefits solely due to substance abuse and also
those eligible for benefits due to another disability) are
now receiving roughly $1.4 billion in cash benefits from
these two Social Security programs. Our investigation
revealed that only about 78,000 of these recipients--or less
than one-third--are required to receive treatment for their
addictions or required to have someone else collect their
checks on their behalf.
Thus approximately 172,000 substance abusers receive about
$1.1 billion in SSI and disability benefits without any
requirements that they receive treatment or have other
persons handle their benefits for them. Our investigation
found that these funds, which are paid directly to the
substance abusers, are extremely vulnerable to abuse. No one
is checking to ensure that these Social Security monies are
not used to buy more drugs or alcohol, and evidence suggests
that in many cases this is precisely what is happening.
Further, our investigation found that few of the 78,000
recipients who are now required to receive treatment are not
doing so, and that the $320 million in benefits paid to these
recipients are very poorly monitored by the SSA.
For example, as this report discusses, our investigation
found that until last month, the SSA had established programs
to monitor treatment requirements for substance abuse
recipients in only 18 states, and fewer than half of the
substance abuse recipients in these states actually were
being monitored to determine if they were in treatment.
Further, we found that some lump sum benefits--in some
cases over $20,000--to SSI and disability recipients, are
being spent on drugs or alcohol, resulting in dangerous harm,
or even death, to the claimants, and that those appointed to
handle the benefits for the substance abusers are at times
themselves addicts or alcoholics who misuse the disability
payments.
The bottom line is that taxpayer dollars are being used
directly to subsidize and perpetuate drug and alcohol abuse,
and that many addicts are actually seeking out the disability
and SSI programs to help support their addictions. Once on
the rolls, few of these substance abusers are ever reviewed
to determine if they have received treatment or if they still
qualify for benefits. The net effect of the manipulation of
these programs is to impede our national efforts to combat
crime and illegal drug use. Further, allowing these programs
to remain so exposed to abuse is counterproductive to our
national efforts to reform our welfare system, and to reform
our health care system by stressing prevention and treatment.
Tragically, these lax policies not only drain the federal
Treasury, but also are detrimental to substance abusers
themselves by rewarding addiction, and by discouraging and
failing to provide necessary treatment. In essence, the
federal government has become an enabler to these abusers,
and by neglecting the severe problems in these programs,
taxpayer dollars are aiding and abetting illegal drug use.
Recommendations
Based on these findings, Congress should consider the
following options:
Discontinue cash disability and SSI assistance to substance
abusers or provide benefits in the form of vouchers, food
stamps or direct payments to treatment facilities. If such
changes are made, tight controls must be in place to prevent
abuse of these non-cash benefits.
Distinguish between legal and illegal substance abuse and
discontinue eligibility of individuals whose illegal drug use
is material to the finding of disability. Savings from this
limitation on benefits could be redirected to fund substance
abuse treatment programs, which would provide more meaningful
assistance to recovering addicts.
Prohibit cash lump sum payments from being paid to
substance abusers, based on the dangers of misuse of these
benefits to buy more drugs or alcohol.
Extend the statutory protections of representative payee
and treatment as a condition of benefits that now exist in
the SSI program to the disability program and explore the
feasibility of applying these protections to all recipients
with a medical finding of primary or secondary substance
abuse. In exploring this option, Congress must consider
whether adequate treatment facilities are available to serve
this population and whether enough representative payees can
be found to manage the funds of these beneficiaries.
Require a good faith compliance with treatment requirements
before awarding disability payments.
Clearly state that proceeds from illegal activities--such
as drug dealing--constitute substantial gainful activity and
is a basis for denying benefits.
Require the SSA to conduct continuing disability reviews in
the SSI program in order to determine whether recipients on
the rolls still qualify for benefits, and explore changes in
the eligibility standards for substance abusers in the
context of welfare reform.
Minority committee staff will continue to investigate these
problems in the DI and SSI programs and Congress should fully
explore the recommendations made in this report through
hearings and legislation.
William S. Cohen,
U.S. Senator.
I. Introduction and Scope of Investigation
For the past several months, the Minority Staff of the
Senate Special Committee on Aging has been investigating the
payment of Social Security disability benefits to drug
addicts and alcoholics. Senator William, S. Cohen, Ranking
Minority Member of the Aging Committee directed his staff to
initiate this investigation in response to disturbing reports
from those close to the disability process that there is
widespread abuse of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
program and the Disability Insurance (DI) program by addicts
and alcoholics, and that for years the Social Security
Administration has failed to adequately implement protections
that Congress specifically imposed on the payment of
disability benefits to substance abusers.
As part of his investigation, Senator Cohen requested the
General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the adequacy of the
Social Security Administration's Program for SSI and DI
recipients who are drug addicts and alcoholics (DA&A). This
preliminary staff report incorporates the results of the
GAO's preliminary work and several other studies that have
been conducted on the adequacy of the SSA's DA&A program, as
well as information provided to the minority committee staff
by a wide variety of sources, including administrative law
judges (ALJs), Social Security district office
representatives, disability advocates, and social service
representatives.
As this preliminary report indicates, our investigation has
substantiated that significant abuse of the Social Security
disability program by drug addicts and alcoholics does
currently exist, and that these problems have gone unabated
for years. Additionally, our investigation has also
substantiated our concerns that the Social Security
Administration has failed to adequately monitor and enforce
statutory requirements that SSI beneficiaries who are
disabled as a result of drug addiction or alcohol abuse must
receive treatment in order to qualify for benefits, and that
opportunities for significant abuse still exist among
representative payees who receive SSI benefits on behalf of
substance abusers.
II. Background--Current Law: How Drug Addicts and Alcoholics Qualify
for SSI and DI Benefits
A. Brief Overview of the SSI and DI Programs
The Social Security Act provides for the payment of
benefits to individuals who cannot work because of a
medically determined physical or mental impairment. There are
two separate titles under which an individual may qualify for
benefits. The first, Title II, provides payments of
Disability Insurance (DI) benefits to disabled persons who
have contributed to the Social Security program. The second,
Title XVI, provides for the payment of SSI benefits to
disabled persons who are indigent.
Both the DI and SSI programs use the same standard to
determine whether an individual is disabled for purposes of
receiving benefits. Specifically, each program defines
disability as an ``inability to engage in any substantial
gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable
physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result
in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of not less than twelve months . . .'' (42
USC Section 423(d)(1)(A).
Briefly, the determination of disability is a five-step
sequential process for determining whether an SSI or DI
applicant is disabled. This process includes assessments to
determine whether the applicant is engaged in substantial
gainful activity, and whether the applicant has an impairment
or a combination of impairments severe enough to prevent him
or her from performing work. The evaluation at these early
stages in the process includes medical and vocational
evidence to substantiate claims of disability.
The Social Security disability process provides several
levels of review if benefits are denied, including
reconsideration of denials by state disability determination
services, then appeals to SSA administrative law judges, and
ultimately, to federal court.
b. drug addiction and alcoholism can constitute disability for purposes
of qualifying for both the ssi and di programs
Under both the SSI and DI programs, drug addiction or
alcoholism can constitute an impairment qualifying an
individual for Social Security benefits. The Social Security
Administration has developed listings of physical and mental
impairments that it accepts as evidence of disability. SSA's
listing of mental impairments includes substance abuse
disorders. Both the SSA and the courts have established that
a substance addiction disorder can be considered a medically
determinable impairment that could meet the definition of
disability. According to a 1991 SSA Program Circular (SSA
Pub. No. 64-044),
A substance addiction disorder in and of itself can be a
disabling medically determinable impairment if it meets the
definition of disability. The former policy requiring
irreversible organ damage to meet a listing is not in accord
with current policy of Circuit Court ease law.
Once a medically determinable substance addiction
impairment (which encompasses the inability or impaired
ability to control the use of addictive substances) is
established, a finding of disability will depend on the
severity and duration of the impairment and, where
appropriate, the individual's remaining functional capacity.
In each case, all symptoms, signs, and findings of the
substance addiction (and other impairments, whether or not
related to the substance addiction) must be considered to
determine the complete picture of the individual's
impairment severity and, where appropriate, remaining
functional capacity.
c. the social security act places conditions on the payment of ssi
benefits to drug addicts and alcoholics
Congress imposed two special requirements on drug addicts
and alcoholics as conditions of receiving benefits. First, in
order to prevent cash payments from being spent to fuel
addiction, Congress required that all SSI payments to drug
addicts and alcoholics must be paid to a representative
payee. A representative payee can be a friend, relative,
social service agency, or anyone else selected by SSA, to
receive the recipient's checks.
Second, the Congress mandated that a disabled individual
who is medically determined to be a drug addict or alcoholic
must, as a condition of eligibility for SSI, participate in a
substance abuse treatment program approved by SSA. The
individual must demonstrate that he or she is complying with
the terms and conditions of treatment in order to remain
eligible for SSI benefits, and the SSA has responsibility for
referring individuals for treatment and monitoring their
continued participation in treatment programs.
Findings
As a result of our investigation, we have reached two major
conclusions: I) The policy of awarding cash disability and
SSI benefits to substance abusers is seriously flawed,
results in significant loss of taxpayer dollars, and can be
detrimental to the recipients themselves and II) The
statutory protections that were originally put in place to
guard against abuse of SSI benefits are ineffective and the
SSA has been extremely lax in enforcing against abuse. Below
are the specific findings of our investigation.
Finding 1: Providing cash assistance to illegal drug abusers and
alcoholics invites abuse and rewards addiction
During our investigation, the staff heard repeated accounts
of abuse of the SSI program by drug addicts and alcoholics. A
recurring theme expressed by state disability determination
services personnel, administrative law judges, and social
services representatives is that the ``word on the street''
among illegal drug users is that SSI is an ``easy source of
cash'' to fund their illegal drug use, alcohol consumption,
and other substance abuse. This perception of the SSI and DI
programs was shared by those who work with drug and
alcohol abusers in homeless shelters, as well as intake
workers and administrative law judges who hear appeals of
Social Security disability cases. For example:
The director of a homeless shelter in Denver told staff
investigators that SSI is, in effect ``suicide on the
installment plan'' because the program provides ready cash to
addicts and alcoholics with no strings attached for follow-up
or treatment. He maintains that the first day of every month
is considered ``Christmas Day'' by many of the alcoholics and
addicts who use the money for illegal drugs and alcohol, fail
to enter treatment programs, and then either stay on the
street or return to homeless shelters for food and shelter
once their disability benefit has been spent on drugs.
An individual who works with drug abusers and alcoholics
compared the policy of giving addicts cash to ``giving
someone on disability because of cancer a monthly injection
of cancer cells.''
A mental health worker specializing in chemical dependency
told the committee that his caseload of illegal drug users
was about ``99.5 per cent'' SSI recipients. He indicated that
he has witnessed several deaths of SSI recipients from drug
overdoses, ``yet their checks just keep coming.'' He went on
to note that those recipients who don't die from their
untreated drug use supported by SSI payments become more and
more disabled, thus needing benefits even longer.
