May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6537 

does recommend that we take a serious 

look at certain aspects of the eligibility determination process. And that 

is what our legislation does. 

First, the legislation tightens eligibility to ensure that only children with 

severe and persistent impairments, 

which substantially limit their ability 

to function, receive benefits. Second, it 

increases and better targets continuing 

disability reviews to ensure that only 

those who remain eligible actually continue to receive benefits. Third, it expands penalties for coaching children 

to act inappropriately in order to receive benefits. Finally, it imposes graduated payments for additional children, like other cash assistance programs such as AFDC. 

Mr. President, I think this legislation is a fair and balanced approach. It 

acknowledges and corrects abuses in 

the system while reinforcing the purpose of the program: to enable children 

with disabilities to remain at home or 

in another appropriate and cost-effective setting and to cover the additional 

costs of caring for and raising such a 

child. 

Who is this money serving? Children 

like Juan, a 9-year-old youngster in my 

home State of Rhode Island. Juan has 

been on SSI since birth, confined to a 

wheelchair and dependent on medical 

technology to survive. Without the 

cash assistance he receives under SSI, 

Juan’s mother would be forced to put 

him into a residential facility at a cost 

of almost $200,000 per year. Compare 

this to the maximum SSI benefit of 

$438 a month. It seems to me that we 

are getting a pretty good deal, and that 

families like Juan’s deserve every 

nickel they get. 

The Finance Committee will be taking up this issue in the coming weeks 

as part of welfare reform. Many of my 

colleagues are familiar with the provision in the House-passed welfare reform bill which would eliminate cash 

assistance for all children unless they 

would be otherwise institutionalized. 

In my view, this should be rejected. I 

sincerely hope that my colleagues on 

the Finance Committee will consider 

the legislation we are introducing 

today as an alternative which provides 

effective reforms without removing 

disabled children from the rolls who 

are truly in need. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise 

today in support of Senator CONRAD’S

Childhood Supplemental Security Income [SSI] Eligibility Reform Act. I 

am pleased to be an original cosponsor 

of this bill. I would like to begin by acknowledging and thanking my colleague Senator CONRAD for his hard 

work and dedication on drafting this 

bill to cure the problems in the children’s SSI program. I am hopeful for 

this bill’s quick consideration and 

adoption. 

In the welfare reform bill passed earlier this year by our colleagues in the 

House, substantial changes were made 

in the children’s SSI program. However, I believe that the House version 

of this bill fails to address the criticisms leveled towards this program 

while at the same time ensuring that 

the children and families that rely on 

and need these benefits receive them. 

For example, a family I know of in 

Vermont has two young children with 

cystic fibrosis. They live in a very 

rural area of Vermont about 2 hours 

away from the specialty clinic and hospital they go to. This distance creates 

a constant expense of travel to this 

clinic and hospital. In addition, the 

medication costs for the two children 

are very high. The infant had growth 

problems related to malabsorption 

which required special formula. The 

older child had severe malabsorption 

that required surgery and requires subsequent close follow-up of his nutritional status. 

The father of these children works 

full time, but has to take time off to 

attend the clinics with the children 

and to transport and visit them in the 

hospital. Some of the time off is unpaid 

because he has limited vacation time. 

The children’s mother had intended 

to return to work after they were born 

but cannot find a day care provider 

who is comfortable with the children’s 

medical care needs. She undoubtedly 

would also have difficulty finding an 

employer who would allow her the necessary time off for appointments, hospitalizations, and so forth. 

Mr. President, this family has a clear 

need for the Medicaid coverage and 

extra income that SSI provides. It is 

difficult to imagine how they could 

continue to provide the medical care 

that their children need without these 

benefits. They are a hard-working and 

tax-paying couple who struggle to do 

the best that they can for their children. The effect of the House bill on 

this family would be devastating, while 

our bill would ensure that this family 

that needs to receive these benefits 

would still receive them. 

I believe that the bill being introduced today will meet both of these 

goals: preserve the essential parts of 

the children’s SSI program, while, at 

the same time, addressing the concerns 

raised by its critics. I would now like 

to address the valid criticisms of the 

SSI program, and our specific solutions 

in the bill to these criticisms. 

First, our bill will address the issue 

that SSI’s purpose for children with 

disabilities was never sufficiently defined. By defining the program as 

maintaining children with disabilities 

in the most appropriate and cost effective setting, and enhancing such children’s opportunities to develop into 

independent adults, our bill will combat the old once-disabled-always-disabled way of thinking. 

This bill will also combat the current 

problem that children who are not severely disabled are drawing benefits. 

By tightening the SSI eligiibility requirements, our bill will ensure that 

children and families that truly need 

these benefits will be receiving them. 

In addition, by increasing penalties 

to parents and guardians that knowingly and willfully coach children to 

act in ways that render them eligible 

for SSI, and requiring greater use of 

standardized testing, our bill will stem 

the practice of children who should be 

ineligible for benefits being found to be 

eligible for SSI. 

