OFFICE OF

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

 

 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOLLOW-UP ON THE SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION’S

PRISONER INCENTIVE

PAYMENT PROGRAM

 

August 2009    A-01-09-19029

 

 

AUDIT REPORT

 

 

 

Mission

 

By conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations and investigations, we inspire public confidence in the integrity and security of SSA’s programs and operations and protect them against fraud, waste and abuse.  We provide timely, useful and reliable information and advice to Administration officials, Congress and the public.

 

Authority

 

The Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative units, called the Office of Inspector General (OIG).  The mission of the OIG, as spelled out in the Act, is to:

 

     m    Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and investigations relating to agency programs and operations.

     m    Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency.

     m    Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and operations.

     m    Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations.

     m    Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems in agency programs and operations.

 

     To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with:

 

     m    Independence to determine what reviews to perform.

     m    Access to all information necessary for the reviews.

     m    Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the reviews.

 

Vision

 

We strive for continual improvement in SSA’s programs, operations and management by proactively seeking new ways to prevent and deter fraud, waste and abuse.  We commit to integrity and excellence by supporting an environment that provides a valuable public service while encouraging employee development and retention and fostering diversity and innovation.

 


MEMORANDUM

 

Date:     August 20, 2009                                                                                Refer To:

 

To:       The Commissioner

 

From:     Inspector General

 

Subject: Follow-up on the Social Security Administration’s Prisoner Incentive Payment Program (A-01-09-19029)

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

Our objective was to assess the accuracy of incentive payments to prisons. 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Social Security Act[1] (Act) allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to make incentive payments to State and local correctional institutions that provide inmate data to SSA.  The incentive payment provisions in the Act were established to encourage the reporting of inmate data that would allow SSA to suspend Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to prisoners in a timely manner.[2]

 

Incentive payments are authorized in the following amounts:

  • $400 for information received within 30 days after the individual’s date of confinement due to conviction for an OASDI beneficiary or confinement for an SSI recipient;
  • $200 for information received after 30 days but within 90 days after the individual’s date of confinement due to conviction for an OASDI beneficiary or confinement for an SSI recipient; or
  • $0 for information received on or after the 91st day following the individual’s date of confinement due to conviction for an OASDI beneficiary or confinement for an SSI recipient (see Appendix B for additional background information).

 

SSA programmed its incentive payment system to issue $400 for inmate information received by the end of the month following the month of incarceration and $200 for information received by the end of the 3rd month after the month of confinement.  In addition, the system has a built-in delay of 1 calendar month before the payment is issued.  If, during the next month, it is determined that benefits should not be suspended because of incarceration, the incentive payment will not be released.[3]  SSA’s policies and procedures state that if an incentive payment was released, but benefits should not have been suspended because of incarceration, the payment cannot be recovered.[4]

 

If SSA inadvertently pays a facility because of an SSA error (for example, SSA keyed incorrect incarceration data into the computer system), SSA will not litigate to recoup the erroneous payment.  The Agency will ask the correctional institution to return the payment.[5]  If the correctional institution agrees to refund the incentive payment, SSA will take action to recoup the payment.[6]  If SSA pays an incentive payment to the wrong facility, it will issue the incentive payment to the correct institution at the earliest possible opportunity.[7]

 

In our prior audit,[8] we reviewed incentive payments made between March 1997 and August 2003; and we estimated that about 86,000 incentive payments were issued incorrectly, resulting in approximately $19.0 million in OASDI and SSI funds that should not have been paid.  Therefore, we recommended that SSA

  1. pay incentive payments in accordance with the Act provisions, and
  2. provide refresher training to employees to reduce the number of erroneous incentive payments due to clerical errors.[9] 

SSA generally agreed with our recommendations.  Specifically, SSA agreed there was a discrepancy between the incentive payment provisions included in the Act and how the Agency was paying incentive payments, and agreed to provide staff training.

 

To perform our follow-up review, we identified 346,970 incentive payments made from September 2003 through May 2008.  We randomly selected 275 cases from this population for detailed analysis.  (See Appendix C for our sampling methodology.)

 

RESULTS OF REVIEW

 

SSA’s procedures do not ensure that incentive payments to institutions that provide inmate information are being made in accordance with the provisions in the Act.  Based on our review of 275 sample cases, we estimate about 119,862 incentive payments were issued incorrectly, resulting in approximately $30.3 million in OASDI and SSI program funds that should not have been paid.  Specifically, our review of 275 sample cases found that

 

·        180 incentive payments (65 percent) were paid properly;

·        66 incentive payments totaling $13,200 (24 percent) were improperly paid to prison facilities because the information was not received within the timeframe established by law but was received within the timeframe implemented by SSA; and

·        29 incentive payments (11 percent) totaling $10,800 should not have been paid.