In San Francisco, a drug addict used his disability
benefits to buy high grade drugs, diluted these into small
doses, and realized huge profits by reselling them on the
street.
In interviews with staff investigators, several
administrative law judges who handle disability cases
strongly opposed providing cash payments to drug and alcohol
abusers. The ALJ's cited examples in which the claimants
openly admitted to the ALJ at a hearing that he or she
continued to use drugs, and the ALJ had no doubt whatsoever
that the disability payments would be used to buy more drugs
or alcohol.
In the course of our investigation, we heard several
allegations that the current disability process has spawned a
``cottage industry'' of clinics, attorney representatives,
and doctors who help abusers get on the disability rolls.
Recently, in Los Angeles, for example, individuals have been
indicted for allegedly defrauding the SSI program of $45,000
through feigning mental illness to become eligible for SSI.
This scheme was allegedly perpetrated by an individual who
served as a representative payee and shared the proceeds of
the SSI benefits, as well as a physician who allegedly
falsified medical diagnoses for SSI claimants. While this
case did not directly involve substance abuse, it points
out the opportunities to manipulate the SSI system,
particularly with respect to mental impairments and
substance abuse cases.
The staff also heard allegations of attorneys who help
claimants receive benefits by coaching them on how to answer
questions so they will be diagnosed as substance abusers and
therefore become eligible for disability benefits. Since some
states, e.g., Illinois, pay attorneys amount up to one-fourth
of the claimant's annual SSI benefit for getting a claimant
off the state welfare rolls and onto SSI, there may a
financial incentive for manipulating the system.
As a result of our investigation, we conclude that the
policy of providing cash assistance to drug addicts and
alcoholics, when coupled with the longstanding failure of the
SSA to monitor and enforce requirements that individuals with
these disabilities receive treatment, unwisely rewards
individuals for, and indeed perpetuates, drug and alcohol
addiction. We endorse the findings made by the HHS Office of
Inspector General that ``while recipients classified as DA&A
are eligible for SSI benefits, as a condition of receiving
those benefits they must seek treatment that, if successful,
would make them no longer eligible for benefits. The outcome
may ultimately reduce their incentive to cooperate with the
requirements and participate in rehabilitation.'' Since it is
widely known among drug abusers and alcoholics that the
treatment requirements of the disability program are rarely
enforced, the message we are sending to substance abusers is
that the Social Security program will continue to pay them
money as long as they prove they are still addicted.
Finding 2: Payment of lump sum disability benefits to substance abusers
is detrimental to claimants and further undermines recovery
A major problem revealed in our investigation is the
problem of lump sum back benefits paid to SSI and DI
recipients. Since it frequently takes a year or longer to be
awarded benefits for SSI and DI, and, because benefits are
retroactive to the date of the initial application, lump sums
as high as $15,000 to $20,000 can be awarded to substance
abusers. Despite requirements that recipients classified as
DA&A have representative payees receive these lump sum monies
on their behalf, the minority staff received disturbing
evidence that these lump sums are often used immediately to
buy more drugs or alcohol, with life-threatening or even
fatal consequences for the claimant. For example:
In Bakersfield, California, an SSI applicant alleging drug
addiction was found disabled and then died of a lethal drug
overdose purchased with thousands of dollars of unrestricted
retroactive benefits.
An alcoholic in Van Nuys, California, was awarded lump sum
benefits of $26,000 from SSI and DI and additional VA
benefits. He purchased 2 cars and a van with the payment. He
then went on a drinking binge with friends and wrecked the
cars, seriously injuring himself. He was admitted into the
VA hospital. All of the benefit money was spent.
An individual from California was awarded SSI and DI
benefits for a physical impairment and a history of alcohol
abuse. He was also awarded retroactive benefits in the amount
of $18,000. He was able to receive the check and proceeded to
go on a drinking binge and purchased a car. In the course of
this binge, he was robbed, became involved in a drunk driving
accident and was ultimately jailed.
Recently, another California SSI and DI recipient with a
history of drug abuse was awarded retroactive benefits in the
amount of $19,000. He went directly to Las Vegas and
proceeded to purchase cocaine, using up all of his money. He
is still in Las Vegas, where he faces the possibility of jail
time for bad checks.
Finding 3. Social Security benefits are being paid to recipients who
are engaging in illegal activity
The minority staff's investigation revealed that several
administrative law judges and representatives of state
disability offices view their mandate to pay Social Security
benefits to individuals who admit to using illegal drugs as
placing them in the untenable position of having knowledge of
an on-going criminal activity (i.e., on-going illegal drug
use and/or dealing illegal drugs), yet being required to
approve benefits on the grounds of this activity. An ALJ who
has heard thousands of Social Security disability cases
summarized the dilemma that the current law poses for an ALJ.
While strongly emphasizing that he would apply current law in
all cases coming before him, he pointed out in a recent
letter to Senator Cohen that:
In most of the drug cases I've heard, I ask how much the
claimant uses per day and the cost. This is usually several
hundred dollars per day. My next question is how do they get
the money. The answer is most cases, is they are dealing
drugs themselves to support their habit. We should not be
spending taxpayers' money to support illegal activities.
This is a morally repugnant situation and it places the
judge in an unnecessary dilemma. I suspect that many judges
are forced to use some very tortured and creative rationale
in deciding these cases. A further moral problem for the
judge is--what can he do with this knowledge of illegal
activity? These are not public proceedings and are therefore
covered by the Privacy Act.
I do not believe we should be placed in this position. I
feel that, as a matter of policy, illegal drug addiction
should be removed as an impairment from the disability
program. We should not be involved in giving even the
appearnce of financing or condoning such egregious illegal
activity.
Similarly, another ALJ wrote to Senator Cohen the following
statement:
I have had an opportunity to frequently speak with SSA
judges in various parts of this country. Based upon these
contacts, I can state without reservation that the handling
of drug and alcohol cases is the most perplexing issue that
faces our judges. On the one hand, the judge is confronted
with the law which requires that an individual with this
addiction be found entitled to benefits if the requisite
elements of the law is satisfied. On the other hand, the
judge is confronted with the knowledge that the recipient
(rep payee) of cash benefits may provide the person with the
funds to feed the addiction and exacerbate the medical
impairment. The only salvation for the judge is to hope that
the person seeks meaningful treatment and that a responsible
representative payee is appointed to conserve the person's
cash benefits.
Unfortunately, our investigation's findings on how poorly
the treatment and representative payee requirements of the
law are being implemented lead us to conclude that this and
other ALJ's hopes for such meaningful treatment are not
realized in the vast majority of disability substance abuse
cases.
Finding 4: DI and SSI benefits have been awarded even when there was
direct evidence that the recipient was dealing drugs or actively
engaged in criminal activity to support drug addiction
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the denial
of SSI benefits on the grounds that illegal activity can
constitute substantial gainful activity for purposes of
denying SSI payments. Specifically, in Dotson v Shalala, 1
F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 1993), the court found that while the mere
fact that a claimant has a severe and expensive drug habit
does not by itself warrant a finding that he or she is
engaging in substantial gainful activity, testimony
indicating that the claimant is engaged in illegal activities
(such as drug dealing or theft) to sustain his or her
addiction can constitute substantial gainful activity. In
January, 1994, the SSA issued a ruling on this decision,
which SSA indicated does not have the force of law
or regulation, but is binding on all components of the
SSA.
Despite this SSA ruling, however, other courts have found
that active drug dealing is not enough to deny disability
benefits. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this month,
for example, that a heroin addict who sold drugs to support
his habit, could not be denied benefits due to this illegal
activity. This inconsistency in federal court rulings is very
disturbing and allows claimants in some areas of the country
to legally receive benefits while dealing drugs.
We conclude that allowing benefits to those actively
engaged in illegal activities to support their addiction
should be specifically prohibited by Congress in order to
stop federal dollars from going to claimants who are
blatantly engaging in criminal activity.
Finding 5: The current practice of providing cash disability payments
to substance abusers and lax oversight of the program by the Social
Security Administration impedes efforts to combat crime, reform the
welfare system and reform the health care system
Our staff investigation concludes that major policy
concerns are raised by the combination of providing cash
disability payments to substance abusers and the lax
enforcement by SSA of protections imposed on these recipients
by the social Security Act.
Failure to address these deficiencies in the DI and SSI
programs impedes efforts to address three of the major issues
now facing Congress and the nation as a whole: crime, the
need for welfare reform, and health care reform.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that the
economic costs of drug abuse in the form of health care
costs, work force costs, and law enforcement costs, are
between $60 billion and $124 billion for 1988. Using taxpayer
dollars and Social Security Trust Fund money to support the
addictions of illegal drug users with few controls on how
these funds are being used is reckless in light of these
costs of drug abuse to our economy and out society.
Finding 6: Congress made substance abuse treatment a condition of
receiving benefits, but this requirement has failed to work
Recognizing that providing a cash benefit to drug addicts
and alcoholics would likely result in the problem of addicts
using these payments to support their addiction or
alcoholism, Congress placed two restrictions on SSI benefits:
1) treatment for substance abuse and 2) benefits would be
paid to a representative payee. Specifically, Congress
required in Section 1611(e)(3)(A) of the Social Security
Act that ``no individual shall be an eligible individual
or spouse for purposes of this title with respect to any
month if such individual is medically determined to be a
drug addict or an alcoholic unless such individual is
undergoing any treatment that may be appropriate for his
condition as a drug addict or alcoholic at an institution
or facility approved for purposes of this paragraph by the
Secretary (as long as treatment is available) and
demonstrates that he is complying with the terms,
conditions, and requirements of such treatment and with
requirements imposed by the Secretary under subparagraph
(B). In addition, Section 1631(a)(2)(A) of the Social
Security Act provides that ``in the case of any individual
or eligible spouse referred in Section 1611(e)(3)(A), such
payments shall be made * * * to another individual, or an
organization, with respect to whom the requirements or
subparagraph (B) have been met for the use and benefit of
such individual or eligible spouse.
Our investigation found two specific problems that impede
the effectiveness of these restrictions on payment of
benefits to substance abusers.
First, protections on payment of disability benefits to
substance abusers do not exist in the Social Security
Disability Insurance Program. Thus leaving up to $380 million
in annual benefits exposed to abuse.
Individuals receiving SSI (Title XVI) whose addiction and
alcoholism are material to the finding of their disability,
are required to receive treatment and have a third party
representative payee. These requirements for treatment and
the mandatory representative payee provision, however, extend
only to SSI recipients, and do not extend to the Social
Security Disability Insurance program (Title II). Even though
the medical standards for qualifying for the SSI and DI
program are identical, drug addicts and alcoholics who
qualify for DI do not have to enroll in treatment or receive
their benefits through a representative payee.
During our investigation, we heard examples of how some
substance abusers use this difference in the two programs to
circumvent the treatment and representative payee
requirements. Social Security ALJs have cited instances, for
example, in which individuals who have concurrent
applications in both programs drop their applications in the
SSI program once they learn that they are required to have
representative payees and enroll in treatment programs.
