[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 50 (Monday, April 29, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3506-S3512]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 2383. A bill to amend chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, 
to establish certain limitations relating to the use of official time 
by Federal employees, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Workplace 
Integrity Act of 2002, a bill that would monitor and greatly restrict 
the time spent by Federal employees on union-related activities. 
Federal spending on union activities is spiraling out of control, and 
this legislation, if enacted into law, would send a message to the 
American people that Congress is committed to curbing wasteful 
practices in our government. I think that my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle would agree that we have a duty to ensure that limited 
monies are used both reasonably and efficiently.
  One area of labor-related spending that should be closely examined is 
the use of official time. Official time is paid time when Federal 
employees represent union employees and bargaining units. Federal 
employees may use official time to take part in activities such as 
employee-initiated grievance procedures and union-initiated 
representational duties. Surprisingly, there are few limits on the use 
of official time. If costs associated with this practice are not 
contained, these expenditures will become exorbitant drains on the 
Federal treasury. Congress should make the fiscally responsible 
decision to impose sensible limitations on this practice.
  Although significant resources are spent on union activities in the 
Federal Government each year, current costs are unknown. Limited 
studies indicate that the costs are high. In 1998, the Office of 
Personnel Management issued a report that tallied the costs associated 
with union activity in the Federal Government. The report found that 
during the first six months of calendar year 1998, official time 
totaled 2,171,774 hours, and its cost had a dollar value of 
$48,110,284. An astounding 23,965 Federal employees used official time, 
and 946 employees spent an alarming 100 percent of their time 
performing union-related activities. The report also found that 912 
employees spent between 75 percent and 100 percent of their work hours 
on official time, and 1,152 employees spent between 50 percent and 75 
percent on official time. The Department of the Treasury alone spent 
over $9 million on official time during this six-month time period. 
Based on the amount spent in six months, it is not unreasonable to 
expect that Treasury spent over $18 million during the entire 1998 
calendar year. This report demonstrates that large sums are being spent 
on union activity, and I feel strongly that Congress should insist on a 
regular accounting of these costs.
  Additionally, other studies indicate that union-related costs are not 
only high, but are increasing. In 1996, the General Accounting Office 
issued a report on the costs of labor-related activities at the Social 
Security Administration. The report found a steady growth in costs at 
the SSA during the 1990s. From calendar year 1990 to 1995, the amount 
of time spent on union activities at SSA increased from 254,000 hours 
to 413,000 hours, at a cost increase of over $6 million. In Fiscal Year 
1995 alone, the cost attributed to official time was $12.6 million, the 
equivalent of the salaries and expenses of approximately 200 employees. 
More recently, the Commissioner of Social Security reported that the 
total expenses of labor activities in Fiscal Year 2000 was $13.5 
million, an increase of $1.1 million over the Fiscal Year 1999 level.
  These increasing costs are not limited to the Social Security 
Administration. A 1996 hearing of the Civil Service Subcommittee of the 
House Government Reform and Oversight Committee revealed that the use 
of official time at the Internal Revenue Service increased 27 percent 
from 1992 to 1996. At the U.S. Customs Service, the rising cost of 
union activity was more dramatic. The amount spent on official time 
increased from $470,000 in 1993 to more than $1 million in 1996, a jump 
of 119 percent. I am particularly concerned about these reports of 
rapidly expanding costs.

  Despite the high and increasing costs, we do not presently know the 
total amount spent by the Federal

[[Page S3507]]

Government on official time. We can estimate based on incomplete data, 
but we do not regularly gather information that would enable us to know 
the true costs and spending trends. This is unacceptable.
  Furthermore, we do not even know the true costs at the Social 
Security Administration, the one agency where the use of official time 
has been thoroughly studied. The GAO report on union activity at the 
SSA found that the reporting system did not track effectively the 
number of union representatives charging time to union activities or 
the actual time spent. A subsequent report issued in 1998 by the SSA 
Inspector General also called into question the reliability of the data 
collected by SSA's reporting system. The Inspector General's report 
concluded that almost half of the SSA managers who were surveyed 
indicated that the system for supervising official time spent by 
employees on union activities was either somewhat ineffective or very 
ineffective. These findings demonstrate that Congress must do a better 
job of monitoring the costs associated with labor-related activities in 
the Federal government.
  My bill would accomplish two important objectives. First, this 
legislation would require the collection of data on the amount of money 
spent on official time in the entire Federal Government. By requiring 
the collection of data associated with official time, Congress will 
have the information necessary to control costs in the future. Second, 
my bill would help ensure that Federal funds are spent wisely and 
judiciously. This legislation would limit a Federal employee's use of 
official time to 25 percent of the employee's total hours worked. I 
believe that this limitation is entirely reasonable. It would allow 
Federal employees to spend up to a quarter of their time on union-
related activities and would also protect American taxpayers from ever-
increasing costs.
  During a period of fiscal discipline, we should seek to know the true 
costs of any activities supported by the American taxpayers. I 
encourage my colleagues to support my effort to place reasonable 
limitations on the taxpayer financing of union-related activities. By 
bringing the true costs to light and by seeking to restrain these 
escalating expenses, Congress will responsibly exercise its power of 
the purse. Furthermore, this bill would send a message to American 
taxpayers that their hard-earned dollars will not be spent in an 
uncontrolled and wasteful manner. To turn a blind eye to costs would be 
an abdication of our duty to the American people.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2383

