[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H3282-H3284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    HEALTH CARE REFORM AND NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY AND POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is 
recognized for the remainder of the Majority Leader's hour of 
approximately 23 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I first want to comment and compliment my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ganske) on his Special Order 
and on his proposal to deal with some of the problems we have seen 
relating to HMOs and health care. I do want to comment, before I get 
into my Special Order on the topic of illegal narcotics, about what the 
previous speaker has been discussing, and he did bring up towards the 
end some of the proposals relating to the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  I would like to pass on to the Speaker and my colleagues this 
information: In the previous Congress I had the opportunity, actually 
for 4 years, to chair the House Subcommittee on Civil Service. In that 
capacity I oversaw the largest health care plan in the country, which 
is made up of almost 2 million Federal employees and 2.2 million 
Federal retirees and some 4 million to 5 million additional dependents; 
about 9 million people participating in the Federal Employees Health 
Benefit Program. Part of my responsibilities of chair of that 
subcommittee was to look at that program, and I remember several years 
ago when President Clinton proposed a Patients' Bill of Rights to the 
Congress to be passed to resolve, he said, the issues and problems we 
have with HMOs, and it was going to be his saving grace for these 
programs.
  Well, we conducted a hearing, and I will never forget that hearing. 
We had the administration officials in, OPM officials in, and we asked 
about the President's proposed Patients' Bill of Rights. To a single 
individual who testified, every single individual who testified said 
that there was no medical benefit for the proposals under the 
President's Patients' Bill of Rights, but there was more reporting, 
more mandates, more requirements, and they possibly predicted more 
costs. That was several years ago when he proposed that to our 
subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Civil Service.
  Now, he could not pass his so-called Patients' Bill of Rights, and it 
sounds great, through the Congress. So what he did, and a lot of people 
did not pay attention to it but we did on the Civil Service 
Subcommittee, he submitted another one of his fiats. By Executive Order 
he imposed his Patients' Bill of Rights where he could, and that is on 
our Federal employees' HMO plans.
  Well, lo and behold, before I left that chairmanship, I conducted 
another hearing just at the end of last fall, and one of the purposes 
of that hearing was to see what had happened with the imposition of the 
President's Patients' Bill of Rights on the Federal employees' health 
care plan. Well, my goodness. We experienced over a 10 percent, on 
average, increase in premiums, not entirely all due to the President's 
Patients' Bill of Rights; prescription drugs, I must say, were part of 
that, but there were very substantial costs that were passed on, and 
they contributed to almost a record increase in employee health costs. 
While the rest of the industry was experiencing a 2.6 to 3 percent 
increase, our Federal employees, Members of Congress too, were getting 
a 10 percent-plus, on average, increase in their premiums.
  One of the things that has made our Federal Employees' Health 
Benefits Program so good is we have had over 350 different vendors 
providing a package. We sat and developed a package of

[[Page H3283]]

benefits, and then folks bid on it, different companies, and they 
participated and there was good competition. Lo and behold, at our 
hearing, again, we got a surprise. Instead of 350 participating, 
competing plans, we had about 60-plus drop out. So we had increased 
premiums and we had lower competition.
  I just raise that tonight as a good example of a bad proposal by the 
President as far as his so-called, and it sounds great, Patients' Bill 
of Rights. That did not even include, his provision by Executive Order 
did not include the most oppressive part of his plan, which was 
allowing expansion of lawsuits, an additional cost through litigation 
and no medical benefits. So if we had adopted the whole plan, there is 
no telling how high the premiums would have escalated and how many more 
in free competition would have been forced out.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa for just a moment, and I 
thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that premiums are 
increasing by HMOs this year. If my colleagues read the articles in the 
Wall Street Journal, it is not because Congress passed HMO patient 
protection legislation, because we did not. We did not pass it last 
year.
  The reason why we have seen an increase in premiums is because the 
HMOs have mismanaged their risks, and their investors are now saying to 
them, you have to increase your premiums because we want profits from 
those HMOs. All of the medical and health experts that I know in this 
country attribute the increase in premiums by HMOs this year to their 
own management failures, and do not attribute this to patient 
protection legislation, which has yet to pass.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, again, that has failed to pass the Congress. I 
cite only, and I repeat for the gentleman, our experience with the 
Federal Employees' Health Benefit Program where the President imposed 
his own Patients' Bill of Rights by Executive Order and we did see 
substantial costs directly related to the program. I point that out 
because we do not want to make the same mistakes he has made by fiat, 
by legislation.
  Of course, that is not the only problem that we have with HMOs and we 
do need to address some of the mismanagement, some of the lack of 
access, some of the other problems that we have with it. Again, I cite 
it as an experience that we conducted hearings on and have very 
definite facts relating to in our Subcommittee on Civil Service.
  Mr. Speaker, my other reason for coming forward tonight is again to 
speak on the question of our national drug control strategy and policy. 
Tonight, I am very concerned that in a pattern of repeated mistakes by 
this administration and failure to properly manage our international 
narcotics control efforts, we face another disaster. We have had a 
series of repeated foreign policy disasters, and if I may just run 
through them, and again, I do not mean to do this in a partisan manner, 
but this is factual and we have had a history of just disastrous 
foreign policy decisions by this administration. I will close tonight 
by citing the most recent.
  First, of course, when I came here, President Bush had instituted a 
policy in Somalia of trying to provide human relief, humanitarian 
relief in that country that had civil conflict. It is unfortunate that 
this administration from the very beginning turned that humanitarian 
relief into a nation-building effort which turned into a foreign policy 
disaster with several dozen Americans slaughtered needlessly. And what 
is really sad, if we look at the situation in Somalia just a few weeks 
ago, we have had the same conflict and civil war going on, over 50 
killed, and a skirmish just recently, and again disorganization and 
civil war in that area. It may be a lesson we should learn about. They 
too had atrocities committed on both sides.
  The next experience I had in this Congress was with Haiti, and Haiti 
certainly has to be a glowing example of bad foreign policy. Repeatedly 
I took to the well of the floor and spoke against the imposition of 
sanctions against Haiti, which is the poorest country in the Western 
Hemisphere, and those sanctions in fact destroyed the few jobs, maybe 
50,000, 60,000 jobs, many related to United States industry, that 
actually fed over a million population.