According to GAO an estimated 50,000 substance abusers are
on the DI rolls and received approximately $380 million in
benefits in 1993. Our investigation concludes that the
absence of any treatment requirement or safeguards to prevent
benefits from being used to buy drugs or alcohol is totally
unacceptable and exposes these $380 million in benefits to
substantial abuse.
Second, under-reporting and the system used by SSA to
classify addicts and alcoholics are disguising the size of
problem.
According to the GAO's preliminary findings, the number of
identified DA&As has tripled between 1990 and 1993--from
23,455 to 69,419. While this number alone is a significant
increase, the GAO also found that the number of recipients
classified by SSA as DA&As was understated in 1993 by
approximately 11 percent. This understatement may be
explained by faulty coding or human error.
Based on our investigation and GAO's findings, we conclude
that far more DI and SSI recipients are substance abusers
than SSA's figures suggest. In addition to coding problems,
the SSI program does not classify individuals who have
alcoholism or addiction as a secondary impairment as formal
DA&As. In other words, addicts and alcoholics who have other
impairments which are independent of their addiction, and
whose addiction is not material to the finding of their
disability, are not considered DA&As and are not required to
seek treatment or have a representative payee.
For example, a recipient with a severe physical impairment
as his primary disability may also be a drug addict, but this
individual would not be classified as a DA&A by the Social
Security Administration. The effect of this distinction is
that SSI payments are being made to a large class of drug and
alcohol abusers who are not required to go to treatment or
have representative payees. This agency policy is contrary to
the language of the Social Security Act which provides that
the treatment and representative payee requirements should
apply to all disability recipients who are addicts or
alcoholics, and not only to those whose addiction is material
to the finding of disability.
The GAO has estimated that the total number of drug addicts
and alcoholics now in the DI and SSI programs is 250,000
(i.e., those with substance abuse as either a primary or
secondary impairment), and that the total disability benefits
paid to these recipients in 1993 were $1.4 billion. However,
only 31 percent of these 250,000 were subject to the
representative payee and treatment requirements. These gaps
and inconsistencies in applying treatment and representative
payee requirements can result in significant risk of abuse in
the programs.
Specifically: Over 172,000 substance abusers are in these
two Social Security programs, but are not subject to
treatment or payment safeguards. In effect, no one is
checking to determine how the $1.1 billion in benefits paid
to these substance abusers are being spent.
Finding 7: The representative payee system is not working to protect
against abuse of payments to substance abusers
The ``representative payee'' is a responsible third party
who assists in managing the funds of a substance abuser to
ensure that SSI monies are not used for drugs or alcohol.
In most cases, family members or friends of the addict or
alcoholic will function as the representative payee. In
December, 1993, the GAO reported to minority staff that
almost all of the SSI cases classified as DA&As had been
assigned representative payees to handle their benefits
(99.6%). GAO did not, however, assess the quality and
willingness of these representative payees to serve.
According to recent reports of the Inspector General (IG)
of Health and Human Services (HHS), problems continue to
exist in the representative payee system. In January, 1992,
for example, the IG found that SSA district offices viewed
the representative payee system as a major problem, and that
it is difficult to find someone to serve as a representative
payee, ``particularly for individuals with drug or alcohol
problems.'' Similarly, homeless shelter representatives
recommended that SSI payments should be sent to housing
providers or treatment programs, instead of individuals
themselves.
During our investigation, we repeatedly heard that the
representative payee system is not working well in DA&A
cases. For example, one Social Security ALJ in Chicago
relayed the story of requesting an addict's mother to serve
as the representative payee for her son. Her response was
``please do not give me that cross to bear.'' She was afraid
of the physical abuse that she and other family members would
experience from her drug addicted son if she had to manage
his monies. Often this fear of abuse results in the family
member relinquishing the funds to the addict.
Our investigation also revealed reports of representative
payees who are addicts themselves. For example, in 1992,
Bakersfield, California police arrested a drug addict and
found that in addition to a stash of heroin, she had more
than $8,000 in cash--the proceeds of a check sent to her by
the SSA for SSI benefits. The $8,000 came from a lump-sum
payment of benefits awarded by Social Security to the addict
from the time she applied until she was awarded benefits. Her
representative payee was a friend who was also arrested for
heroin possession and use.
Our staff investigation also received many reports that
liquor store operators and bartenders have been approved by
the SSA to serve as the representative payees. For example,
staff received information that it was common knowledge ``on
the street'' that the owner of a liquor store in Denver has
functioned as the representative payee for over 40 SSI
recipients.
In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Congress
included changes in the representative payee provisions to
strengthen the monitoring and selection of individuals
applying as representative payees. Despite the implementation
of these provisions, reports of representative payee abuses
persist. For example, a Social Security spokesperson in
California, which along with Illinois has over half of all
DA&As in the country, stated as recently as January, 1994,
that ``quality payees are one of the biggest problems we have
in the Market Street corridor. If a liquor store owner is the
recipient's only friend, often the liquor store owner will
end up being the payee.''
Finding 8: SSA has failed to effectively enforce the statutory
requirement that substance abusers receive treatment
Another statutory protection on payment of disability
benefits is that recipients classified as DA&As must, as a
condition of receiving benefits, receive treatment from an
approved SSA facility. To enforce the treatment requirement
on DA&As, the SSA has entered into agreements with state
agencies (i.e. state vocational rehabilitation agencies) or
private firms to refer DA&As to treatment facilities and
monitor DA&As on a regular basis to ensure compliance with
the law. These agencies are known as ``Referral Monitoring
Agencies'' (RMSs). In states without RMAs the responsibility
for monitoring compliance with treatment remains with the SSA
offices.
Our staff investigation concludes that for well over a
decade, the SSA has failed to give adequate priority to the
statutory requirement that DA&As receive treatment. Despite a
tripling of the numbers of DA&As receiving benefits from 1990
to 1993, the SSA had established RMA's for only 18 states as
of August 1993. (Only three of these were added during this
tripling of the rolls.) Thirty-two states and Washington,
D.C. had no RMAs to monitor the treatment requirement and 26
states have never had an RMA agreement or contract. The GAO
further found that the RMAs that did exist as of August,
1993, actually monitored just over half of the DA&As in the
states with RMAs.
On January 18, 1994 the Social Security Administration
awarded an RMA contact to Maximus, Inc. of McLean, Virginia,
which included 29 additional states and the District of
Columbia. Maine, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Indiana, Oregon,
North Carolina, and New Mexico do not have an RMA.
The Director of Maine's Disability Determination Services
wrote in a letter to Senator Cohen that ``There has never
been a referral and monitoring agency in the State of Maine.
Although certain proposals have been written in response to
requests for proposals by the Social Security Administration,
none of the proposals have been accepted. It is unfortunate
that we are now in the position of providing great sums of
money to persons addicted to alcohol and or drugs only to
have the money used to support their addiction.''
Finding 9: Monitoring of treatment has been a very low priority of the
SSA in those states without approved treatment facilities
In those states without a referral and monitoring agency in
place, the responsibility for monitoring treatment compliance
falls to the SSA regional offices. The Inspector General has
reported that DA&A's in those states without monitoring
agencies are less likely to comply with treatment
requirements. The IG reported cases of field offices that
advised the recipients of the requirement to get treatment,
but that the recipient is then ``left on his own to get
treatment and no one knows whether they actually go to
treatment.'' The IG concluded that when this occurs, the
DA&As are receiving benefits without any real effort at
rehabilitation, which is directly in conflict with
Congressional intent.
Based on the findings of the IG, as well as information
from regional offices and disability representatives, we
conclude that the SSA regional offices give the treatment and
monitoring requirements of the Social Security Act very low
priority, thereby exposing SSI funds to substantial abuse.
Finding 10: Even when the SSA has monitored SSI recipients who are
substance abusers, less than half of those monitored were actually in
treatment
Based on SSA data, the GAO found that the actual percentage
of substance abusers in treatment programs in those states
with referral and monitoring agencies in place was only 49
per cent of the cases monitored. Of the remaining 51 per
cent, only 11 per cent were in the referral process and 37
per cent were awaiting referral.
In FY 1993, only 15,700 of the approximately 78,000 total
DA&A SSI recipients were in treatment. Therefore, 62,300
recipients, or almost 80 per cent were not receiving
treatment, but yet were still eligible for monthly benefits.
Because SSA does not keep data on the number of individual
recipients who have sought treatment but have been unable to
find appropriate treatment, we are unable to conclude whether
the high percentage of DA&As not receiving treatment is due
to lack of treatment facilities or other reasons. The fact
that these individuals have been able to remain in pay status
is, however, in direct conflict with the purpose of the
rehabilitation requirement provided for by Congress.
While much of the discussion in this report focuses on the
effects that these poor treatment policies have on the U.S.
Treasury, the failure to provide treatment is, of course,
most detrimental to the substance abusers themselves. The
effect of our current DI and SSI practices is to fuel
addiction for many claimants, and to provide little
meaningful incentive for treatment.
One ALJ interviewed during the course of his investigation
summed up the current situation as ``obscene to make these
individuals take two years out of their lives to go through
the disability process to prove they are disabled in order to
get treatment. No one wants to throw them overboard--but
don't make them wait for two years to get help.''
Finding 11: The lack of continuing disability reviews (CDRs) in both
programs results in ineligible persons remaining on the rolls
The Social Security Administration is required by law (P.L.
96-265) to periodically review the status of all DI
beneficiaries to determine their continuing eligibility for
benefits. At least once every 3 years, SSA must conduct CDRs
for cases where medical improvement is either possible or
expected. The law does not require SSA to review SSI cases,
but the Commissioner of SSA has authority to review SSI cases
where potential for medical improvement exists. Despite this
authority, the SSA conducts fewer than 15,000 CDR's in the
SSI program each year.
Failure to conduct CDRs results in the SSA continuing to
pay benefits to individuals who no longer quality for
benefits. In March, 1993, Jane L. Ross, Associate Director
for Income Security Issues, GAO, testified before Congress
that the ``SSA has performed about half of the 2.2 million
CDRs required by law. By not performing CDRs required in
fiscal years 1990 through 1993, according to SSA's Office of
the Actuary, the trust funds will lose about $1.4 billion by
the end of 1997 in unnecessary payments to persons who such
reviews would identify as having medically recovered from
their disabilities.''
Our investigation concludes that the failure of the SSA to
conduct continuing disability reviews on substance abusers
can result in significant losses to taxpayers.
The failure to perform CDRs, coupled with the lax
enforcement of the treatment and representative payee
requirements, renders the SSA incapable of identifying drug
addicts and alcoholics who are no longer eligible for
disability benefits. In light of the fact that the Social
Security Disability Trust Fund is expected to be depleted in
1995 and Congress will be asked to reallocate a portion of
the Old Age and Survivors' Insurance Payroll tax to the
Disability Insurance Trust Fund to address the immediate
financial shortfall of the Disability Insurance Fund, this
laxity in monitoring and enforcing disability payments to
substance abusers should raise significant concern to
taxpayers, retirees, and Congress.
