[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2041-H2048]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            REPEAL MEDICARE AND MEDICAID COVERAGE DATA BANK

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 2685) to repeal the Medicare and 
Medicaid coverage data bank.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 2685

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID COVERAGE DATA 
                   BANK.

       (a) In General.--Section 1144 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1320b-14), as added by section 13581(a) of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (in this section 
     referred to as ``OBRA-93''), is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Medicare.--Section 1862(b)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395y(b)(5)), as amended by section 13581(b)(1) of OBRA-93, 
     is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the dash and all that 
     follows through the end and inserting ``subparagraph (A) for 
     purposes of carrying out this subsection.'', and
       (B) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``subparagraph 
     (B)(i)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B)''.
       (2) Medicaid.--Section 1902(a)(25)(A)(i) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396a(a)(25)(A)(i)), as amended by section 13581(b)(2) 
     of OBRA-93, is amended by striking ``including the use of'' 
     and all that follows through ``any additional measures''.
       (3) Data matches.--Section 552a(a)(8)(B) of title 5, United 
     States Code, as amended by section 13581(c) of OBRA-93, is 
     amended--
       (A) by adding ``or'' at the end of clause (v),
       (B) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (vi), and
       (C) by striking clause (vii).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] 
will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  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. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I, too, support this legislation. It is a provision of 1993 which the 
House reluctantly accepted in conference as part of a package from the 
other body, and at the time, then-chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means predicted we would be back repealing it at some later point, and 
it is appropriate that we are doing so today.
  In addition, the administration has been unable to implement the law, 
and the administration also supports the repeal as a necessary 
correction.
  It is interesting that we are here today to talk about data banks, 
because the data bank is, Mr. Speaker, a record, just so that my 
colleagues understand; this is very arcane computer talk, and this 
gentleman from California is no expert, but I understand that a data 
bank is a record, a record not unlike this Congress under the 
Republican leadership which has passed no legislation. That is a data 
bank, and I am sure that it is one that the Republicans would like to 
repeal at some point so they do not have to run on the data bank that 
they have established in this Congress.
  There are lots of data banks that perhaps are needed, and I hope that 
none of my colleagues will feel that doing away with this data bank, we 
should forego all data banks in the future.
  Somebody a while ago mentioned nails in a coffin. Now, I would like 
to have a data bank on how many coffins will be nailed shut by the 
Republican Medicare plan, how many poor people would be denied.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California yield for 
a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. STARK. Certainly.
  Mr. THOMAS. I fully understand the intent and purpose of the 
gentleman from California, and all of us, I think agree that we come 
here not to praise data banks but to bury this particular one, and I 
know he must, because of the rules of the House, walk a very fine line 
in talking about the subject matter in front of us. I would urge him 
that I would not want to continually ask this parliamentary inquiry.
  But were the gentleman's statements referring to any data bank, 
including data banks collecting information about the record of this 
Congress, germane to the subject matter in front of us?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must maintain a nexus between 
the subject being debated and the bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. My parliamentary inquiry is: Is mentioning the word 
``data bank'' and then talking about what you want to put in any data 
bank you so conceive, is that an appropriate and parliamentary nexus?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. At this point the Chair will simply remind 
the Members that discussions should remain relevant to the bill under 
consideration.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. STARK. My pleasure. I will try and keep my nexus in focus. I am 
not sure I know what a nexus means, either. But I will do my best.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Perhaps we could have a data bank collecting nexus. Then 
we could examine them.
  Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for his suggestion. In all 
seriousness, the collection of health data has been an important facet 
in the Medicare Program, which has been the perhaps leading social 
legislation since 1965, when Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress 
and Senate enacted Medicare. And we have kept much in

[[Page H2042]]

the way of health data. We have talked about outcomes research, which 
is a data bank which will not, I believe, he repealed in this bill. 
That is good.
  But we do need a data bank to see, as I mentioned, nails in coffins, 
we passed nursing home legislation some years back. We have records of 
data banks, if you will, of the number of----


