[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 6 (Wednesday, February 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H279-H299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1600
 CONCERNING ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND SANCTIONS PAYABLE BY THE WHITE 
                      HOUSE HEALTH CARE TASK FORCE

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 345, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 345

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 107) expressing the sense of 
     the Congress that the award of attorneys' fees, costs, and 
     sanctions of $285,864.78 ordered by United States District 
     Judge Royce C. Lamberth on December 18, 1997, should not be 
     paid with taxpayer funds. The first reading of the joint 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the joint resolution and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by Representative 
     Hayworth of Arizona or his designee and Representative Stark 
     of California or his designee. After general debate the joint 
     resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. The joint resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the joint resolution for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the joint 
     resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley), ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which 
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of germane debate 
only.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is as straightforward as it gets when it 
comes to rules. This is a wide open rule that was voted out of the 
Committee on Rules last night without dissent or, in fact, really 
without debate.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, as we have heard, 
equally divided between the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) or 
his designee and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) or his 
designee.
  The rule provides that the Joint Resolution be considered as read and 
provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, 
which is of course the guarantee we always provide for the Minority.
  It is truly a bipartisan product that should elicit universal 
support, in my view. I cannot understand that this could in any way be 
a controversial rule. The only point that could have been of 
controversy was overcome last night by a brilliant suggestion by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), which was accepted 
unanimously by the full committee to make this as fair and as 
bipartisan and as open as has ever been done in the recorded history of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time,
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), my colleague, my dear friend, for yielding me the customary 
half-hour; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has just returned from a 3-month recess; and, 
after all that time, the American people expect something substantive 
from their representatives. Today, they are not going to get it.
  There are a lot of issues that need addressing in this country. As 
President Clinton said in his State of the Union: This is an 
opportunity for action. We need to protect Social Security, reduce the 
size of classrooms, expand Medicare, increase the minimum wage, Mr. 
Speaker, and a lot more. The list of issues that are important to the 
American people is very long, it is very diverse, but it does not 
include the attorneys' fees for the White House Health Care Task Force.
  I bet if we walked down the street today, we would not find a single 
person that would say that the utmost concern on their mind was the 
fees of the White House task force on health. They would probably say 
they were more concerned with making a decent living, sending their 
children to college or affording decent health care.
  But this Congress will waste time debating the issue of these fees. 
It is nearly the first issue we have taken up on this the second day 
back in session; and I, for one, Mr. Speaker, think there are a lot 
more important things that we should be doing.
  This is a politically driven, partisan resolution which, even if it 
passes, will do absolutely nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue we are debating today is a sense of the 
Congress resolution. It cannot even become law. In other words, if the 
House passes it, we will have said, in effect, here is what we think, 
for what it is worth, and that is it.
  Other than expressing an opinion, this bill does nothing. It does not 
make anyone do anything. It is a politically motivated, partisan 
attack; and, frankly, as I said, it is a total waste of time.
  Instead of this resolution, we should save Social Security. We should 
help working families afford child care. We should protect people's 
pensions. We should reform managed care.
  So I urge my colleagues to let us get to work on something just a 
little bit more important than this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) would say that this was a great rule also.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a great rule also.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that we got the rule out 
with the gentleman's help.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), author of the resolution.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me for 
a colloquy. Prior to this rule resolution, the gentleman and I had 
discussed the following scenario for the advice of Members.
  It is this gentleman's hope on this side of the aisle that there 
would be no amendments for which a recorded vote would be requested. 
And that if there are no amendments that come to a vote, final passage, 
not necessarily the rule, which may or may not call for a vote, but 
after the rule, it would not be our intention to ask for a recorded 
vote.
  I think the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) would concur in 
that, with the understanding that we obviously cannot control our 
colleagues' actions. But I ask the gentleman if that is his 
understanding.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from California for his comments. No doubt there will be some 
contentious debate here in the well, but in an effort to maintain the 
civility and comity of the House and indeed

[[Page H280]]

to echo to a certain degree the outlook of the distinguished gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), Ranking Member on the Committee on 
Rules, I do believe it is important to move forward in this debate in a 
fairly brief manner to make the points necessary and then move on to 
others of business and the business of this House.
  So, accordingly, recognizing the fact that neither the gentleman from 
California nor I can control the rights of any other Member of the 
institution, it would be my intention not to call for a recorded vote, 
providing that there are no amendments that are insisted upon and that 
the straightforward nature of this resolution can, indeed, be reflected 
by a straightforward voice vote of this institution. That would be my 
view.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
thank the gentleman; and I hope we can conclude. We will have a 
strenuous debate, and I have a hunch that the gentleman will win on a 
voice vote. So, anticipating that, I hope Members can make their plans 
accordingly.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, just to clarify 
for a second to my colleagues in this hall and in this Chamber and to 
the American people, I would agree with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts to this degree: We do have many pressing issues.
  But where I would part, and indeed I think an important case to make 
in this rule is the fact that $285,000, while in the Washington scheme 
of things, certainly as it relates to a proposed $1.7 trillion budget, 
might not mean much in Washington numbers, but, Mr. Speaker, to the 
American people and to the taxpayers of this country, it is very 
important that this House go on record as saying we are here to protect 
the taxpayers, even for this sum.
  Because the very same working families that my colleague from 
Massachusetts mentions have a right to be protected on this issue. 
Especially when, in the wake of a district court ruling, it was found 
that this Health Care Task Force met in secret, devising plans that in 
the words of the court were reprehensible and fundamentally dishonest, 
and we should protect the public purse.
  That is why I think this is a fair rule and why I welcome the debate 
on the floor and am happy to reach an accommodation with the Minority 
to have this House go on record that it is the sense of this Congress 
that no taxpayer funds should be used.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), my great colleague.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding, and I hope I do not violate 
the rules and appear to be addressing others when I welcome everyone to 
the session of the Model U.N. My colleagues remember the Model U.N. 
That is when all the students with nothing else to do come together and 
pass resolutions that have no visible effect, or invisible effect, on 
anybody, anything, anytime, anywhere, anyplace.
  Here is what we have got. This is a resolution which is intended to 
have absolutely no effects whatsoever on anyone. That is because, if it 
were to have any effect, it would be illegal and unconstitutional.
  So what we have here is a Majority with apparently nothing that they 
feel they want to do and get caught doing. There are things they would 
like to do, but they understand that the public would not like many of 
those things. So having been reluctantly forced to end what was the 
longest recess in a very long time, we have come back to do nothing. 
The difference between the recess we were on and the sessions that we 
are now having is not visible to the naked eye.
  Thus, we get this resolution, and it is the Model U.N. It is a 
resolution, we should stress, which has absolutely nothing to do with 
anything.
  The gentleman from Arizona said $285,000 is real money. Well, it is 
real money, but this is play money. This is Monopoly money. Because 
whether we pass this resolution, defeat this resolution, burn this 
resolution, make it into 11 paper airplanes and fly it around the room, 
it has nothing to do with the $285,000. It is not intended to. They did 
not try to. They know how to draft a binding resolution when they want 
to, and they did not.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to ask my colleague 
from Massachusetts, and always am very interested in his observations, 
has he ever in the past voted for a sense of Congress resolution?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, have I? 
I do not remember. I do not remember whether or not I have voted for a 
sense of Congress resolution.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. That is an interesting response.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked a 
question, and I am telling him that I do not remember, because they are 
often of such little significance that they do not register.
  I will say this, though. I will say to the gentleman that I now 
recollect I have in the past voted for senses of Congress' resolutions, 
but I have never claimed that any of them saved anybody any money. I 
have never said that, having expressed my opinion, I saved anybody 
$285,000.
  And, by the way, if we wanted to save money, and I agree $285,000 is 
a lot of money for lawyers, I do not know how many hundreds of 
thousands of dollars we paid the lawyers for the House Oversight 
Committee to tell us today that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Sanchez) won the election that we knew she won in November 1996. I 
daresay that the amount of legal fees that will have been paid to 
lawyers over the past year-plus that people have been harassing the 
gentlewoman from California----
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, not yet. I think the 
gentleman from Arizona needs time to assimilate the first answer. It 
does not seem to me that he has gotten it yet. But I will get back to 
him when he has more time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that $285,000 is a very small amount 
of money compared to the much larger sum that the Majority has spent; 
and they are now going to come forward with a resolution telling us 
that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) can be a Member of 
Congress. Some of us knew that hundreds of thousands of dollars ago.
  Mr. Speaker, now I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Actually, I believe I understood what he said a little bit earlier. I 
just want to make sure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would ask the gentleman if I could have 
a couple more minutes, because they are not doing anything with it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 4 more days.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Excuse me, I would say that is not a 
yield, that is a sentence.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gracious gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Basically, essentially what the gentleman is telling us is that, when 
it comes to this, in the words of another prominent member of the 
gentleman's party, there is no controlling legal authority? Is what the 
gentleman is trying to get across?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what I 
am trying to say is that not being able to think of anything to say 
himself, borrowing a wholly irrelevant comment from the Vice President 
does not seem to me to advance the gentleman's argument.
  Because the argument is one, the gentleman from Arizona is simply 
wrong when he claims that this has anything to do with saving $285,000. 
It does not. It does not save a nickel.
  A judge ordered that the money be paid. Now, the Majority wants to 
make some political hay. They know better

[[Page H281]]

than to actually defy the judge's order. They have not offered a 
resolution to defy the judge's order. So what they tell us is a 
resolution which it is the sense of Congress that the judge's order 
ought to be defied, knowing full well that no one is going to defy it.