Recommendations
Congress should review the following options to remedy the
problems that exist in the payment of disability benefits to
substance abusers and alcoholics:
Discontinue cash assistance to substance abusers, since
evidence suggests that these payments are being used to
subsidize addiction. In lieu of cash payments, benefits could
be provided in the form of housing vouchers, food stamps, or
direct payments solely to treatment programs. Due to recent
and increasing reports of fraudulent activity in the food
stamp program, Congress must investigate new security-
enhanced measures in safeguarding these vouchers.
Distinguish between legal and illegal substance abuse and
discontinue eligibility for individuals whose illegal drug
use is material to the finding of disability. Savings
realized from cessation of benefits could be redirected to
substance abuse treatment programs.
Prohibit back lump sum payments to substance abusers. Such
payments could be held in trust for the recipient and be
contingent upon receiving treatment.
If benefits continue to be available to substance abusers,
Congress should extend the protections of Title XVI (SSI) to
the DI (Title II) Program and apply these requirements to all
recipients who are diagnosed as substance abusers (as both
primary and secondary impairments). In determining whether to
extend these regulations, Congress should explore whether
appropriate treatment facilities and qualified representative
payees are available to meet the needs of this growing
disability population.
Consider requiring addicts and alcoholics to enroll in a
rehabilitation program before receiving disability benefits.
Clarify that income earned from illegal activity
constitutes a substantial gainful activity, and therefore is
a basis for denying disability benefits.
Require the SSA to conduct continuing disability reviews in
the SSI program.
____
Citizens Against Government Waste,
Washington, DC, February 10, 1994.
Hon. William S. Cohen,
U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cohen: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), we
support your amendment to H.R. 3759, the Emergency
Supplemental appropriations bill. The amendment you offer
will be the first step in reducing the abuses of the
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.
It is inexcusable to provide drug addicts and alcoholics
with federal funds to buy illegal drugs and alcohol. To date,
more than $1.4 billion has been spent to fund destructive
behavior and American taxpayers are footing the bill.
It is time for Congress to recognize that SSI is hurting,
not serving, the people it was designed to help. You can be
assured that CCAGW will do whatever we can to end the abuses
of SSI.
Sincerely,
Tom Schatz.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I commend Senator Cohen for his amendment
that will help remedy a serious problem with our Social Security
Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income Programs.
I believe we can all agree that these Federal programs serve an
important and valuable purpose by providing essential financial
protection for many people who are unable to work. But I find it
unbelievable and unacceptable that the rules which govern these
programs have become so bent that income from selling drugs cannot be
counted in deciding whether someone is eligible for benefits, or that
substance abusers who engage in criminal activities to support their
habits are even allowed benefits.
The Federal Government should not, in any shape or form, subsidize
drug addiction or alcoholism. This amendment will make that less
likely. And we are doing persons with a substance abuse problem no
favor by making it easier for them to continue their addictions.
Madam President, disability is not a blanket excuse for illegal
behavior. When we passed the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990,
we determined that full participation would be our national policy for
people with disabilities. If that policy means anything, it must mean
they have the same responsibilities as other Americans--and that
includes obeying the law.
Senator Cohen has also identified other important problems with these
disability programs. There is a lack of effective controls over how
benefits are spent, and they are sometimes used to buy drugs or
alcohol. The Social Security Administration has apparently failed to
fully enforce a Federal mandate that substance abusers obtain treatment
as a condition of receiving benefits. I look forward to working with
Senator Cohen on other legislation to correct these problems as well.
Madam President, we cannot be reminded too often that when we tax the
American people, we also make them a promise--that we will use their
money wisely and properly. I am afraid too often that promise is only
honored in the breach. This amendment is a small, overdue step in
keeping faith with the American people.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I discussed this amendment with my good
friend from Hawaii. I believe the amendment is acceptable and would
require no further activity on our part.
I urge its adoption.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the Social Security Administration
indicates that the administration finds it a bit difficult to
administer this provision because one matter has not been clarified.
Does this person have to be convicted before it is considered he is
participating in a criminal activity ?
Mr. COHEN. The answer is ``no.'' There will not have to be a
conviction. What is taking place today under current regulations is
that the administrative law judges, who carry out Social Security
Administration regulations, will have individuals who are claiming
eligibility for benefits come before them. They will ask them: Are you
still abusing drugs, or alcohol? The answer is usually yes. They will
then ask: How do you support this? The claimant will usually volunteer
that he or she is engaging in illegal activity. That admission will be
sufficient under this amendment to stop the flow of disability
benefits. It does not require a conviction as such. If the SSA has
evidence demonstrating that the claimant continues to engage in illegal
behavior in order to support a habit, that would constitute gainful
employment within the meaning of the act.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, although the managers realize that this
is legislation on an appropriations bill, and it is a measure that
should be before the Finance Committee, we have been advised by the
chairman of that committee, the distinguished Senator from New York,
that he will not oppose this amendment.
Accordingly, I believe I speak for the managers in accepting this
amendment. We will take it to conference.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1455) was agreed to.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise today to bring us back to what I
believe is the purpose of the bill that is before us.
I spent 10 very proud years over in the House of Representatives and
6 very proud years in local government, and I am starting my second
very proud year in the U.S. Senate. I am most honored to be part of
this body. When I came to the Senate, some of my colleagues said you
are going to be very surprised when you get to the Senate, because you
are going to be taking up a bill and suddenly there are going to be
amendments offered that really have nothing to do with the bill at
hand, and you are going to wonder what is happening.
I had a year here and I saw a lot of that go on. But, Madam
President, I really did hope and I really did think that when we had a
travesty such as the one that we had in southern California--a 6.8
Richter scale earthquake, with the power and energy release of millions
of NASA space shuttles all at once, thrusting people out of their
sleeping beds, crushing people, hospitals destroyed, schools destroyed,
homes destroyed, dreams destroyed, children frightened--I really hoped
that we could move quickly on a response.
I must say the fact that we have this bill in front of us is
attribute to this Senate Appropriations Committee, on which the chair
serves, and you are able in that committee to bring out a bill that
addresses these problems, and you beat back amendments that you felt
were extraneous to some of these emergencies that we find ourselves in.
It is not just the earthquake, as you know. There are funds in there
to pick up the pieces from the Midwest floods and other funds that are
truly dire emergencies.
I want to look at the title of the bill that is before us today,
Madam President, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. Let us
examine that title.
``Emergency.'' I define that as an unexpected crisis.
``Supplemental.'' I define that as extra.
``Appropriations.'' I define that as spending.
``Act.'' I define that as legislation.
So it is the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act that is before
us; not the Budget Act, not the Armed Services bill, not a Finance
Committee jurisdictional issue dealing with drugs, or Social Security,
but legislation is before us to provide extra spending for an
unexpected crisis.
We know we had those crises in this country. There is not an American
among us in this country who is alive today who has a pulse beat, who
has access to a radio or to television or to a newspapers or to a
friend, there is not an American who does not know that we have gone
through some horrible natural disasters in our country.
We did not want them. We did not ask for them. We pray we never have
them again. We have seen too many of them from Hawaii to the Midwest to
California, to the frosts on the east coast where, I might point out,
more people died in those frosts than died in the earthquake. So we
have our share of these disasters all through this country.
I remember so well when the State of Washington had a volcanic
eruption. I was over in the House at that time. We all pulled together
for the good of our country men and women, for our families.
I have to say, Madam President, when I sat through the debate
yesterday, the Senator from Nebraska, in all sincerity, said, ``I don't
want to hold up the supplemental bill. I want to get the help to the
people in the Midwest and to California. Believe me,'' he said to me,
``you are my friend, you are my colleague, I don't want to do that.''
And I believe him.
But he said he had no other chance to bring up these budget cuts.
Well, I have been around here for a long time in the Congress and I
want to assure my colleagues that they will have every opportunity.
Madam President, you just came from the Budget Committee. We have had
3 solid days of hearings. We have had Mr. Panetta in front of us, the
OMB Director; today, Laura Tyson from the Council of Economic Advisers
is before us. We had the Treasury Secretary before us. They are
presenting us with the facts about our budgetary situation, and some of
those facts are encouraging. But, yes, more needs to be done.
But I say to my colleagues, please remember what is before us today--
the emergency supplemental appropriations bill-- and let us keep our
eye on what we are supposed to be doing here.
I must say, I heard some cynical comments made on this floor that I
really felt were low blows to many of us here, comments that said,
``Oh, well, the only reason you do not want to debate these amendments
that deal with the budget is you want to get out of here, you want to
go home.''
Well, listen, I am willing to stay here, Madam President, as long as
it takes to get this bill done. I want to say that very clearly. That
is our job.
Do I want to go and be with my family? Yes. But do I understand my
responsibility and the responsibility of all of us to act on this bill?
Yes.
And I am very proud that our majority leader, George Mitchell, was
very clear and plain when he said, ``We will stay here until this is
done.''
So it is not because I want to go home with my family that I urge my
colleagues to please do not offer these amendments that deal with
budgets and deficits. It is because I know they will have every
opportunity to deal with those.
I chose to go on the Budget Committee, Madam President. A lot of
people did not want to go on. I wanted to go on because I agree that
the deficit crisis has to be addressed and has to be addressed very
wisely and very appropriately, with just the right mix, just the right
mix, of spending and deficit reduction. Because if we do too much of
one or the other, we throw off this fragile recovery--and we are in a
recovery.
My State is lagging behind. So of anyone in this body who wants us to
do right by this economy, who wants us to reduce the deficit so we can
keep interest rates low, so we can keep having our people refinance
their mortgages, so we can have small business get past the credit
crunch and expand, it is this Senator. And I know I speak for Senator
Feinstein, as well. We are deeply concerned about the economy of this
country and keeping it on course and making sure we have that right
balance. Both of us supported the President's deficit reduction bill
and we are proud that we did because it is bearing fruit. And we will
work even harder to cut out unnecessary spending--spending that does
not make sense--and concentrate on investments that do make sense so
that California will get on track.
But, Madam President, again, I bring us back to this bill, the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act.
Here are a couple of pictures, in case people have forgotten why we
are here today. Here is a freeway that broke in half.
Madam President, we have freeways that carry more cars per day than
any other freeways in the world. And FEMA is running out of money. In 8
days, now 7, they will be out of money. And that just does not hurt my
people. That hurts everyone in the country. Because if FEMA cannot act
quickly in the next emergency, where will we be then? And will we come
back and have more of this debate about other issues? I would hope not.
But the cynicism that I heard on the floor disturbed me greatly--
disturbed me greatly.
A comment was made, ``Oh, when we have a crisis, we pull together and
it is so easy for us to spend when we have a crisis and we come
together like Republicans and Democrats and we spend money in a
crisis.''
That was a statement from one of my colleagues that I am
paraphrasing.
I find that really cynical. If we do not pull together in a crisis in
this country, whether here or abroad, what use are we? What use are we?
We might as well pack up and forget it. Because the point of the
Federal Government, and the reason I am so proud to be here, is to
stand up in a crisis, whether it is in Los Angeles or it is in Honolulu
or it is in Seattle or it is in Nebraska. That is why I am here.
The rest of it is important, but nothing can be more important than
relieving the pain of the people in this country who get caught in a
disaster who have never, ever, ever asked for one thing from their
Government.