 

Incentive Payments Not Made in Accordance with the Social Security Act

 

The laws that amended the Act[10] to establish incentive payments included timeframes for the issuance and amount of payments.  However, when implementing the incentive payment process, SSA established payment criteria that were inconsistent with those laws.  As a result, $13,200 was overpaid in our incentive payment sample cases.

 


The following is an example of an incentive payment incorrectly paid because SSA did not follow the requirements in the Act.

·        SSA received a report from an institution on June 18, 2007 showing a date of confinement of May 4, 2007 (45 days from confinement to receipt of information).

·        SSA issued an incentive payment on August 1, 2007 for $400, as the prisoner information was received before the end of the month following the month of confinement.

·        The institution was overpaid $200, as only $200, not $400, should have been paid for information received 45 days after confinement.

 

The following table shows detailed information on the incorrect payments made for our sample cases that exceeded the 30-day and 90-day limits established in the Act.

Timeframe of Receipt of Inmate Information and Amount of Incentive Payment

Number of Cases

Amount of Each
Incorrect
Incentive
Payment

Total Amount of Incorrect Incentive Payments

Portion of Incorrect Incentive Payments

$400 paid for information received 1 to 5 days after the 30-day time limit[11]

30

$200

$6,000

45%

$400 paid for information received 6 to 10 days after the 30-day time limit

16

$200

$3,200

24%

$400 paid for information received 11 to 15 days after the 30-day time limit

10

$200

$2,000

15%

$400 paid for information received 16 to 20 days after the 30-day time limit

5

$200

$1,000

8%

$400 paid for information received 21 to 25 days after the 30-day time limit

1

$200

$200

2%

$400 paid for information received 26 to 60 days after the 30-day time limit

2

$200

$400

3%

$200 paid for information received after the 90-day time limit

2

$200

$400

3%

Total

66

 

$13,200

100%

 


Incentive Payments Issued Erroneously

 

In 29 sample cases, SSA should not have made incentive payments totaling $10,800.

·        In 23 cases, the recipient was released from prison before the date benefits would have been suspended, and no incentive payment should have been made.  This resulted in overpayments totaling $8,800.

·        In five cases, the person identified by SSA’s computer matching program was not the correct person, and SSA personnel did not verify the identity before issuing the payment.  This resulted in overpayments totaling $1,600.

·        In one case, the prisoner was not convicted and therefore no payment was due to the prison.  This resulted in an overpayment totaling $400.

 

The following are two examples of incentive payments that should not have been paid.

 

(1)   An incentive payment was paid for the wrong beneficiary.

·        SSA received a report from an institution on September 22, 2003 showing a date of confinement of August 1, 2003.

·        SSA suspended the reported prisoner’s benefits without determining whether the correct beneficiary had been identified. 

·        SSA later found this individual was never in the institution that sent the inmate information.

 

(2)   An incentive payment was paid although incarceration was too short to suspend SSI payments.

·        SSA received a report from an institution on August 11, 2003 showing a date of confinement of July 11, 2003.

·        SSA suspended the prisoner’s benefits.

·        The beneficiary was not incarcerated for 1 full calendar month.  Therefore, benefits should not have been suspended.

·        The SSA technician did not post a release date to show the beneficiary was released before 1 full calendar month expired.

·        Posting of a release date would have suppressed the incentive payment.

 


SSA’s Efforts to Reduce Incorrect Incentive Payments

 

SSA informed us that, in June 2004, the Agency developed a technical amendment that, if enacted, would align the Act with how SSA programmed its systems to pay prisoner incentive payments.  The agency never submitted the proposal to Congress.  According to SSA, the specific proposal was to change the language in sections 202(x)(3)(B)(i)(II) and 1611(e)(1)(I)(i)(II) of the Act to conform existing statute with agency policy.

·        $400 if the institution furnishes the information to SSA by the end of the month following the month of confinement that the individual is confined in the institution;

·        $200 if the institution furnishes the information more than 1 month after the month of confinement through the end of the month following 2 months after the confinement; and

·        $0 if reported anytime thereafter.

 

In March 2009, SSA informed us that it implemented a new Web-based process to receive prisoner information more timely.  This new process is intended to help eliminate the lag time associated with mailing prisoner reports.