                              {time}  2215

  We spent over $3 billion on that fiasco. We have traded one corrupt 
government for another. There is complete disorganization in that 
country. What is absolutely startling is that now that country which we 
have done so much for is becoming one of the major Caribbean routes for 
trafficking in illegal narcotics. So a failed policy, an expensive 
lesson, and now just kicking dirt in our face by being a partner in 
illegal narcotics trafficking.
  Bosnia is another example. I served in this Congress over 3 years ago 
when our president said we would be there for a matter of months and be 
out. We are now into 3-plus years. This excursion and incursion has 
cost us dearly, billions upon billions, probably $10 billion plus. We 
still have over 6,000 troops there, 20,000 support troops.
  What is absolutely astounding is that now Bosnia has turned into, 
probably after South America, the second largest conduit and transit 
source of illegal narcotics coming up through Afghanistan, some through 
Pakistan, through Turkey, and then through the Balkans in a wide open 
fashion.
  So here we have spent an incredible amount of money going in, after a 
quarter of a million people were slaughtered in a civil war, and 
actually we went in much too late. We kept sides from properly 
defending themselves. We ended up with a series of graveyards across 
the Bosnia landscape that should be a reminder to everyone of this 
administration's failed policies. Not until after those graveyards were 
planted with the Bosnian souls in Croatia and other areas there did we 
ever take any action. Now we see, even with the forces that we have 
there, that the situation relating to illegal narcotics trafficking is 
disastrous.
  Rwanda is another example. Again I took to the floor many times 
trying to get this administration off center. Almost 1 million human 
beings were slaughtered in Rwanda. This administration not only had a 
failed policy, they had a counterproductive policy, a policy that 
actually, I think, brought on one of the true genocides of our time 
where almost 1 million people were slaughtered.
  This administration blocked in the United Nations a panAfrican, all 
African force, when we knew there was going to be trouble there. They 
actually blocked this force from going in and stopping the slaughter in 
advance of 1 million souls losing their lives most tragically.
  Then, of course, we come to Kosovo, the latest in a series of 
unbelievable missteps in foreign policy. This administration, this 
Congress, was advised that it was not the time. We were not prepared to 
go in. The worst time you go into the Balkan regions and into Kosovo 
would be when we did, when we have overcast February and March skies in 
that area, and it is clouded in.
  When you are doing an air campaign, and a surveillance campaign to 
make an air campaign successful, we could not have picked a worse time, 
taking us 4 weeks to get helicopters there, helicopters still not 
secured, properly trained. They knew we were short, and yet they went 
in; another disaster.
  Tonight, finally, one of the crowning disasters of this 
administration, I received just a few hours ago a report from my 
subcommittee staff. I now chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, 
Drug Policy, and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform.
  I have been involved, since taking that responsibility in January, in 
trying to get our drug policy together. More heroin and cocaine is 
coming from South America than any other source in the world by far, 
just an incredible amount.
  The place that we have had as far as protection and surveillance of 
those activities has been Howard Air Force base in Panama. We have 
known since Jimmy Carter's administration that this year we would be 
forced to give up the canal. What we did not know is what assets we 
would lose in 1999. This administration has been negotiating the change 
in United States assets, what assets would go to Panamanians, for over 
3 years.