So I stand here today--I did not expect to speak--but I stand here
today to appeal to my colleagues: Please. We have much time, much time
to debate this budget. I look forward to it. I have my ideas how to cut
billions out of this Government that do not make sense to me. But this
is not the time or the place.
The Senator from Hawaii, who is managing the bill this morning, spent
20 eloquent minutes rebutting an amendment that deals with cuts in the
armed services.
Again, that is a debate that has to take place. But as the Senator
said, we have time to do that, through the budget process, through the
defense authorization bill. We have Senator Nunn who will lead that
debate. I will be a spirited participant in it, as will the Senator
from Hawaii, when it comes to appropriations.
So, Madam President, I will close with this. I do not want to have to
bring out these pictures to remind people of why we are here, why we
are taking up this bill. But I am going to do it throughout the day, to
be frank with you, if I feel we need to get back to the point. I hope
our colleagues, if they do have amendments, will come and present them.
But I do hope they will be relevant to this emergency supplemental
appropriations bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I wish to commend my dear friend from
California for returning us to reality. We are here to appropriate
moneys to provide extraordinary relief, extraordinary assistance to
those thousands of citizens of California who, not because of their
shortcomings or faults, have suffered irreparable damage. That is why
we are here.
As the Senator has pointed out, we will be debating the defense
budget. We will be debating the defense authorization bill. We will be
debating the defense appropriations bill. We will be debating all the
conference reports. We will have numerous opportunities to debate these
issues that we have been spending time on. This measure should have
been passed yesterday and gone into conference last night and we should
be here adopting the conference report. That is the least we can do for
our fellow citizens.
Instead, we are wasting our time when we know we have time awaiting
us in the very near future to discuss these matters in an orderly and
reasoned manner.
I, as a citizen of the United States, wish to apologize to the
citizens of California. I wonder how they are feeling at this moment,
watching us. They must be saying to themselves: I wonder if the Members
of the Senate are aware of the pain.
Those of us who have been blessed and those of us who have never
suffered from these catastrophic tragedies have no idea what goes
through the psyche--the psyche of these people.
Just a few days ago I had a conference with several psychiatrists and
psychologists who had gone to California to assist your people. I do
not think it occurs to too many Americans it is not just the damage of
the highway or the damage of the buildings. Imagine what goes through
the minds of children. For the rest of their lives they will have
nightmares. And this is the assistance we are trying to provide, to
ease their minds. I hope my colleagues will return here soon to bring
up their amendments, if they do have any, and let us get on with the
business--the business of providing extraordinary assistance,
extraordinary aid to the devastated people of California.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my colleague. It gets kind of
lonely when you know the bill is so necessary for your State. I know
the Senator from Hawaii had that lonely feeling when his communities
suffered from hurricanes. This is a time when we should blur those
arbitrary lines that divide us and pull together. We should do it with
good will.
I want to say to the Senator from Hawaii, the face that haunts me
every time I stand up here and talk about the earthquake is that of a
little child. I guess he was about 9 years old. You know how children
always have a sparkle in their eye, no matter what? There was no
sparkle in this young man's eye. I remember his looking at me and
saying, ``Will you fix it?''
And I took him around. He was standing behind the yellow banner that
they had set up. The President had come through just before. The
President was way down, and I stayed behind to chat with this young
man.
I put my arm around him and I said, ``We are going to fix it.''
He said, ``Are you going to fix my school? I cannot go back to my
school.''
We are going to fix it.
Madam President, we thank God that earthquake, when it hit, hit at
4:30 in the morning. Because I have reports now from James Lee Witt,
FEMA Director, of the condition of some of those 150 schools that need
our assistance and will get our assistance with these funds today. We
will pay 90 percent of those rebuilds.
Fluorescent lights fell right over all the desks where those children
would have been sitting. Everything was strewn all over where those
children would have been sitting. And the Senator from Hawaii is right,
even though the children were not sitting there, they are smart enough
to know, where their school is closed, the kind of danger this quake
presented. They need help, these children. We need to rebuild these
schools.
The first day of the quake, 800,000 children were out of school. Two
days later, 250,000 were still out of school. Hospitals are closing.
Needed hospital beds in Santa Monica are shut down now. They do not
know when they will have them back--400 beds. If you know anything
about the area, you know that is a huge area. If you are sick you
cannot afford to be transported across town, because it could take too
long a time.
Madam President, I do not see too many colleagues on the floor here
today. I understand there are a great number of amendments that have
been listed. I ask my friend from Hawaii, how many amendments is he
aware of that have been proposed to this bill?
Mr. INOUYE. We have 5 amendments awaiting votes at this moment. In
addition to that, I believe there are about 10 more to be considered
and debated. If we are fortunate, we may finish by midnight, in the
midst of the sleet storm.
Madam President, I came to my office this morning, prepared to spend
the night here--like many of us. I think we should all assume we will
spend the night here. Because that is the least we can do for your
people.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator very, very much for answering my
question. A lot of my people did not have a roof over their heads for
several nights. A lot of children were sleeping under tents. And we are
here debating the budget.
I believe it is very important for us to work on that task force and
find out a better way to handle these emergency situations. I do not
want to see the deficit go up every time there is a crisis, be it in
California, or Arizona, or Washington, or Hawaii, or Oregon, or New
York, or Florida. I would like to see us have a disaster fund that is
set up and ready to go. The Senator from Alaska yesterday put out an
idea of a checkoff. There are many other ideas. We have to face this
problem, and I want to face this problem. But I say again to my friends
in this Chamber who have been, individually, so kind to me and to
Senator Feinstein, expressing their concern, that we cannot in the
middle of a crisis, when money is going to run out in 7 days, when we
have 26,000 homes that have been red tagged or yellow tagged, just in
the city of Los Angeles--that does not include the many other cities
like Santa Monica and Santa Clarita and other cities around there. Red
tagged or yellow tagged means they are dangerous. A red-tagged home you
cannot go back in, and a yellow-tagged home you probably should not.
There are 26,000 whose lives are uprooted just in the city and county
of Los Angeles.
This is not a partisan issue. Mayor Riordan, a Republican, needs our
help. Governor Wilson, a Republican--former Senator, now Governor
Wilson--needs our help. Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer ask for
your help. This is a bipartisan crisis. We do not know how many
Republicans or Democrats or Independents were hurt. We know people were
hurt. We know children were hurt. We know families were hurt. We know
that homes are down. We know that freeways are down. We know that small
businesses have been imperiled and small business is the job creator.
California was just coming out of this recession, and we need these
dollars now, not only for our people and our businesses and our
children and our economy and our sense that things are going to get
better--and the Senator from Hawaii is correct. The anguish that people
feel after these crises, the professionals call it post-traumatic
stress, meaning stress that comes about after a crisis.
If the people today see us acting, I think it is going to be a very
bright day in southern California, but if they see us continuing to
argue about matters that truly to the common ordinary real person do
not fit into the definition of an emergency supplemental appropriations
bill, we are sending a very rough signal out there.
So I applaud my colleague from Hawaii for his remarks. I urge my
colleagues, let us get on with this. If there are any differences in
this bill--we know there are a couple of small differences even thus
far--we could have a conference that could wind up being contentious.
We want to avoid that. Please let us get on with this and let us save a
lot of these important, important rescission conversations, deficit-
cutting conversations, and amendments that are very important for the
appropriate moment. And that moment, Madam President, you and I know
well is upon us in the Budget Committee, in the Armed Services
Committee, in every single committee on which we all serve.
I urge my colleagues to think about the children, think about the
people and let us get on with this bill, get it to conference and do
our job. I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
business be set aside so that we may consider an amendment that will be
submitted by the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise today to continue a many-year
fight to question the manner in which we spend the taxpayers' money.
The bill we are considering today is entitled the ``Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations'' bill. I certainly understand the
emergency needed to fund repairs due to the California earthquakes and
to help rebuild peoples' lives. I am very concerned about the other
nonemergency items in this bill added by the Congress or requested by
the President.
I follow the news very carefully, but it comes as a great shock to me
that the Los Angeles earthquake was felt all the way to Pennsylvania
Station in New York. My colleagues and the American people might be
interested to know that this emergency legislation includes $10 million
to relocate the central Amtrak section of Pennsylvania Station to the
James A. Farley Post Office in New York City. I know the San Andreas
fault was big. I did not know it stretched quite so far.
In a way, this bill is about trains; it is about a gravy train that
is on the track and, in Congress' typical fashion, we are going to see
how many of the taxpayers we can take for a ride. More earmarks, more
unnecessary pork, more of our congressional tricks of adding items
which deserve debate and scrutiny onto a must-pass, virtually vital aid
package. The Vice President in his report ``Reinventing Government,''
stated:
In Washington, we must work together to untangle the knots
of red tape that prevent Government from serving the American
people well. We must give Cabinet Secretaries, program
directors, and line managers much greater authority to pursue
their real purposes.
Vice President Gore also states:
Congressional appropriations often come with hundreds of
strings attached. The Interior Department found that language
in its 1992 House-Senate conference committee report included
some 2,120 directives, earmarks, instructions and
prohibitions. As the Federal budget tightens, lawmakers
request increasingly specific report language to protect
activities in their districts. Indeed, 1993 was a record year
for such requests.
Madam President, that comes from the Vice President of the United
States. I repeat:
As the Federal budget tightens, lawmakers request
increasingly specific report language to protect activities
in their districts. Indeed, 1993 was a record year for such
requests.
It appears we are beginning this year with our goal being to beat
last year's records. I am very disheartened to see we have heaped the
trough with nonemergency items and in an attempt to only partially
offset the spending with spending cuts, this bill ignores many of the
rescission requests the President made.
The President had requested that many pork-laden programs be
eliminated. This bill does not appear to do that. Madam President, this
bill is ample proof that the process is broken. I have continually
voiced that concern and sought to fix it. This bill, unfortunately,
gives more credence to my argument.
I would like to inquire of the managers concerning some of the
aspects of this bill, if they choose to respond to it.
First of all, I noted that in the supplemental appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, chapter 1: The committee
recommends an additional $1.4 million for the extension service as
proposed by the President. These funds would finance an integrated pest
management project. The funding would support applied research to find
alternative control methods for addressing the severe outbreak of a new
blight fungus strain affecting potatoes.
I guess my question to either managers of the bill is why it is
required in this supplemental to spend $1.4 million for an integrated
pest management project?
On page 24, chapter 2, there is a rather curious aspect concerning
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The committee has provided
an additional $75,000 for salaries and expenses requested to cover the
mandatory costs to comply with a court order and resolve the
requirements under the court case known as Armstrong versus Executive
Office of the President.
In following pages, such as on page 29 of this legislation, there are
further costs involved concerning Armstrong versus the Executive Office
of the President in other parts of this bill.
On page 33, the committee provided an additional $5.3 million for
salaries and expenses to cover the costs of complying with and
resolving requirements resulting from Armstrong versus Executive Office
of the President. There is an additional $5 million there, and I total
it up to be about $13 million.
