Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to allocate said time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I seek to control the time in opposition.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me this time, and I want to thank my colleague from California for once again letting the chairman know of his interest in making sure that there is no hearing in which labor unions have to present any testimony about anything at all. Today's hearing was, in fact, the fourth hearing in a series of hearings, which are the most extensive in the history of this Congress on the campaign finance bills that were passed in the 1970's. Our hearings started off in a bipartisan way. We had the Speaker of the House and the minority leader of the House talk about their vision of where they wanted to go. We also had all of the Members who have introduced legislation who want to see change in campaign finance laws. In fact, there were so many Members, we had to carry some over to the second hearing. In the second hearing we heard from corporations, we heard from people who believe constitutionally they have a right to form political action committees, we heard from labor unions about the narrow segment of union political activity under the Federal Election Commission. In our third hearing we had national chairmen of both the Democratic and Republican Parties talking about how the law unnecessarily hamstrings political parties, in their opinion, vis-a-vis labor unions and other groups who are able to participate in the process far beyond political parties, and on a bipartisan basis those leaders urged us to look at changing the law affecting political parties. This is the fourth hearing in our series of hearings. It seemed entirely appropriate since less than 1 week from now labor unions are meeting here in Washington to discuss increasing their dues to put more than $35 million into the political arena, which they have, and I will not yield at this time because I would like to finish my statement, in which the workers who are paying for this have no knowledge under the law, either under the FEC, or the Labor Department, or the NLRB, National Labor Relations Board, as to where and how much money is spent in the political process. The people who participate in elections, the voters, do not under the law have any understanding, or idea, of how much money because it simply is not required under current law to be reported. We invited the president of the AFL-CIO, the president of the Teamsters, and the secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO to provide us with some understanding of this involvement in the political process. We fully intend to go forward with additional hearings to hear from other groups. What was the response of the minority to yet one more hearing to get a full, complete understanding of participation in this process? Either within or outside the law? Either through sheer arrogance or fear the union leaders decided they would not show up and the Democrats would not participate in the hearing. Who did we have testifying that made it so slanted, so misrepresentative? We had two individuals from the Congressional Research Service, individuals who are pledged in their testimony to be fair and bipartisan; in fact, so much so that every opening statement of a witness from the Congressional Research Service has to state as much. We had professors of economics and labor to help us to understand that under the law, in an incomparable way, labor unions can participate in the political process without any, without any, requirement to disclose to the public when and how that money is spent, but, even more fundamentally, to the people who contribute the money themselves. That information is so shocking, so important to the Democrats, that they have to walk out of a committee and refuse to have people come to the committee so that the American people can understand when and how labor unions influence elections.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Come on, folks. The operative word in the gentleman from California's statement that he just spoke was ``was.'' He is talking about yesterday. I know it is not useful sometimes, or even politic, to deal factually with amendments in front of us on this floor, but this is not the re- creation of a guest worker or Bracero program from 20 or 30 years ago. We can relive the problems, if my colleagues want to, in a kind of a nostalgic way and talk about Wilga, and talk about workers rights, but, come on. This is 1996. Let us take a look at what is the Pombo amendment actually requires. No. 1, we got to give preference to U.S. workers. Now, unemployment figures have been cited in various counties. Let me tell my colleagues unemployment figures and willing workers are two different things. Sometimes they are night and day. But if people are willing to work, they have got a job. We do not go without jobs. Our problem is we have difficulty sometimes finding willing workers, especially in peak harvest periods when, for example, in a 7-day period in Fresno County more than 50,000 people are needed to pull those what were grapes, now sun-dried into raisins, down onto the ground, put them on clean paper, and in a very short period of time prepare that product for market. I say to my colleagues, you need labor when you need it in the agricultural arena. Starvation wages? The Pombo amendment says, You have to pay at least the prevailing wage in the occupation area, at least the prevailing wage, and you have to pay it the same to the U.S. worker and the alien. You have to provide comparable transportation, U.S. worker and alien. You have got to cover all of the alien workers, as you do U.S. workers, with Workmen's Comp, comparable insurance. You have to go through a whole series of procedures. You have got to guarantee these aliens don't replace striking workers. You have got a procedure here that says these workers will receive every opportunity that workers who otherwise would be working will receive with one additional factor, they can only be here 10 months, a portion of their wages are withheld, that portion that's withheld is paid interest, and that pot of money, which is the reason these people came here in the first place, that pot of money is available to them if they go home on time. If they don't go home on time, they lose the pot of money I heard a figure in which 12 percent of these individuals move away from those jobs. Guess what percent of the workers who run across the border and risk their lives in freeway traffic, what percent of those folks go home when the job is up? The answer is zero, 100 percent of those people do not. Without a responsible program to allow people who want to work to come in to work when the work is needed we are going to have more illegals. The Pombo amendment is a creative, positive 1996 respective amendment, and I ask for its adoption.