                              {time}  1615

  They claim in this that they are going to be saving some money. In 
fact the only impact this debate will have on the Treasury is the extra 
few thousand dollars it will cost us to print this silly debate.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman for or against the rule?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am against the rule because if we 
defeated the rule, we would save time, not vote on the useless 
resolution, and be a few thousand bucks ahead.
  Mr. GOSS. If the gentleman would perhaps like to get rid of the 
Committee on Rules, if saving time is the final goal.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to get 
unanimous consent to abolish the Committee on Rules?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I think we have established the gentleman's 
views.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me say to Members who may think that 
this is not at a high level, that is where we started. This is about 
nothing. This is a political game. This is the Model U.N., about 
nothing. It is wasting time and money.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, do I understand, is this kind of like the 
vote that we had after we voted for the pay raise that went into effect 
and we had another vote disallowing the pay raise? Is that something on 
the same order that we did then?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, is there any coincidence to 
the fact that the gentleman is not running again that he brings up the 
pay raise?
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
do not know the procedures too well. I have only been here 20 some 
years. I am a slow learner. In the case this did pass, would it to go 
conference with the Senate, and would the President sign this, or is 
this just about making us feel good?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, 
the beauty of this resolution from this standpoint is none of this 
makes any sense. This is pure for show.
  The reference to $285,000 baffles me. If it was intended to suggest 
that this is going to save the $285,000, it is not written to. It is 
simply written to try and take some political shots and let the 
gentleman from Arizona mention a comment from the Vice President, 
although he could have done that in 1-minutes. I guess he used up his 
1-minute today and wanted to have a second 1-minute. So we may have 
more of this political activity, but it is all a total waste of time.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The 
debate, as indicated by the gentleman from Massachusetts earlier, has 
been very lively and very engaging here. One only has to read the 
decision of the Federal judge in this, the scathing comments that the 
judge made, not just about the White House and Mr. Magaziner, but also 
about the Justice Department and the way this was handled, to know that 
there was a complete failure on the part of all parties in this to 
handle this appropriately. And so it is quite appropriate, I think, 
that we have a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that 
taxpayers should not be footing the bill for the legal fees here and 
that the individuals involved should be doing so.
  But I rise for another reason; that is that I, in my responsibility 
as the chairman of the subcommittee of appropriations that funds the 
Executive Office of the President, I can assure my colleagues that we 
intend to take a very close look at this issue; that indeed if there is 
an intention of the White House to pay for this out of the Justice 
Department funds that is reserved for this, there should be, I think, 
an appropriate reduction in the amount of funding that goes to the 
White House, to the Executive Office. And we will look for the 
appropriate account to make sure it is as closely related to the 
specific thing, to this issue that is involved, to see that we should 
say that no, if indeed you are going to pay for it that way and not pay 
for it as it should be, out of your funds, that indeed there would be a 
concomitant reduction in spending for the White House for this kind of 
thing.
  I think it is very clear that what we heard in the judge's comments, 
and again I would urge all my colleagues to read the judge's decision 
in this case, it is absolutely unremittingly scathing in the comments 
that it makes about the conduct, the conduct of the White House, the 
conduct of the Justice Department in the handling of this. There is no 
excuse for the way this was done. There is no excuse essentially for 
the dissembling that was done on the part of the White House, that was 
told to people, to the judge. The judge points out that there is no 
excuse for this. There could be no other explanation for it except that 
there was dissembling going on. There was an attempt by the Justice 
Department not to look into that and to allow this to happen.
  I think it is quite appropriate that at the appropriations level that 
we should take action that would assure that in the future this kind of 
conduct does not occur. And so I can only say to my colleagues that 
indeed this may be about nothing, that indeed this resolution cannot 
assure that it will be paid from private sources as it should be, but I 
can tell my colleagues that this will help send a signal to the 
Committee on Appropriations and to the subcommittee that we should look 
for ways in which to make sure that there is a reduction in the 
spending elsewhere by the White House to offset this, if indeed they 
pay it out of what has been the normal standard, through the Justice 
Department fund that is set aside for this.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Stark].
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Arizona, who is on 
the Committee on Appropriations, while this may not come before his 
subcommittee, is he aware of other times when we have appropriated 
money to pay legal fees for officers or employees of the executive 
branch of the government in cases like this?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, in this case there is a specific fund that is 
set aside when there are legal fees for this. But never have I 
experienced a judge that has written such a scathing remark.
  Mr. STARK. But has the Committee on Appropriations ever appropriated 
any money?
  There is a case where the Committee on Appropriations appropriated 
$430,000 to pay for the White House travel office. How does that differ 
in a sense technically from the money the gentleman is talking about 
spending?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would say that it differs like night and day. In the first case, that 
of Travelgate, you are talking about individuals who were victimized by 
the White House, who were fired and victimized and had to try to 
recover their good names. And I think it was appropriate that the 
government pay for their being victimized. We are talking here about an 
individual who victimized the American public and the judge said so.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, what about the two Secret Service agents? 
There were two Secret Service agents who were investigated for the 
accuracy of their testimony over White House FBI files. They were not 
victimized, I do not think. And the Committee on Appropriations voted 
to pay their legal defense fees. How does that differ?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I would say that each of these cases so far 
that the gentleman has raised substantiate

[[Page H282]]

what I am suggesting. Yes, the two Secret Service agents, and I am very 
aware of that because the subcommittee funds both the White House and 
the Secret Service, were indeed victimized in this case. They were 
unfairly called to task by the inspector general of the Treasury 
Department who is no longer there, and of course they were completely 
cleared by this.
  Again, the good employees of the Federal Government should not be 
held responsible for when they are made victims of the bureaucracy or 
victims of political appointees. But we are not talking about that in 
the case of Mr. Magaziner.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, one of the people who was sued was 
investigated by the U.S. Attorney and had to spend some money to defend 
himself against the U.S. Attorney's investigation, and the U.S. 
Attorney subsequently decided that the case was not prosecutable or was 
not worth prosecuting. This was Mr. Magaziner. So the U.S. Attorney 
investigated him and said they were not going to prosecute him. Would 
that not be the same?
  As the gentleman well knows, Mr. Magaziner and I have had vast 
differences over the years, and I would hate to have this turned around 
that I am here defending him, but I wonder if perhaps there is someone 
that feels more strongly about Mr. Magaziner than they might have about 
Mr. Dale of the travel office and whether we are kind of picking and 
choosing. That is my concern.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I think the thread that runs through all of 
these is consistent and the same in that I think in this case we are 
saying that the people who committed what I think is the wrong in this 
case of the dissembling that was going on should indeed pay the legal 
costs for those who tried to bring this case to light, I think 
appropriately so.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I really believe that this 
again is wrong-headed and wrong-directed, and frankly this is a silly 
rule.
  Let me applaud the White House health task force and applaud it for 
several reasons. One, that task force raised to a national debate the 
question of the right kind of health care for Americans. If there is 
anything that we hear our constituents talk about, it is lack of access 
to health care and good health care.
  Just coming in from the Rayburn Room discussing with constituents who 
work with home health care agencies, the type of agencies that I have 
been familiar with or had familiarity with through the illness of my 
father, to come to find out that these agencies are being required to 
get $50,000 bonds, which they do not disagree with but they cannot get 
the bonds, and so people who are home-bound are not getting health 
care; that individuals who require home visits once a month to take 
blood tests are now cutting those services.
  These are the kinds of issues that we should be discussing: greater 
accessibility to patient care with respect to choice of physicians, 
making sure that individuals can be enrolled under these managed care 
programs, separating out the dollar from the care, making sure that the 
dollar is not the only thing that is considered when we have to take 
care of people in their times of illness.
  This is a silly, silly rule and we should really be applauding the 
fact that the White House health care task force under the leadership 
of Hillary Clinton allowed us to think about what kind of health 
services we want, what kind of health system, whether we wanted to have 
a system that was similar to the one in Canada, whether we wanted to 
have universal access, whether we wanted to have a combined. No, we did 
not resolve it, but we did discuss it, and we realize that there are 
problems with the system we have now. Those individuals who worked on 
this worked in good faith.
  Frankly, I think that we do well to spend more time dealing with the 
patient bill of rights than wasting the people's time dealing with such 
silliness about who is paying what and not allowing us to focus on 
these very important issues. I would hope that my colleagues would 
listen.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 16 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 22 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I was surprised to hear the gentleman from Massachusetts say that 
this is not important. Social Security is important. Violation of the 
law is not important enough to take up the time of the House, not even 
in a sense of the Congress resolution. Social Security is important, 
but public officials violating the law, that is not important. Do not 
waste time, allow people to trivialize it. Allow people to mock it. 
Allow people to get great amusement out of the fact that we are 
discussing a very serious problem of people in high official places in 
the government violating the law. The courts found that Mr. Magaziner 
and the people with whom he was associated in this gigantic health plan 
fiasco that was occurring in 1993 violated the law.
  Clean air is important, and Social Security is important, and child 
care is important, and health care is important and violation of the 
law is important. The gentleman from Massachusetts is falling into the 
pattern of taking what might appear to be a violation of the law and 
then trying to mask all of that by saying there are more important 
things to do. Well, now is the time here in this place to discuss 
whether or not it was proper for these people in this public 
officialdom that they were in to violate the law. I say that is 
important to discuss.
  The Federal Advisory Committee Act is one in which it says, when 
advisory committees, like the one that Magaziner formed with the First 
Lady, had to comply with the law, full sunshine, they did not.

                              {time}  1630

  And they were then chastised by the court and these sanctions, these 
penalties were inflicted by the court.
  That is not as important as Social Security, says the gentleman from 
Massachusetts. We should not waste a moment on the violation of the law 
that occurred here. And he may be right, but there is a time and a 
place to discuss why public officials flaunt the law.
  There is a larger question here that comes to play, and that is the 
role of our administrative agencies and how sometimes they try to find 
ways and means to get around the law. I remember one in my own 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, where the agency 
involved could not find that enough dollars were involved to be able to 
be in a position to notify a small business that it was being affected 
by an adverse regulation. But we found that there were enough dollars 
involved.
  And so it goes on. Acts like this within the agencies are the ones 
that ruin the confidence of the people in their high officials in 
Washington. That is why it is important. I am for Social Security as 
much as the gentleman from Massachusetts, and he should be as much in 
concert with me in condemning violations of the law that seem to mask 
government actions.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that I do not know what script it was the gentleman was reading 
from, but this is not about violating law. This is a sense of the House 
resolution that has no power. If the gentleman really felt as strong as 
he says, why does he not get the proper piece of legislation before the 
House.
  This is the payment of legal fees and who is responsible. It is not 
about violating the law.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I will treat the gentleman just as he treated me.
  Mr. GEKAS. The gentleman is going to treat me with a smile?