I wonder if the managers of the bill can tell me some of the details
of the aspects of the $13 million cost associated with Armstrong versus
Executive Office of the President.
Would either one of the managers of the bill care to respond at this
time?
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, if the Senator will yield.
Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Although the questions that have been propounded do not
refer to the subcommittee that I am privileged to chair, as to the
potatoes, if my recollection is correct, the moneys are considered
supplemental and emergency because it relates to a special disease or
blight on potatoes, and experts have suggested that if treatment is not
provided at the earliest stage, we may have a devastating potato blight
in the United States.
In the State of California, I just saw a documentary on blight in the
vineyards where whole vineyards have been wiped out because of a
certain blight of sort that has wiped out these cabernet sauvignon
grapes. And in the same fashion I have been advised that potatoes are
in danger of being wiped out.
Second, as to the measure in the Executive Office, I have been
advised that because of the demands made upon the administration for
information resulting from the Iran-Contra crisis, files have had to be
restored, files that have been destroyed by some of the former
occupants of the National Security Office. And in many ways the White
House is responding to demands made by the courts and made by the
Congress of the United States. These were files that were destroyed by
the members of the National Security Office during the time of the
Iran-Contra crisis.
Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the response of the Senator from Hawaii, and
I do not want to belabor the point. But it seems to me this is a
specific case, Armstrong v. Executive Office, and I count up somewhere
around $13 million. I fully understand the requirements of Iran-Contra.
I do not know if the Senator from Oregon has any additional information
on that either.
On page 25, I note that $2 million is transferred to the Fish and
Wildlife Service to meet its responsibilities on the Pacific Northwest
Forest Plan. I notice land acquisition of $1,275,000 for land adjacent
to the Everglades National Park; flood damage in Arizona and
California; and to the oil spill in Blytheville, Arkansas; a
legislative branch--I mentioned the very large increases; and, of
course, $10 million appropriation for the Pennsylvania Station
Redevelopment Project.
The current Pennsylvania Station, New York City is used for
intermodel transportation, et cetera. To relocate the Central Amtrak
station to the James A. Farley Post Office in New York City. I wonder
if the City of New York or the State of New York were also providing
any funds to what I understand can be a $200 million overall
expenditure over time?
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, if the Senator will yield.
Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield to my friend from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. The items that the Senator from Arizona just cited are
part of the supplemental bill. It is not the dire emergency
supplemental. It is part of the list submitted by the President of the
United States for consideration by the Congress. I must advise the
Senator from Arizona that I am not in position to respond to every one
of them. I hope that the Senator from New York will be here to respond
to the Senator as to the railway station. I am not aware of that.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Hawaii.
I would just like to say that the thrust of my remarks is that the
American people believe we are coming here to provide emergency
supplemental appropriations which are an emergency situation in the
State of California, which all of us agree with and support, at least
to varying degrees.
Instead, we find ourselves funding various specific projects,
agencies, which are neither emergency in nature nor, in my view,
required to be outside the normal authorization and appropriations
process.
Perhaps the members of the Appropriations Committee can describe to
me why the $10 million to move Pennsylvania Station is so vital, and
why we need pest management control additional spending when the 1994
appropriations bill already appropriated $434 million for the
Department of Agriculture Extension Service, but we need to have an
additional million or so because of a potato blight.
What I am saying, Madam President, is very clear. On the one hand, we
are telling the American people we are taking care of an emergency in
California, and we add on, in my view, projects which may or may not be
vital or necessary as a supplemental. Then, in my view, compounding
this entire situation, we have selectively--and I emphasize
``selectively''--implemented certain rescissions which were requested
by the President of the United States in his budget. Those rescissions
clearly do not affect the most egregious aspects of the appropriations
process, those special items that are earmarked for appropriations in
the hundreds of millions of dollars.
I would like to move to that aspect of it right now.
In the back of the Budget of the United States Government for fiscal
year 1995 are rescission proposals, as is part of the President's
budget.
Now, these rescissions were requested by the President, some of them
requested and then changed slightly, which I will get into. Then, of
course, as is within the authority of the Appropriations Committee,
they either act or do not act on certain provisions and certain
rescission requests on the part of the President.
The reason why I am going through this, Madam President, is that I
hope to make it clear that for those projects which are specifically
earmarked, there is no rescission. For those that are general--
sometimes good, sometimes not so good--those are acted upon.
I guess the first example that I can use is the Agricultural Research
Service. The administration requested a $16 million rescission; the
committee recommended a $1 million rescission. Now, the reason why the
President of the United States asked for these rescissions:
They would reflect savings from the proposed elimination of
lower priority research projects such as those for which
alternative sources of funding are available from State or
local governments, industry or others. Adequate funding would
remain to allow ARS scientists to perform high priority,
nationwide research in areas such as natural resource
protection, food quality and improved agriculture practices.
Where is the $15 million? They are basically on certain specific
projects earmarked by the Congress.
Right below that, on buildings and facilities, there was a 1994
rescission request of $8,460,000 from the President of the United
States. The committee recommended zero. They recommended no rescission.
The reason why the President asked for it, and I quote from his budget,
he says:
This proposal, transmitted November 1, 1993, reflects
savings from the elimination of Congressional earmarks
directing resources to be used for specific new construction.
New construction of research facilities is often not needed
because sufficient space is available at existing
laboratories to house agency personnel if these labs are
renovated.
The President of the United States is seeking to eliminate projects
which were the result of congressional earmarks. The committee in its
wisdom has decided not to do that at all.
As there are many others that I would like to cite here, perhaps one
that is even more interesting is the rescission on buildings and
facilities that the administration asked for, a $34 million rescission.
The committee agreed to $2.89 million.
The reason the President asked for this is this proposal, transmitted
November 1, 1993, reflects savings from eliminating the construction of
lower-priority research facilities congressionally earmarked for
particular States and universities. The funds were not awarded
competitively nor peer reviewed, and most projects are for local, not
national, priorities.
The President of the United States asked for a rescission of $34
million for the reason that they were earmarked. They were not
competitively based, and they are not a national priority. The
committee found, in its wisdom, $2.8 million that they would recommend
as a rescission in this bill, falling in my view about $32 million
short.
I know that many times we are talking about billions of dollars
around here, Madam President. But these tens of millions mount up over
time, and they mount up, in my view, to a $4.5 trillion deficit.
Later on, the President asked for a rescission of $4 million for
construction on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The committee decided not to do that because the committee does not
recommend rescinding $4 million from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration construction. The reason the President asked
for this is it reflects savings of funds not needed to provide for
programs, projects, and activities that fail to meet one or more of the
following criteria: Competitively awarded, authorized in law, meet
established Federal grant selection and award procedures, procedures do
not duplicate ongoing efforts, original objectives have not been
completed, and the objectives are consistent with the statutory
responsibilities of NOAA. That is $34 million the committee did not
choose to support.
The committee has recommended rescission. The President recommended a
rescission for Navy aircraft of $51 million. The committee
recommendation was zero. The President recommended a rescission of $50
million for LHD-7, an amphibious assault ship.
As a strong supporter of national defense, I still do not understand
why this rescission was not allowed in light of the fact that the
President's budget terminates both of those projects this year; both of
those weapons systems.
In military construction, of which I have direct oversight in my
capacity as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness
and Defense Infrastructure, here was a recommendation for military
construction, and there were unwarranted add-ons that were the sum
total of roughly $1 billion.
According to the Congress Daily of February 8, 1994:
The Clinton administration, which in its new 1994 budget
Monday proposed rescinding about $3 billion in budget
authority for highway demonstration projects, has decided not
to rescind the money after all. A special message President
Clinton sent to the Congress containing his requested
rescission did not include the highway money even though the
administrations budget prepared earlier includes a reference
to the cuts in the appendix.
In the appendix, it states:
The proposal reflects savings from eliminating funding
provided by annual appropriations acts from all unauthorized
highway demonstration projects that are not under
construction. Such highway projects should compete for funds
through the normal allocation and planning processes within
the Federal aid highways grant system.
The second proposal would rescind savings from the
elimination of . . . highway demonstration projects. Such
projects should compete for funds through the normal
allocation and planning process at the State level.
In its reports, the General Accounting Office has found
that such highway demonstration project completion costs will
greatly exceed authorized Federal and State contributions,
and that State officials are uncertain where they will find
more funding. The rescission of these funds is in accordance
with the recommendations of the Vice President's National
Performance Review.
That is over $2.2 billion. As I say, even though it is referred to in
this budget, it was taken out prior to the President sending his budget
over.
It is over $2.2 billion for 1994. These cuts would eliminate
appropriations for all unauthorized highway demonstration projects that
are not under construction. It would also rescind funds for selected
programs that should compete for funds through the normal allocation
process.
According to the Congress Daily, the administration got pressure last
week from legislators representing Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New
York, and California--four States that were to get 40 percent of the
$2.2 billion for demonstration projects in fiscal year 1994. The
administration got cold feet about the cuts.
Madam President, the cuts were not made. To make matters worse, even
after the President revised his request and lessened the amount he
wanted, the committee still did not rescind the amount the President
requested. Additionally, it appears that although the committee did
rescind significant funds from the highway trust fund, many of the
earmarks the Vice President and the President believe are so harmful
have not been cut.
Madam President, there are other areas that I would include for the
Record.
My point is that despite the fact that we have a $4.5 trillion
deficit, despite the fact that the American people have expressed their
anger and outrage time after time of lost confidence in the efficient
and appropriate way to spend their tax dollars, it is business as
usual. This supplemental appropriations bill certainly does demonstrate
that that is the case.
I have identified and will continue to identify billions of dollars
of funding of appropriations which are either totally unnecessary, in
the case of the ``demonstration projects, which are egregious examples
of what the American people call pork, ranging from that to areas which
simply are not necessary.
The integrated pest blight management requiring an additional $l.4
million, even that department received $434 million in appropriations
in 1994.
I intend, Madam President, to propose an amendment or two that might
at least put the Congress on record as to whether we will support this
kind of spending with the full and certain knowledge that these
amounts, like the Kerrey-Brown amendment yesterday, will be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request?
Mr. McCAIN. How long will the Senator from California speak?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Probably less than 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I wish to speak about the main point
of the legislation before us, which is the emergency supplemental for
the California earthquake. I join my colleague, Senator Boxer, in
expressing what is a great concern. That growing concern is twofold. On
one hand, within 24 hours, Members are going to be getting on planes
and leaving and the bill will not have been passed. There are 30
possible amendments that may be before the Senate in a very short
period of time, and I am concerned about that.
I am concerned that this bill has become a grab bag for everyone's
favorite offset or everyone's favorite cause. I am not commenting on
the legitimacy of the amendments, but I am commenting on the fact that
the time is short before Members will begin to leave for the scheduled
recess.
As I look at the amendments, there are amendments pending on Bosnia,
amendments pending involving the State Department, health care, so-
called pork programs, and so on. In the meantime, there is real
concern.
The second part of my concern is the fact that before we leave, not
only the legislation has to pass, but a conference must take place. I
think perhaps Members really might not realize the seriousness of the
problem, with the emergency assistance and public assistance parts of
FEMA due to run out within a week. What will happen if the money does
run out is that what we will see is State pitted against State.
