Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, with great regret, to oppose H.R. 4680. It's been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you follow this debate on prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries you would understand that adage all too well. Throughout the debate, both Republicans and Democrats have tried to gain a political advantage in this election year by offering competing plans that would provide drug coverage. These plans, in the end, represent a bidding war for votes. So while I am the first to recognize the fact that many people need help with prescription drugs, I am not convinced that adding another element to the Medicare program that the Trustees say is going bankrupt is the way to get there. In particular, Washington's current proposals have two problems: 1. It does little good to add prescription drugs to Medicare if it still goes bankrupt, and 2. Both plans, particularly the President's leaves room for this ``cure'' to get much more expensive. First, let's identify the problem. Today, one out of every three seniors does not have any prescription drug coverage. Compounding that problem is that prescription drug costs have increased an average of 12.4 percent annually, while overall health care spending has increased by 5 percent. The average senior spends $500 or less each year on prescription drugs. In looking at the proposals, you can see that they we are using shotgun rather than a rifle in our aim to fix this problem. The plans are designed to offer prescription care to all Medicare beneficiaries--including the millionaire widow living in Palm Beach--rather than just those who truly need it, low-income seniors without prescription drug coverage. It's important to focus because, despite current opinion, dollars are limited in Washington. The House Republican plan is designed to implement a voluntary, market-oriented approach to prescription drug coverage, added as Medicare part D. The Republicans guarantee that each region of the country will have two competing insurance plans from which to choose. The insurance coverage includes a $250 deductible and require seniors to co-pay 50 percent of costs up to $2,100 each year. If a senior's drug costs go beyond $6,000 then the government and insurance pay all of the costs. The new program is projected to cost $37.5 billion over 5 years and $155 billion over 10. However, that projection includes a couple of unlikely assumptions--that there will be no growth in Medicare and that 80 percent of seniors will participate in this program. Remember, only 33 percent of seniors have no drug coverage and only 28 percent pay more than $500 a year out of pocket. Under this voluntary plan, only seniors with little or no coverage and high prescription drug costs will sign onto this plan. Such enrollment is known as adverse selection and leads to high premiums. This legislation will, in the long run, force the taxpayers to pick up the cost of the increasing premiums. Taxpayers will also have to guarantee the profitability of the insurance plans. If you include adverse selection into the formula, the costs of this prescription drug legislation could go as high as $600 billion over the next 10 years. The financial risks of this bill are just too great. The prescription drug coverage proposal starts looking like the Medicare private insurance plans set up in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Many seniors signed up for those plans in the first year, only to see the plans close out the next year. The President's plan presented different but equally bad options. His plan is optimistically estimated to cost $35 billion over 5 years and nearly $300 billion over 10 years. The prescription drug program would be a part of the current Medicare system, similar to Medicare part B. Monthly premiums begins at $24 and seniors would co-pay 50 percent of prescription drug costs up to $2,000. Premiums would go up to $51 a month for premiums and the ceiling is lifted to $5,000 a year. Again, the proposal is voluntary, so there would also be adverse selection-- making premiums again, much more expensive than now advertised. The problem with this plan is that, like all other portions of Medicare, the government gets to decide how big the benefit and whether or not you even get it. Seniors today can probably already relate to this. Since I came to Congress in 1995, more and more seniors tell me that they can not longer see their doctor simply because they have retired and joined Medicare. Today, Medicare pays 70 percent of what the private sector pays for the same procedure. Since the creation of Medicare in 1965, payments to providers have been cut 14 times, the net result is less access for patients. One can reasonably believe that the same will happen under a prescription drug program. Imagine Congress, trying to save billions of dollars sometime in the future, cutting prescription payments (cost controls) or taking expensive medications off the list of approved medications. The government should simply not be in the business of making those life or death decisions. At the end of the day, I maintain that Congress and the President should implement a more comprehensive reform bill that gives seniors the power to design their health care coverage. They could choose the type of insurance plan they want, whether or not to have prescription drug coverage, and how much they are willing to share in the cost burden. Such a proposal was offered by the Bipartisan Medicare Commission Co-Chairs Representative Bill Thomas and Senator John Breaux. The proposal would use the market place to make a more financially secure and less expensive plan for seniors. Perhaps when the dusts clears and November has passed, calmer heads will prevail.