Further, our bill will graduate payments to families for each additional 

child in the family receiving SSI benefits. This provision will ensure that 

families with multiple kids receiving 

SSI benefits will not be receiving the 

maximum benefit for each child. 

Finally, our bill will help children receiving SSI benefits move toward selfsufficiency. I, for one, find this to be 

one of the most important provisions 

of the bill. By ensuring that we move 

people toward self-sufficiency, we are 

helping reduce the number of children 

receiving SSI benefits, while increasing 

the possibility that these individuals 

will not require future governmental 

support. 

Mr. President, I believe that our bill 

changes what is wrong with the SSI 

program while maintaining legitimate 

benefits that children and their families rely on. We don’t want to go back 

to a much more costly system that institutionalizes children rather than affording them an opportunity for productive and self-sufficient lives. Thus, I 

feel confident in stating that this bill 

will ensure that continued support of 

SSI benefits to families, like the one 

from Vermont I described earlier, while 

solving some of the problems currently 

plaguing the children

f 

’s SSI system. 

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS 

S. 234

At the request of Mr. CAMPBELL, the 

name of the Senator from Colorado 

[Mr. BROWN] was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 234, a bill to amend title 23, 

United States Code, to exempt a State 

from certain penalties for failing to 

meet requirements relating to motorcycle helmet laws if the State has in 

effect a motorcycle safety program, 

and to delay the effective date of certain penalties for States that fail to 

meet certain requirements for motorcycle safety laws, and for other purposes. 

S. 240

At the request of Mr. DOMENICI, the 

name of the Senator from Montana 

[Mr. BAUCUS] was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 240, a bill to amend the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 to establish a filing deadline and to provide certain 

safeguards to ensure that the interests 

of investors are well protected under 

the implied private action provisions of 

the Act. 

S. 256

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the 

names of the Senator from Utah [Mr. 

HATCH] and the Senator from North 

Carolina [Mr. FAIRCLOTH] were added 

as cosponsors of S. 256, a bill to amend 

title 10, United States Code, to establish procedures for determining the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6538 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

status of certain missing members of 

the Armed Forces and certain civilians, 

and for other purposes. 

S. 302

At the request of Mrs. HUTCHISON, the 

name of the Senator from Rhode Island 

[Mr. CHAFEE] was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 302, a bill to make a technical correction to section 11501(h)(2) of title 49, 

United States Code. 

S. 383

At the request of Mr. WARNER, the 

name of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. 

DEWINE] was added as a cosponsor of S. 

383, a bill to provide for the establishment of policy on the deployment by 

the United States of an antiballistic 

missile system and of advanced theater 

missile defense systems. 

S. 440

At the request of Mr. WARNER, the 

name of the Senator from Mississippi 

[Mr. COCHRAN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 440, a bill to amend title 23, 

United States Code, to provide for the 

designation of the National Highway 

System, and for other purposes. 

S. 641

At the request of Mrs. KASSEBAUM, 

the name of the Senator from Kansas 

[Mr. DOLE] was added as a cosponsor of 

S. 641, a bill to reauthorize the Ryan 

White CARE Act of 1990, and for other 

purposes. 

S. 684

At the request of Mr. HATFIELD, the 

name of the Senator from Kentucky 

[Mr. FORD] was added as a cosponsor of 

S. 684, a bill to amend the Public 

Health Service Act to provide for programs of research regarding Parkinson’s disease, and for other purposes. 

S. 768

At the request of Mr. GORTON, the 

name of the Senator from Montana 

[Mr. BURNS] was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 768, a bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to reauthorize 

the Act, and for other purposes. 

S. 770

At the request of Mr. GORTON, his 

name was added as a cosponsor of S. 

770, a bill to provide for the relocation 

of the United States Embassy in Israel 

to Jerusalem, and for other purposes. 

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the name 

of the Senator from California [Mrs. 

BOXER] was added as a cosponsor of S. 

770, supra. 

f 

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED 

THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID 

WASTE ACT OF 1995 

THOMPSON AMENDMENT NO. 756 

(Ordered to lie on the table.) 

Mr. THOMPSON submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by 

him to the bill (S. 534) to amend the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide authority for States to limit the interstate transportation of municipal solid 

waste, and for other purposes; as follows: 

On page 56, line 18, strike after ‘‘delivered,’’ through ‘‘provision’’ on line 21. 

BAUCUS AMENDMENT NO. 757 

(Ordered to lie on the table.) 

Mr. BAUCUS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him 

to the bill, S. 534, supra; as follows: 

On page 50, strike line 18 and insert the following: ‘‘in which the generator of the waste 

has an ownership interest.’’. 

DODD (AND LIEBERMAN) 

AMENDMENT NO. 758 

Mr. CHAFEE (for Mr. DODD, for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) proposed an 

amendment to the bill, S. 534, supra; as 

follows: 

On page 62, line 4, after the words public 

service authority, add ‘‘or its operator’’. 