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. THOMAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman yield for an inquiry?
  Mr. STARK. I will be happy to yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  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?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is of the opinion that the 
gentleman has maintained a sufficient nexus or connection.
  Mr. THOMAS. He is doing a good job.
  Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman. It is this data bank or collection 
of records that will tell us how well we have done with regulating 
nursing homes and the data bank will illustrate for us the number of 
lives that have been saved, the number of senior citizens that are no 
longer medicated into being zombies, the number of senior citizens in 
nursing homes in various States who are living in unhealthy conditions, 
and this data bank will illustrate for us what will happen if we were 
silly enough to pass the Republican Medicare plan.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am constrained to ask a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman yield for an inquiry?
  Mr. STARK. I will be glad to yield one more time.
  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. PALLONE. Following up on that parliamentary inquiry----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not recognized at this 
time. The Chair is prepared to respond.
  Mr. PALLONE. Could I ask on that point if the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark] could yield to me?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to respond.
  The Chair is prepared to give the gentleman from California the 
opportunity to establish that connection between data banks covered by 
the bill and nursing homes.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is willing to allow the gentleman 
the opportunity to establish that connection.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark].
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair tell me how much time I have 
consumed in establishing my nexus?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has consumed 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. STARK. I thank the Chair.
  The important issue is that if we were to even consider doing away 
with the data bank, we could not have the records to support the fact 
that we ought not to do away with nursing home regulations as the 
Republican Medicare bill would suggest.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. STARK. Now, there are other data banks. We keep data banks on the 
income of seniors who qualify under QMB. That is a poor senior with low 
income.


                             POINT OF ORDER

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman will state his 
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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] 
must confine his remarks to the subject of the bill.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to inquire whether any of the data 
bank information that would be affected by this legislation would 
relate to complaints of patient abuse in nursing homes, the kind of 
violation of Federal standards. I am referring to the standards that 
the Gingrichites propose to just eliminate entirely in their proposal 
last year and deny our seniors any kind of safety in nursing homes. 
Would that be affected by this legislation?


                             POINT OF ORDER

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his 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. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be heard.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, surely it is permissible in the course of 
one of these debates, and I can understand the gentleman's desire not 
to get into this destruction to the health care of our seniors across 
the country by raising this issue, but surely it is appropriate under 
the rules of the House to make an inquiry of someone who is opposed to 
this legislation as to what the legislation affects. That is all I have 
asked, is whether or not the seniors in America are going to be 
affected by changing this data bank to seniors who would lose out if 
there are no standards to protect them in nursing homes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman from Texas is at a disadvantage. He arrived 
on the floor not hearing the gentleman from California's opening 
statement, in which the said he was not opposed to this legislation. 
There is no opposition to this legislation.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would be more than willing to engage in a 
discussion of the shortfall of the Medicare fund, which was not 
adequately reported by this administration in any form that allows us 
to understand it. But that is a debate that will take place at another 
place and another time.
  The purpose of this debate under the rules is to discuss the matter 
in front of us, and all this gentleman from California is trying to do 
is to maintain decorum and order in the house and request that the 
Speaker enforce the Rules of the House so that we may have an orderly 
debate and not traverse the countryside in any and all directions by 
any individual who may have an honest and earnest attempt to discuss 
this issue or may be motivated by other reasons.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has made his point of order. 
The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The question is relevant to the extent of coverage of the data bank 
under this bill, and the gentleman from Texas may inquire in order.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, continuing my point of order, it is for 
employees only. The question is about nonemployees. How can it be 
germane?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will ask the gentlemen from Texas 
and California to proceed in order.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a 
question as to what this legislation does, because whether you were 
here at the

[[Page H2043]]

very beginning of the debate or at the very end of the debate, whether 
the gentleman is opposed to or for this legislation, it should be 
proper, as the Speaker has ruled, for a Member of this House to be able 
to determine whether the legislation will have an adverse effect by 
changing this data bank on the seniors of America.
  Now, does this legislation have any impact on all this proposed 
Gingrichite repeal for standards of health and safety in nursing homes 
across this country?
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in response to the 
question of the gentleman from Texas, this legislation will have no 
effect. The Gingrich-Thomas legislation will so destroy nursing home 
regulations that even if it did have an effect, it would not make any 
difference, because the nursing home regulations would be tossed out 
the window by the Republicans and it would be moot as to whether this 
does. But the legislation does not.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make the point, I 
understand that the gentleman favors this bill in the sense that he 
thinks that the data bank at this point in this particular case perhaps 
does not make sense, but my concern is over the whole issue of data 
banks.
  In other words, we know that the Republican leadership proposes to 
cut back on Medicare, to cut back on Medicaid. Some of the changes they 
are now advocating under the guise of health care insurance reform 
essentially are going to make some major changes for our health care 
system. For example, when you talk about Medicaid, the Medicaid 
proposal that the Republican leadership has put forward I believe, 
because it block grants money to the States, will have a lot of people 
simply not eligible for Medicaid and not having any kind of health care 
anymore.
  So I am a little concerned that when we talk about eliminating data 
banks, we may need some of these data banks if some of these Republican 
proposals go forward, because I would like to know how many people are 
not going to be eligible for Medicaid anymore, how many medigap 
recipients will not be able to take advantage of it.