[[Page H283]]

  Mr. MOAKLEY. I will treat the gentleman with a smile.
  Mr. GEKAS. I treated the gentleman with a smile.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was shocked that the 
gentlewoman from Texas would refer to this rule as being silly. What we 
are talking about here is ethics in government, really. And if there 
were a way that we could do more than simply pass a resolution of the 
sense of the Congress, I think we should do so.
  We have an obligation and a responsibility to inform the American 
people about what is taking place in the executive branch of the 
government, and I would like to take just a few moments to run over a 
little bit of this.
  President Clinton created the Task Force on National Health Care 
Reform on January 25th, 1993, five days after he took office for his 
first term. The panel conducted its work in secret. The very next month 
the American Council for Health Care Reform, the National Legal and 
Policy Center, a foundation that promotes ethics in government, and the 
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons filed suit against 
First Lady Hillary Clinton, Ira Magaziner and others to gain access to 
the documents and records of the secret meetings of the President's 
health care task force.
  Ira Magaziner went to court and testified in Federal Court, in March, 
that all members of the task force and its staff working groups were 
Federal employees and, as a result, they did not have to hold open 
meetings or divulge their working papers. Then, after an analysis of 
the evidence by Federal Judge Lamberth, he ruled that the working group 
formed by the First Lady and Mr. Magaziner violated Federal law and 
ordered that a penalty of $285,000 be paid to the plaintiffs as 
reimbursements for legal fees that they used to expose the fact that 
the White House task force violated Federal law.
  Throughout the State of the Union address, President Clinton stressed 
the importance of personal responsibility. We talk to our children all 
the time about personal responsibility, and we know that personal 
responsibility is the anchor of a free society. So why should the 
taxpayers of America pay a $285,000 fine for something for which they 
were not responsible? Ira Magaziner and the First Lady were responsible 
for the violation of Federal law. Why do they not pay the fine? They 
are responsible.
  Now, I just want to take a few minutes more to talk about what Judge 
Lamberth has said in his decision and in the newspapers about this 
issue. He was quoted as saying, ``I am convinced that Ira Magaziner, 
Clinton's health care adviser, deliberately misled the court with his 
sworn statement.'' He went on to say that he ``. . . believes Magaziner 
and the government's lawyers made intentionally misleading 
statements.'' And then Judge Lamberth went on to say, and he bluntly 
denounced the White House and the Justice Department for what he called 
``. . . dishonest and reprehensible failures to provide accurate 
information.''
  This is another example of a pattern of misconduct by this 
administration. So why should taxpayers pay a fine that they had 
nothing to do with? Judge Lamberth said that the White House, the task 
force, violated the Federal law; that they misled the court; that they 
would be paying the $285,000 fine that now the taxpayers are going to 
pay.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to concur in what the gentleman 
is saying. I have some other language. The court found that ``The 
declaration Mr. Magaziner made was false.'' It was, ``The most 
outrageous conduct by the government in this case is what happened when 
it never corrected or updated the Magaziner declaration.'' I mean it 
was wrong. He did say, however, that the government did take action 
that amounted to what the court referred to as a total capitulation.
  So I do not think that is an issue with which we would debate with 
the gentleman. Magaziner either lied, misrepresented, or did not know 
what he was talking about. I would further go on to say I have not much 
faith in the gentleman's ability to get anything straight. So whether 
he made it up or whether he was just wrong, it is the same old Ira 
Magaziner. No quarrel from me.
  I do not feel that way, I might add for the record, about Mrs. 
Clinton, with whom I worked closely, as well as Mr. Magaziner, during 
all of that.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark).
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I was not allowed into those sessions and 
felt badly about that. What I am suggesting is that the issue was that 
subsequent to all of this the people who brought the original lawsuit, 
mostly asking for an injunction to stop it, that is what they started 
out asking for. And then, many years later, they came back to ask to 
get their legal fees back. So they were awarded legal fees; not a fine. 
Nobody was convicted.
  As a matter of fact, Ira was investigated by the U.S. Attorney, who 
found that he did nothing that would have warranted his being indicted. 
Now, that is where we are, and I believe those are the facts. And I do 
not know as we have to go on. He was wrong. The government admitted it. 
I do not know whether he ever admitted it. The people who brought the 
case were awarded legal fees that the government is obligated to pay 
because, under the law, nobody else can pay it. Now, that is where we 
are tonight.
  I would be perfectly willing to figure out how to prevent that. This 
resolution does not do it. So what I am suggesting is we may have more 
accord here than the gentleman thinks.
  Mr. GOSS. May I inquire of the Speaker how the time divides at this 
point?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) has 14 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with this rule, but 
I am against this resolution and I am particularly grateful to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding to me knowing that I 
must disagree with my dear friend from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). 
Occasionally I can be wrong, frequently I can be wrong, but I think I 
am right on this occasion.
  The reason why the resolution is wrong is the Equal Access to Justice 
Act says that one can get attorneys' fees from the government, and it 
only says that one can get attorneys' fees from the government. So if 
the effect of this resolution were law, and it is not, but if it were 
law, it would cut off the plaintiffs from getting any attorneys' fees.
  And I think the whole purpose of the argument on the side of the 
gentleman from Arizona is that these plaintiffs should get their 
attorneys' fees. So there is a problem with this resolution if it were 
binding.
  Secondly, and perhaps even more important, suppose we were to amend 
the law and say that one can go after individuals for attorneys' fees. 
That is not the purpose or effect of this resolution. But if it were 
then I would have a separate problem, which would stem from the fact 
that the judge in this case held that the culpable behavior that caused 
the attorneys' fees to be owed was by the government attorneys after 
the filing of the inaccurate affidavit by Mr. Magaziner. It was not 
because of Mr. Magaziner's activities. Although I completely agree that 
the judge characterized Mr. Magaziner's activities pejoratively in the 
extreme, it was because of the action of the attorneys afterwards that 
he awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs.
  And here is what the judge said, page nine of his opinion. ``But the 
most outrageous conduct by the government in this case is what happened 
when it never corrected or up-dated [sic] the Magaziner declaration. 
That was a determination not made individually by Mr. Magaziner, but by 
the government through its counsel.''
  The difficulty, thus, if we were to apply the law, changed as the 
movers

[[Page H284]]

of this resolution would wish, so that plaintiff's could obtain their 
attorney's fees somewhere, it would have to be from the attorneys who 
acted after Mr. Magaziner did. And I have a serious problem with asking 
government employees, Federal Government employees working on a general 
schedule salary, to bear the risk of paying attorneys' fees. I just do 
not think that is right. If, however, they deserve to be sanctioned by 
the court, that is fine. That would be under the court's jurisdiction. 
But under the Equal Access to Justice Act, it is the government that is 
responsible, not the individual government employees.
  While I do not like the idea of taxpayers paying money any more than 
my colleagues supporting this resolution do, there comes a time when 
wrongdoing happens. And sometimes it is done by the executive branch 
and we in the legislative branch have nothing to do with it.
  My classic example is where there is a taking of property by the 
Federal Government and there is no compensation paid. That is terrible. 
It violates the Constitution. And at the end of the fiscal year we have 
to pay for it. We, the taxpayers, have to pay for it, even though I did 
not do it, nobody in the legislative branch did it, nobody in the 
Congress did it. It is still the burden of the taxpayer because the 
government did it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The last two points I wanted to say were, if we read the judge's 
opinion with care, time after time he emphasizes the wrongdoing of 
``the government.'' That is why the government is obliged to pay the 
fees. At page five, ``While the evidence need not include proof beyond 
a reasonable doubt, the court finds clear and convincing evidence that 
sanctions should be imposed because of the government's misconduct in 
this case.'' Not Ira Magaziner and Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
  At page 18:

       ``This whole dishonest explanation was provided to this 
     court in the Magaziner declaration on March 3, 1993, and this 
     court holds that such dishonesty is sanctionable and was not 
     good faith dealing with the court or plaintiffs' counsel. It 
     was not timely corrected or supplemented, and this type of 
     conduct is reprehensible, and the government must be held 
     accountable for it.

  And lastly, at page 3, ``The defendants thereafter, produced a great 
deal of information, but they still took no steps to correct Mr. 
Magaziner's sworn declaration that all working group members were 
federal employees.'' The defendants who failed to take the steps to 
correct the Magaziner declaration were at fault.
  Lastly, what about Mr. Magaziner? The answer is very clear. Other 
sanctions were possible for Mr. Magaziner. Indeed, the court said, and 
I'm quoting from Judge Lamberth, ``The court, however, indicated the 
question of whether Mr. Magaziner should be held in criminal contempt 
of court for possible perjury and/or making a false statement when he 
signed the sworn declaration to this court on March 3, 1993, should be 
investigated by the United States Attorney for the District of 
Columbia.''
  The reason why I took to the floor to make this point is much broader 
than just this issue. We have to be very careful about assessing 
attorneys' fees against employees of the Federal Government for work 
they are assigned to do, up until the point when the Federal trial 
judge intends to sanction them.

                              {time}  1645

  Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, it is a terrible mistake to 
stick Federal employees with that obligation. But if we were to go 
after Mrs. Clinton, as a private party, we then have the question, who 
would ever serve on a Federal advisory committee? Who would put 
themselves forward knowing that that liability would be potentially 
there?
  So, with a very heavy heart but with much admiration for the 
integrity and the fervor that my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth), brings to this issue, I must urge my colleagues to vote 
no on the resolution in chief. But I repeat, as I began, I have no 
objection to the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) for reminding us that this is a debate about this good rule, 
and I am relieved to hear that he has no objection to it. I was hoping, 
actually, for an endorsement for the rule. But since I did not get 
that, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been working on this particular matter for 5 
years as a member of the subcommittee that handles the White House 
appropriations; and we are here because there is a question about does 
Congress care when an official at the highest levels of the White House 
lies under oath in a civil proceeding and it costs the taxpayers a ton 
of money.
  Mr. Magaziner, a senior adviser to the President of the United 
States, according to the orders issued by the Federal judge, clearly, 
unquestionably lied, trying to keep information secret about this White 
House task force that was trying to remake one-sixth of the American 
economy in private confidential meetings, not letting us know even who 
the members were.
  Ultimately, when they were able to look beyond Mr. Magaziner's 
affidavit, they found that, instead of everybody being a Federal 
employee and, therefore, no Federal money going to private individuals 
in this endeavor, they found there were hundreds, hundreds, of people 
working directly with Mr. Magaziner who were not Federal employees at 
all. Mr. Magaziner should have been fired.
  The President of the United States should care if people at the White 
House are truthful to our courts. He does not seem to care. Therefore, 
Congress is saying, do we think the burden ought to fall upon the 
people who cause the problem or upon the taxpayers generally?
  Now why have an initial resolution such as this? Well, it is the 
first step. Maybe in the appropriations process we should say Mr. 
Magaziner and everyone else who was involved in the deceit of the court 
should not be paid anything more than, say, the minimum wage if the 
President is going to keep them on the payroll.
  One of the other presidential assistants, Patsy Thomasson, lied to 
our subcommittee about the makeup of this organization when we directly 
questioned her, lied under oath to the court, lied to Congress, lied to 
the newspapers, all of these people involved with deceit.
  Now the President of the United States, we read in today's papers, is 
looking at raising millions of dollars of private money for his 
personal legal defense funds, unlimited amounts from different 
individuals. If the President cares about proving the truth to the 
American people, let the President come forward and say, we will make 
sure that while we are raising these millions of dollars for legal fees 
we will raise another $285,000 to pay the plaintiffs who brought this 
action. Would that not be a nice refreshing approach for the President 
to take?
  Because it was the White House that was involved in lying under oath, 
and it was the Justice Department that permitted it. And then the 
Justice Department investigated itself as to whether or not perjury 
charges would be brought.
  Read the court decision. Officials in the Justice Department, 
officials in the White House were intimately involved in this.
  The court said there might be a problem prosecuting it because one of 
the White House lawyers involved, Vince Foster, is now dead and one of 
the Justice Department lawyers involved, Webb Hubbell, has been 
convicted of felony since then.
  Well, it does not matter that the taxpayers still have this bill and 
these people still are on the public payroll who the court found do not 
care to tell the truth under oath.
  This is the first step in a process of this Congress, Mr. Speaker, 
where we will find out which Members think that it is important to 
honor the principle of truth in testimony to our courts and, yes, to 
say that principle applies to the White House and everyone there, as 
well as to the rest of us.
  I urge adoption of the rule and of the underlying resolution.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to advise my colleague and friend 
from

