Medicare PPO Fairness Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim time in opposition, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation with mixed feelings, because the need for environmental remediation along the border is extraordinary; and I wish to express my deepest respect for my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), and those who have worked to bring this matter to the floor.

I rise in opposition because I really do not believe this should come to us under a suspension. I think that the issues concerning us all out of NAFTA, and NADBank in particular, deserve the full engagement of this Congress. And I think Members should pay attention to this legislation that was brought up very quickly and out of a single committee, a committee on which I do not serve, and this is my only way of informing the membership of issues at stake relating to NADBank and adjustment to NAFTA.

As an appropriator in this Congress, I have to express the view that NADBank in and of itself deserves a very, very close look by Congress because if we look back to NADBank's establishment, it had a very curious beginning. It existed only as a side agreement that was tacked on to the original NAFTA trade agreement that was passed by a narrow margin here in Congress in 1993.

NADBank was sort of an afterthought. I can remember the gentleman from California who helped negotiate it, but it never had a separate debate in this Congress. Its functions, its operations have never been separately debated here, and now we are asking for amendments to something we have never had a full debate on in this Congress.

NADBank's shortcomings are vast, and it operates in a most unusual and atypical fashion, outside the normal jurisdictions of our Committee on Appropriations. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) mentioned it has a half a billion dollars of capitalization. Some of it came from the general revenues of the United States, the people of our country, and the remainder from the people of Mexico; but even though it has a half a billion dollars of capitalization, it comes in the form of several pieces that wash through various appropriations subcommittees. It has no real home. Some might say its jurisdiction is segmented. Others might say it truly is haphazard and hard to get your arms around. The American people deserve better.

Indeed, NADBank operationally as a bank is a moving target, looking for a home in the Federal Government. It technically resides in the Department of Treasury. Yet its loan and grant authorities float mysteriously between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Small Business Administration, and a growing role for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which all manage to somehow, in ways unknown to Congress, subsidize the activities of NADBank.

What we do not know about NADBank far surpasses what, in fact, any individual Member of Congress might know. I know that Members who live along the border have a horrible environmental problem that they are dealing with. I have seen the cesspools being created by industrial production and agricultural production with no funds for environmental remediation.

We tried to build environmental provisions into the original NAFTA. They were rejected. They were rejected and now, with the billions of dollars of commerce occurring across the border, who is being asked to pay for the environmental remediation? Not the companies creating the damage, but the taxpayers of the United States of America.

This is a chart showing the trade deficit with Mexico. Before NAFTA's signing, we had a positive balance with Mexico, both ways. Since NAFTA's passage, every single year we have moved as a Nation into deeper and deeper trade deficit with the nation of Mexico, as well as Canada. We have lost over three million jobs in this country due to NAFTA; and the people of Mexico have had their wages cut in half, and now 250 million jobs in northern Mexico and those maquiladoras are moving to China where the wages are even cheaper.

We ought to revisit NAFTA. It is 10 years since its passage and millions and millions of people are being harmed. Indeed, the most harmed, in my opinion, are the peasants coming off the ejido system in Mexico who have no voice and no representation, and they deserve it in this highest Chamber of our government.

NADBank should realistically deal with these adjustments and it does not. We should not just have a suspension bill that deals with two or three small provisions. We should deal with the fundamentals of this agreement and the giant holes that are in it.

In the United States, in a State like my own--and here is a current chart of this showing our unemployment--the dark green covers counties in our State with the highest rates of unemployment. One of the five top States in the

Union to lose jobs because of NAFTA, most recently Dixon Ticondaroga Pencil and Crayon Company in Sandusky, Ohio, and also Phillips Electronics, in Ottawa, Ohio, over 2000 more jobs have relocated to Mexico.

We know a lot about NAFTA and its impact, and yet we look at the NADBank regulations and which counties have they helped with all the job loss in Ohio? Well, they picked one here and they picked one here and they picked one here to try to give a minimal amount of assistance. But there is no regularity, frankly no real help. NAFTA's NADBank has no regularity with which it deals with the huge job loss that these trade deficits represent.

