[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________