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, hired labor is one of the most important and costly inputs in farming. U.S. farmers spent more than $15 billion on hired labor expenses in 1992--one out of every 8 dollars of farm production expenses. For the labor-intensive fruit, vegetable and horticultural section, labor accounts for 35 to 45 percent of production costs. The labor-intensive fruit, vegetable and horticultural specialties sector accounted for more than $23 billion of agricultural sales in 1992, an increase of 32 percent for 5 years earlier. The competitiveness of U.S. agriculture depends upon the continued availability of hired labor at reasonable cost. U.S. farmers, including producers of labor-intensive perishable commodities, compete directly with producers in other countries for market share in both U.S. and foreign commodity markets. U.S. farmers are producing for global markets and competing at world market prices. More than one-third of U.S. fruit and vegetable production is now exported. On the other hand, about one-quarter of our fruit and vegetable consumption is now imported. If the labor supply is restricted and production costs rise, U.S. growers will lose market share to overseas producers. This decline in production will cost thousands of U.S. workers their jobs. Based on relative shares of agricultural production, at least one-quarter of the job loss will be in California. The availability of adequate seasonable labor has enable U.S. producers to expand production and exports of labor-intensive commodities. This has created tens of thousands of jobs for U.S. workers in ``upstream'' and ``downstream'' industries. Appropriately three off-farm jobs depend directly on each on-farm job. In California, due to the nature of the crops and the vast geographical and seasonal range, this need for labor over a short period is particularly intense. California is about 900 miles long, north to south. If you transpose it to the east coast we are talking about a distance from approximately the north of Florida almost to Massachusetts. Obviously, you have a significant timeframe in terms of growing. In this regard, the existing H-2A program has failed to be a reliable source of temporary and seasonal agricultural workers. The regulatory burdens leave employers waiting with uncertainty and anxiety whether they will be certified by the Department of Labor to obtain workers in a timely manner. What American farmers require is a temporary worker program which addresses these concerns. Recently the Agriculture Committee passed an amendment to H.R. 2202, sponsored by Congressman Richard Pombo of California, which would create a streamlined, temporary agricultural worker program. The Pombo amendment would create a 3-year pilot program with an annual cap of 250,000 workers admitted per year decreasing by 25,000 each year for the final 2 years of the program. Agricultural work generally is characterized by periods of peak demand for migratory workers that cannot be met by domestic labor sources. Under the Pombo language, employers would file attestations with the Department of Labor indicating the number of workers needed, as well as the specific terms of employment. Qualified U.S. workers would always receive first preference for these jobs. It is essential that such a proposal which protects agricultural labor needs to be included in the final language. In contrast, the Goodlatte amendment is not adequate protection for the agricultural community. The Goodlatte language proposes to swap one bureaucracy for another by moving the H-2A certification process from the Department of Labor to the Department of Justice. Further, the Goodlatte amendment imposes an unrealistic cap of 100,000 annual admissions under the H-2A program. As an example of this inadequacy, raisin growers in Fresno County employ nearly 51,000 agricultural workers between late August and late September each year; under the Goodlatte amendment's cap, if any significant portion of these workers are found to be employment ineligible by a verification system, or are interdicted at the border or detected by border enforcement, it is an open question whether there will be sufficient slots under the cap to meet the raisin producer's needs at that point in the growing season. The Goodlatte amendment also proposes a significantly tighter three- quarter guarantee than that currently applied to the H-2A program. The amendment would mandate an 8-hour workday, a requirement that would be impossible to meet on many days due to uncontrollable weather or crop conditions. Under the language of Goodlatte, if as few as one-quarter of the workdays were not full 8-hour workdays, the grower would be required to pay workers for periods of no work, regardless of how much work was provided on the remaining days, clearly unreasonable to the agriculture community. Mr. Speaker, amending H.R. 2202 with a workable temporary and season agricultural worker program is essential to achieve true immigration reform. The end result of failure to provide a legal temporary alien worker program for U.S. agriculture will be to reduce U.S. farm production and agribusiness employment. The following agricultural organizations urge your support for the Pombo/Chambliss amendment. We strongly oppose the Goodlatte amendment National Council of Agricultural Employers; Agri-labor Support Organization; Agricultural Affiliates from Western New York; Agricultural Producers; American Association of Nurserymen; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Mushroom Institute; California Farm Bureau; California Floral Council; California Grape & Tree Fruit League; Colorado Sugarbeet Growers Association; Florida Citrus Mutual; Florida Citrus Packers; Florida Farm Bureau; Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association; Florida Nurserymen & Growers Association; Florida Strawberry Growers Association; Frank B. Logoluso Farms; Frederick County Fruit Growers; Fresno County Farm Bureau (CA); Fruit Growers League of Jackson County, Oregon; Grower Shipper Vegetable Association of Central California; Grower Shipper Vegetable Association of Santa Barbara and San Obispo Counties; Hanes City Citrus Growers Association; Hood