The bill that is before us expands the area of eligibility for NADBank, as my colleagues rightly wish to do, by about 200 additional kilometers down into Mexico. But it does absolutely nothing to provide support to the thousands of communities across our Nation that have also lost jobs to Mexico.

My problem is NADBank's reach is not great enough. In fact, the part of the bank with the least staff and support, called CAIP, C-A-I-P, the Community Adjustment and Investment Program, has just experienced the resignation of its director and the Bush Administration has proposed no funding for future grants.

As an appropriator, I want to help the NADBank for all of America. NADBank will not let me help it, and this debate will not let me find an appropriate way in which to pay for the adjustment that is so essential not just in Ohio but in California, in Tennessee, Oregon, south Florida and so many other places that have lost jobs because of

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate very much appreciate the gentleman yielding just for a question.

It is my understanding that the Community Adjustment and Investment Fund, CAF, which is within NADBank, is basically zeroed out in this proposal, which means that it will have no money. And this is the portion of the bank that deals with loans and grants to the nonborder regions.

Could someone please clarify for me whether my understanding is correct? And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), who is such an expert on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my colleagues, particularly those along the border, for engaging in this debate today. I would just like to place on the Record information from the Community Adjustment and Investment Program headed in San Antonio, Texas, from NADBank that says Congress has zeroed out future funding for the Community Adjustment and Investment Program. The Bush budget contains no money, no appropriated dollars for the program to help in the nonborder areas of the United States.

I would beg my colleagues who are supporting this, please look beyond just the border and even for the border, recognize who is making the pollution and who should pay for it. But please do not disenfranchise communities across our country that are losing jobs.

I will end with this story. One of the companies that has just left my district in Sandusky, Ohio, Dixon Ticonderoga, one of the workers just committed suicide. The head of that company called me and said, Congresswoman, we're going to leave you a building, an empty hulk. I said, well, sir, all I've got is NADBank. So I called NADBank about 2 weeks ago and I said, they're leaving us an empty hulk. What can we do with a loan or grant program to create something, some type of economic activity inside that building? And the answer was, We have no funds. So we are talking here about only one square on a very large board.

I urge my colleagues to please withdraw this bill today. Let us work together and put language in there that helps all of the United States and all of North America, all of North America that has been so badly harmed by NAFTA, including agricultural adjustment provisions, so that no Mexican worker will die in this country because there is not a labor registration system across this continent that gives them the dignity of a work card where they cannot be bonded and sold by those coyotes all across this continent. There are huge problems that NADBank could be the vehicle to solve. Please vote ``no,'' or withdraw this bill today in order that we bring something back to this Congress that can help us perfect an agreement that is badly flawed.

Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to H.R. 254. So it is my understanding that my colleague from Ohio would then be controlling the entire 20 minutes in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague from Illinois for this opportunity.

Of course, I rise in strong support for passage of H.R. 254. I have great admiration for my colleague from Ohio who stands in opposition to 254 today, but we do have a fundamental difference of opinion. This piece of legislation was not intended in any way to revisit, reopen, recast, or rescind the North American Free Trade Agreement, the treaty itself; rather, it is to improve an institution that was created to assist in any problems that would be encountered as a result of the treaty itself. And that is where we stand today.

This is a bill to authorize the President to agree to certain amendments to the binational agreement establishing the North American Development Bank. H.R. 254 was passed by the House Committee on Financial Services on February 13 by voice vote. Last October, H.R. 5400, a bill exactly like 254, passed the House by unanimous consent. So I will remind my colleagues, Members of this House, that we are revisiting a piece of legislation that was passed by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to take up H.R. 5400, necessitating its resubmission in this Congress.

This bill is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 11 Members of Congress, almost all representing districts along the United States/ Mexican border. I do wish to express my sincere thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley),

chairman of the Committee on Financial Services; chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter); the ranking member, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders); and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity; as well as to the former ranking member of the full committee, Mr. LaFalce, who retired last session, for their cooperation and hard work in making today a reality and, hopefully, finally, in passing this bill once more and allowing the Senate the opportunity to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, NADBank was created pursuant to NAFTA. It is an investment in water, wastewater, and other public infrastructure along the United States/Mexican border. The bank is headquartered in my district, the 20th Congressional District of Texas, and provides conventional loan financing, below market-rate financing, and grants for communities located near the United States/Mexican border to help fund their water, wastewater, and other infrastructure needs. Additionally, NADBank manages an institutional development program that provides training to local officials on both sides of the border on how to effectively manage public utilities.