                             point of order

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  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. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that that in fact is not the case. The 
fact of the matter is when you talk about the data bank, which I 
understand for this specific purpose is linked to how many employees 
receive private health insurance as opposed to Medicare and what the 
impact of that is going to be, we have the same thing now with the 
proposal by Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy and the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema, where we are trying to get passed on the 
House floor health care insurance reform that will eliminate 
preexisting conditions and that will allow for portability. The 
Republican leadership, from what I can see, will not allow it to come 
to the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will again rule that the gentleman 
from New Jersey's remarks must be confined to the bill at hand.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire whether the time for these 
points of order come out of my time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would state that argument on 
points of order do not.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, if I 
can just ask the gentleman from California, the way I understand this 
data bank, it was set up to gather information about whether or not 
someone who was employed privately and had private health insurance, 
how that would relate to Medicare coverage.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is quite 
correct in his presumption. That was the initial suggestion or intent 
created by the other body in establishing this legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is not that type 
of information possibly valuable in terms of this ongoing debate on the 
Kennedy-Kassebaum bill as to whether or not insurers are covering 
people whether or not they have preexisting conditions or whether or 
not they could carry their health insurance with them to another job?
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is quite correct, because as 
the number of layoffs continue and as the Republicans continue to do 
nothing to provide health insurance for the unemployed or extended 
COBRA benefits, which cost no one anything, except the Republicans do 
not like it because it would be a Federal involvement, we do not have 
the data.
  This data would not be useful to fulfill what I believe the gentleman 
has in mind, and that is how can we, as the Democrats would like, 
assure people who would pay for their benefits and be cut off by the 
Republican indifference, how can we insure that people could continue 
their health insurance even if they were willing to pay for it? Without 
the data, and I think it is important that we emphasize that this bill 
repealing this one limited data bank should in no way prejudice the 
establishment of a data bank as the number of people, for example, 
climb from some 37 million to now almost 45 million uninsured, you have 
not heard one mention of that out of the Republican presidential 
candidates or certainly from that side of the aisle in this house. They 
do not care about the uninsured in this country. they only care about 
the rich and the big insurance companies. That is who is getting 
protected.
  This data bank that we are repealing would not be helpful in 
following our democratic precept of assurance that people have a fair 
chance to purchase insurance at a fair price.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, that 
is the only point that I was trying to make, which is, and I think the 
gentleman from California said it well, that we may very well need data 
banks like this in order to ensure that more people are not taken off 
the rolls or be able to move from one job to another or denied health 
insurance because of preexisting conditions.
  So that whatever happens here today under the corrections day 
calendar will not somehow get out into the general public as something 
that we will not need for other purposes, because we are determined as 
Democrats that we want to bring this Kennedy-Kassebaum bill to the 
floor and eliminate preexisting conditions as a reason for health 
coverage and also allow people to be able to carry their health 
insurance with them when they lose their job or go from one job to 
another.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, 
sharing the concern with the gentleman from New Jersey about those who 
lack health insurance, let me ask the gentleman about this particular 
bill, about this data bank which has been brought to the floor under an 
unusual procedure never used before by this Congress, that by the very 
nature of the procedure bringing it to the floor, we are as Members 
denied an opportunity to amend this bill to address some of these very 
real problems that relate to the health care and the lack of access to 
insurance that affect millions of working families across this country.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I may respond, the 
gentleman makes a very good point. These particular bills are brought 
to the floor under a euphemism referred to as ``correction day.'' Now, 
I think we need a correction week. As a matter of fact, for some folks 
we might need a correctional institution. The fact we are ignoring this 
piddling little data bank, which somebody had to fuss around to find to 
make into a bill to bring to the floor today, is not the important 
issue.
  Data banks contain tremendous amounts of information. They contain 
information, for example, on quality in hospitals. A nonpartisan group 
of experts the other day, PROPAC, said that maintaining updates as low 
as the Republicans would do in their Medicare bill would have a severe 
impact on hospitals.