[[Page H3284]]

  When I took over the subcommittee responsibility in January, we 
started, of course, examining what would happen in Panama, because all 
of our international South American, Central American, and Caribbean 
operations were housed and located and took off from Howard Air Force 
Base.
  So we went down there the first couple of months and examined what 
was going to happen. We were told by this administration that they were 
negotiating other locations. They did not believe the negotiations were 
going to succeed. We got advance warning of that, and we tried to do 
everything we could to encourage the administration, DOD, Department of 
State, to move forward or cut a deal.
  As it turned out, they failed in their negotiations. They failed in 
developing a treaty. We were kicked out May 1. We have known for some 
weeks now that negotiations by this administration did fail.
  We were told in hearings that we conducted, not only on our visit but 
on hearings we conducted, and we conducted a House subcommittee hearing 
on May 4, that things were in place and in order; that we would move at 
a cost to the taxpayers of $73 million, plus another $45 million that 
was presented to the committee, to Aruba, Curacao, and to Ecuador.
  These were the charts that were presented. The coverage with 
potential new forward operating locations, one in Ecuador and the other 
in the Curacao area, this is what we were told would be the coverage. 
It would give us very good coverage. This was May 4. When they came in, 
it was supposed to be in place. These were estimates we were given.
  These charts are by our SOUTHCOM. They told us that we would have, in 
the beginning of May 1999 estimate, a 50 percent coverage, and within 
our agency augments, May 1, 1999, 70 percent coverage May 1. With 
Curacao, Ecuador, forward operating locations we would go up to 80 
percent. Then later on we would go even better if they could get Costa 
Rica.
  Unfortunately, the coverage I have been told as of today is 
absolutely zero, absolutely zip. Let me read this report very briefly. 
Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me read what we have learned again this 
afternoon.
  Representatives of SOUTHCOM, our southern command, conceded to me 
that our worst fears have been realized. After the United States closed 
down Howard Air Force Base on May 1, since May 1 there have been zero, 
absolutely zero counterdrug flights out of any one of the other three 
forward operating locations that were proposed in which the United 
States was to have memoranda of understanding.
  Despite both State Department and DOD indicating in our May 4 hearing 
that the transition in counterdrug overflights would be smooth and 
flights would just be modestly scaled back, the specific forward 
operating location facts are these: In Ecuador there have been, again, 
zero since May 1; since we got kicked out of Panama, zero counterdrug 
flights for the entire month of May, including the day of our hearing, 
May 4. We asked how many took off that day. They could not answer. I 
could answer today because we have had our investigators check.

  In Aruba, while we have two small custom Citation planes on the 
ground, I am told this afternoon, as well as one P-3 and one P-3 dome 
which arrived on May 12, there have been zero counterdrug flights by 
any of these planes out of Aruba from May 12 through May 17.
  In Curacao, while there is one F-17 dedicated to counterdrug flights, 
there have been zero counterdrug flights out of this location.
  In short, poor planning by the Department of State, Defense, and the 
inability to compensate for the loss of Howard Air Force Base, 
basically being kicked out of Panama, has already cost us dearly 
coverage, as follows.
  First, we have endangered the intelligence-gathering power of our 
South American allies in this war, and in particular, we basically are 
closing down our Peru shootdown policy, because we provide them with 
information that allows them that strategy and that action.
  This administration will bear the blame, since they have shown a 45 
percent reduction in coca cultivation over the past 2 years based on 
intelligence-gathering. In other words, Peru is one of our success 
stories. Through this information that is shared, a shootdown policy 
and surveillance, they have eliminated 45 percent of the cocaine 
production. This program basically is out of order because of our 
inaction and maladministration.
  We have also eliminated intelligence monitoring and detection of drug 
trafficking flights out of South America since May 1. This is an 
incredible scandal. This is really one of the worst days and one of the 
worst missteps of this administration, and probably one of the worst 
events to ever take place in our effort to put back together the war on 
drugs that we started in the eighties that was dismantled in 1993 by 
this administration, by the Democrat House, Senate, and White House, 
which they did an incredible amount of damage from 1993 to 1995, which 
we have tried to restore in the last 2 years.
  All this action sends a go signal to drug traffickers. Every one of 
our forward operating locations are down and out. This, again, I 
believe is an incredible scandal. It is with great regret that I 
announce this to the House tonight, and to the American people.
  What makes this even worse is the information I was provided with, 
again within the last few hours, that our Southern Command could make 
no prediction about when these assets will come on line with 
counterdrug flights in the future.
  We have to remember that last year over 15,000 flights took off from 
Panama and conducted all of this counternarcotics activity. There is 
nothing more cost-effective than stopping drugs at their source, 
eradicating them at their source, or stopping them and interdicting 
them as they come from the source. It is much more difficult when they 
get into our streets, into our communities, and into our schools.
  So again, this unfortunately is a disastrous occurrence. I intend to 
hold the Department of State, the Department of Defense to account. We 
will conduct hearings and somehow we will restart this effort with the 
funds that we have restored to put this program back together that have 
been appropriated. We must have the cooperation of this administration 
in bringing back these flights and restoring a real war on drugs.

                          ____________________