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Workplace Integrity Act of 
     2002''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS RELATING TO THE USE OF OFFICIAL TIME BY 
                   FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       Section 7131 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 7131. Official time

       ``(a) Official time may only be granted to an employee 
     representing an exclusive representative to allow such 
     employee to--
       ``(1) present or process a grievance on behalf of another 
     employee in a unit represented by the exclusive 
     representative;
       ``(2) be present during a grievance proceeding involving an 
     employee in a unit represented by the exclusive 
     representative;
       ``(3) negotiate a collective bargaining agreement under 
     this chapter; or
       ``(4) take part in any proceedings approved by the agency.
       ``(b) Official time may only be granted to an employee 
     represented by an exclusive representative (in a circumstance 
     not covered by subsection (a)) to allow such employee to--
       ``(1) present a grievance on the employee's own behalf 
     under a negotiated grievance procedure; or
       ``(2) take part in any proceedings approved by the agency.
       ``(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), official 
     time may not be granted to any employee for activities 
     relating to the internal business of a labor organization 
     (including the solicitation of membership, elections of labor 
     organization officials, or collection of dues).
       ``(d) Official time under subsections (a) and (b) may be 
     granted in any amount that the agency and the exclusive 
     representative involved agree to be reasonable, necessary, 
     and in the public interest, but only to the extent that, with 
     respect to any employee, the total amount of official time 
     granted to such employee for use during the calendar year 
     does not exceed 25 percent of the total amount of time the 
     employee would otherwise be in duty status during the same 
     period.
       ``(e)(1) Not later than April 1 of each year, the Office of 
     Personnel Management shall submit to the President and each 
     House of Congress a report on the use of official time under 
     this section. The report shall apply with respect to the 
     calendar year preceding the submission date.
       ``(2) Each report under this subsection shall include, in 
     the aggregate and by each agency--
       ``(A) the total number of employees to whom official time 
     was granted under this section;
       ``(B) the total number of employee-hours of official time 
     granted under this section;
       ``(C) the total costs attributable to official time granted 
     under this section; and
       ``(D) the total number of each activity (as categorized by 
     the Office) for which official time was granted under this 
     section.
       ``(3) Agencies shall submit to the Office such data as the 
     Office may by regulation require in connection with any 
     report under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendment made by this Act shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, except that the first report 
     under section 7131(e) of title 5, United States Code (as 
     added by this Act) shall be submitted on the first April 1, 
     following the date occurring 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 

                            By Mr. BINGAMAN:

  S. 2385. A bill entitled ``The Production Incentive Certificate 
Program Revision Act''; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
make several technical adjustments to the Production Incentive 
Certificate, PIC, program. The PIC program helps assure that the watch 
and jewelry industries in the U.S. insular possessions, particularly 
the U.S. Virgin Islands, USVI, will continue to provide critical 
sources of employment in the insular possessions. This legislation 
would improve the operation of the PIC program for both watch and 
jewelry manufacturers in the U.S. Virgin Islands and, over the longer 
term, would protect the PIC program and related duty incentives from 
the effects of any future reduction or elimination of watch tariffs.
  The watch industry is the largest light manufacturing industry in the 
USVI and remains one of the most important direct and indirect sources 
of private sector employment in the Territory. The insular watch 
production industry is also highly import-sensitive and faces continued 
threats from multinational watch producers, who have continued to move 
their watch production to lower wage countries.
  Congress and successive Administrations have recognized the 
importance of the watch industry to the USVI--and the import 
sensitivity of watches--through a series of significant enactments and 
decisions. The General Note 3(a) program, which Congress has 
incorporated in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, grants duty-free 
treatment for qualifying insular possession watches and thereby 
provides a relative duty advantage vis-a-vis foreign watch producers. 
Through the PIC program, insular possession watch producers can obtain 
duty refunds based on creditable wages paid for watch production in the 
insular possessions. Additionally, in recognition of the relative 
advantage that duty-free treatment of watches provides to insular 
possession watch producers, Congress and successive Administrations 
have resisted efforts to eliminate watch duties on a worldwide basis.
  In 1999, Congress extended the General Note 3(a) program and PIC 
program benefits to jewelry produced in the insular possessions. In 
doing so, Congress sought to promote vital employment in the insular 
possessions by extending existing watch industry incentives to jewelry 
production--an industry which utilizes many of the same skills and 
facilities as watch production. In recent months, three mainland 
jewelry manufacturing companies have established operations in the USVI 
and are expected to file for PIC benefits in the near future.
  Recently, watch and jewelry producers in the Virgin Islands have 
consulted with the American Watch Association and U.S. watch firms that 
import substantial quantities of foreign