[[Page H2044]]

                             point of order

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point or order.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to this point of order with the 
understanding that apparently Members are no longer held to the rule of 
germaneness. The current dialog is nowhere near the intersection of 
nexus with the legislation, in this gentleman's opinion. I would ask a 
ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the Members that on 
November 14, 1995, the Chair sustained a similar point of order where a 
Member was unable to maintain a constant connection or nexus between 
the subject of the bill and his remarks on health care generally. The 
Chair would ask the Members to proceed with that in mind.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for his admonition, and 
would request my colleagues to join with me in joining in the spirit of 
his request.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, in 
other words, this is a so-called corrections day bill, but it does not 
correct any of the real problems that affect the American families that 
are out there struggling to make ends meet.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit, I happen to agree with the 
gentleman's statement, but I think that I cannot find the nexus for the 
gentleman of Texas's question.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as 
far as the nexus, is there any nexus between this bill and any other 
bills that are pending there in the committee from whence this bill 
came that do deal with the very real problems of American families? Or 
is this just an isolated correction of some problem that is not really 
a problem?
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, quite frankly, the 
committee that deals with this topic has not met, and it is responsible 
for Medicare, and it does nothing except worry and tell us that 
Medicare is going to go broke. It is in fact fiddling with this type of 
data bank, when the major data bank, which is the trust fund, is not 
being corrected. So there is a great deal of blame to justly be placed 
on the administration of the health committee under its current 
leadership.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. DOGGETT. Well, I thank the gentleman for trying to put some 
perspective on the little bit that is being done here and the whole lot 
that is not getting any correction at all.
  Mr. STARK. The other issue of data banks, Mr. Speaker, is in the 
field of insurance regulation. This data bank was designed to find a 
correlation between private insurance that an employee might have and 
Medicare.
  We have further need for a data bank that would deal with the 
question of selling insurance that is duplicative. This is a rule that 
we have had to protect seniors, and it is being eliminated by the 
Republican Medicare bill.
  The sales rules are also being eliminated. Now, without keeping a 
data bank on the unscrupulous sales practices of health insurers who 
sell Medigap, and allowing these duplicative policies to reappear, we 
will have no way of knowing how much harm is being done to the seniors. 
We estimate that several billions of dollars were paid prior to our 
passing the bill which eliminated duplicative Medigap sales to seniors, 
but we have not kept that data bank, assuming that those rules would be 
affected.
  Without any prejudice to the ability to reinstate a data bank, I 
think it is necessary to point out that these seniors will need 
protection from the unscrupulous insurance agency and this bill----


                             point of order

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, this gentleman is constrained once again to 
request that the Speaker, in this gentleman's opinion, understand that 
the simple mention of a data bank does not make the discussion germane 
to the bill in front of us, to the extent that it would allow the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], who quite rightly is pushing the 
envelope as he is trying to do, to discuss the sales of Medigap 
policies and potential unscrupulous salesmen who might sell these 
products.
  If, in fact, the Chair rules that that is germane, then these rules 
have no meaning at all, in the opinion of the gentleman from 
California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Stark] like to respond to the point of order?
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would, only to suggest to the 
Chair that in whichever way the Chair sees fit to rule, the Chair 
certainly understands the issues and has been extremely fair, and I 
would have no quarrel with him in any event.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The notion of data banks generally and the 
notion of data banks as contained in the bill are not necessarily the 
same issue. Again, the Chair would ask the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Stark] to confine his remarks to the legislation at hand.
  Mr. STARK. The Speaker's admonition is well received.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the issue of the data banks 
collected by employers. Part of the reasoning behind repealing this 
data bank was the feeling that it was overly intrusive; that the 
Federal Government requiring an employer to do something for the common 
good is something that the Republicans find antithetical, requiring 
employers to obey OSHA rules or good labor relations is somehow 
overburdening them.
  Thusly, this data bank was considered as intrusive and something 
difficult for the employers to maintain.
  By the same token, there has been a resistance to say a COBRA 
extension. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the issue of collecting 
this health data in the data banks in H.R. 2685 was probably three or 
four times more expensive than keeping data for COBRA extensions for 
workers who have been laid off or disabled.
  It is difficult for this gentleman to be enthusiastic about moving 
limited amounts of restrictions on employers when, as under COBRA, we 
have over 30 million Americans who have had their health insurance 
extended because we did that, and we have perhaps as many as 4 million, 
as we speak today, who have their health insurance under COBRA because 
we required those employers to maintain a small data bank.

  Now, it escapes reason, or it does to this gentleman, why the 
Republicans should oppose extending COBRA. it costs no one anything. No 
Federal cost; no cost to the employer; no cost to the insurance 
company. It has been offered at 110 percent of the previous premium 
instead of the 102, and the data bank collection for that is so much 
simpler.
  I do not want to see this correction take on a life of its own and be 
considered as a policy to remove any responsibility from employers when 
they are required by minor Federal regulations to do something that is 
in the public interest, something that would be for the good of all 
people.
  Now, with these layoffs that are coming left and right, American 
Telephone laying off 40,000 people or whatever, and I am not about to 
suggest that the Republicans are responsible for that. I imagine the 
CEO's are Republicans but I do not blame that on the party.
  But what I am suggesting is that underlying this bill, the unsung 
agenda is that there is something wrong with the Federal Government 
requiring an employer, or anybody, to do the right thing. That is 
wrong, Mr. Speaker.
  The Federal Government, for example, provides Social Security. It has 
provided, happily, Medicare, and we do require some businesses or 
employers to keep records for that to make sure they are not stealing 
from us. That is a data bank. Under no circumstances would I like to 
have this bill considered as a precursor for removing other 
restrictions on collecting data.
  For example, we are finally starting, this was a bipartisan bill when 
we used to have bipartisan Medicare bills, to collect outcomes 
research, a data bank. We are requiring hospitals, even profit 
hospitals, and physicians to begin to build a data bank about how 
health policy or health procedures work after 5 or 10 years. That is a 
vital part of health research, and in no way should that get mixed up 
with this kind of a data bank, which was not well conceived in the 
beginning. We have data banks that are useful.
  There are other areas that, if I just might mention, as I suggested, 
the

[[Page H2045]]

Medigap rules, the question of block granting seniors without knowing 
if we do not have data banks, and somebody says, gee, this is 
intrusive, we may miss a chance to protect those seniors and those 
poorer citizens who do not have the option of being covered under major 
policies by their employers.
  What I am suggesting is that this correction is worthy of taking care 
of. I am not sure it is worthy of spending as much money as we have 
assumed here today in printing costs. But I do think that it is a 
potential danger, that we ought not to let it set a standard that says 
just because we are asking private citizens or private businesses to 
collect information, do we feel that that is not something that could 
be useful.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have just received a copy of the House 
Republican National Strategic Plan for 1996, and I am wondering if the 
gentleman has an opinion as to how this piece of legislation, which I 
believe is the first piece of legislation dealing specifically with any 
aspect of Medicare, might fit into that plan, which I will tell the 
gentleman specifically calls and says, and I quote, not you and me of 
course, but the Republicans ``will pursue a targeted inoculation 
strategy on Medicare.'' Does this bill have relevance to that targeted 
inoculation strategy on Medicare?