[[Page H285]]

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that all that remains on this side, 
as far as I know at this time, are some illuminating closing remarks.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to congratulate 
my dear friend from Florida for bringing forth an open rule which I am 
very happy with; and I will tell him I will vote for the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. 
Speaker, I will try and be brief. I have got about 2 minutes' worth of 
summation here.
  I realize that when we talk about the rule in this hour set aside for 
the rule sometime some of the technical aspects seem to get lost in 
some of the other material that comes forward. I would like to refocus 
that this is actually the right rule and I believe it deserves all of 
my colleagues' support, no matter what their feeling is on the subject 
matter.
  To describe this as a silly rule, especially by the gentlewoman from 
Texas, who is a regular attendee at the Committee on Rules meetings and 
knows how hard we work up there, is indeed disappointing. I do not 
think this is silly at all. And, frankly, I think the substance is 
silly. I think it is troubling.
  We have got an underlying resolution here that actually brings 
forward an important question to the American taxpayer, and it is 
simply this: Should the taxpayer be held liable for what in this case a 
judge has determined to be dishonest conduct of high-ranking Government 
officials and lawyers? And I am not going to specify any. Should hard-
working Americans be made to pay penalties of those at the White House 
who have been caught up in what the judge determined was a cover-up? 
That is what is being posed here in the resolution. Granted, it is the 
sense of Congress.
  I believe most Americans would say no to those questions. They would 
simply say, pay your own penalties. Stop the shenanigans, and do not 
expect us to pay for these things. The resolution to that question is 
what we are discussing today. But, obviously, a sense of Congress is 
not going to resolve the matter.
  I think there is an important point here. The President himself said 
it in this very Chamber not too long ago in the State of the Union 
address. We should all be accountable. Accountability is really what 
this is all about. Straightforwardness and accountability are really 
two of the basic precepts that we have in our Democratic governance.
  Occasionally, these things seem to be the first ones thrown overboard 
when there is a squall in the area; and sometimes we rue the fact that 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are on the 
casualty list inside the Beltway. The information seems to surface in 
bits and pieces, and people are left with less than a clear and timely 
disclosure of facts that they are entitled to know about.
  So the specific misdeed that we are addressing here today took root 
early in the Clinton administration, as I understand it; and in an 
effort to avoid, what I think was a wrong effort to avoid, candid 
public debate on the merits of a health care proposal which involved 
universalizing or nationalizing our health care system, the White House 
did, in fact, hold secretive closed-door sessions, which is, in my 
view, completely contrary to the spirit and the intent of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, which calls for sunshine.
  They had something to hide, as it turns out. It turned out to be an 
ill-conceived health care scheme that they were trying to sell to the 
United States of America.
  The idea I think of that scheme was that Washington, not your own 
doctor, knows what is best in terms of our own health care; and when 
the sunshine finally shone on that proposal, the American people saw it 
for what it was, and it fell of its own weight, and it was soundly 
rejected.
  But to compound to this circumstance, and here is what I think why it 
is a real problem and why this is serious business and we are taking it 
up today, is that White House officials and White House lawyers, at 
someone's direction, stonewalled efforts by the judiciary branch to 
determine the makeup and content of these health care advisory 
meetings. There was something wrong there.

  In fact, the administration produced a statement to the court that 
was, to use the court's words, the judge's words, ``simply dishonest.'' 
We cannot ignore that the judge called it a cover-up at the highest 
levels of government and ordered over $285,000, $285,000, in sanctions 
and penalties costs.
  These are not words and actions of some alleged radical right wing 
group. This is the court. These are the conclusions of the sister, co-
equal group of government, the judiciary, doing its job. The White 
House was, quote, simply dishonest, acting in bad faith. So said the 
judge. We cannot ignore that.
  Now that the facts are in and the sanctions have been levied, the 
White House's guile on this I think is matched by arrogance, which I 
frankly do not like. They got caught. The judge said they acted 
dishonestly. And now they are saying to the American taxpayers the 
equivalent of, tough luck, you have got to pay the penalty.
  Now we have heard some of the legal reasons from our distinguished 
colleague and jurist from California, and I suggest the American people 
are more interested in justice than they are in the legalese of 
lawyers.
  I would like to submit for the Record the letter of December 29, 
1997, from the Deputy Chief of Staff of the White House to the 
Honorable Bill Archer, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
saying that the White House will rely on the taxpayers paying this 
fine, paying these sanctions.
  Because I think that is wrong. I think this is running and hiding 
behind a piece of legislation that is not appropriate at this point and 
that is not acceptable, either, to the Americans. American taxpayers, 
in my view, should not have to pay for White House misdeeds.


                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, December 29, 1997.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your 
     December 27, 1997 letter to the President concerning Judge 
     Royce Lamberth's ruling regarding the American Association of 
     Physicians and Surgeons' claim for legal fees related to the 
     Health Care Task Force litigation.
       The Department of Justice is still reviewing whether to 
     appeal Judge Lamberth's ruling. Nevertheless, the President 
     is confident that Mr. Magaziner acted appropriately in this 
     matter. The facts as well as the findings by the U.S. 
     Attorney's Office in its 1995 investigation of Mr. 
     Magaziner's conduct in this matter support this conclusion. 
     In particular, the U.S. Attorney's Office determined that 
     ``there is no basis to conclude that Mr. Magaziner committed 
     a criminal offense in this matter. There is no significant 
     evidence that his declaration was false, much less that it 
     was willfully and intentionally so.'' Moreover, Mr. Magaziner 
     acted upon the advice and guidance of government lawyers.
       As the President has stated, Mr. Magaziner is and will 
     remain a valued member of this Administration. He is a 
     hardworking and dedicated public servant.
       Judge Lamberth awarded fees pursuant to the Equal Access to 
     Justice Act. Should his ruling stand, the fees will be paid 
     in the normal course, using appropriate government funds.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John Podesta,
                                            Deputy Chief of Staff.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution is not binding. We said that. 
We are not forcing the administration to do anything today. We are not 
trying to point fingers at individuals, at least I am not. But we are 
sending a clear message to constituents across the country that 
Government officials and lawyers must be held accountable for their 
actions. We are asking for accountability.
  There is no reason why hard-working Americans should pay through 
taxes almost $300,000 in sanctions levied against the Clinton White 
House. Somehow I think those taxpayers have got better use for that 
money.
  When there are ethical breaches of the White House, especially this 
White House that pledged to be the most ethical of all White Houses, 
the fault lies there. I think they should accept the responsibility and 
pay these sanctions, and I do not think the American people should be 
asked to do this.
  I applaud my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), for 
bringing this issue forward. I urge my colleagues to consider the 
American

[[Page H286]]

taxpayers when they vote and to consider the underlying need for 
accountability and what that means for the credibility of governance in 
this democracy, which is, after all, the foremost democracy in the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time; and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 
345 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
joint resolution, H.J. Res. 107.

                              {time}  1658


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 107) expressing the sense of the Congress 
that the award of attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions of $285,864.78 
ordered by United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth on December 
18, 1997, should not be paid with taxpayer funds, with Mr. LaTourette 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the joint resolution is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, what this committee is preparing to deal with is a very 
serious matter that goes to the heart of our constitutional republic; 
and it is this: that, Mr. Chairman, fundamentally there has been a 
breach of trust emanating from the executive branch of this 
administration with the citizens of this constitutional Republic.

                              {time}  1700

  It has been reflected in what a U.S. District Court judge calls a 
dishonest way by those who have led the so-called Health Care Task 
Force in the executive branch of government.
  It is clear what has transpired: In a debate on national health care, 
rather than involving the American people, rather than involving many 
Members of this institution, as has been pointed out by my colleague 
from California, those at the White House, specifically Mr. Ira 
Magaziner, strove to shut off public scrutiny, strove to make secret 
the deliberations of this so-called Health Care Task Force, to come up 
with a Rube Goldbergesque plan to socialize our Nation's health care 
that eventually collapsed of its own weight, because it fundamentally 
denied the American people what is so vital within our Republic, and 
that is the concept of choice.
  But above and beyond that, legal action was taken when a group of 
doctors went to court to say this is fundamentally wrong. It violates 
Federal law. And, as has been pointed out in the rules debate, Mr. 
Magaziner and other officials of the Health Care Task Force testified 
in front of Congress that this was only made up of Federal employees, 
that no one else was involved, and, therefore, no names need be 
submitted for the record as commensurate with public law.
  That was wrong. Accordingly, the courts ruled that was dishonest. And 
here we come to the fundamental breach of trust, and it is this: That 
in handing down his decision, Judge Lamberth said that there would be 
attorneys' fees that would be owed.
  Now, I appreciated in the rules debate the legal nuances offered by 
my colleague from California (Mr. Campbell). But let me simply restate 
what I perceived to be the mission of this House and the mission of 
those of us who serve in the legislative branch.
  We, Mr. Chairman, are here to be guardians of the public Treasury and 
the public trust. There is no reason on earth why hard working American 
taxpayers should be called upon to ante up in excess of $285,000 to 
satisfy the legal fees in this civil case, because the American 
taxpayers are not culpable. Those within the executive branch of our 
government, those within the administration, are in fact culpable for 
this, and this House should go on record with this sense of the 
Congress resolution.
  Now, I noted with great interest the comments of my colleague from 
Massachusetts (Mr.  Frank), who in seeking to demean the whole notion 
of the sense of Congress resolution said it carried no effect.
  Mr. Chairman, that is incorrect, because the sense of the Congress 
resolution, first of all, sends a message to the executive branch, and 
serves as an entreaty to our chief executive, to the President of the 
United States, to say to him, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the President 
ought to rethink this, and he has the chance to change his mind. 
Because even more disturbing is the letter that was entered into the 
record a little earlier by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman 
from Florida, where the White House, in writing back to the chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, said that appropriate government funds 
would be used to pay this penalty.
  I believe that to be wrong. So, first of all, the sense of the 
Congress resolution serves as an entreaty to the executive branch to 
say, think again. Use another mechanism, but not the tax money of hard-
working American people, to satisfy this fine in excess of $285,000.
  But, moreover, as pointed out by my colleague from Arizona, a member 
of the Committee on Appropriations, other action may be taken within 
the appropriations process. As my colleague stated and as he implied, 
there may be the entire action of rescissions of a like amount from the 
executive branch's budget to deal with this.
  So let me suggest to those who would try to say that somehow this is 
not important, that it is some sort of political posturing or stunt, 
nothing could be further from the truth.
  Mr. Chairman, I must also point out, because we heard a bit of it in 
the rules debate, that I have no doubt that others will come here not 
to debate the focus of this resolution, which is to protect the money 
of the taxpayers, but, again, to come up with a type of soup-to-nut 
government-run health care plan that they will try to offer with some 
nuances here on this floor to change the subject.
  Let me again suggest to all of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that the 
subject of health care debate is important, and it should be held in 
this forum, but on another occasion, because this sense of the Congress 
resolution deals with something fundamental and vitally important, 
protection of the taxpayers' funds and healing this breach of trust. 
That is what we must do, and that is why I believe this resolution 
should be passed unanimously, if possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to the gentleman from Arizona, 
we can settle this right now. As we have heard earlier, the sense of 
the Congress resolution would have no legal effect. What the American 
Law Division told me is if its language was introduced as a bill, its 
effect would work, if it is not ruled unconstitutional.
  So I would ask the gentleman if he would object if I asked unanimous 
consent that on page 3, that we strike all of section 2, basically 
which is the section that talks about a joint resolution, and merely 
reword the language to say, ``No payment of award by taxpayers. The 
award of $285,684.78 in attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions that 
Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered the defendants to pay in Association of 
American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., et al., v. Hillary Rodham 
Clinton, et al., shall not be paid with taxpayer funds.''
  I would offer that as a unanimous consent. We could agree, and go 
home.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I would have to reserve the right to 
object, and I would object, because, in keeping with the comity of this 
House, in keeping with the nature of civil debate and full discourse, 
this is precisely