[[Page S3508]]

made watches regarding proposals to preserve and protect benefits for 
insular possession watches and jewelry, while also mitigating the 
impact of any future reduction of duties on imported watches. These 
discussions have resulted in the parties' unified support for the 
legislation that I am introducing today.
  The various technical adjustments set forth in this legislation would 
enhance the ability of insular watch and jewelry producers to utilize 
the PIC program while, at the same time, retaining overall PIC program 
unit and dollar value limits. Additionally, the legislation would 
establish a standby mechanism to mitigate the impact of any possible 
future reduction or elimination of watch duties on a worldwide basis 
through trade negotiations and congressional action. This mechanism--
which has broad support among the insular and domestic watch 
manufacturing and distribution sectors--would ensure that any future 
reduction in watch duties does not disturb the relative value of 
current duty incentives and PIC program benefits for the insular watch 
industry. Importantly, this standby mechanism would have no effect on 
current watch duties or PIC program limits.

  Under the PIC program, producers of watches and jewelry in the U.S. 
insular possessions are issued certificates by the Department of 
Commerce for specified percentages of the producer's verified 
creditable wages for production in the insular possessions. Based on 
these certificates, the producers are entitled to apply to the U.S. 
Customs Service for refunds on duties paid on watches. Certain 
technical provisions of the PIC program, however, impose unnecessary 
burdens on producers. These include unclear definitions, unduly complex 
PIC refund provisions and special issues relating to the extension of 
PIC benefits to jewelry. The legislation that I am introducing today 
includes technical adjustments to the PIC program to eliminate these 
burdens, while retaining overall PIC program limits on units and 
benefits.
  Currently, producers must assemble often voluminous import entry 
information and apply to U.S. Customs for wage-based refunds. If a 
producer has not paid sufficient import duties, the producer must sell 
the PIC certificate to another firm, which then applies for the duty 
refund. In either event, the PIC program assures that an insular 
producer is compensated for a specified percentage of its verified 
production wages, regardless of whether it has paid the corresponding 
amount of import duties. The bill would simplify this refund process by 
providing producers with the option of applying directly to the 
Treasury Department for the full amount of their verified PIC program 
certificates.
  For watches, the PIC program establishes a 750,000 unit limitation on 
the number of watches used to calculate an individual producer's PIC 
benefits. When the PIC program was extended to jewelry by Congress, 
this upper limit was also extended to each individual jewelry 
producer's qualifying jewelry production. While this limit may be 
appropriate for watches, which are technically sophisticated and 
relatively expensive, I am informed that it is likely to unduly limit 
jewelry production in the insular possessions, which relies on large 
quantities of relatively lower-priced units. My proposed legislation 
would address this issue by eliminating the 750,000 unit per producer 
limit for jewelry, while retaining the overall unit and dollar value 
limits for the PIC program as a whole.
  When Congress extended the PIC program to jewelry in 1999, it sought 
to encourage the phased establishment of new jewelry production in the 
insular possessions through a transition rule. Under this rule, jewelry 
items that are assembled, but not substantially transformed, in the 
insular possessions before August 9, 2001 would be eligible for PIC 
program and duty-free benefits. Although this new provision has helped 
attract new jewelry production to the USVI, I am informed that some 
potential producers are facing administrative, technical and business 
delays which may severely erode the benefits of the transition rule. 
The bill would address this issue by extending this transition rule for 
new insular jewelry producers for an additional 18 months.
  The bill would help to facilitate long term planning by existing 
insular producers and attract new producers to the insular possessions 
by extending the authorized term of the PIC program until 2015. The 
bill would also clarify current law by stating explicitly that verified 
wages include the amount of any fringe benefits.
  For many years, multinational companies that import substantial 
quantities of foreign-made watches into the United States have sought 
to reduce or eliminate U.S. watch duties, either through multiple 
petitions for duty-free treatment for watches from certain GSP-eligible 
countries or through worldwide elimination of watch duties in trade 
negotiations. Insular possession watch producers have repeatedly 
opposed these efforts on the ground that the elimination of duties on 
foreign watches would eliminate the relative benefit that insular 
possession producers receive through duty-free treatment under the 
General Note 3(a) program and, in turn, lead to the eventual demise of 
the insular watch industry. Successive Congresses and Administrations 
have agreed with these arguments and refused to erode the benefits that 
insular possession producers receive under General Note 3(a) and the 
PIC program.
  These continued battles over watch duties and the insular possession 
watch program have imposed significant resource burdens on Virgin 
Islands watch producers and the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
diverting resources and energy that could better be spent in enhancing 
growth and employment in the insular watch and jewelry industries. 
Virgin Islands watch producers, the AWA and representatives of U.S. 
firms that import foreign-made watches are seeking to address this 
longstanding issue by reconciling existing insular possession watch 
benefits with any worldwide reduction or elimination of watch duties. 
The legislation that I am introducing contains two mechanisms to help 
mitigate the impact of any future reduction or elimination of watch 
duties, while also preserving existing watch benefits.
  The bill would put in place a standby mechanism that would preserve 
the benefits of duty-free treatment under General Note 3(a) in the 
event that Congress and a future Administration were to agree to 
eliminate or reduce duties on watches. This mechanism would preserve 
the relative tariff advantage that insular producers currently enjoy 
over foreign-made watches by incorporating a ``hold harmless'' 
provision in the PIC program. Under this standby mechanism, if watch 
duties were reduced or eliminated in the future, PIC payments to 
insular producers would also include an amount that reflects the value 
to the insular producers of the current General Note 3(a) benefit. This 
mechanism would facilitate the eventual reduction or elimination of 
watch duties on a worldwide basis while helping to assure that any such 
duty reduction does not lead to the demise of the insular industry.
  Currently, payments under the PIC program are funded from watch 
duties. An alternative funding source would be required if watch duties 
were reduced or eliminated on a worldwide basis. The legislation that I 
am introducing provides that PIC benefits can be funded from jewelry 
duties or duties on other appropriate products.
  It is important to bear in mind that these two mechanisms would only 
be activated in the event that watch duties are, in fact, reduced or 
eliminated in the future--decisions that would require considerable 
deliberation and consultation by the President and Congress. By 
assuring the continuation of current benefits for insular producers, 
however, these mechanisms would greatly mitigate the impact of any 
eventual decision by Congress to reduce or eliminate watch duties.
  Congress has long recognized that the current watch industry 
incentives are critical to the health and survival of the watch 
industry in the U.S. Virgin Islands. By adopting this legislation, 
Congress can improve the operation of the PIC program for insular watch 
and jewelry producers and establish a mechanism to facilitate the 
eventual reduction or elimination of watch duties on a worldwide basis.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S3509]]