ROTH (AND BIDEN) AMENDMENT 

NO. 759 

(Ordered to lie on the table.) 

Mr. ROTH (for himself and Mr. 

BIDEN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the 

bill, S. 534, supra; as follows: 

On page 53, line 3, strike ‘‘or political subdivision’’ and insert ‘‘, political subdivision, 

or public service authority’’. 

On page 53, line 4, strike ‘‘or political subdivision’’ and insert ‘‘, political subdivision, 

or public service authority’’. 

On page 53, lines 7 and 8, strike ‘‘or political subdivision’’ and insert ‘‘, political subdivision, or public service authority’’. 

On page 53, line 10, strike ‘‘or political subdivision’’ and insert ‘‘, political subdivision, 

or public service authority’’. 

On page 56, lines 1 and 2 strike ‘‘and each 

political subdivision of a State’’ and insert ‘‘, 

political subdivision of a State, and public 

service authority’’. 

On page 56, line 12, strike ‘‘or political subdivision’’ and insert ‘‘, political subdivision, 

or public service authority’’. 

On page 56, line 22, strike ‘‘operation’’ and 

insert ‘‘existence’’. 

On page 57, line 4, strike ‘‘or political subdivision’’ and insert ‘‘, political subdivision, 

or public service authority’’. 

On page 57, line 7, strike ‘‘or political subdivision’’ and insert ‘‘, political subdivision, 

or public service authority’’. 

On page 57, line 21, strike ‘‘or political subdivision’’ and insert ‘‘, political subdivision, 

or public service authority’’. 

CAMPBELL (AND OTHERS) 

AMENDMENT NO. 760 

(Ordered to lie on the table.) 

Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. 

BROWN, and Mr. KEMPTHORNE) submitted an amendment intended to be 

proposed by them to the bill S. 534, 

supra; as follows: 

On page 69, strike the quotation mark and 

period at the end of line 22. 

On page 69, between lines 22 and 23, insert 

the following: 

‘‘(5) NO-MIGRATION EXEMPTIONS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Ground water monitoring requirements may be suspended by 

the Director of an approved State for a landfill operator if the operator demonstrates 

that there is no potential for migration of 

hazardous constituents from the unit to the 

uppermost aquifer during the active life of 

the unit and the post-closure care period. 

‘‘(B) CERTIFICATION.—A demonstration 

under subparagraph (A) shall—

‘‘(i) be certified by a qualified groundwater 

scientist and approved by the Director of an 

approved State. 

‘‘(C) GUIDANCE.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 6 months 

after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall issue a guidance document to facilitate and streamline 

small community use of the no migration exemption under this paragraph. 

‘‘(ii) CLARITY.—The guidance document described in clause (i) shall be written in clear 

terms designed to be understandable by officials of small communities without expert 

assistance.’’. 

BINGAMAN AMENDMENT NO. 761 

Mr. BINGAMAN proposed an amendment to the bill, S. 534, supra; as follows: 

At the appropriate place insert the following: 

SEC. . BORDER STUDIES. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

(2) MAQUILADORA.—The term 

‘‘maquiladora’’ means an industry located in 

Mexico along the border between the United 

States and Mexico. 

(3) SOLID WASTE.—The term ‘‘solid waste’’

has the meaning provided the term under 

section 1004(27) of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act (42 U.S.C. 6903(27)). 

(b) IN GENERAL.—

(1) STUDY OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH NORTH AMERICAN

FREE-TRADE AGREEMENT.—As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Administrator is authorized to conduct a study of solid waste management 

issues associated with increased border use 

resulting from the implementation of the 

North American Free Trade Agreement. 

(2) STUDY OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH UNITED STATES-CANADA FREE-TRADE AGREEMENT.—As soon as 

practicable after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Administrator may conduct a 

similar study focused on border traffic of 

solid waste resulting from the implementation of the United States-Canada Free-Trade 

Agreement, with respect to the border region 

between the United States and Canada. 

(c) CONTENTS OF STUDY.—A study conducted under this section shall provide for 

the following: 

(1) A study of planning for solid waste 

treatment, storage, and disposal capacity 

(including additional landfill capacity) that 

would be necessary to accommodate the generation of additional household, commercial, 

and industrial wastes by an increased population along the border involved. 

(2) A study of the relative impact on border 

communities of a regional siting of solid 

waste storage and disposal facilities. 

(3) In the case of the study described in 

subsection (b)(1), research concerning methods of tracking of the transportation of—

(A) materials from the United States to 

maquiladoras; and 

(B) waste from maquiladoras to a final destination. 

(4) In the case of the study described in 

subsection (b)(1), a determination of the need 

for solid waste materials safety training for 

workers in Mexico and the United States 

within the 100-mile zone specified in the 

First Stage Implementation Plan Report for 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS