Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - July 18, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?
Mr. BECERRA. I am opposed to the amendment, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, I would like to say to my friend, Mr. Gingrey, and I think he knows, that there was an amendment accepted in committee that addressed any concern that anyone might have with regard to any type of totalization agreement that this country might sign with a partner, friend, or ally which would require that any totalization agreement conform with existing American law and that no law, including immigration law, could be violated.
Secondly, I think the gentleman is aware or should be aware that there is no way under existing law that anyone who does not have authorization to work in this country, including undocumented immigrants, qualify for receipt of Social Security benefits. Therefore, I would say to the gentleman that his amendment is not only unnecessary, not only overly prescriptive and not only harmful to American workers who are called to service in other countries, including Mexico, and as a result of their service, whether privately or publicly in these other countries, they are paying into a Social Security system which they may never have a chance to benefit from. And when they come home to the U.S., they may never qualify with enough credits, 40 quarters, to qualify for American Social Security benefits. We would harm those American workers here in this country under this amendment.
But beyond all that, I think what the gentleman tried to explains with regard to his concerns relating to undocumented immigration are totally off base because existing law would not allow anyone who works in this country without authorization to collect those Social Security benefits which he seeks to protect.
I would also say that of our 10 largest trading partners, we already have totalization agreements with seven of them. Two of those trading partners don't qualify for totalization agreements, Taiwan and China, because they don't have comparable Social Security systems to ours; and, therefore, we would not have a way to have a compatible system to exchange those benefits among our workers.
The only one of those top trading partners with whom we have not yet finalized a totalization agreement is Mexico. We happen to have totalization agreements with 21 of our allies, partners, and close friends and neighbors, including countries like Korea, Chile, Ireland, Japan, Italy, Spain, and Canada. A totalization agreement with any country, including Mexico, must go through this Congress before it could ever be approved.
It would have to go through a public hearing that would be held by the committee of jurisdiction, and each body in this Congress would have an opportunity to vote for disapproval in which case the totalization agreement signed by any administration would not go into effect.
Finally, we must remember that there are millions of American workers who have worked abroad who are impacted by not having a totalization agreement. The estimates are that American workers would benefit to the tune of $140 million, and that is on a yearly basis, if we had a totalization agreement with Mexico because of the large number of Americans who go and work in Mexico.
How much would it cost us to finalize this agreement? The estimates are it would cost us about $105 million, less than we would collect for our American workers.
And for comparison purposes, I should mention that the totalization agreement we have with Canada cost us $197 million in the year 2002 alone.
So this is a good deal for American workers because many of them have given a lot of their service, good service, to this country and other places outside of the U.S. They should have an opportunity to benefit from our Social Security system. They should not be deprived of that opportunity simply because they didn't fulfill those 40 quarters all in the U.S. That is what totalization agreements are about. They have to benefit our country, otherwise they wouldn't be reached. For anyone to say otherwise is to mask an argument, perhaps the issue of immigration, at the expense of American workers who are trying to get their pension and future retirement benefits under Social Security.
So I would hope that the Members here in the House would recognize that we won't reach any totalization agreement with any country unless it is in our interest.
Secondly, it shouldn't be just one country that is singled out if a totalization agreement is bad. It should be with any country that it doesn't benefit us to have this agreement with.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the such time as I may consume.
I would say to my friend from Georgia that what he is trying to accomplish has already been included in the bill, and I would urge my friend from Georgia to consider that this looks like he is trying to target just one country in particular at the expense of American workers who happened to have worked for years in Mexico.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, I oppose the amendment and stand to claim the time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BECERRA. I say to my friend from Michigan, as he knows, and we are working through the process in the Ways and Means Committee to try to figure out how we reform Medicare to make it more available to seniors throughout this country, and at the same time Medicare Advantage to find out a way to finally fund at an adequate level to fund the State health insurance program that is funded by the Federal Government, so that we can somehow find a way to cover the 9 million children in this country who still receive no health insurance coverage, that this amendment seems to do two things.
One is unnecessary, and that is to say that we will try to make sure that no one is denied access to any coverage under a Medicare Advantage plan. I know of nothing that would deprive any individual who seeks to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan that opportunity to do so.
Secondly, it seems geared to spook seniors who might not know what's going on if they see language or hear that there is some provision in law through the appropriations process that would say that we can't deprive them of an opportunity to apply for a particular type of Medicare coverage. It might seem to lend some credence to those who are trying to make seniors believe that they are going to be deprived of the Medicare benefits.
[Time: 23:45]
There is nothing further from the truth. In fact, every effort that is being made, as the gentleman knows, in the Ways and Means Committee is to actually enhance the benefits that our seniors will receive under Medicare. What we have found is over the years that many Medicare providers are finding it very difficult to stay within the Medicare system because of the lack of reimbursement, or so at least they claim. And in many cases we do find areas of the country that are finding fewer and fewer providers available to Medicare recipients to be able to access their health care.
I would say to the gentleman that if indeed this amendment is targeted at something in particular, it would be great if we could have that identified. But at this stage, I see nothing in the current law or anything on the horizon emanating from the Congress and certainly from our committee that we both serve on, the Ways and Means Committee, that would in any way jeopardize any individual's opportunity to access Medicare coverage through the Medicare Advantage plans that are available. And for that reason I would hope that, if nothing else, seniors who might be watching this debate at this time take nothing from this particular amendment to indicate to them that they should have any reason to fear that anyone would try to deprive them of their Medicare benefits. In fact, what I think they will find is that under the program that will be provided or will come to the Ways and Means Committee will enhance seniors' opportunities to obtain not just adequate medical services through Medicare but enhanced services through Medicare.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source