                                S. 2385

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO UNITED STATES INSULAR POSSESSION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Production Certificates.--Additional U.S. Note 5(h) to 
     chapter 91 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
     States is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraphs (i) and (ii) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) In the case of each of calendar years 2002 through 
     2015, the Secretaries jointly, shall--
       ``(A) verify--
       ``(1) the wages paid in the preceding calendar year by each 
     producer (including the value of usual and customary fringe 
     benefits)--
       ``(I) to permanent residents of the insular possessions; 
     and
       ``(II) to workers providing training in the insular 
     possessions in the production or manufacture of watch 
     movements and watches or engaging in such other activities in 
     the insular possessions relating to such production or 
     manufacture as are approved by the Secretaries; and
       ``(2) the total quantity and value of watches produced in 
     the insular possessions by that producer and imported into 
     the customs territory of the United States; and
       ``(B) issue to each producer (not later than 60 days after 
     the end of the preceding calendar year) a certificate for the 
     applicable amount.
       ``(ii) For purposes of subparagraph (i), except as provided 
     in subparagraphs (iii) and (iv), the term `applicable amount' 
     means an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) 90 percent of the producer's creditable wages 
     (including the value of any usual and customary fringe 
     benefits) on the assembly during the preceding calendar year 
     of the first 300,000 units; plus
       ``(B) the applicable graduated declining percentage 
     (determined each year by the Secretaries) of the producer's 
     creditable wages (including the value of any usual and 
     customary fringe benefits) on the assembly during the 
     preceding calendar year of units in excess of 300,000 but not 
     in excess of 750,000; plus
       ``(C) the difference between the duties that would have 
     been due on the producer's watches (excluding digital 
     watches) imported into the customs territory of the United 
     States during the preceding calendar year if the watches had 
     been subject to duty at the rates set forth in column 1 under 
     this chapter that were in effect on January 1, 2001, and the 
     duties that would have been due on the watches if the watches 
     had been subject to duty at the rates set forth in column 1 
     under this chapter that were in effect for such preceding 
     calendar year.''; and
       (2) by amending subparagraph (v) to read as follows:
       ``(v)(A) Any certificate issued under subparagraph (i) 
     shall entitle the certificate holder to secure a refund of 
     duties equal to the face value of the certificate on watches, 
     watch movements, and articles of jewelry provided for in 
     heading 7113 that are imported into the customs territory of 
     the United States by the certificate holder. Such refunds 
     shall be made under regulations issued by the Treasury 
     Department. Not more than 5 percent of such refunds may be 
     retained as a reimbursement to the Customs Service for the 
     administrative costs of making the refunds. If the Secretary 
     of the Treasury determines that there is an insufficient 
     level of duties from watch and watch-related tariffs, the 
     Secretary may authorize refunds of duties collected on 
     jewelry under chapter 71 or any other duties that the 
     Secretary determines are appropriate.
       ``(B) At the election of the certificate holder and upon 
     making the certification described in this clause, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall pay directly to the 
     certificate holder the face value of the certificate, less 
     the value of--
       ``(1) any duty refund previously claimed by the holder 
     under the certificate, and
       ``(2) a discount of not more than 2 percent of the face 
     value of the certificate,
     as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       ``(C) Direct payments under clause (B) shall be made under 
     regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury. Such 
     regulations shall assure that a certificate holder is 
     required to provide only the minimum documentation necessary 
     to support an application for direct payment. A certificate 
     holder shall not be eligible for direct payment under clause 
     (B) unless the certificate holder certifies to the 
     Secretaries that the funds received will be reinvested or 
     utilized to support and continue employment in the Virgin 
     Islands.
       ``(D) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make 
     the payments provided for in clause (B) from duties collected 
     on watches, watch movements, and parts therefor. If such 
     duties are insufficient, the Secretary of the Treasury is 
     authorized to make the payments from duties collected on 
     jewelry under chapter 71 or any other duties that the 
     Secretary determines are appropriate.''.
       (b) Jewelry.--Additional U.S. Note 3 to chapter 71 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) as 
     paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (a) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(b) The 750,000 unit limitation in additional U.S. Note 
     5(h)(ii)(B) to chapter 91 shall not apply to articles of 
     jewelry subject to this note.''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (f), as so redesignated, and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     article of jewelry provided for in heading 7113 that is 
     assembled in the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa by a 
     jewelry manufacturer or jewelry assembler that commenced 
     jewelry manufacturing or jewelry assembly operations in the 
     Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa after August 9, 2001, 
     shall be treated as a product of the Virgin Islands, Guam, or 
     American Samoa for purposes of this note and General Note 
     3(a)(iv) of this Schedule if such article is entered no later 
     than 18 months after such jewelry manufacturer or jewelry 
     assembler commenced jewelry manufacturing or jewelry assembly 
     operations in the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa.''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     goods imported into the customs territory of the United 
     States on or after January 1, 2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 2387. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security act to deny 
social security old-age, survivors, and disability insurance benefits 
to fugitive felons and individuals fleeing prosecution, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Federal Government should not be 
paying benefits to fugitives from justice. Today, I am introducing 
legislation which denies Social Security Old Age Survivors Insurance, 
OASI, and Social Security Disability Insurance, DI, benefits to 
fugitive felons and requires the Social Security Administration, SSA, 
to disclose information about the fugitives to law enforcement 
officers. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the distinguished 
ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley.
  There is precedent for this legislation in current law. The Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193, 
disqualified fugitive felons from receiving welfare cash assistance, 
Supplemental Security Income, SSI, food stamps, and housing benefits. 
Likewise, it allowed law enforcement officers to obtain the current 
addresses, photographs, and Social Security numbers of fugitives who 
received such assistance. I was the author of these prohibitions on 
Federal assistance for fugitive felons.
  I am pleased to report that the current fugitive felons law is having 
a positive effect. It is saving taxpayers millions of dollars. More 
important, it is getting violent criminals off the streets. For 
instance, the Inspector General of USDA reported that as of January 2, 
2001, more than 6,800 fugitive felon food stamp recipients were 
arrested. Similarly, SSA identified more than 28,000 fugitive SSI 
recipients, 14,000 of whom were identified in fiscal year 2000.
  The legislation offered by Senator Grassley and myself would further 
curtail a fugitive's financial ability to escape the law. In testimony 
before the Finance Committee on April 25, 2001, James G. Huse, Jr., 
Inspector General of the SSA, expressed frustration that SSA does not 
have the statutory authority to deny OASI and DI benefits to fugitive 
felons. The inability to cut off benefits to these fugitives costs the 
Social Security Trust Fund $39 million per year. He also testified that 
the Privacy Act prohibits SSA from providing law enforcement officials 
with information, such as the current addresses and Social Security 
numbers of fugitive felon recipients, which could lead to their 
apprehension. Mr. Huse told the Finance Committee,

       . . . this waste of Federal funds goes to the heart of our 
     mission, and our inability to stop these payments is 
     frustrating. What is more frustrating to us as a law 
     enforcement organization is that these benefits were paid to 
     some 17,300 fugitives, many of whom could have been 
     apprehended had my office been able to provide law 
     enforcement agencies with felons' addresses. The loss of 
     money is disturbing; the thousands of criminals that could 
     have been incarcerated but remain free is worse.

  Mr. Huse further advised, ``Congress may want to consider 
legislation, this session, that will permit us to treat felons as 
felons, regardless of the types of Social Security benefits they are 
using to finance their flight from justice.'' That is exactly what this 
bill does.
  The majority of Americans would agree it is bad policy to pay Federal 
benefits to fugitives from justice. The effect of such policy is to 
give criminals the financial means to continue avoiding the law. It is 
time to close

[[Page S3510]]

legal loopholes which allow felons to receive OASI and DI payments 
while in fugitive status. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2387

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION. 1. DENIAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS 
                   AND DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS TO FUGITIVE 
                   FELONS AND INDIVIDUALS FLEEING PROSECUTION; 
                   PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   OFFICERS.