 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

SSA did not adhere to incentive payment provisions included in the Act when making payments to facilities that reported inmate information.  Therefore, SSA incorrectly paid them.  By making correct incentive payments in the future, SSA can ensure funds are not inappropriately expended from either the Social Security Trust Fund or the General Fund.

 

To prevent improper payments, we recommend that SSA implement a system to pay incentive payments according to the Act to facilities reporting inmate information.  

 

AGENCY COMMENTS

 

SSA generally agreed with our recommendation.  Specifically, SSA agreed that there is a discrepancy between the incentive payment provisions included in the Social Security Act and how the Agency is paying incentive payments.  SSA developed a technical amendment to bring the language in the Social Security Act in line with its incentive payment policy.  SSA plans to include the amendment in a package of draft legislation it will consider for the next legislative cycle.  SSA’s comments are included in Appendix D.

 

 

/s/

Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr.


Appendices

APPENDIX A – Acronyms

APPENDIX B – Background

APPENDIX C – Scope, Methodology and Sample Results

APPENDIX D – Agency Comments

APPENDIX E – OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

 

 


Appendix A

Acronyms

 

Act

Social Security Act

OASDI

Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance

POMS

Program Operations Manual System

Pub. L. No.

Public Law Number

SSA

Social Security Administration

SSI

Supplemental Security Income

U.S.C.

United States Code

 

 

 


Appendix B

Background

Title II

 

Section 402 of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999[12] amended section 202(x)(3) of the Social Security Act to provide for incentive payments from Title II program funds to State and local correctional institutions and certain mental health institutions that report inmate information to the Social Security Administration (SSA).  The Law authorized payment to an institution for information about an inmate if the inmate was receiving a Title II benefit for the month that preceded the first month in which the inmate was in the institution and became ineligible for such benefit.

 

Effective April 1, 2000, this law authorized SSA to pay the Title II incentive payment in the following amounts:

  • $400 for information received within 30 days after the individual’s date of confinement for conviction;
  • $200 for information received after 30 days but within 90 days after the individual’s date of confinement for conviction; or
  • $0 for information received on or after the 91st day following the individual’s date of confinement for conviction.

 

Title XVI

 

Section 203 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996[13] amended section 1611(e)(1) of the Social Security Act to provide for incentive payments from Title XVI program funds to State and local correctional institutions and certain mental health institutions that report inmate information to SSA.  The Law authorized payment to an institution for information about an inmate if the inmate was receiving a Title XVI payment for the month that preceded the first month throughout which the inmate was in the institution and became ineligible for such benefit.

 


Effective March 1, 1997, this law authorizes SSA to pay the Title XVI incentive payment in the following amounts:

  • $400 for information received within 30 days after the individual’s date of confinement;
  • $200 for information received after 30 days, but within 90 days, after the individual’s date of confinement; or
  • $0 for information received on or after the 91st day following the individual’s date of confinement.

 


Appendix C

Scope, Methodology and Sample Results

 

To accomplish our objective, we:

 

§         Reviewed applicable sections of the Social Security Act and other relevant legislation, as well as the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) regulations, rules, policies, and procedures.

 

§         Reviewed prior Office of the Inspector General reports.

 

§         Obtained a file from SSA’s Prisoner Update Processing System of 346,970 incentive payments totaling $129.4 million made from September 2003 through May 2008. 

§         From this population, we selected a random sample of 275 cases.  For each sample case, we:

ü     Reviewed the Master Beneficiary and/or Supplemental Security Record and SSA’s prisoner system information related to the incentive payment. 

ü     Analyzed information to determine whether the incentive payments were appropriate according to the provisions in the Social Security Act.  For cases in which we could not determine whether incentive payments should have been made, we asked SSA to determine whether the payments were correct.

 

We performed our audit between February and May 2009 in Boston, Massachusetts.  We tested the data obtained for our audit and determined them to be sufficiently reliable to meet our objective.  The entity audited was the Office of Income Security Programs under the Deputy Commissioner for Retirement and Disability Policy.  We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.  We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.


 

Table C-1: Sample Results and Projections

Population size

346,970

Sample size

275

Attribute Projections

Number of incentive payments paid incorrectly

95

Point estimate of incorrect payments in the population

119,862

     Projection lower limit

103,365

     Projection upper limit

137,229

Dollar Projections

Amount of incentive payments paid incorrectly

$24,000

Point estimate of amount of incentive payments paid incorrectly in the population

$30,281,018

     Projection lower limit

$25,757,493

     Projection upper limit

$34,804,543

All projections are at the 90 percent confidence level.