                             point of order

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker knows well my point of order. It 
is the subject matter and the content of the bill and the question 
propounded by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett], which has no 
relevance or germaneness, as we say in our rules, to the subject matter 
before us.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has propounded a point of 
order to the relevance of the matter at hand.
  Mr. STARK. May I be heard on the point of order Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will allow the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark] to respond.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, before you restate it, 
it is beyond the capacity of this gentleman to explain Republican 
strategy and whether or not it is germane. I would choose not to answer 
the question, because I am sure it is one of those mysteries of the 
universe that deny intelligent response.
  However, inoculation is germane to this because many of these 
employers kept records or were to keep records of who was paying for 
the inoculations in the Republican Medicare plan, so many people will 
be denied inoculations. It is, in fact, very important that we point 
out that the inoculations they are talking about are not the same 
inoculations that little children are not going to get when the 
Medicaid cuts come down from the Republicans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In response to the point of order, the Chair 
cannot respond to the rhetorical nature of the question stated by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] by necessarily ruling it irrelevant.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, apparently within the rules, 
propounded a question about the fact that this bill is being brought up 
under a procedure that we did not have in previous Congresses. 
Apparently it is clearly within the scope of germaneness, as ruled by 
the Speaker, for me to indicate that there are a lot of things that we 
are doing in this Congress that we did not do in previous Congresses.
  For example we are auditing the books in this Congress. That was not 
done in previous Congresses. We have placed Members of Congress under 
the laws that apply to everyone else. That was not done in previous 
Congresses, and so there are a lot of things that we are doing in this 
Congress that were not done in previous Congresses.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Fowler] has been very interested in this subject matter, and were it 
not for the primary in her State and district, the gentlewoman would be 
with us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh], someone who has had an interest in this for a long time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
bill of the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] to repeal the 
Medicare-Medicaid data bank requirement. As cochairman of the Speaker's 
Advisory Committee on Corrections, I want to commend the gentleman and 
his committee for their work on this very good corrections bill.
  Before I describe the bill and the reason the Corrections Committee 
supports it, let me pause for a moment and say the real issues here is 
one of jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
  The reason is that what we are doing is getting rid of an obsolete, 
unnecessary paperwork requirement that makes it more expensive for 
businesses, particularly small businesses, to create new jobs. It is 
the Republican hope, along with many Democrats who have supported this 
bill, that we will be able to help small businesses create jobs by 
passing this bill, eliminating unnecessary redtape and paperwork.
  Now, this bill does just what a corrections bill should do. It 
eliminates a government-imposed paperwork burden that is not achieving 
any conceivable intended result.
  The Medicare-Medicaid data bank was established in 1993 with good 
intentions, to compile data on secondary insurers for Medicare 
subscribers, to help identify those cases in which an employer-based 
insurance company should be the primary insurance provider rather than 
Medicaid. That is to say, if somebody needs additional coverage from 
the Medicare coverage they are receiving, should the government pay for 
it through Medicaid or should the employer pay for it through their 
primary insurance coverage for their employees?

                              {time}  1500

  Potentially this could have saved the government a great deal of 
money by identifying those cases where the government, under the 
Medicaid Program, would not need to pay for that secondary insurance. 
Unfortunately it has not, and will not, work. The Government Accounting 
Office has testified regarding this data bank that, and I will quote 
from their statement:

       Enormous administrative burden the data bank would place on 
     the Health Care Financing Administration, known as HCFA here 
     in Washington, and the Nation's employers likely would do 
     little or nothing to enhance the current efforts to identify 
     those beneficiaries who have other health insurance coverage, 
     * * *

  That is to say the health care Medicare-Medicaid data bank has not 
been able to do what it was supposed to do, which is streamline the 
process and make it less costly for the government.
  There are several reasons to be against this program and the need for 
this bill. The first is it is a burden on the government itself. The 
Health Care Finance Administration has itself stated that the costs 
involved in collecting the information will outweigh the costs that may 
be recovered by the data bank. That is to say it frankly does not save 
the government any money whatsoever.
  Second, it is a burden on citizens, particularly small businesses 
that have limited resources. They are currently required to compile the 
names and Social Security numbers of all of their employees and their 
immediate family and report this not only to the IRS, but also the 
HCFA. Now gathering and reporting this information takes time and 
money, and many small companies, quite frankly, just do not have it in 
their budgets to be able to do that. It is more redtape and does very 
little good.
  And the third reason is that this system is a burden for the 
taxpayers. But at least Congress has had the wisdom, up until today, to 
make sure that we did not fund it. Given that wisdom, I think it is 
important that today we take the next step and repeal the requirement 
altogether.
  Now the bill of the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] will do 
away with the Medicare data bank, his bill will save employers across 
the Nation and the Federal Government time and money; as a corrections 
bill it is one of