Since I arrived in Congress, I have heard so many Members use the phrase ``not letting perfect be the enemy of the good.'' I never thought I would resort to that, but today I will because that is what is happening here. NADBank is the only development bank specifically dedicated to the infrastructure needs of the United States/Mexican border. It meets a specific public financing need that has long been neglected by both Washington and Mexico City. Whether or not one is a supporter of the NAFTA treaty it is hard to argue with the purpose of NADBank, which is to provide critical financing and training for infrastructure improvements in disadvantaged United States and Mexican border communities.

Mr. Speaker, in a minute I will be yielding to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), whose district borders Mexico. I will agree with my colleague from Ohio that NADBank has not fulfilled its true mission due to certain restrictions that Congress has neglected, or by not having the authority to really have any say with Treasury. Treasury has been in charge. This is the answer. This is the fix. This is the fine-tuning we have been seeking for so long. Never has this been meant to be an instrument to reopen the debate on NAFTA. This is an essential piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Many of the shortcomings that both my dear friends from Ohio and California have pointed out are actually remedied by this bill. The answer is before us. Is it a complete answer? We never have a complete answer in any one piece of legislation; but this is definitely a start, and it is a meaningful one. My colleague from California poses the question, Where is the input? The input is in H.R. 254 because we as Members of the House of Representatives will finally have a voice. It will not simply be Treasury in the executive branch determining the parameters and the programs and the activities of NADBank. We will finally have something to say about it, so that my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from California will have a voice. That is what this piece of legislation is all about.

If someone sees this as an opportunity to relegislate NAFTA, I cannot do anything about that; but that is not what it does. It does not attempt to do that in any shape or form. But this is the answer that those that speak today in opposition are seeking. We all are in agreement. If this bill does not pass, it is only the House of Representatives that remains irrelevant to NAFTA and to the NADBank. That will be the end result.

I ask again, please consider this piece of legislation carefully, understand its merits, and you will vote for it. I ask each and every one of my colleagues to join us, all of us along the border, all of us from the border States that are so heavily impacted, to do something about the consequences of NAFTA but in a positive and constructive manner.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 254) to authorize the President of the United States to agree to certain amendments to the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 254, a bill that makes critical changes to the operation of the North American Development Bank. I would like to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his hard work on this piece of legislation and for building broad bipartisan support for the bill.

H.R. 254 was approved by voice vote in the Committee on Financial Services and is identical to legislation approved by the body in the 107th Congress. This bill is supported by the administration and is part of the President's priorities to improve conditions along our border with Mexico.

The NADBank was created through the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA Accord, of 1994 and was funded equally by the United States and Mexico. The purpose of the NADBank is to respond to concerns that the increase in commerce along the border region would result in a rise in pollution.

This is a commendable goal and the NADBank is well funded to reach this goal. It has over $450 million in paid-in capital and a total lending capacity of $2.7 billion; yet over the past several years, the NADBank has only approved the disbursement of $59 million in funds.

The changes we make today in the NADBank will allow this institution to fulfill its mission of financing environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border without resulting in any additional cost to the American taxpayer.

H.R. 254 will allow the NADBank to make below-market-rate loans for qualified projects. This is an important change and will permit this institution to truly assist this region by offering its products to the largest number of qualified environmental infrastructure projects.

In addition, H.R. 254 extends the area of operation to 300 kilometers from the border into Mexico. This expansion of the operating area will allow the NADBank to approve more worthy projects.

This bill also contains several important senses of the Congress which were crafted with the input of Members from several border States affected by the NADBank. This section calls for the NADBank to play close attention to water conservation, coastal pollution and air pollution projects. Finally, H.R. 254 will require the Treasury Department to report to Congress annually on the operations of the bank.

This bill will go a long way to help build upon the close relationship between the U.S. and Mexico and will improve the environmental conditions along the border.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, February 26, 2003.

Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 254--North American

Development Bank and Border Environment Cooperation Commission

Authorization

The Administration strongly supports passage of H.R. 254,

which authorizes key reforms of the North American

Development Bank (NADB) and the Border Environment

Cooperation Commission (BECC). Since taking office, President

Bush has worked closely with Mexico's President Fox to make

these institutions more effective in addressing the critical

environmental needs of the communities of the U.S.-Mexico

border region and, thus, improve the quality of life for the

region's 12 million residents. To achieve these goals, the

two Presidents agreed on a package of NADB/BECC reforms in

March 2002.

H.R. 254 will enable the United States to move forward to

implement two of the most important NADB/BECC reforms. The

bill would allow the NADB to make its financing more

affordable by allowing it to make grants and non-market rate

loans out if its paid-in capital. H.R. 254 also would

authorize the geographic expansion of NADB/BECC activity in

Mexico, which would allow the institutions to address

important environmental issues that may affect communities on

both sides of the border, but whose origin may lie outside

their currently defined region of operation.

Passage of H.R. 254 will demonstrate the United States'

strong bilateral cooperation with Mexico and commitment to

environmental protection, and would strengthen the ability of

the NADB and the BECC to perform their important

environmental mission. The Administration urges its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the sponsor of this legislation.

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains for the majority and the party in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), another member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these changes to the NADBank and join me in voting to approve H.R. 254.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I do represent the entire California-Mexico border, so I am a border Congressman; and I must say, we have some difficulties with the proposed legislation. The gentlewoman from Ohio, and I am sorry that it had to take someone from the hinterlands to explain to us that this whole issue of NAFTA and NADBank need to be discussed by this body in a far more important way than a bill on suspension that gives us 10 minutes to debate. The gentlewoman is entirely correct. And just because it is only the NADBank that falls within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee is no reason to limit this House from a fuller discussion. The Banking Committee can in fact go in with other committees and have that discussion. The gentlewoman was absolutely right: jobs have been lost, millions, because of NAFTA.

I live in San Diego, California, a community impacted by NAFTA. Did the community adjustment investment fund or NADBank do anything for our community? No. Is it going to do anything with the proposed reforms? I do not know. But I am very wary.

When NAFTA was passed, there was no infrastructure put in place to realize some of its benefits. For example, in San Diego, California, 3,000 trucks a day now cross the border from Mexico to the United States. There is no highway that takes those 3,000 trucks from the border crossing to the interstate highway system. I have been trying to get it built for the last 10 years. We have a city street that takes those trucks; it is one of the most dangerous roads in America. Has NADBank helped that? No. The environment which NADBank was limited to before these reforms, the maquiladoras which NAFTA brought to the border, hundreds of them, employing thousands of Mexican workers, do not have to abide by any of the environmental rules that we establish. So they end up dumping their toxic materials in the gullies and ravines in Mexico. You know where that ends up? I got 50 million gallons, now millions of gallons in the last few years of raw sewage floating through my district in the Tijuana River to the Pacific Ocean. In Imperial County to the east of San Diego, there are millions of gallons of raw sewage flowing through the New River, then the Alamo River, to the Salton Sea. Did NADBank take care of anything there? Nothing.

Those same maquiladoras brought Mexican workers to the border. What did it pay them? No increase in wages. In fact, wages fell. And do you know what happened when the folks who came to the Maquilas who thought they were going to get high wages and did not? What happened? Illegal immigration to America. Did NADBank do anything to help us with that? Nothing.

Two power plants have just opened up in Mexicali, Mexico, to service the needs of California, power needs. Did they have to follow the environmental rules of our community? No. Can the border patrol stop air pollution? No. Did NADBank help us solve any of that? No.

I agree that the folks who have worked on this, this is a step forward. I do not have any doubts about that. The lower-than-market interest rates which prevented really any loans from being made is absolutely necessary. The expansion of the definition of what projects would be accepted is obviously a very important step forward. But there is a backwards step that you ought to have maybe said something about in your legislation.