       Section 202(x) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(x)) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``Prisoners'' and all that 
     follows and inserting the following: ``Prisoners, Certain 
     Other Inmates of Publicly Funded Institutions, and 
     Fugitives'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(IV), by striking ``or'' at the 
     end;
       (3) in paragraph (1)(A)(iii), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting a comma;
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (1)(A)(iii) the following:
       ``(iv) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place 
     from which the person flees, for a crime, or an attempt to 
     commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place 
     from which the person flees, or which, in the case of the 
     State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of 
     such State, or
       ``(v) is violating a condition of probation or parole 
     imposed under Federal or State law.''; and
       (5) in paragraph (3), by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 552a of 
     title 5, United States Code, or any other provision of 
     Federal or State law (other than section 6103 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and section 1106(c) of this Act), the 
     Commissioner shall furnish any Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement officer, upon the written request of the officer, 
     with the current address, Social Security number, and 
     photograph (if applicable) of any individual who receives a 
     benefit under this title, if the officer furnishes the 
     Commissioner with the name of the individual, and other 
     identifying information as reasonably required by the 
     Commissioner to establish the unique identity of the 
     individual, and notifies the Commissioner that--
       ``(i) the individual--
       ``(I) is described in clause (iv) or (v) of paragraph 
     (1)(A); and
       ``(II) has information that is necessary for the officer to 
     conduct the officer's official duties; and
       ``(ii) the location or apprehension of the individual is 
     within the officer's official duties.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. EDWARDS (for himself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Mrs. 
        Clinton):
  S. 2392. A bill to amend the National and Community Service Act of 
1990 to establish a Community Corps, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I'm very pleased to rise today to 
introduce the School Service Act of 2002. This is legislation that can 
help foster the next generation of great American citizens.
  When we think about education, we usually think about English, math, 
science. But I believe education needs to do more than provide 
knowledge and career skills. It also has to teach citizenship, the 
lesson that America is about not only rights but also responsibilities, 
and that each of us, however humble or wealthy, has a calling to our 
community and to our country. In my view, service to the community 
ought to be more than just another afterschool activity, like 
basketball or photography. Service should be a part of every child's 
education, as much as math or science or anything else. If our children 
are going to believe in serving their community, we have to give them 
the experience of service while they're young, so they know in their 
bones that it matters.
  In the last few months, the President and several of my Senate 
colleagues have offered proposals to engage more adults Americans in 
expanded national service programs. These are promising ideas, but I 
believe they're left our one key group: school-age students, especially 
high schoolers.
  In the best service initiatives with teenagers, we've seen remarkable 
benefits, for students and the communities they serve. In one program, 
adults who had completed service projects more than 15 years earlier 
were still more likely to be volunteers and voters than adults who 
hadn't. In another program, kids who served had a 60 percent lower 
drop-out rate and 18 percent lower rate of school suspension than kids 
who didn't.
  Just as important, the service also has tremendous impacts on 
communities. High school kids have built community centers in run-down 
neighborhoods. They've cleaned up polluted ponds. They've helped small 
children learn to read, and offered comfort to the elderly and sick. 
People in the community say this work is worth four times more than it 
actually costs.
  It's time to encourage more States and cities to develop service 
programs for all their students. It's not enough that students study 
history to graduate. We should expect them to contribute to history, 
too. Some of my favorite models for engaging children in service come 
from my own State, in fact, from the high school in Raleigh that my 
children have attended.
  With these thoughts in mind, today I am introducing, together with 
Senator Gordon Smith and Senator Clinton, the School Service Act of 
2002. The proposal is very simple: We say to a limited number of States 
and cities, if you have schools that will make sure students engage in 
high-quality service before graduation, we will support those school's 
efforts.
  The service can be based in the classroom. It can be based in an 
afterschool program. It can be based in a summer program. And it can be 
directed or supervised by AmeriCorps members who are leaders and 
coordinators.
  All that we ask is that you ensure two things:
  First: real service with real benefits to communities. The 
Corporation's own studies show that a dollar invested in a good service 
effort produces benefits worth over four dollars. We need to keep that 
up.
  Second: we want service that means something to young people, service 
that students reflect on and talk about with each other. We want kids 
seeing these experiences not as another chore, but as an exciting 
initiation into long lives of active citizenship. And we know service 
is often just that. Kids who serve grow up to volunteer more and to 
vote more throughout their lives.

  Finally, our bill will hold these programs to high standards and 
require measurable success.
  Let me stress: I don't think we should require my State or city to do 
anything. Nor should this program operate nationwide. My proposal is 
that for the State and school districts with schools that are ready, we 
ought to make sure every child has the opportunity and the 
responsibility to engage in service. Here in Congress, it is our 
responsibility to give those opportunities for service to our young 
people. When we do, our country will be richly rewarded in the years 
and decades to come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. 
        Corzine):
  S. 2393. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 
protections for individuals who need mental health services, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise tonight to introduce the Mental 
Health Patient Rights Act. This legislation will break down one of the 
barriers faced by thousands of Americans who face discrimination in the 
individual health insurance market because they have been treated at 
some time in their life for a mental condition. Senators Kennedy, 
Wellstone, and Corzine have joined me in this effort.
  Each year some 18 million Americans suffer from depression, and fully 
a quarter of the country's adult population is faced with some form of 
mental illness. Many of them are not part of group coverage provided by 
employers and must rely on individual policies that they purchased 
themselves. Without coverage, many who are dealing with mental disease 
do not seek treatment. Indeed, repeated surveys have shown that 
concerns about the cost of mental care is one of the most common 
reasons that individuals decline to seek care. The Mental Health 
Patient Rights Act limits the ability of health care plans to redline 
individuals with a preexisting mental health condition.