River Grower-Shipper Association; Illinois Specialty Growers Association; International Apple Institute; Michigan Asparagus Advisory Board; Michigan Farm Bureau Federation; Midwest Food Processors Association; National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; National Cattlemen's Association; National Christmas Tree Association; National Cotton Council; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Peach Council; National Watermelon Association; New England Apple Council; New York Apple Association, Inc.; Nisei Farmers League; North Carolina Apple Growers Clearinghouse; North Carolina Growers Association; North Carolina Sweet Potato Commission; Northern Christmas Trees & Nursery; Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, Patterson Firm (MA); Shoreham Cooperative Apple Producers, Association (VT); Snake River Farmers Association; Society of American Florists; Sod Growers Association of Mid-America (IL); Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Florida; Sun- Maid Growers of California; Texas Citrus & Vegetable Association; Texas and Soutwestern Cattle Raisers Association; Texas Cotton Ginner's Association; Tobacco Growers Association of North Carolina, Inc.; United Agribusiness League; United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association; Valley Growers Cooperative (NY); Ventura County Agricultural Association; Vidalia Onion Business Council; Virginia Agricultural Growers Association, Inc.; Virginia State Horticultural Society; WASCO County Fruit & Produce League; Washington Growers Clearing House Association; Washington Growers League; Washington State Horticultural Association; Western Growers Association; Wisconsin Christmas Tree Producers Association; and Wisconsin Nursery Association.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman has now moved from a data bank to records, and I believe the statement will show that he is now talking about records in the context of a data bank, if you will. Does moving from a data bank, the specific subject matter of this bill, to records which are akin to a data bank suffice for the Speaker to continue to allow for this direction? Is that a sufficient nexus, in the Chair's opinion?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin a discussion of the repeal of this data bank with an underscoring of a point that the gentleman from California made, and that is that this measure was insisted upon by the Senate. This is not a work product that originated in the House. It was contained in the budget legislation that was passed in 1993 under the majority. I want to go back to a quote, Mr. Speaker, that I used at the beginning to frame the debate about the repeal of this proposed data bank. This data bank was never put into effect. It was proposed. We are now proposing to make sure it never goes into effect. In testimony before the Committee on Ways and Means by Sarah Jagger on February 23, 1995, representing a GAO study, she said that this proposed data bank would create an avalanche of unnecessary paperwork for both the Health Care Financing Administration and employers, and will likely achieve little or no savings while costing millions. That statement was made in February of 1995. The reason we have this legislation before us today is because the need to save not only employers, but the Health Care Financing Agency, money is even more critical today than it was at the time that we took the testimony, because when we took that testimony in February of 1995, we had a trustees' report, those individuals who are charged with the responsibility of overseeing the Medicare trust fund reporting to us that the Medicare trust fund was sound through the year 2002. What we have now discovered is that based upon real data, not projections, but real data, it is no longer protected until 2002. This was what was described to us as the prospective state of the Medicare trust fund at the time this testimony was delivered, that notwithstanding the continual drop in the trust fund, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Rubin, signed a document saying that there is going to be a reversal of this trend, that the Medicare trust fund will have more money in it at the end of 1995 than it did in 1994. We were concerned about saving money in February of 1995, but this was the projection given to us by the Clinton appointees who are the trustees of the Medicare trust fund. This is now March of 1996, and the projections, the, if you will, more rosy scenario, simply did not obtain, and the reason this bill is before us today to repeal the proposed data bank and save not just employers, but the Federal Government, millions of dollars is because this is actually what happened; not projected, actually what happened. We actually went minus in the trust fund account for this fiscal year. That is the first time this has occurred since 1972. In 1972 the Democrats were in the majority. They promptly raised the payroll tax. That was a response they used nine times in response to a shortage of funds. Rather than rethinking, reconceptualizing, protecting, preserving, and strengthening Medicare they simply raised the payroll tax. This is what they said was going to happen. This is what actually happened. So we have begun an examination of legislation that we could bring to the floor which would guarantee that there would be no more hemorrhaging in the Medicare Trust Fund than was absolutely necessary. That is the purpose and the substance of bringing this bill to the floor today. Perhaps even more chilling was the testimony not of the Secretary of the Treasury in his function as the Chairman of the trustees, but the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Dr. Shalala indicated, and numbers have now been produced, that at the same time the trust fund was a minus $36 million at the end of fiscal year 1995, in the first 4 months of that year there was $3.8 billion surplus. That is, over a 12- month period, they went from a $3.8 billion surplus to a $36 million deficit. As I said, this is the first time it has happened since 1972. So my inquiry would be, of course, if this is what we look like in the first 4 months of fiscal year 1995, what do we look like in the first 4 months of fiscal year 1996, the year we are currently in? The information that now has been reported, not projections, not rosy projections to make it look good, but actual figures for fiscal year 1996, the first 4 months, are at a plus $133 million. Remember, when the first 4 months were at $3.8 billion we wound up with a $36 million deficit, the