As I understand it, the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission, the board of that and the board of NADBank are being merged. BECC was one of the few places where you had any community input, and now we are not going to have any. San Diego and Tijuana had virtually no input. Mexicali and Calexico in Imperial County had no input. El Paso, no input. Brownsville, no input. Where is the community input for the reform bank that you are putting in? We at the border communities, and I will tell you even more the inland communities, if I may say so, need to have input into what is going on with the NADBank. It is not serving our communities. I do not see any step forward that will change that.

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of Treasury when I asked him a few years ago, and this was in a previous administration, how was NADBank doing, he had no idea. It has been put in a corner somewhere because of an attempt to get a few votes for NAFTA. It was set up to do nothing, and it fulfilled those expectations. I do not see any reforms really that will make NADBank work for America and American workers. I thank the gentlewoman for allowing us to have this debate.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, just quickly, the fact that this legislation does not say anything about the merged boards of BECC and NADBank, you could have said something about it. Just because you did not, do not criticize the fact that this is a backwards step. If you want to move forward, then change that, too. And we need to have the support of the Chair and those who are supporting this bill for some money for the community adjustment investment fund. It has been zeroed out by the administration.

So, yes, there are some reforms here. The question is how much money are we going to give it and how much community input are we going to allow. A report to Congress on a yearly basis does not allow the community input that this board needs.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 254, which will amend the law that established the North American Development Bank. The needs along the U.S.-Mexico border are ever increasing. Population growth is rapid, estimated at more than 100 percent in the next 20 years. Today about 11 to 12 million people live along the border. By 2020, 22 million people will reside in the region. On the U.S. side of the border, the per capita income is 79 percent of the national average. Four of the ten poorest counties in the United States are along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In October of 1993, the United States and Mexico agreed to a new institutional structure to promote border environmental cleanup. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) authorized the establishment of the North American Development Bank (NADBank) and the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) which work jointly to address some of the many environmental problems caused by free trade between Mexico and the United States. The primary focus of these two organizations has been to address the water and waste water needs of communities in the border region. And appropriately so: it is estimated that $8 billion would be required to address needs for sewage treatment, drinking water, and municipal solid waste infrastructure projects along the border over the next decade. The BECC is directed to help border states and communities coordinate and design environmental infrastructure projects, and to certify projects for financing, while the NADBank evaluates the financial feasibility of projects certified by the BECC and provides financing as appropriate.

Despite the creation of the NADBank to provide loans to finance border environmental infrastructure projects, grants from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have accounted for the vast majority of funding provided through the NADBank thus far.

As I expressed to the House Financial Services Committee last May, the financing provided by NADBank is often at too high of an interest rate to be affordable by many impoverished communities. I am pleased that enough of my colleagues recognized this problem, which led to the introduction of this legislation in the 107th Congress and its reintroduction this year.

This bill will allow for the NADBank to come closer towards reaching its full potential by allowing for non-market rate loans and grants to be made towards water and waste management infrastructure.

In order to expand the capacity of both institutions to address important binational environmental needs, this bill will expand the geographic scope for BECC and NADBank operations in Mexico from 100 kilometers to 300 km from the border. The geographic limit in the United States will remain unchanged at 100 km from the border. There is no doubt that the area encompassed within 100 km from the border is the area with the most dire needs. However, infusing additional funds within 300 km of the border on the Mexican side makes sense in helping build infrastructure and expanding the economy on Mexico's northern border. Assisting Mexico with infrastructure development needs in its northern border region will eventually relieve some of the pressure on the U.S. side of the border by providing opportunities for Mexican residents in Mexico.

The welcome changes this bill brings to the NADBank are a first step towards expanding the NADBank's role in financing infrastructure improvements along the U.S.-Mexico Border. In the future, I hope that the NADBank will be further authorized to finance any public infrastructure need along the border that can not be financed by conventional means. For example, in addition to needing water and sewage infrastructure, colonias are in desperate need of paved roads and a reliable energy supply. These communities suffer from a host of dire living conditions which should not be tolerated in our country.

I would like to thank my colleagues in the House Financial Services Committee for their work in moving this important piece of legislation to the floor so quickly in this Congress and look forward to working with them in the future to bring additional needed assistance to the U.S.-Mexico border region. I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of