[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.''.
____________________