[[Page H2046]]

the best that I have seen, and I want to commend the gentleman for his 
hard work and urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2685.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton], a member of the House 
subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am really at a loss of words because so 
much of what I wanted to say has already been stated. Maybe I can 
approach this from somebody who has been in business for a long time 
and understands what this Congress is trying to do is to extract the 
Government from onerous administrative tasks, which is hardly in 
keeping with what we are trying to do to relieve people and businesses 
to be able to create more jobs.
  I have been around business a long time, and I know what data 
collection is; it is important. But when we take a look at this 
particular issue, clearly the data collected is highly expensive. The 
GAO has estimated that to create a data bank like this, it would be 
over $100 million. That is certainly not the intent of Congress, it is 
not something which is good for business, it is not something which is 
really good for the employees, and when we take a look at a variety of 
different businesses that have been contacted, they all agree that this 
is not necessary, that the administrative burden is onerous, it opens 
the door to tax retirees on values received, and so why report this?
  As a matter of fact, I think we all agree with this. As a matter of 
fact, I do not think that there is any argument when we are talking 
about this issue, H.R. 2685. It is a good issue; we all agree it is a 
bipartisan approach. Where we get off the tracks is when we start 
getting political and we start messing around in this whole field of 
health reform.
  We all are citizens of this country, we all want to do the right 
thing. It is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is something 
which we all ought to be concerned about. But today the narrow issue 
really is this data bank. I agree with the proposition, I think it 
makes a great deal of sense, it will reduce enormous administrative 
overburden, and it will save the Federal Government and the taxpayers 
of this country over $100 million.
  Therefore, I support with the greatest strength I can H.R. 2685. We 
are not talking about health insurance reform, we are not talking about 
nexuses, we are not talking about inoculations, we are not talking 
about strategic plans. We are talking about this particular data bank 
issue, and I think it is a good one, and I support the resolution.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from New York touched on an issue which I think it 
important. It is true that we will save employers a piddly little 
amount of money by doing away with this data. What the employer has to 
do is keep track of an employee's insurance other than Medicare. But if 
my colleagues want to talk about a cost to employers and a data bank 
that will choke the horse of business, talk about the data bank that 
the Republicans are requiring business to keep if they pass these silly 
MSA's. Under a medical savings account a business would be required in 
a data bank to keep track of every medical expenditure, it would be 
required----


                             point of order

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman is recognized for a 
point of order.
  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. STARK. If I may be heard? I am talking about data base 
requirements by an employer, an issue raised by the previous speaker, 
and I believe it is quite germane as it deals with the requirements 
that employers may be faced with in keeping medical data banks as 
required by the Federal Government.
  Mr. THOMAS. May I be heard on the point of order Mr. Speaker?
  I thought the Speaker had already ruled that a discussion of data 
banks in general as a concept for collecting data is not necessarily 
germane to a specific data bank which is the subject of this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The Chair will 
state again that on November 14, 1995, the Chair sustained a similar 
point of order where a Member was unable to maintain a constant nexus 
between the subject of the bill and the subject of health care 
generally. The Chair has at least three time today, and does again, 
sustain that point of order.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I will confine my remarks to employers 
collecting data for a data bank that relates to Government insurance 
and private insurance, which I believe is specifically what the bill 
and I am suggesting; that while we are eliminating this, we are on the 
other hand creating an even bigger data bank, and perhaps we should 
prohibit data banks for things like MSA's which, by the way, exist 
without any new legislation.
  MSA's are there today. It is, if we require the employer to keep 
track of who collects the money for an IRS exemption, he will then have 
to keep track of each specific payment to a doctor, and it has been 
estimated that it will cost the Government $4 billion to have these 
MSA's. Not only will it cost the employers, the gentleman from New York 
is concerned about more money, it is going to add $4 billion in costs.
  So, as the Republicans have done, on the one hand they say let us 
save a nickel here, but let us spend a million dollars if it helps our 
rich friends in business, and this is a perfect example of, I think, 
being penny-wise and pound-foolish dealing, Mr. Speaker, with a data 
bank which is minuscule, which requires almost no recordkeeping by 
business, while on the other hand ignoring those data banks that are 
being proposed to be imposed on business and private citizens, which 
increase the number of insured, increase the deficit and do no good to 
anyone.
  This, unfortunately, is the litany and the inheritance of the 
Republican leadership as they have shown this----
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the gentleman, 
does he support or does he not support H.R. 2685?
  Mr. STARK. I am relatively indifferent, but I can find nothing to 
oppose it. If it came to a vote, I would vote for it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  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

[[Page H2047]]

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.