[[Page S3511]]

  I undertook this initiative when I read a letter from one of my 
Illinois constituents who was turned away from health care plans in the 
private nongroup market, due solely to a past history of treatment for 
a mental condition. This constituent, whom I will call Mary, suffered 
severe depression over 10 years ago and received treatment, which was 
successful. It allowed her to return to work.
  At that time Mary had employer-sponsored health insurance through her 
husband's employment. But in the fall of 1998, Mary and her husband 
lost this employer-based insurance coverage when Mary's husband lost 
his job.
  Mary applied for a comprehensive health insurance plan offered to 
individuals. Her application was declined because, as per the insurance 
company notice, due to her medical history of depression, she did not 
meet the company's underwriting requirements.

  Mary wrote:

       As I see it, we are being punished for accessing health 
     care. In 1987, when I became clinically depressed, I could 
     have chosen to avoid proper medical care, become unemployed 
     and received Social Security disability. I did not. I 
     obtained the help I needed and continued to support myself, 
     my family and contribute positively to society. Depression is 
     a treatable medical illness. Insurance companies must stop 
     their indiscriminate denial of coverage.

  The Washington Post recently ran a column that documented a similar 
story about the discrimination that individuals with a history of 
mental illness face in our current health insurance market.
  The column conveys the dilemma of Michelle Witte who was denied 
health insurance coverage because she was successfully treated for 
depression during her adolescence.
  Unfortunately, Mary and Michelle are not alone. While the majority of 
Americans under age 65 have employer-sponsored group coverage, a 
significant minority, approximately 12.6 million individuals, rely on 
private, individual health insurance.
  Underwriting in the individual health insurance market is fierce.
  Just last week The Wall-Street Journal reported that a Wisconsin-
based insurer, American Medical Security Group, Inc., is actually re-
underwriting individual policies on an annual basis. At each annual 
renewal, this company reviews the individuals claims filed in the 
previous year and increases premiums to policyholders whose claims 
exceed the standard. Under the current system of care in the United 
States, individuals who are undergoing treatment or have a history of 
treatment for mental illness may find it particularly difficult to 
obtain private health insurance, especially if they must purchase it on 
their own and do not have an employer-sponsored group plan available to 
them.
  That is why I have introduced this legislation. The Mental Health 
Patients' Rights Act closes this loophole by limiting any preexisting 
condition exclusion relating to a mental health condition to not more 
than 12 months and reducing this exclusion period by the total amount 
of previous continuous coverage.
  It prohibits any health insurer that offers health coverage in the 
individual insurance market from imposing a preexisting condition 
exclusion relating to a mental health condition unless a diagnosis, 
medical advice or treatment was recommended or received within the 6 
months prior to the enrollment date.
  And it prohibits health plans in the individual market from charging 
higher premiums to individuals based solely on the determination that 
the individual has had a preexisting mental health condition.
  These provisions apply to all health plans in the individual market, 
regardless of whether a state has enacted an alternative mechanism, 
such as high risk pool, to cover individuals with preexisting health 
conditions.
  The Mental Health Patients' Rights Act complements ongoing efforts to 
enhance parity between mental health services and other health 
benefits.
  This is because parity alone will not help individuals who do not 
have access to any affordable health insurance due to preexisting 
mental illness discrimination.
  The Patients' Rights Act does not mandate that insurers provide 
mental health services if they are not already offering such coverage. 
It simply prohibits plans in the private non-group market from 
redlining individuals who apply for general health insurance based 
solely on a past history of treatment for a mental condition.
  The legislation is backed by more than compelling anecdotal stories. 
I asked for a study from the GAO and last month they told me the new 
study documents that individuals with mental disorders, past or 
present, face restrictions in purchasing health insurance in the 
individual market that exceed restrictions for physical health 
preexisting conditions in the same cost category.
  GAO interviewed insurance carriers that sell individual market 
insurance and sell insurance in most of the 34 states in which carriers 
are permitted to medically underwrite.
  Collectively, these insurers cover more than one million individuals 
representing more than 10 percent of all individual market enrollees. 
Researchers found that carriers denied coverage for applicants with 
selected mental disorders more than half of the time, while denying 
coverage for applicants with other selected chronic conditions just 30 
percent of the time.
  Even in states which have established subsidized insurance options as 
a coverage option for applicants rejected in the individual insurance 
market, sometimes called high-risk pools, these options have higher 
premium rates.
  High-risk pools also may include more restrictions on mental health 
benefits than other benefits and many have waiting lists due to budget 
constraints.
  In the seven states without high-risk pools and without guaranteed 
issue requirements, applicants with a history of mental illness are 
likely to find themselves without any viable health insurance coverage 
option.
  In other words, it is not about money. If the insurance company wants 
to ask you if you have a history in your family of cancer, heart 
disease, diabetes, things that might have some impact on the cost of 
health insurance, it is understood that is part of underwriting. But 
now they are including mental illness as part of this inquiry, and 
regardless of the fact that it doesn't seem to be, or prove out to be 
as expensive to the insurance companies, they are just discriminating 
against people who have this history of mental illness.
  That is why I am introducing this legislation.
  It does not make sense that a person is rendered uninsurable for all 
health needs simply because he or she seeks treatment for mental 
illness. Mental illness is a disease just as cancer or asthma or the 
flu is a disease.
  Yet it is clear that when it comes to mental health millions of 
Americans must battle not only with their disease, but for their access 
to adequate insurance coverage.
  I invite my colleagues to enlist in this important initiative to 
ensure that such individuals are not discriminated against when 
applying for health insurance coverage.
  More than 80 organizations representing consumers, family members, 
health professionals and providers have endorsed the Mental Health 
Patient Rights Act. I urge you to do the same.
  Some of us who saw the movie, ``A Beautiful Mind,'' are reminded that 
there are people who have suffered from mental illness who have 
recovered and made great contributions to America, as John Nash has at 
Princeton, and as those who have been involved in so many other walks 
of life. It is unfair in America for us to discriminate against a 
person because of a history of mental illness. Yet it is a fact of 
life.
  I salute my colleagues, Senators Wellstone and Domenici, for their 
leadership on this issue. I join them in their effort and hope this 
bill will complement what they are doing to not only make mental 
illness subject to coverage by health insurance but also to end this 
discrimination against those who have a history of that illness. We 
should be working to break down the stigma of mental illness, not to 
maintain it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S3512]]