[[Page H287]]

intended, as I said just moments ago, as a first step.
  We offer this as an entreaty to the President of the United States to 
ask him to change his mind, to take the first step to mend this breach 
of faith and breach of trust, and I offer that in that spirit, and also 
again would make note of the record that exists earlier and the 
comments of my colleague from Arizona, who said he is perfectly willing 
to take solid action within the appropriations process.
  So I would have to object to the unanimous consent request, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it shows me the majority 
is not serious about doing this. This is, indeed, as this certifies, 
they are just playing games here and posturing, because if they wanted 
to not spend the money, we could have done it right then. I offered it, 
we could have passed it, gone home. Absolutely the money would not get 
paid. Now we are just posturing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this resolution deals with the President's Task Force 
on National Health Care Reform. That task force was concerned about 
quality health care for the people of this country. It dealt with many 
subjects, including how to expand health care insurance for many 
Americans who had no health care insurance, and it was also deeply 
concerned about quality standards and consumer protection for people 
who are in managed care programs.
  Each of us have heard from our constituents their concern that the 
practice of medicine, the medical decisions are being made by 
bureaucrats rather than by medical professionals.
  The United States District Court ruling that is the subject matter of 
this resolution awarded attorneys' fees for some physicians who 
challenged the work of that task force. This sense of Congress 
resolution says that those attorney fees should not be paid for by 
taxpayer funds.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) pointed out, the law 
says that attorneys' fees can only be paid for by the government, and, 
therefore, if this sense of Congress resolution was carried out, if we 
made it law, as my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) 
pointed out, the plaintiffs in that lawsuit would not be able to 
recover any attorneys' fees, which is certainly contrary to the intent 
of the sponsors of this resolution.
  That is why this sense of Congress resolution makes no sense. The 
impact, though, could have an impact. As the subcommittee chairman Mr. 
Kolbe pointed out, it is his intention to deny these funds from the 
White House budget. Therefore, this resolution could have an effect if 
we pass it, a psychological effect and a chilling effect, on people who 
want to serve their government on task forces that look at problems.
  The work of the President's Task Force on National Health Care Reform 
goes forward. We have had a President's Commission on Quality Standards 
for Managed Care. The work of the task force moves forward, important 
work. We have legislation pending that deals with those 
recommendations.
  One deals with external appeal for managed care programs. I received 
a phone call this morning from a constituent, a constituent whose child 
needed institutional care, who was being threatened to be taken out of 
the hospital just arbitrarily by the managed care operator. That is 
wrong. That plan had no external appeal, independent appeal, so that 
person could take that grievance to an independent body.
  We need to correct that. We need people who are willing to serve on 
task forces to correct that. This resolution will have a chilling 
effect on people serving on those types of task forces.
  We have legislation here that would provide access to emergency care. 
Today I can tell you of examples in my community where people who are 
in a managed care program go to an emergency room. They have chest 
pains, they are sweating, they think they are having a cardiac problem. 
They go to the emergency room. The good news is that they didn't have a 
heart attack, but then when they get the bill from the hospital and the 
managed care plan refuses to pay because the diagnosis was not an 
emergency, they almost have a heart attack.
  We need to enact legislation, the work of that task force, in order 
to correct those problems. We have circumstances every day that people 
need referral to specialists, and the managed care plan prevents that 
referral. We need people willing to serve on task forces in order to 
correct those problems.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it is important that we do not send the message out 
today that we do not want to see people work and provide their 
expertise and independence, so the Congress can get the benefit of 
their work.
  The sense of Congress resolution should call upon us to enact quickly 
the consumer protection provisions for managed care plans. Then the 
sense of Congress resolution would make more sense. Better yet, we 
should use the time tonight that we are debating this resolution to 
debate the bills themselves, to provide the protection that each of our 
constituents want and deserve. Why not bring those bills before us this 
evening, and then we really could provide the protection that people 
need that are in managed care programs.
  If we did that, then the call I received today from my constituent, 
we would not be receiving them tomorrow, and we will be receiving those 
calls tomorrow, each one of us know that.
  I hope that we can turn this resolution into action, so that this 
Congress acts on what is really important to my constituents, providing 
national standards for quality care in this country. Then we will be 
doing a service to the taxpayer.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, as I am proud to note, I am a cosponsor 
of the access to emergency care bill.
  Mr. Chairman, in keeping with the tradition of maintaining debate on 
the subject at hand, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. English), my colleague on 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the opponents of this 
resolution are successful, it will indeed have a chilling effect. It 
will have a chilling effect on efforts to open up and provide sunshine 
into every area of government, because the issue before us is basically 
a sunshine issue. Every supporter of open government and public 
accountability should be prepared to support this resolution. This is 
about the illegal efforts by some in the current administration to 
draft a sweeping and radical health care bill in secret.

                              {time}  1715

  Operative word: In secret. Whether one likes the legislation or not, 
it is problematic that the task force that is referenced in this 
resolution had meetings closed to the public. They proceeded cloaked in 
a shroud of secrecy. If one is doing good work and in the public 
interest, one should have nothing to hide.
  This issue is also about telling the truth. When that does not 
happen, the guilty should be punished, not the innocent. Judge Lamberth 
I think was compelling on this point when he found improper behavior, 
and let me specifically reference some things from his decision. He 
said, ``Government's responses were preposterous, incomplete and 
inadequate.''
  Elsewhere he said, ``The court finds clear and convincing evidence 
that sanctions should be imposed because of the government's misconduct 
in this case.''
  Elsewhere he says, ``It is clear that the decisions here were made at 
the highest levels of government and that the government itself is, and 
should be, accountable when its officials run amok. The executive 
branch of the government working in tandem was dishonest with this 
court and the government must now face the consequences of its 
misconduct.''
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, Judge Lamberth wrote, ``It seems that some 
government officials never learn that the cover-up can be worse than 
the underlying conduct. Most shocking to this court and deeply 
disappointing is that the Department of Justice would participate in 
such conduct. This type

[[Page H288]]