                              {time}  1515

  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. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my strong support for 
repeal of the Medicare and Medicaid coverage data bank. This provision 
of law imposed an unfair and unreasonable burden on the businesses of 
North Dakota, and I believe it must be eliminated.
  The data bank program was created to help prevent Medicare and 
Medicaid from paying claims that are the responsibility of an employer-
based private insurer. Despite this laudable goal of saving Government 
funds, there have been fundamental flaws with this planned program from 
the beginning. First, under the program employers would be required to 
report information to the Federal Government which they did not 
routinely collect. Second, employers would be forced to report data on 
100 percent of their work force even though only a tiny percentage of 
workers would be individuals whose claims might have been eligible for 
payment by Medicare or Medicaid. This is a classic example of the 
treatment being worse than the disease.
  As can be seen, the data bank program imposes a reporting burden on 
employers which is far out of proportion to the Government's need for 
information. Such unnecessary burdens are particularly harmful to the 
many small businesses which dominate the North Dakota economy. This 
program is precisely the sort of inefficient approach which North 
Dakotans are demanding be eliminated from the Federal Government.
  The reports from North Dakota businesses as to the anticipated 
burdens of the data bank program were verified in a thorough study by 
the General Accounting Office [GAO]. In a report issued on May 6, 1994, 
the GAO concluded that the data bank would create burdensome and 
unnecessary paperwork for both employers and the Federal Government and 
would achieve little or no cost savings while costing millions of 
dollars in administrative expense.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when many businesses too often labor under the 
burden of complex and sometimes unnecessary Federal regulation, the 
Federal Government should not add to this regulatory burden without a 
concrete benefit clearly in sight. While the data bank program was well 
intentioned, it has proven unworkable. The anticipated benefit is 
overwhelmed by the cost of compliance, and, consequently, the program 
should be eliminated. Elimination is also warranted by the harmful 
effect this program would have on the availability of health insurance 
to North Dakota's working families. When increasing numbers of families 
are finding themselves without health insurance, the Federal Government 
must not make it more expensive and difficult for employers to provide 
this insurance for their workers. The substantial administrative 
expense associated with the data bank program would have had precisely 
this counterproductive effect.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for repeal of this well 
intentioned but utterly unworkable program.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare/Medicaid data bank was 
established by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 with the 
intent of yielding savings to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. Like 
so many big-government answers, however, it turned out that the data 
bank was more of a problem than a solution--impractical, inconvenient, 
and expensive. Had the data bank been implemented by the Health Care 
Financing Administration, it would have increased the administrative 
and paperwork burden on businesses; discouraged employers from 
providing health coverage to their employees; and created a 
bureaucratic nightmare for HCFA.
  Fortunately, the enforcement of the data bank reporting requirements 
has been delayed, and now we have a chance to repeal it once and for 
all.
  At first glance, it appears that the data bank law asks employers to 
provide routine information that is readily available. In truth, 
however, the reporting requirements ask employers to collect data which 
they could have never imagined compiling, such as the names and Social 
Security numbers of their employees' spouses and children.
  In May 1994, the Government Accounting Office issued a report showing 
that the data

[[Page H2048]]

bank would yield little or no savings to Medicare and Medicaid. 
Additionally, the Health Care Financing Administration has no interest 
in administering the data bank. In fact, the Clinton administration 
estimates that the data bank would cost $25 to 30 million to operate 
each year.
  The data bank sets a new standard for bad laws: It is bad for 
business, bad for workers; and even bad for bureaucrats. And it 
wouldn't accomplish what it was intended to do.
  I want to thank Chairman Thomas for bringing this measure to the 
House floor. In the 103d Congress, I introduced H.R. 4095, which would 
have repealed the data bank, and I reintroduced the same bill at the 
beginning of the 104th Congress. Recently, repeal of the data bank was 
also included in the Medicare Preservation Act which the President 
vetoed.
  There are many of us who have been very disappointed by the 
President's unwillingness to deal with Medicare reform in a responsible 
manner. His veto of the Medicare Preservation Act not only threatens 
the long-term viability of the Medicare Program, but also means that 
employers still have to worry that HCFA might enforce the reporting 
requirements of the data bank.
  This bill eliminates that concern and I hope that my colleagues will 
join me in support of H.R. 2685
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Pursuant to the rule, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question as taken; and (three-fifths having voted in favor 
thereof) the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________