Madam President, FEMA has said that at its current rate of spending
the disaster relief fund will run dry by the end of next week. That
means that to pay for emergency assistance in California, which comes
first--the human emergency comes first--eligible public assistance
projects in Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wisconsin may very well be delayed. FEMA is providing
funds to projects which would relocate communities that are perpetually
located in floodplains. A number of communities have new requests in to
FEMA, and unless we pass this bill, these projects will not be funded.
I asked my office to call FEMA and try to prevail upon them to give
them an idea of the kinds of projects that will not be funded unless
the legislation is passed. What we have learned is that the following
new applications that are pending will not be funded: In Kansas, Riley
County, $4.3 million; the city of Ellsworth, $200,000; the city of St.
Marys, $200,000; in Missouri, $600,000 for Hannibal and $300,000 for
Rhineland; in Nebraska, $57,000 for Jefferson County, $500,000 for
Sarpy County, and $3 million for Douglas and Sarpy Counties; in the
State of Iowa, $5.1 million. Again, these are new applications that
will not be funded if this supplemental is not concluded and the
conference report passed.
(Mr. SHELBY assumed the chair.)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have also been told that aid to 22 other States is
in jeopardy if the bill is not passed. So what is happening, as we
entertain amendment after amendment, is that one State will eventually
be pitted against the other; and somehow it occurs to me that that is
not the way the Senate of the United States should be doing business in
a time of emergency.
I say this quite respectfully because I know that to the people
making the amendments, the amendments are very important and they
worked a long time to develop them. But I urge my colleagues to find
another vehicle so that we do not pit floodplain relief in the Midwest
against emergency supplemental relief in California.
In this bill, in one of the amendments pending, there will be an
amendment to take the Cypress Expressway--which was destroyed during
the Loma Prieta earthquake--off on the basis that it is no longer an
emergency. I point out that in this bill there is $685 million in
continuing relief for the Midwest floods. It is not an emergency right
now, but the prior supplemental was not adequate. Therefore, $685
million is added to this supplemental for floods.
So I say what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If, in
a prior supplemental flood needs are not met, it is appropriate that
they be in this supplemental, just as it is appropriate for the Cypress
Expressway reconstruction funds to be in this supplemental.
I want to enter into the Record a letter sent by Mr. James Van Loben
Sels, the Director of the California Department of Transportation.
First, I would like to quote from it. It says:
The engineering complexity, the number of multi-level
structures damaged, the densely populated area and the
environmental concerns have all impacted reconstruction of
the system.
This letter refers to both the Embarcadero and the Cypress freeways.
Two of the structures, the Cypress Street Freeway and
Embarcadero Freeway have been completely demolished. The city
and county of San Francisco are developing a replacement for
the Embarcadero Freeway and expect it to be under
construction by 1996. Under the direction of the State
Department of Transportation, Caltrans, the Cypress Freeway
replacement program has prepared several contracts, all of
which can be underway in fiscal year 1994.
These funds are now necessary, and an effort is going to be made to
eliminate them from this supplemental.
Quoting from the letter:
Under earlier congressional action, $1 billion of Federal
emergency relief funds had been made available for repair of
earthquake-damaged highways and freeways. This amount has
been determined to be $385 million short of the funds needed
for the full share of the work eligible for emergency relief
funding.
Three hundred fifteen million dollars is in this emergency
supplemental. It is no less an emergency just because Loma Prieta took
place in 1989 than it is today. It is the remaining amount that is
necessary to move on with construction of the Cypress Freeway. As I
might point out, both the Embarcadero and the Cypress are two huge
structures that were entirely demolished, not a section of the
structure, but huge structures, entirely demolished by this earthquake.
I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Sacramento, CA,
October 5, 1993.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate,
Senate Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: The Loma Prieta Earthquake caused
damage to the transportation system in the San Francisco-
Oakland Bay area that was unprecedented in modern history.
The engineering complexity, the number of multi-level
structures damaged, the densely populated area and the
environmental concerns have all impacted the reconstruction
of the system. Two of the structures, the Cypress Street
Freeway and the Embarcadero Freeway have been completely
demolished. The City and County of San Francisco are
developing a replacement for the Embarcadeo Freeway and
expect it to be under construction by 1996. Under the
direction of the State Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), the Cypress Freeway replacement program has
prepared several contracts, all of which can be underway in
Fiscal Year 1994.
Under earlier Congressional action, $1 billion of Federal
Emergency Relief Funds had been made available for repair of
earthquake-damaged highways and freeways. This amount has
been determined to be $385 million short of the funds needed
for the full share of the work eligible for Emergency Relief
Funding.
The Cypress Freeway contracts alone would require the $315
million of additional Emergency Relief Funding that the
President has requested for earthquake repair.
As you well know, any additional Federal funds that can be
allocated to reconstruction of the Bay Area Transportation
System will be beneficial to an economic revitalization of
the entire State of California.
Your continuing support is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
James W. Van Loben Sels,
Director.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It would seem to me, Mr. President, that as we look
at 30 possible remaining amendments to this bill, at 10 minutes after
the noon hour, I know for a fact that within 24 hours Members are
booked on planes to return to their districts. This bill may not be
passed, and the conference will not have taken place. Then we go away
for 10 days and we come back, and FEMA will effectively have run out of
money.
They will begin making judgments between one State disaster and
another as to which has the highest priority for funding. And FEMA has
said they will fund emergency relief prior to public assistance relief.
I do not think we want to be in this situation. I certainly do not
want to be in this situation.
I know this is a large supplemental and I regret it. The damage is
commensurately large.
I think it is our duty to come to grips with this bill and to make a
decision. I am hopeful that Members that have amendments will recognize
the shortness of time before their colleagues embark on planes to
return to their districts and that we might be able to conclude this
business today. It is really important. It is important not only to the
people of California, it is important to the flood plain areas in the
Midwest and many other States as well.
Just in conclusion, it obviously is legitimate to have a discussion
of whether a supplemental item is of an emergency nature or not. I
think that is a legitimate debate. I know under the rules of this
Senate anything is legitimate in debate. However, the clock is ticking
and the people are needful.
Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 1456
(Purpose: To offset the cost of the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1994 by rescinding an additional $2.2 billion
from the FHA, as requested by the President)
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 1456.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 108, on line 20, insert the following new proviso:
Provided further, That of the amounts appropriated for the
Federal Highway Administration, an additional amount of
$2,209,716,000 is hereby rescinded in accordance with the
rescission proposals reflected on page 1018 of the ``Budget
of the U.S. Government Appendix'' for fiscal year 1995.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is one which is based on a
proposal that was made by the President of the United States contained
in his budget for fiscal year 1995 on page 1018, which later was taken
out of the main body of the budget. It calls for the elimination of
$2.2 billion in highway demonstration projects, which in the view of
the President, at least at that time, are unneeded projects.
On page 1018, under ``Miscellaneous Appropriations, Rescission
Proposal,'' $343 million is one part of it, $1.7 billion is another
part of it, and $144 million the other part. The reasons given in the
President's budget need no elaboration by me. They read as follows.
The first proposal, transmitted November 1, 1993, reflects
savings from eliminating funding provided by annual
appropriations acts from all unauthorized highway
demonstration projects that are not under construction. Such
highway projects should compete for funds through the normal
allocation and planning processes within the Federal-aid
highways grants program.
A second proposal would rescind savings from the
elimination of selected highway demonstration projects. Such
projects should compete for funds through the normal
allocation and planning processes at the State level.
The second proposal is consistent with and in addition to
the November 1, 1993 proposal.
In its reports, the General Accounting Office has found
that such highway demonstration project completion costs will
greatly exceed authorized Federal and State contributions,
and that State officials are uncertain where they will find
more funding. The rescission of these funds is in accordance
with the recommendations of the Vice President's National
Performance Review.
The explanation for the other two are exactly the same as the first,
ending with: ``The rescission of these funds is in accordance with the
recommendations of the Vice President's National Performance Review.''
Mr. President, I would again quote from an item in Congress Daily,
entitled ``Clinton Switches Stance on Cutting Highway Projects.''
The Clinton administration, which in its new FY95 budget
Monday proposed rescinding about $3 billion in budget
authority for highway demonstration projects, has decided not
to rescind the money after all, a congressional said today.
``That isn't what they're proposing now,'' said the source,
who said the ``special message'' President Clinton sent to
Congress containing his requested rescissions did not include
the highway money, even though the administration's budget--
prepared earlier--includes a reference to the cuts in the
appendix. The source said the change was made after the
administration got pressure last week from legislators
representing Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York and
California--four states that were to get 40 percent of the
$2.2 billion for demonstration projects in FY94. ``The
administration got cold feet'' about the cuts, the source
said.
Clinton was going to use the money saved from cutting the
demonstration projects to help fully fund the FY95 component
of the 1991 surface transportation bill. The administration
assumed $400 million in outlay savings in FY95 by cutting the
demonstration projects it planned to use to fund the larger
highway bill, which administration officials announced as a
budget priority on Monday. But now, the source said, the
administration has ``a $400 million outlay problem'' that has
to be solved because it no longer has all the money it would
need to fully fund the highway bill. The administration's new
plan, the source said, would let Transportation Secretary
Pena make adjustments in the highway program to save $58.7
million in FY94 and another $406.3 million in FY95 to make up
the gap. But because of the slow spend-out rate for
demonstration projects, the highway obligation limitation
would have to be cut by $2.5 billion in FY95 to produce the
necessary outlay savings next year.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief
colloquy with my comanager of this supplemental appropriations bill, if
he will be willing to do so.
First, I would like to check his records against mine. I believe that
last night we were able to ascertain, from both the Republican side and
the Democratic side of the aisle, what amendments were planned, at
least, to be offered during this period of time.
Does he have such figures available?
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, to the best of
my recollection there are 25 amendments remaining to be considered.
Senator McCain has just touched upon one, so there are 24 to be
debated.
Mr. HATFIELD. Twenty-four.
Mr. INOUYE. However, I have been advised that of the remaining 24,
all but four or five have been somehow addressed in other amendments.
So we may be faced with serious, lengthy debates on four or five other
amendments.
Mr. HATFIELD. Four or five out of the twenty-four remaining?
Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
Mr. HATFIELD. I would like to also----
Mr. INOUYE. If I may also advise the Senator, I am certain he is
aware that at this moment there are five amendments awaiting votes.
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. We have what we call stacked, or expected-to-have
rollcalls, on five amendments.
Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
Mr. HATFIELD. Then I would like to ask the Senator from Hawaii if he
has any estimate of the time required to accommodate the Senators in
handling this list of amendments, if he has any way of estimating,
counting the rollcall times and the debate, what we are looking at as
far as timeframe?
Mr. INOUYE. If I may respond in this manner. After conferring with
the leadership of the Senate, both Democrat and Republican, I am led to
believe and conclude that we should be finished by 10 p.m. this
evening.
Mr. HATFIELD. Ten p.m.
Mr. INOUYE. The bill. Hopefully tomorrow we will go into conference.