of conduct is reprehensible and the government must be held accountable 
for it.''
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, Judge Lamberth imposed the sanctions on 
Mr. Magaziner, and this $285,000 punishment, in my view, should be 
covered by the guilty party, not borne by the taxpayers.
  This is a very simple issue. If one believes that this outrage should 
be swept under the carpet, if one thinks that Mr. Magaziner's penalty 
should be paid by the taxpayers, then by all means vote no on this 
resolution. If one wants the House to go strongly on record opposing 
this cover-up and insisting that the taxpayers not foot the bill for 
Mr. Magaziner's penalty, then I think the Members of this House have an 
obligation to vote aye.
  To the opponents of this resolution, whom I very much respect, I 
would suggest to them, do not change the subject. The ends do not 
justify the means. If this were a Republican administration engaged in 
this kind of conduct, I think their outrage would be palpable here.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I really cannot resist, gentlemen. I think my colleagues are on 
pretty thin ice when they start talking about who is lying and who is 
hurting the American people. I remember when Secretary Schlesinger and 
Secretary Kissinger lied to this Congress and thousands of Americans 
died unnecessarily in Vietnam. Put that in your book against 238,000 
bucks and see how you come out. I can remember when Nixon lied and we 
put him away. I can remember when Harding lied over an oil deal, by 
golly, and we put him away.
  So there is nothing partisan or unique about politicians stretching 
the truth. Our own Speaker may have very well been dealt with and have 
to pay some money or have other people pay it. Let us not get into 
whether all politicians never lie, ever lie, maybe lie, should not lie.
  I am willing to stipulate to my distinguished friends that Ira 
Magaziner did the wrong thing in spades. I would go further and say, I 
think he is kind of a nut. But my colleagues should be happy that he is 
still working for President Clinton. He will do more to help us inside 
the White House than if we put him in jail. So I say, why do we not 
stay ahead of the game? Let the guy in there.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, just quickly, that is not 
the sort of partisan advantage I would seek, and I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, seriously, nobody is 
debating that there was serious error, but I do not think anybody in 
this Chamber can debate the other side and say, nobody else has ever 
made an error as egregious or as costly, either in dollars or in human 
life. That is not the issue.
  I think I established with my good friend from Arizona that they 
would rather have this as a debate to in effect tweak the White House, 
see if they can humiliate the President a little bit. Although it seems 
to be with events that have led up to this, they have tried and have 
not succeeded. His popularity is high because he has done a good job 
with the budget; he has done a good job of addressing all of the things 
that the Republicans were unable to do that the Democrats did. So I do 
not know as this is going to make a major difference.
  But the resolution deals with government officials using private 
citizens. Is it any worse to meet with lobbyists in private to try and 
destroy health insurance to fight for improvements in health care in 
America? We have a memo from the Health Insurance Association of 
America, the for-profit health insurance lobby, and it talks about the 
Speaker's aides calling lobbyists up to Capitol Hill to trash a bill to 
provide consumer protections in HMOs. That was done in secret.
  Is that any worse than a goof-up like Magaziner making the wrong 
statement and not letting us find out about a health care plan that 
never came through? I do not think so, because I think every American 
wants to see managed care protections. So when the Republicans, to be 
trying to defeat the bill of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) 
in secret, to me is more harmful than bashing this and not really 
stepping up to the bar. I would like to save the $285,000 just like my 
colleagues would, but they turned down my unanimous consent request to 
do that.
  There is a fly-in today, not a fly in the ointment, I mean a fly into 
Washington. The National Association of Manufacturers, that outgrowth 
of the John Birch Society, is staging a fly-in to get sponsors off of 
the bill of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), which would 
protect consumers in this country from egregious treatment by managed 
care plans.
  Now, this was perpetuated by the Republican leadership, certainly not 
in open court, in an attempt to kill a bill that has enough cosponsors 
to pass. Is it egregious? No. Mean-spirited? Yes, I would say so. I 
think that trying to help get 41 million people insured who are 
uninsured was a good effort in 1993. The Republicans defeated that, and 
I think that there was indeed a screw-up by Mr. Magaziner and the 
administration, but I am just suggesting to my colleagues that this 
tends to point us away from the important issues of the day, and the 
issues of the day are not whether they are going to pay $285,000 out of 
the Treasury, because this resolution will not have any effect on that 
one way or the other. I offered to do that, my colleagues turned it 
down.
  It cannot be just about lying, because that does not seem to be the 
special province of any party or any body to government or any 
particular social institution in general. It certainly cannot be that 
my colleagues just want to humiliate the President, because there is a 
long line outside the White House of people who are trying to do that 
now, and it does not seem to have much effect, because at least, 
regardless of what went on in 1993, the President is doing this: He is 
addressing the issue of helping children. He is addressing the issue of 
getting insurance to people where the private sector will not give it 
to them now, and the only objection I am getting from the other side of 
the aisle is that government is doing it. Well, that is an objection, I 
guess, if my colleagues believe that. He is addressing the issue of a 
cleaner environment. He is addressing the issue of helping small 
business provide retirement funds.
  Now, we can embarrass him, but I will tell my colleagues, the 
American people know that he is trying to deal with the issues that are 
important to them.
  So I would hope we could say again and again, Ira Magaziner was a 
bum. Ira Magaziner ought not to have been there and he did not help 
promote the health care of this Nation at all. He is an embarrassment, 
he ought to go back and continue to ruin General Motors or Electric or 
whatever he did before he came here. I stipulate to that. I do not 
care. If there is a way my colleagues could find, and I offered it to 
them to get the $285,000 out of his hide. I lead the parade. My 
colleagues turned down that offer.
  So why do we not just agree, I say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth), my good friend, that he was a bum, the government made a 
mistake, we do not want him to pay $285,000, my colleagues do not want 
him to pay $285,000, but this bill is not going to stop it, and we have 
had an interesting debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
before I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson), because the 
charges of my good friend from California and his very interesting, 
somewhat jaundiced revisionism of history certainly need a response.
  First of all, it is worth noting that this new majority in the 
Congress has worked to enact quality health care reforms. In 1997, in 
bipartisan fashion, our Balanced Budget Act saved the Medicare program 
from bankruptcy for at least a decade and helped extend health care 
coverage for up to 5 million uninsured children. This new majority in 
1996 enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act to 
help workers keep health insurance when they changed jobs or lose their 
job, and, Mr. Chairman, I would point to a more recent piece of history 
that I am sure my colleague from California remembers. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Stark) was one of only two

[[Page H289]]

Members of the House of Representatives, from all of the Republicans 
and Democrats here, to vote against the bipartisan Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act, which the General Accounting Office 
found would help 25 million Americans.
  I would concur with my colleague from California that some folks are 
absolutely beyond humiliation. I might also state that that may be one 
of the major problems we face in this Nation today. But again, the 
purpose of this sense of Congress resolution is to say this: It is to 
say, Mr. Chairman, to the executive branch and specifically to the 
President of the United States, that here is a chance to change our 
minds and go on record and mend this breach of trust and pay the fees.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) that I like his comment: Ira 
Magaziner is a bum. I will just call him that. But there was a 
difference in this case because there was a judge involved, and I think 
we have to protect the American taxpayer from paying that $286,000 for 
a crime they did not commit.
  In 1993, the President did form a secret task force to try and 
socialize the best health care system in the world, to put the lives of 
all Americans in the control of our government. A U.S. district judge 
recently ruled the President's task force engaged in ``dishonest and 
reprehensible conduct'' and levied that fine of $286,000, and the 
President believes the American people ought to pay that fine. That is 
unbelievable. Here we have a secret task force that did not consult 
with the American people, trying to destroy the best health care system 
in the world, and that same administration has the audacity to turn 
around and tell the American people, they break the law and pay a fine. 
I am outraged. Pay this fine? No, no, I do not think so. The American 
people ought not to have to give up their hard-earned dollars to a 
government that already takes over 38 percent of the taxpayers' income 
anyway.
  Mr. Chairman, where is the accountability? It is time for people who 
break the law to stand up and take responsibility. I think Mr. Hayworth 
is right. The President made these same remarks in his State of the 
Union speech. The task force should take responsibility for their 
conduct. The task force should pay the fine themselves.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the gentleman from Arizona 
a question. My colleague wanted to talk about what bills had passed. 
Can the gentleman from Arizona tell us whether the Republican 
leadership intends to bring forward a bill on consumer protection and 
managed care and when we can expect to that have bill on the floor?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank my 
colleague for asking me the question. As I am not part of the 
leadership, I am not sure when those bills will be brought up.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, that is the answer I thought I would 
receive.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) was talking about what he 
was able to bring forward. I thought you could at least give us some 
assurances that we will be able to take up bills that are important to 
our constituents.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I hope 
that the American people watching this will be able to sort out all of 
this gobbledygook back and forth and to really understand that this is 
a resolution, every side is trying to make some points on it, and some 
partisan banter.
  But I think the point that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) 
mentioned is the point that we should be addressing and, unfortunately, 
it is not in this debate that we are having. It does merit some 
consideration.
  What is being proposed in this resolution is a condemnation of a 
fellow, who by the way in my State of Rhode Island is held in high 
esteem, Ira Magaziner, someone who has committed his life to public 
service. Maybe he did some things that were wrong; i.e., he held 
meetings in secret. But let us understand what he was trying to do. He 
was trying to come up with a plan to make sure that all Americans in 
this country would be able to gain access to quality and affordable 
health insurance.
  Now, is that so wrong? Okay, it may have been a secret plan. But that 
is because he wanted to keep it a secret from the insurance industry 
that, once this plan got out, was sure to attack it. The American 
people who are out there know what I am talking about. They remember 
the ``Harry and Louise'' ads on TV condemning the President's plan to 
make sure that every American got insurance.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people have seen the insurance industry 
repeatedly go against the kind of health care reforms that the 
Democratic Party and the President have been trying to usher through.
  Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of my colleagues to a memo by the 
Health Insurance Association of America. It was regarding the 
Republican leadership to kill health insurance reform. They killed it 
when the President proposed it. They are trying to kill health reform 
once again in this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, listen to what they say in this memo. They said, 
``Republicans need a lot of help from their friends on the outside.'' I 
wonder who that could be. Maybe the insurance industry. ``Get off your 
butts and get off your wallets.'' Come on insurance industry. Give us 
your money, because we have got to make sure we can still make money 
off of people.
  And how do we make money off of people? We deny them health 
insurance. If they get sick, we deny them care. It is very elementary 
common sense. The American people understand how health insurance makes 
money. They make money by ripping off the American people.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island and want to thank him for offering his letter or memo in 
enlarged fashion.
  Let me also point to another very enlightening piece of 
correspondence which again reaffirms our reason for this sense of the 
Congress resolution.
  It is because, despite the fact that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) has been rather forthcoming in his analysis and how he 
perceives the disposition of one Mr. Ira Magaziner vis-a-vis his 
involvement in government and while he may have a bone of contention 
with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), this case involving 
Mr. Magaziner is not an isolated incident.
  Mr. Chairman, I point to the work of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee 
on Ways and Means. If it were not for the work of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), another committee would be meeting today 
behind closed doors in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
  The gentleman from California suspected that the Health Care 
Financing Administration's Technology Advisory Committee, the committee 
that makes national coverage decisions that affect our 37 million 
seniors, operated behind closed doors in violation of, with its 
handpicked members of the public. He immediately called for an 
investigation by the GAO.
  Mr. Chairman, here is the letter from the General Accounting Office 
dated January 13. Five major violations, Mr. Chairman, which include: 
one, failure to hold meetings that are open to the public; two, failure 
to provide public notification of the creation of a committee; three, 
failure to charter with the head of the agency, the administrator of 
general services and the congressional committees with legislative 
jurisdiction; four, failure to sunset the committee within 2 years 
unless renewed by the agency; and, five, failure to keep records that 
fully disclose the use of funds by the committee.
  Now this is the most important thing, and I am glad the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) was listening. Since this discovery, HCFA 
scrambled to comply. The first move

[[Page H290]]

was to cancel the scheduled meeting February 3 and 4. Mr. Chairman, as 
we see, they were going to continue the meetings right now behind 
closed doors. The breach of trust grows ever wider. It makes this sense 
of Congress resolution all the more important.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that recitation 
of all the facts regarding these meetings really did a lot for the 
American people, the 40 million Americans who are without health 
insurance today. I am sure the gentleman is really glad that he did 
point that out.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it is 
important; and certainly my colleague would join with me in agreeing 
that the first step to sound public policy is an open, honest debate as 
we hold here on the floor. It should not be reserved solely for this 
Chamber or this Committee of the Whole House. Instead, it should also 
extend, as it does under law, to other committees.
  I am sure my colleague would concur with me that we may have 
differences on how best to insure uninsured Americans, but one vital 
step that I believe the gentleman's family and his long tradition of 
public service would point out is that there should be honesty with 
this policy, and so I trust he joins me in outrage about this meeting 
behind closed doors.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                 Washington, DC, November 7, 1997.
     Bill Scanlon, Ph.D.,
     General Accounting Office, Health Financing and Systems, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Bill: I am concerned by reports that the Department of 
     Health and Human Services is using an advisory committee 
     without complying with the requirements of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act. I request that the General Accounting 
     Office review the matter for the Committee.
       According to Department documents, the Technical Advisory 
     Committee (TAC) makes recommendations to the Office of 
     Clinical Standards and Quality in the Health Care Financing 
     Administration concerning, among other things, whether 
     particular medical technologies are appropriate for Medicare 
     national coverage. Membership of the TAC comprises both 
     government employees and selected medical directors of 
     Medicare carriers, which are private sector entities.
       The Federal Advisory Committee Act provides generally that 
     meetings of an advisory committee, as defined in the Act, 
     must be open to the public. The TAC, because it has members 
     who are not government employees, appears to fall within the 
     definition of advisory committee in the Act, yet its meetings 
     are closed. In addition, the TAC may be in violation of other 
     provisions of the Act that govern the formation and operation 
     of advisory committees.
       Please provide the following: (1) a description of the 
     responsibilities and operations of the TAC; and, (2) a legal 
     opinion concerning whether the TAC is in compliance with the 
     requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and, if it 
     is not, the legal implications of that violation.
       Thank you in advance for your assistance. If you have any 
     questions about my request, please contact Allison Giles of 
     the Health Subcommittee staff at 225-3943.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Thomas,
                                                         Chairman.
                                   U.S. General Accounting Office,