 

 

Table C-2: Overpaid Incentive Payments by Year

Calendar Year

Number of Cases in Sample

Number of Improperly Paid Cases

Amount of Improper Incentive Payments

2003
(Sept. – Dec.)

18

5

$1,400

2004

54

20

$5,600

2005

52

17

$4,200

2006

63

24

$5,800

2007

70

24

$5,800

2008
(through May)

18

5

$1,200

Total

275

95

$24,000

 

 

 

 


Appendix D

Agency Comments

 


SOCIAL SECURITY

 

MEMORANDUM

 

 

Date:

August 11, 2009                                                                              Refer

Refer To: S1J-3

 

To:

Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr.

Inspector General

 

From:

Margaret J. Tittel /s/

Acting Chief of Staff

 

Subject:

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report, “Follow-up: The Social Security Administration’s Prisoner Incentive Payment Program” (A-01-09-19029)--INFORMATION

 

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report.  We appreciate OIG’s efforts in conducting this review.  Attached is our response to the report findings and recommendation.

 

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.  Please direct staff inquiries to

Ms. Candace Skurnik, Director, Audit Management and Liaison Staff, at extension 54636.

 

Attachment:

SSA Response


COMMENTS ON THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) DRAFT REPORT, "FOLLOW-UP ON THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION’S PRISONER INCENTIVE PAYMENT PROGRAM" (A-01-09-19029)

 

Please find below our response to the recommendation and some technical comments to enhance the accuracy of the report.

 

Recommendation

 

Implement a system to pay incentive payments according to the Act to facilities reporting inmate information.

 

Comment

 

We agree there is a discrepancy between the incentive payment provisions in the statute and the procedures we follow to issue incentive payments.  Sections 202(x)(3)(B)(i)(I) and 1611(e)(1)(I)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act (“the Act”) require correctional and mental health institutions to report their inmate information to us on a monthly basis.  For information that results in a suspension of an inmate's benefit payments, sections 202(x)(3)(B)(i)(II) and 1611(e)(1)(I)(i)(II) of the Act state we will pay the institution $400 if the institution furnishes the information to us within 30 days after the date the individual is confined in the institution, and $200 if the institution furnishes the information after 30 days, but within 90 days of the date of confinement.  

 

For an institution to obtain the maximum incentive payment of $400, the institution would have to report their inmate data to us at least twice a month instead of monthly.  To avoid this potential hardship on institutions and to encourage full participation in the incentive payment program, we accept reports made in the month following the month of confinement as meeting the 30-day requirement.  This interpretation facilitated successful recruitment of correctional institutions to the program and keeps them participating. 

 

The prisoner reporting operation is one of the most efficient and effective computer-matching operations to prevent benefit overpayments and fraud, waste, and abuse of both trust fund and general fund resources.  We have agreements with 99 percent of the State and local institutions that house prisoners.  Those institutions that do not participate generally hold inmates less than one full calendar month or consider the program a resource burden.  Since 1997, we have suspended benefit payments to 719,000 inmates.  For this fiscal year, we estimate saving approximately $1.2 billion in overpayments due to prisoner benefit suspensions.   The administrative time allowance we currently provide to correctional institutions ensures that they report inmate information to us monthly as prescribed by law.  Their continued participation in our prisoner reporting operation is critical to suspending benefits as quickly as possible, protecting both the trust funds and the general fund.

 

In June 2004, we developed a technical amendment to bring the language in the Social Security Act in line with our incentive payment policy.  However, we did not include this proposal in an agency bill to Congress.  We do plan to include the proposal in a package of draft legislation that we will consider for the next legislative cycle.  We believe it is the most appropriate approach to solve the discrepancy between the Act and our policy.  The technical amendment would change the law to allow correctional institutions to report inmate information to us by the end of the month following the month of confinement.  

 

We considered requiring institutions to report confinements within the specified time required by the Act in order to receive the $400 payment.  However, we believe that this reporting change would create a significant administrative burden on institutions.  Given other competing priorities and finite systems resources for both the correctional institutions and us, we believe a technical amendment remains the most effective solution.

 

 

 

 

[In addition to the information listed above, SSA also provided technical comments which have been addressed, where appropriate, in this report.]