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals exclusively with the Asia Foundation. Last year I had an amendment that would cut funding for the North-South Center, East-West Center and the Asia Foundation. To this committee's credit, they cut funding for the North-South Center and the East-West Center, and this amendment simply asks them to do the last thing that they did not do, which is to cut the funding for the Asia Foundation. This bill would specifically cut the $8.2 million for the Asia Foundation. I think that is worth doing for a couple of different reasons. First of all, I would just mention what the Senate Committee on Appropriations had to say on the Asia Foundation last year. Specifically, they said the Asia Foundation is a nongovernment grant- making organization that Congress has repeatedly urged to aggressively pursue private funds to support its activities. The Senate committee believes that the time has come for the Asia Foundation to transition to private funding. I simply agree with what they had to say. In fact, this Congress agreed with what they had to say because back in 1995 it was with this thinking in mind that Congress cut funding to the Asia Foundation from $15 million down to $5 million and basically encouraged them to look for private funding. Unfortunately, they have gone the opposite direction, because in fact the Asia Foundation funding has grown by 60 percent to the $8.2 million number, and it is for this reason that this amendment says that we have to go back to the original intent of what this Congress talked about and what the Senate Committee on Appropriations has talked about specifically. I would say that this is worth doing. First of all, whether one is a Republican or whether one is a Democrat, I think that we would not want the Asia Foundation, and I underline the word foundation, to be treated any differently than a foundation is in the first district of South Carolina or in the fifteenth district of California. I say that because if we look at, for instance, the Community Foundation which exists in Charleston, South Carolina, it relies on public grants out there in the marketplace. Bill Gates has said he wants to give away $50 billion. There are a lot of people out there vying for those funds; and again, I think the Asia Foundation should be either solely a government function or solely a private function, a private organization competing for those grants; but right now it is a mixture of both, which gives it a competitive advantage over foundations in each of our respective congressional districts. Secondly, I would say there is a lot of duplication. If one looks at the work of the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the IMF, the State Department, the Department of Commerce, the CIA and others, they do many of the same things. In fact, if one looks at the overall funding in this budget, there is $1.4 billion of funding for international organizations, conferences and commissions. In fact, if one looks at our overall 1999 budget, U.S. programs solely devoted to Asia were basically $3.66 billion. So this $8 million is very repetitive. In fact, I would say in addition that the Cold War is over and this is, I think, a remnant of the Cold War because we have spent $137 million of taxpayer money in the foundation, basically over the last 45 years. Lastly, I would just make the point that a lot of these grants, given the fact that dollars are as competitive as they are, and we have had an interesting debate on whether money should or should not go to Africa or Sierra Leone or other places, given the fact that dollars are as scarce as they are, does it make sense for the Asia Foundation in this quasi-public role that it plays to be, and I will just mention a few and let one make their own decision. For instance, at the policy level the foundation is involved in research with the London School of Economics and the Sustainable Development Policy Institute on the political economy of education. That is a grant that the Asia Foundation placed just last year. I see here in Pakistan, women are learning the value of savings discipline and gain confidence and self-esteem through income-skills training opportunities. I see in Bangladesh alternative dispute resolution. Now, there they have a village practice wherein the council of elders and opinion leaders hears a case and renders a judgment. Asia Foundation promotes more equitable and effective dispute resolution. I see in the Korean Peninsula workshops for South Koreans on, quote, ``the perceptions of the International Monetary Fund policy in Korea.'' I see also in Korea, travel support for members of North Koreans to participate in international training programs and study tours in business and agriculture. I see in Mongolia, since 1993, 28,000 books donated to Mongolian organizations, and last year 10,000 English-only language books donated to 174 institutions. Now leaving aside the question of I do not know how many speak English in Mongolia, I thought there was a thing called the Internet wherein these same things could be transferred.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds on both sides.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, lastly I would just make the point here, I see here in Vietnam training for the national assembly. I see study tours. I see a trip for Vietnamese officials to California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and simply would ask, given the fact that the dollars are as scarce as they are, is this the best use of those monies, and for that reason urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. SANFORD. I have not been into the building. In New York, I have been once into the foyer and that is about it, but I have been to their Web site.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANFORD. In cyberspace or in terms of geography?