                                Office of the General Counsel,

                                 Washington, DC, January 13, 1998.
     Hon. Bill Thomas,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Health,
     Committee on Ways and Means,
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Health Care Financing Administration 
     created the Technology Advisory Committee to provide it will 
     expert advice concerning whether Medicare should cover 
     specific technologies on a national basis. In your November 
     7, 1997, letter to this Office, you asked that we provide a 
     description of the responsibilities and operations of the 
     Committee. You also requested that we provide our opinion 
     whether the Committee is in compliance with the requirements 
     of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and, if it is not, that 
     we discuss the legal implications of that violation.
       The purpose of the Technology Advisory Committee (the 
     Committee) is to help the Health Care Financing 
     Administration (HCFA) make decisions concerning whether 
     Medicare should reimburse providers on a national basis for 
     new procedures and technologies. Until HCFA makes a decision 
     to provide national coverage, the carriers--the private-
     sector companies that operate the Medicare program under 
     contract with HCFA--may decide individually whether they will 
     cover a particular technology.
       The Committee meets several times a year to consider an 
     agenda established by HCFA. The membership has consisted of 
     both government employees and carrier medical directors. 
     Although it merely provides information in some instances, 
     the Committee has on occasion made recommendations to HCFA.
       As it was constituted as of December 31, 1997, the 
     Committee was an advisory committee as defined in the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (the Act of FACA), but was not 
     operating in compliance with the Act. The Act requires that 
     meetings of an advisory committee be open, unless a specific 
     exception to that requirement is invoked. Although HCFA 
     promptly publishes a summary of meetings of the Committee 
     after they take place, the meetings are not open to the 
     public, and no exception has been invoked. The Committee has 
     also not been in compliance with other provisions of the Act. 
     These include the requirements that the head of the agency, 
     in consultation with the Administrator of General Services, 
     make a formal determination that creation of an advisory 
     committee would be in the public interest, that a charter for 
     an advisory committee be on file with the agency using it and 
     with the congressional committees having legislative 
     jurisdiction, and that the committee have an expiration date.
       The Act is silent concerning the consequences of non-
     compliance. A person who can establish that he is adversely 
     affected by the violation can seek relief from the courts, 
     which are free to craft what they consider to be an 
     appropriate remedy. For example, when the complaint is based 
     on failure to hold open meetings, the courts have ordered 
     that the meetings be opened.
       HCFA, in commenting on a draft of this letter, acknowledged 
     that the Committee was ``likely not in compliance with the 
     requirements of FACA,'' and indicates that it is taking steps 
     to cure the violation. HCFA points out that the Committee 
     ``performs a very important role in augmenting the limited 
     clinical resources available on our staff to review the 
     scientific evidence respecting the appropriateness of 
     extending Medicare coverage to specific health care items and 
     services.'' HCFA and the Department of Health and Human 
     Services are therefore developing a proposal for a new 
     committee, chartered under the Act, and with broad public 
     membership, that would in effect replace the existing 
     Committee. Pending that decision, HCFA will ``reformulate the 
     current committee'' with membership limited to federal 
     employees. (We were told that this would be done before the 
     next scheduled meeting of the Committee in February.) A 
     committee so constituted would not be subject to the Act, 
     which excludes from coverage committees consisting entirely 
     of full-time government officers or employees.
       We agree with HCFA's course of action. In the short term, 
     it will cure the violations that now exist. In the longer 
     term, HCFA's consideration of a reconstituted committee with 
     broad public representation that will comply with the Act is 
     worthwhile; although we have not analyzed the operation of 
     the Committee in depth, we found no reason to doubt that it 
     performs a useful function for HCFA. Moreover, it seems 
     reasonable that, as HCFA believes, the presence on the 
     Committee of carrier medical directors brings an added 
     valuable perspective to the Committee's deliberations, and 
     that there may be merit to having additional public 
     representation.
       A more detailed discussion and a copy of the comments 
     provided by the Health Care Financing Administration on a 
     draft of this letter are enclosed.
       As arranged with your office, unless you announce its 
     contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this 
     letter until 30 days after this date. At that time, we will 
     send copies to the Administrator of HCFA and interested 
     congressional committees. Copies will be made available to 
     others on request.
       If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at 
     (202) 512-8203.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Barry R. Bedrick,
                                        Associate General Counsel.
       Enclosures.
     The Technology Advisory Committee
       The Technology Advisory Committee (the Committee) was 
     established by the Health Care Financing Administration 
     (HCFA) to advise it concerning whether new medical techniques 
     and products should be covered under Medicare on a national 
     basis. HCFA has described the functions of the Committee in 
     part as follows:
       ``[The Committee] serves in an advisory capacity to HCFA's 
     Office of Clinical Standards and Quality (OCSQ). Its major 
     focus is to assist HCFA in its technology assessment efforts, 
     to recommend whether a technology is appropriate for Medicare 
     national coverage policy, and to refer topics to the Agency 
     for Health Care Policy and Research . . . or other technology 
     assessment expert, for a comprehensive technology assessment 
     when appropriate.''
       Although many Medicare coverage decisions are made locally 
     by the carriers that administer the program under contract, 
     HCFA has an ``overall interest in increasing the consistency 
     of coverage policy among carriers and making national policy 
     for coverage issues that are significant.'' \1\ The Social 
     Security Act specifies certain Medicare

[[Page H291]]