 

 

 


Appendix E

OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

OIG Contacts

 

Judith Oliveira, Director, Boston Audit Division

 

David Mazzola, Audit Manager

 

Acknowledgments

 

In addition to those named above:

 

Kevin Joyce, IT Specialist

 

Katie Toli, Auditor

 

Brennan Kraje, Statistician

 

For additional copies of this report, please visit our web site at www.socialsecurity.gov/oig or contact the Office of the Inspector General’s Public Affairs Staff Assistant at (410) 965-4518.  Refer to Common Identification Number
A‑01‑09‑19029.

 

 


DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE

Commissioner of Social Security                                                                                                  

Office of Management and Budget, Income Maintenance Branch                                             

Chairman and Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means                                          

Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means                                                                           

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security                          

Majority and Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security                                    

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives    

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform    

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives   

Chairman and Ranking Minority, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,
   House of Representatives                                                                                                           

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate         

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate                                        

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance                                            

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security Pensions and Family Policy 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging                    

Social Security Advisory Board                                                                                                     

 

 


Overview of the Office of the Inspector General

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of an Office of Audit (OA), Office of Investigations (OI), Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG), Office of External Relations (OER), and Office of Technology and Resource Management (OTRM).  To ensure compliance with policies and procedures, internal controls, and professional standards, the OIG also has a comprehensive Professional Responsibility and Quality Assurance program.

Office of Audit

OA conducts financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) programs and operations and makes recommendations to ensure program objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently.  Financial audits assess whether SSA’s financial statements fairly present SSA’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flow.  Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA’s programs and operations.  OA also conducts short-term management reviews and program evaluations on issues of concern to SSA, Congress, and the general public.

Office of Investigations

OI conducts investigations related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in SSA programs and operations.  This includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries, contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing their official duties.  This office serves as liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating to the investigation of SSA programs and personnel.  OI also conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General

OCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters, including statutes, regulations, legislation, and policy directives.  OCIG also advises the IG on investigative procedures and techniques, as well as on legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material.  Also, OCIG administers the Civil Monetary Penalty program.

Office of External Relations

OER manages OIG’s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the principal advisor on news releases and in providing information to the various news reporting services.  OER develops OIG’s media and public information policies, directs OIG’s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the primary contact for those seeking information about OIG.  OER prepares OIG publications, speeches, and presentations to internal and external organizations, and responds to Congressional correspondence. 

Office of Technology and Resource Management

OTRM supports OIG by providing information management and systems security.  OTRM also coordinates OIG’s budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human resources.  In addition, OTRM is the focal point for OIG’s strategic planning function, and the development and monitoring of performance measures.  In addition, OTRM receives and assigns for action allegations of criminal and administrative violations of Social Security laws, identifies fugitives receiving benefit payments from SSA, and provides technological assistance to investigations.



[1] The Social Security Act, §§ 202(x)(3)(B)(i) and 1611(e)(1)(l)(i); 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(x)(3)(B)(i) and 1382(e)(1)(I)(i).

[2] The Social Security Act, §§ 202(x)(1)(A)(i) and 1611(e)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(x)(1)(A)(i) and 1382(e)(1)(A) prohibit the payment of benefits to individuals receiving (1) OASDI benefits who have been convicted and incarcerated for a period of more than 30 days in a jail, prison or other penal or correctional facility and (2) SSI payments who have been confined in a public institution throughout any month.

[3] SSA, Modernized Systems Operations Manual, PRISON 003.001 F.

[4] SSA, Program Operations Manual System (POMS), section SI 02310.089 E.

 

[5] SSA, POMS, section SI 02310.091 B.1.

 

[6] SSA, POMS, section SI 02310.091 C.

 

[7] SSA, POMS, section SI 02310.091 B.1.

 

[8] The Social Security Administration’s Prisoner Incentive Payment Program (A-01-04-24067), July 30, 2004.

 

[9] SSA issued an Administrative Message (AM-05-038) on March 16, 2005 to remind employees involved in processing prisoner alerts of common clerical errors that result in the issuance of erroneous incentive payments. 

[10] The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-170 § 402 and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193 § 203.

[11] Under the Social Security Act, SSA should have paid $200 for information received after 30 days but within 90 days.  However, SSA paid $400 for this information—instead of $200.  Therefore, SSA overpaid the prison facility when it paid $400 for information that was received 1 to 5 days after the 30-day time limit. 

[12] Pub. L. No. 106-170, enacted December 17, 1999.

 

[13] Pub. L. No. 104-193, enacted August 22, 1996.