                                S. 2393

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Mental Health Patients' 
     Rights Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

       Subpart 1 of part B of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300gg-41 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 2745. LIMITATION ON PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSION 
                   PERIOD AND PREMIUMS WITH RESPECT TO MENTAL 
                   HEALTH.

       ``(a) Limitation on Preexisting Condition Exclusion 
     Period.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a health insurance issuer that offers health insurance 
     coverage in the individual market in a State may, with 
     respect to an individual or dependent of such individual, 
     impose a preexisting condition exclusion relating to a 
     preexisting mental health condition only if--
       ``(A) such exclusion relates to a mental health condition, 
     regardless of the cause of the condition, for which medical 
     advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or 
     received within the 6-month period ending on the enrollment 
     date;
       ``(B) such exclusion extends for a period of not more than 
     12 months after the enrollment date; and
       ``(C) the period of any such preexisting condition 
     exclusion is reduced by the aggregate of the periods of 
     creditable coverage (if any, as defined in paragraph (3)(A)) 
     applicable to the individual or dependent of such individual 
     as of the enrollment date.
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(A) Preexisting mental health condition.--The term 
     `preexisting mental health condition' means, with respect to 
     coverage, a mental health condition, including all categories 
     of mental health conditions listed in the Diagnostic and 
     Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM 
     IV-TR), or the most recent edition if different than the 
     Fourth Edition, that was present before the date of 
     enrollment of such coverage, whether or not any medical 
     advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or 
     received before such date.
       ``(B) Other terms.--The terms `preexisting condition 
     exclusion', `enrollment date', and `late enrollee' shall have 
     the meanings given such terms in section 2701 as relating to 
     individual health insurance coverage.
       ``(3) Crediting previous coverage.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a), the term `creditable coverage' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 2701(c) and includes 
     coverage of the individual under any of the following:
       ``(A) A college-sponsored health plan, or a plan under 
     which health benefits are offered by or through an 
     institution of higher education (as defined in section 481(a) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088(a)) in 
     relation to students at the institution (not including 
     benefits offered to such a student as a participant or 
     beneficiary in a group health plan).
       ``(B) Title XXI of the Social Security Act.
       ``(C) A State or local employee health plan.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Increased Premiums Based on 
     Preexisting Mental Health Condition.--A health insurance 
     issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the 
     individual market in a State may not, with respect to an 
     individual or dependent of such individual, require any 
     individual (as a condition of enrollment or continued 
     enrollment) with a preexisting mental health condition to pay 
     a premium or contribution which is greater than a premium or 
     contribution for an individual without a preexisting mental 
     health condition based solely on the determination that such 
     individual has a preexisting mental health condition, as such 
     term is defined in subsection (a)(2)(A).
       ``(c) Nonapplicability of Acceptable Alternative 
     Mechanisms.--The provisions of section 2741(a)(2) shall not 
     apply to a health insurance issuer that offers health 
     insurance coverage in the individual market in a State, but 
     only with respect to an individual, or dependent of such 
     individual, with a preexisting mental health condition 
     desiring to enroll in such individual health insurance 
     coverage.''.

     

                          ____________________