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would simply rise and join and applaud the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) to repeal the secret evidence provision, which I think, or at least hope, came as an unintended consequence of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of a few years ago. I say that for a couple of different reasons. But one of the reasons I say it came in part from an article that I read in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal back in March; and it chronicled the story of a Harold Dean, whom I have never met. But it is a fascinating story. If my colleagues will indulge me, I will tell briefly his story. Harold Dean survived the kind of judicial nightmare the State Department likes to criticize in its annual report on human rights problems around the globe. For 19 months, he was held in jail on vague assertions that he was involved in terrorism. He was not told the specific evidence against him, and the courts refused to disclose who had accused him. That information, he was told, would be kept secret from him and his lawyers on national security grounds. For a year and a half, he was in limbo, he says, never charged with any terrorism acts or even questioned. The most noteworthy aspect of Harold Dean's case is the country wherein it transpired. He was held here in the United States of America under a little-known secret evidence law that was part of antiterrorism act passed in 1996. Now, ultimately he was freed at the end of 19 months. It turns out the allegations originated from his former wife, with whom he was locked in a fairly bitter child custody proceeding. But many others have not been nearly so fortunate. And so, it is for this reason that the authors of this amendment propose to take $170,000, which is roughly the number that the eight people here in the United States are incarcerated based on this current law. Now, some folks would say, well, this will hurt our antiterrorism efforts. I would just remind them that I suppose it might. And I suppose that that would be a good thing. Because our Founding Fathers were very explicit about not wanting perfectly efficient Government. If so, I suppose they would have designed a dictatorship. Instead, they wrote out the Constitution, and the guiding principle of that Constitution was the idea that the needs of the majority should never supersede the rights of the minority. I think that this story is a perfect example, wherein 19 months of this man's life were taken from him and they will never be given back. And so, from the standpoint of personal liberty, from the standpoint of adhering to what Jefferson talked about 200 years ago when he said that the normal course of things was for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground, and from the standpoint of particularly the constant adherence of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) to the Constitution, joined, in this case, by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), I would just urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SANFORD. Reclaiming my time, I would say that that is ultimately what we disagree on, because I do not think that again the rights of the majority in this case supersede the rights of the individual.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that the problem of this in this case, in the story that I just read, we have an embittered former wife accusing a person of being a terrorist and, as a result, through no action of his own, he is incarcerated for 19 months of his life.

Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the opposite is true. The gentleman made the very point that it is an extremely unique event in the fact that only 11 folks have been charged with this particular provision of law. And then to suggest that it is not at all unusual I think is arguing both sides of the equation.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully disagree with my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). I guess the gentleman can see the equation from either side. I guess the way that I would see it, and some on this side of the aisle would see it, would be that by prohibiting local law enforcement agencies from choosing I guess the equipment or the gun manufacture of their choice, it seems to me to be more coercive and it seems to be a case rather than a local choice being made, it is actually a case of being directed from above. Two, I would say to me this is about the whole fundamental breakdown of government that our Founding Fathers intended with the legislative branch being responsible for one area of government, the executive branch being responsible for another, and the judicial final for another. What we have here with this agreement is the executive branch going into the business of creation of laws or lawmaking, because there are two new Federal programs, the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition and the Oversight Commission, both of which would be created by executive branch activity without the authorization of Congress, without the Hostettler amendment. I simply rise in support of his amendment. Finally, I would make the point in that they are legitimately different perspectives on this thing, and I come from down South and I guess we have a different take on the whole gun equation down there, but for me, I do not like the idea of smart technology because the idea of an intruder breaking into our house and my fingerprint being the only one that could stop that intruder with a given handgun, to me is not a good idea. I would like the idea of me being able to hand the gun to my daughter or to my young son or to the neighbor who is visiting to help in stopping that intruder. I think there is a legitimate difference of opinion on this. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hostettler amendment.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would simply make the point that I think that the charge that the gentleman is laying is an incorrect one, because we are really not talking about the Republican Conference as a whole. What we are talking about was that I was one of the eight that happened to vote against this when it came to the floor. In the same way that you so skillfully have used every arrow in essence in the legislative quiver, this is simply a way of blocking legislation that I disagree with.

Mr. SANFORD. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SANFORD. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SANFORD. Unfortunately, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SANFORD. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SANFORD. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SANFORD. I do, Mr. Chairman.