first time since 1972 that we had a minus number. If we have only brought in $133 million in the first 4 months of fiscal year 1996, what is it going to look like in hemorrhaging red ink in the trust fund without making the kinds of changes we are contemplating? A number of people have complained that repealing this proposed data bank certainly seems like small potatoes. It certainly is a first step. We have to make sure, first of all, that the Government does not do stupid things. This proposal that was passed by the former Democratic Congress in 1993 is now universally agreed to be a stupid thing. What we need to do is sit down and talk about additional changes that need to be made in the system. Republicans have been more than willing to do that on a bipartisan basis. In sitting down with a number of very responsible Democrats, normally known as the self-named blue-dog Democrats, we have moved forward a proposal, which I am hopeful we will be able to announce, achieves a bipartisan majority in making sure that we preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare. But we ought to take every opportunity. We ought not to pass up any opportunity for making changes in the system that will guarantee that not only employers but the Federal Government does not waste money. This is one of those efforts. We chose corrections day to do it, because there was no known opposition at all. This would be an expedited way to deal with this particular question. I find it interesting that notwithstanding all of the discussion that occurred on the side of the minority, no one is in evidence who opposes this legislation. Our goal is to work in a bipartisan way to produce legislation that will make positive change, will create a new Medicare which will preserve, protect, and strengthen seniors in a prospective fashion, once we have cleaned up the errors that are left over from previous Democratic control. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on this particular measure in front of corrections day.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Notwithstanding his elegant eloquence, I believe the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] has once again strayed from the germaneness under the rules of the House.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the items that the gentleman is ticking off on his finger have no relationship to the information to be collected in this data bank, or any other data bank.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2685, a bill I introduced to repeal the so-called Medicare and Medicaid coverage data bank. This particular bill was favorably reported by the Committee on Ways and Means last November by a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Speaker, this bill is particularly well suited to be considered here under the corrections procedure as we are doing today. Under the Medicare secondary payer program a person's employer based insurance may be the primary payer in certain cases. In other cases, it may not be. The 1993 budget reconciliation bill created a data bank to identify Medicare secondary payer cases. In principle, this was, I guess, at the time a good idea. However, its implementation was misguided and heavy- handed. Under the 1993 law, employers were required to submit health insurance information on all their employees, not just those subject to the secondary payer provisions. Health and Human Services also said this was to begin in 1994. Many employers voiced strong opposition to this cumbersome requirement, in large part because employers were required to report information which they did not routinely collect, and what started out as a good idea became, in part, a hunt for information which was not then currently asked for or even needed in the system. In response to these objections, a fiscal year 1995 Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill directed that no funds be used for the implementation of the bank. In addition, the General Accounting Office issued a report in May 1994 which found that the data bank would create burdensome and unnecessary paperwork for both the Health Care Financing Administration and employers and would achieve little or no savings. As the witness from the GAO testified on February 23, 1995, ``The proposed data bank would create an avalanche of unnecessary paperwork for both HCFA and employers and will likely achieve little or no savings while costing millions.'' It is also believed that the data bank would cost the private sector as well as Government that money, that burden not being solely on one group or the other. H.R. 2685 puts an entirely appropriate final nail in the coffin by repealing the underlying data bank law. The data bank notwithstanding, the idea of making sure that the Government paid only its fair share was a misplaced idea from the start. I am pleased to be able to help send it to its final resting place here today. This is a relatively straightforward bill. It has very narrow scope of subject matter. There is, I believe, universal support for the repeal of this Medicare-Medicaid coverage data bank law, and I urge its swift adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, is the question propounded by the gentleman from Texas germane to this legislation and therefore a question that should be answered?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. QMB's, who are qualified Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries, are seniors. We are dealing with legislation that deals with people who are employed by employers to collect data for purposes of determining primary and secondary payers, and I believe the gentleman's statements are not germane.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. The parliamentary inquiry was to the legislation in front of us, not to data banks in general and nursing homes, but to the Medicare-Medicaid data bank and nursing homes.

Mr. THOMAS. This gentleman is at a complete loss, having read the legislation in front of us, with no reference to nursing homes whatsoever, how a discussion of nursing homes and legislation or desired legislation surrounding nursing homes has any nexus whatsoever with the subject matter in front of us, and Mr. Speaker, I would like you to rule on the nexus of a discussion of nursing homes and data or records collected around the nexus of nursing homes and how that has a relationship to the legislation which we are supposed to be discussing on the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am constrained to ask a parliamentary inquiry.