Mr. HATFIELD. Would the Senator not agree that is within the context
that we would be moving along with these, from the time he made that
inquiry and that estimate from the leadership, and, with the exception
of the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], we have really not
accomplished very much this morning? We have been here on the floor
since 10:15, I believe, when we went on this bill, and to my knowledge
we have not had any conclusion of any of these amendments we have had
pending. Senators have been alerted. I know the Republican Cloakroom--
and I understand the Democratic Cloakroom as well--has informed the
Senators on this list that we are ready to handle those amendments. We
are here to do business.
Again, with the exception of the Senator from Arizona, we have had
colloquies, we have had statements, but I am not aware of any amendment
that has been, really, offered, with that exception.
Mr. INOUYE. We have accepted the amendment submitted by Senator
Cohen, as my colleague knows.
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. Yes. That was really not a controversial amendment
and that did not necessitate extended debate.
Mr. INOUYE. Not at all.
Mr. HATFIELD. In effect, those the Senator has identified as
requiring a period of time for debate--we both understand we do not
know precisely how much time, but we know it is controversial enough
that it will elicit debate--none of those amendments really are in the
process; are they?
Mr. INOUYE. In conferring with the leadership of the Senate, I am led
to conclude that in their assessment of the schedule, an assumption was
made that very little would be done in the morning and that the
activities should commence in about 30 minutes.
Mr. HATFIELD. As the Senator knows, it has been observed we operate
like mushrooms, often. We tend to do our growing activity at nighttime.
Yet here we are, convened to do the business of the Senate as of 10:15
this morning on this particular bill.
What are the options that we have as managers of this bill, to
expedite this bill's handling, as my colleague sees it? In light of the
fact that the leader, Mr. Mitchell, indicated very clearly on more than
one occasion that we must complete this bill, getting this aid--as the
Senators from California and others have emphasized again and again and
again today--we must complete this before the recess begins for the
Presidential recess, Lincoln Day, we used to call it. And that is
scheduled to begin tomorrow, Friday.
At the same time, we must complete this bill in the Senate, we must
go to conference with the House to resolve the differences between the
two, and come back here again to report to the body to adopt the
conference report.
We have no idea how long it is going to take in the conference. I can
say one thing, if we had adopted one of the amendments that was offered
yesterday, we would be in conference, I am convinced, at least days,
not just hours, but perhaps days. So we do not know what kinds of
complexities may create a longer conference than we would like, by
amendments that may be adopted that are pending today.
Is that a correct analysis? What are the options we have to expedite
this?
Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is absolutely correct. I believe the
leadership, in concluding that we would be finished by 10 this evening,
has assumed that we would pass a clean bill without controversial
amendments. If the amendment that the Senator has referred to was
adopted yesterday, my conference with House leaders would lead me to
believe that we would not even have a conference. They would consider
that as a waste of time.
There is another matter that we should consider. Because I was
advised that it would be as late as 10 o'clock this evening, I came to
work this morning with a small overnight bag. I have a suit, change of
shirts, underwear, socks because if we are here until 10 o'clock, it
will be extremely difficult for Members to get home. We are looking
forward to one of the worst sleet storms in the history of the District
this evening.
So if we wish to spend the evening, then let us stay until 10 or 11
o'clock. We can almost guarantee that half of us--those who do not live
in the neighborhood--will have to spend the evening here.
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator for making that observation because
it was the next issue I wanted to get to, and that is the so-called
weather prediction. We will be urged, I am sure, as managers of the
bill, to not have rollcalls after a certain time so that staff and
Members may get home because of this pending storm, plus the fact we
want to start a recess tomorrow.
Will the Senator not agree that at some particular point in time any
Senator--not just the managers--any Senator can stand here and ask for
third reading of this bill?
Mr. INOUYE. At this moment, in fact.
Mr. HATFIELD. So I am correct. In other words, if patience tends to
run out and the clock tends to run out and the weather begins to worsen
and the contingencies they represent, we could, in effect, say third
reading of this bill, closing out those amendments that the Senators,
who have said they would perhaps offer them, refuse to come to the
floor to offer them. They will be cut out; is that correct?
Mr. INOUYE. According to the rules of the Senate, that is possible.
Mr. HATFIELD. I am talking about options. I am not talking about
actions but options.
Is it also true that the managers of the bill have another option? We
can call up these amendments in the absence of the author, and we could
expedite this by taking those amendments in a series of actions to wipe
the slate clean and thereby move to third reading; is that another
option?
Mr. INOUYE. That is an option, but I doubt we will exercise that
option.
Mr. HATFIELD. I would just like to know what our options are. I am
not suggesting these will be actions taken because I assume we will
confer with the leadership before such drastic actions might be taken.
But I just want to say, I would like to put the Senate on notice that
Members who have indicated that they are planning to offer amendments,
if they have had a change of mind, I urge them to let us know so we can
chalk those amendments off our list. But otherwise to please come to
the floor and let us utilize this time and get this bill completed
because of the sequence of events that we have already stated that
follow the Senate action; namely, conference with the House, resolving
the differences, coming back here and getting the report adopted.
I will at this point indicate, it might be my desire to have a
rollcall on the conference report so that I do not think Senators ought
to feel like they can escape into the recess feeling that there will be
no further rollcall votes because the conference report will be voice
voted. I want to put on notice that it is my intention right now to
possibly call for a rollcall vote on the final conference report.
Mr. INOUYE. If that is the case, I would like to make two
observations. One, we are here to provide extraordinary relief and
assistance to those citizens, fellow citizens, in the Midwest and in
California who have suffered unimaginable problems, tragedies. If we do
not resolve this by this weekend--and I am not speaking of the recess--
then certain funding programs will cease, and it will take weeks, if
not months, to revive them again.
In the meantime, certain people may have to go without shelter,
without medical care, and I do not think that is the intention of this
body.
I hope we can resolve this matter by this evening, permitting the
managers and the conferees to begin our discussions with the House and
hopefully by tomorrow noon conclude that, get back here and vote on it.
If we stay until 10 o'clock, then the conference will not begin
tonight. We will have to be here despite the sleet and the snow.
Hopefully, we can conclude it at some reasonable hour and Members will
have to stick around if that request for the yeas and nays is made.
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from Oregon will yield for a
question.
Mr. HATFIELD. I will be very happy to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. I have listened to this interesting discussion.
Mr. HATFIELD. Just discussion.
Mr. DORGAN. I was thinking about the stories I read about the
difficulty of moving a wagon train across the West. They usually came
through North Dakota. The difficulty with moving wagon trains was that
a wagon train could only move under any condition as fast as the
slowest wagon.
I am reminded of that pace when I watch the Senate from time to time.
The Senator from Oregon is talking about those who want to offer
amendments should really be here to do it, otherwise, we perhaps ought
to move to third reading.
This body is full of a lot of wonderful people and it is full of,
occasionally, a few bad habits. One of those bad habits that all of us
probably have is not getting here to offer the amendments when we
should. I think from time to time, we ought to consider going to third
reading if nobody is around with amendments.
We should never disadvantage a Member of this body who wants to offer
an amendment, who wishes to offer a legislative initiative. They have
every right to do that under every circumstance. But it seems to me
from time to time we ought to try to find some pressure to move ahead
with more dispatch, and one way to do that is to serve ample notice to
anybody who wants to offer an amendment, to say now is the time. If
time elapses, I encourage those who manage the bill, let us move ahead
and consider third reading.
I know they are reluctant to do that. I urge you by saying that some
Members would say to you, ``Congratulations.'' Do not disadvantage
anybody, but give fair notice and then after fair time, let us try to
move ahead.
Mr. INOUYE. If the Senator will yield, we are debating at this moment
with smiles on our face, but I can assure you, as one of the managers,
that if this debate continues on much longer, we may be forced to
exercise that option.
As our two ladies from California have so eloquently reminded us this
morning, we are here to provide extraordinary relief and assistance to
those men and women who are still suffering.
As Senators of the United States, we are bound by our oath to carry
out our responsibilities and duties. If it means calling for third
reading, I can assure the Senator that I am prepared to do that.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota
and the Senator from Hawaii for their comments.
Mr. President, both the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from
California, present in the Chamber, have kept our focus on this bill
beyond the procedures by which we find ourselves frustrated at the
moment. The real focus is that we have an emergency. We have people who
are hurting, who are suffering, who are without homes, who are without
services, and we must move this kind of aid to them more quickly than
we are appearing to do at this moment. I like that focus, and I hope
people in this body will understand that we are not just waiting
patiently for them to offer an amendment to some other matter or
related matter. We are really here waiting to get aid to the people in
need in California.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator
from North Dakota. I have often managed bills on this floor, and I did
have the same frustration those times that the Senator from North
Dakota is expressing with respect to this bill. I think we all agree
that the managers of the bill are doing a very good job dealing with an
impossible situation. It is not their fault. They have not caused this
by any stretch of the imagination. There are other recalcitrant
Senators who are not playing as well as they should.
I might say, Mr. President, I have a comment I would like to make to
help move this process along, and that is a comment on the pending
amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
The amendment of the Senator from Arizona is proposing to rescind
highway demonstration projects. The administration is working on
another way of dealing with a problem. What was the problem? The
problem is that presently the ISTEA is not fully funded.
An earlier effort to solve that problem was the President's decision
to rescind approximately $2.2 billion in demonstration project
expenditures. There may be a better way to be sure that ISTEA is fully
funded. Namely, it is my thought that the Environment and Public Works
Committee will work with the Appropriations Committee this year to
fully fund ISTEA, instead of going back and automatically rescinding
these projects. One option presented by the Secretary would cut about
$400 million in outlays in fiscal year 1994 across the board from all
of the programs in ISTEA. That option would include not only
demonstration projects but the entire highway program. And I note that
ISTEA funding is almost $18 billion for this year.
I believe that there is a far better approach than this amendment.
And if we agree to work on another approach, an approach that the
administration is in agreement with, I believe this amendment would not
be necessary. We can work to fully fund ISTEA using another approach.
We do not need to pass the amendment offered by the Senator from
Arizona to rescind demonstration projects.
So I urge the Senator from Arizona to withdraw his amendment because
it really is not the right solution. We can accomplish the same
objective of funding ISTEA by a much better procedure.
If the Senator wishes to proceed with his amendment and wants a vote
on his amendment, I strongly urge all Senators to refrain from voting
in favor of his amendment. We can come up with a much better approach
to making sound investments in our infrastructure.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator
from Montana that he has a much better approach. I hope that approach
will be implemented soon. I do not see how that approach will affect
$2.2 billion in demonstration projects which have to be acted on now;
otherwise, it is too late. But I would certainly be interested in his
new approach because I can tell the Senator from Montana that the
American people are tired of the old approach of the earmarking of
special interest projects which have no competitive process, which many
times do not even have a hearing, much less some kind of competitive,
open process where they should compete for the taxpayers' hard-earned
dollars, which they are not in this case.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this matter
be set aside and placed on the list of those amendments which will be
considered later this afternoon.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The presence of a quorum has been
questioned. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes as in
morning business.
____________________