     benefits, but in addition gives the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services discretion to cover additional items as long 
     as they are ``reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis and 
     treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning 
     of a malformed body member.'' The Committee is used to help 
     HCFA decide which items fall within that definition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Prepared statement, ``Medicare Coverage Policy,'' by 
     Bruce C. Vladeck, Administrator, Health Care Financing 
     Administration, before the Subcommittee on Health, House Ways 
     and Means Committee, April 17, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       ``. . . The [Committee] provides interchange between local 
     and national policy and considers when an issue becomes of 
     such prominence that it warrants a national policy. HCFA 
     develops the agenda that the [Committee] will follow to 
     evaluate and make its recommendations. The [Committee] could 
     recommend that HCFA: issue a national coverage policy, refer 
     the issue for assessment by the Public Health Service or 
     other qualified assessment organization, postpone the 
     decision until there is more information, or decline to 
     establish a new policy. HCFA can then accept or reject the 
     [Committee's] recommendation.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Membership on the Committee was originally limited to HCFA 
     employees, but was gradually broadened to bring in employees 
     of other components of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services (HHS) as well as of other federal agencies and, 
     eventually, the medical directors of the carriers. At 
     present,\3\ the membership of the Committee comprises 
     representatives of HCFA and other agencies within HHS,\4\ 
     representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the 
     Department of Defense, and medical directors of the carriers. 
     An official of HCFA's Office of Clinical Standards and 
     Quality serves as chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \3\As discussed further below, HCFA is in the process of 
     reformulating the membership of the Committee to bring it 
     into compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This 
     discussion applies to the Committee as it existed as of 
     December 31, 1997.
     \4\ The other HHS components represented on the Committee are 
     the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes 
     of Health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The expansion of the Committee's membership coincided with 
     an evolution of its functions. Originally the Committee 
     reviewed whether a technology assessment by the Public Health 
     Service was needed and helped to prepare requests for such 
     assessments. Over time, the committee took on additional 
     responsibility and began to make its own assessments. Current 
     practice is for the Committee to discuss the scientific 
     evidence, and for members to express their views on whether 
     that evidence supports Medicare coverage.
       Meetings of the Committee are closed, but HCFA has made 
     information on the meetings, including agendas and minutes, 
     publicly available through HCFA's Home Page on the Internet. 
     According to the former Administrator, ``[t]his is one of the 
     means by which we hope to increase participation by 
     interested parties.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \5\ Vladeck statement, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The published minutes of Committee meetings provide 
     illustrations of its operation. During its August 5-6, 1997 
     meeting, for example, the Committee considered, among other 
     technologies, a test intended to assist clinicians in 
     selecting chemotherapy agents by predicting tumor resistance 
     to specific drug regimens. In determining the chemotherapy 
     regimen for cancer, practitioners typically use the most 
     powerful therapy available. If the first line of treatment 
     fails, the second attempt at tumor control is rarely as 
     successful as the first one. Therefore, it is important to be 
     precise at the onset of treatment. The Committee considered 
     evidence that the new test lets physicians avoid 
     administering toxic agents that not only offer no benefit, 
     but that lessen the likelihood that the next treatment will 
     be effective.
       The Committee agreed that a test of this kind would be 
     beneficial but was concerned with the lack of data 
     demonstrating clinical utility and acceptance of the 
     particular test under consideration. The committee 
     recommended to HCFA that the test not be covered.\6\ (HCFA's 
     coverage decisions do not prevent technologies such as this 
     one from being used; the only issue for HCFA, and the 
     Committee, is whether the technology should be reimbursable 
     under Medicare on a national basis.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \6\ This account is drawn from the summary of the meeting 
     that HCFA posts on its Internet site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Federal Advisory Committee Act
       In explaining the purpose of the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act (the Act), the Congress acknowledged that the numerous 
     committees, boards, commissions, and other organizations 
     established to advise the executive branch are frequently a 
     useful and beneficial source of expert advice, ideas, and 
     diverse opinions. At the same time, it found that the need 
     for many then-existing advisory committees had not been 
     adequately established, and that some committees continued in 
     existence after they were no longer useful. The Congress 
     concluded that additional controls were needed over advisory 
     committees, so that it and the public would be kept informed 
     with respect to the number, purpose, membership, activities, 
     and cost of these committees. 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. 2.
       The Act achieves these ends through a set of requirements 
     that apply to the formation and operation of advisory 
     committees.\7\ Advisory committees must have written charters 
     on file with the head of the agency that created them, and 
     with the congressional committees with legislative 
     jurisdiction over the agency. 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. 9(c). They 
     must announce and hold open meetings unless one of several 
     specific exceptions applies. Id. Sec. 10. They must cease 
     operation within two years of their creation, unless 
     expressly renewed. Id. Sec. 14. Advisory committees must keep 
     publicly available records of expenditures. Id. Sec. 12. 
     Requirements of the Act are implemented in regulations of the 
     General Services Administration. Id Sec. 7; 41 C.F.R. Subpart 
     101-6.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \7\ The Act provides different treatment in some respects for 
     advisory committees created by statute, or created or 
     utilized by the President. This discussion applies to 
     advisory committees created by executive agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Committee is Subject to the Federal Advisory Committee 
         Act
       The Act covers the Committee. As defined in the Act, 
     ``advisory committee'' includes ``any committee . . . which 
     is . . . established or utilized by one or more agencies, in 
     the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for . . . 
     one or more agencies or officers of the Federal Government. . 
     . .'' 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. 3. The Committee is established 
     and used by HCFA in the interest of obtaining advice or 
     recommendations.
       There are several exceptions in the law from the general 
     definition in the preceding paragraph, but none applies to 
     the Committee as it is currently organized. Two of the 
     exceptions are for specific organizations; the third is for 
     committees ``composed wholly of full-time officers or 
     employees of the Federal Government.'' 5 U.S.C. app. 2 
     Sec. 3(2)(C). As it was originally constituted, the Committee 
     was composed wholly of full-time government officers or 
     employees and therefore came within the latter exception. 
     However, once the carrier medical directors became Committee 
     members, that exception was no longer available.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \8\ We understand that it has been suggested that the 
     Committee might fall within the third exception on the theory 
     that the carrier employees should be regarded as federal 
     employees based on the unique and close relationship between 
     the carriers and the federal government. However, this theory 
     is untenable: carriers employees do not meet the legal 
     requirements for status as officers or employees of the 
     United States. Cf Ass'n of American Physicians and Surgeons 
     v. Clinton, 813 F. Supp. 82 (D.D.C. 1993); rev'd. 997 F.2d 
     898 (D.C. Cir.); remand 837 F. Supp. 454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Committee is not in compliance with the Act. Among the 
     most fundamental of the requirements with which the Committee 
     does not comply is that meetings must be open and, subject to 
     reasonable limitations, interested persons must be permitted 
     to attend, appear before, or file statements with any 
     advisory committee. 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. 10(a). Meetings of 
     the Committee have been closed in the past. In addition, the 
     Committee was not established based on a formal determination 
     by the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     after consultation with the Administrator of General 
     Services, that its creation would be in the public interest 
     (Id. Sec. 9(a)(2)), and does not have a charter on file with 
     the Department and the authorizing congressional committees 
     (Id. Sec. 9(c)). The Department of Health and Human Services 
     does not keep records of costs and activities of the 
     Committee. Id. Sec. 12. The Committee has continued in 
     operation for more than two years despite not having been 
     renewed by the Department. Id. Sec. 14.
     Consequences of Violation
       The Act does not prescribe remedies or penalties for 
     violations, nor does it specify who may bring suit to 
     challenge alleged violations. This in effect leaves it to the 
     courts to decide who may bring suit and to craft remedies for 
     violations.
       Because the Act does not create a right to sue for 
     violations, those seeking to challenge the operation of an 
     advisory committee must first establish that they are 
     directly affected in some fashion by the alleged impropriety 
     concerning the committee. This establishes the requisite 
     ``standing'' to sue.
       In those cases where a plaintiff has been found to have 
     standing, legal challenges under the Act have generally 
     focused on two of its requirements. One of these is balance; 
     that is, the plaintiff argues that the constitution of the 
     committee unfairly weights it in favor of one point of view, 
     in violation of the requirement that the membership of an 
     advisory committee ``be fairly balanced in terms of the 
     points of view represented. . . .'' 5 U.S.C. app. 2 
     Sec. Sec. 5(b)(2), (c). The other requirement that commonly 
     forms the basis for a challenge is openness; plaintiffs 
     allege that they have not been permitted to attend meetings, 
     or that they have been denied access to information about the 
     operations of the committee. Id. Sec. Sec. 8(b), 10(a)-(d).
       Although there is no statutory penalty for violations of 
     the Act, a plaintiff can ask a court to order appropriate 
     relief. Courts have generally responded to violations of the 
     openness requirement by ordering that the committee's 
     proceedings be opened.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \9\ Ass'n. of American Physicians and Surgeons v. Clinton, 
     813 F. Supp. 82 (D.D.C. 1993); rev'd. 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. 
     Cir.); remand 837 F. Supp. 454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In one instance where an order to open the meetings of the 
     committee would have had no effect because the committee had 
     completed its work before the lawsuit concluded, a federal 
     appellate court upheld an order to the agency not to use the 
     product of the committee's deliberations ``for any purpose 
     whatsoever, directly or indirectly.\10\ The court reasoned 
     that ``to allow the government to use the product of a 
     tainted procedure would circumvent the very policy that

[[Page H292]]

     serves as the foundation of the Act.'' It is not clear 
     whether courts in the other federal circuits would take the 
     same approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \10\ Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v. Fish & Wildlife 
     Service of U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1993 WL 646410 (N.D. Ala. 
     Dec. 22, 1993), aff'd. 26 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Health Care Financing Administration, Office of Clinical 
           Standards and Quality,
                                 Baltimore, MD, December 22, 1997.
     Barry R. Bedrick,
     Associate General Counsel, General Accounting Office, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Bedrick: Thank you very much for giving us the 
     opportunity to comment on a draft of your response to 
     Congressman Bill Thomas, who has asked you for a description 
     of the responsibilities and operations of HCFA's technology 
     advisory committee and a legal opinion concerning that 
     committee's compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act (FACA).
       We believe the committee has been performing a very 
     important role in augmenting the limited clinical resources 
     available on our staff to review the scientific evidence 
     respecting the appropriateness of extending Medicare coverage 
     to specific health care items and services. The committee has 
     also added valuable perspectives to our discussions about 
     these coverage decisions, based on the experience of other 
     agencies faced with similar issues and the experience of our 
     contractors responsible for processing Medicare claims.
       As your draft correctly points out, the composition of the 
     committee has evolved since its inception in 1980. It began 
     solely with a group of clinicians who were on the staff of 
     HCFA. Over time, we added representatives of other Federal 
     agencies, both within and outside the Department, and medical 
     directors from some of the Medicare carriers. The functions 
     of the committee have also evolved. The initial purpose was 
     to review whether a technology assessment should be sought 
     from the Public Health Service regarding coverage for a 
     specific item or service and, if so, to help HCFA staff frame 
     the issue properly and review the response from PHS. As the 
     committee grew and gained experience, it began to undertake 
     more extensive discussion of the scientific evidence 
     available regarding the clinical utility of items and 
     services under review and, eventually, the members began to 
     express their views on whether such evidence supported 
     Medicare coverage.
       We acknowledge that the committee is likely not in 
     compliance with the requirements of FACA. Although we have 
     publicized the existence of the committee, and now make the 
     agendas and minutes of its meetings available to the public 
     by means of the Internet, we have not made an effort to 
     charter the committee under FACA. Nor have we opened its 
     discussion of the scientific evidence to the general public.
       Since the reorganization and reorientation of HCFA in July 
     of this year, we have been reviewing our coverage decision 
     process and the role of this committee. We believe there may 
     be merit in establishing a FACA-chartered committee, with 
     broad public representation, to review and provide counsel on 
     the policies and procedures for coverage policy. We are 
     developing a proposal for such a committee and will be 
     presenting it for review and approval by the Department. It 
     will likely be several months before there is a final 
     decision on such a committee. During this process, we plan to 
     reformulate the current committee, so that it is comprised 
     solely of Federal employees, in order that we can continue to 
     receive the valuable services it provides.
       Thank you again for providing us a draft copy of your 
     response and an opportunity to comment.
           Sincerely,

                                               Peter Bouxsein,

                                        Acting Director, Office of
                                   Clinical Standards and Quality.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the great State 
of Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope I misunderstood the 
gentleman from Rhode Island, because I am sure he did not intend to 
suggest that, because somebody is doing something that he likes, it is 
okay to lie.
  Because the Court did not say Mr. Magaziner erred by holding meetings 
in secret. No, the Court found that his position was dishonest, 
deceitful, preposterous, in the words of the judge's findings, because 
he lied to the court in order to try to justify having those meetings 
in secret with hundreds and hundreds of people.
  In fact, if we look at the list of the people that were meeting in 
secret, they even included representatives from the insurance industry. 
This was not something about one industry versus another and supposedly 
it is okay for one group to lie, because they question the motives of 
another. No, this is someone coming before a Federal judge saying under 
oath things that were blatantly untrue.
  Since when are we going to say the means justifies the ends? Since 
when is the White House going to say that it is okay for people in the 
highest levels of the White House to lie under oath to the courts of 
this Nation?
  What would happen if that is the standard? And that is the question 
before us. Those who vote against this resolution are saying it is okay 
to do nothing about it. Mr. Magaziner is still on the payroll.
  Mr. Chairman, I checked the most recent figure we have showing that 
he is making $110,000 a year of taxpayers' money. He filed this 
affidavit the first week of March in 1993. That means that, since he 
has filed the affidavit, he has been paid by the taxpayers almost half 
a million dollars; and he remains on the payroll. Nothing has been done 
about it.
  Mr. Chairman, should we not send a message to the White House that 
they ought to do something about keeping somebody on the public payroll 
at an expense to taxpayers of half a million dollars whose lies and 
deceits have cost us $280,000 in court-awarded sanctions and fines and 
legal fees?
  Mr. Chairman, I submit that nobody would be kept on the payroll of 
any private business that did such a thing.
  However, it is not just Mr. Magaziner. As I mentioned earlier, the 
White House representative to come before Congress and talk and testify 
to our subcommittee repeated the same lies about saying, oh, these are 
all Federal employees, they are not private citizens from other walks 
of life involved in this task force.
  Patsy Thomasson lied to us. She is still on the public payroll. 
Attorneys that were involved in the preparation of this at the White 
House and the Justice Department. And the Court properly said that they 
failed for years afterwards, even though they knew, they failed to 
correct the deceit and the lie practiced by Mr. Magaziner in the White 
House. Attorneys at the Justice Department are also culpable in this.
  We have all of these people who in the Clinton administration remain 
on the public payroll that were involved in this deceit. Their 
collective salaries are not just half a million dollars but probably a 
few million dollars.
  Now, should we not fashion a remedy where these people that the White 
House chooses to keep on the public payroll, despite their deceit, 
should be the ones who have to have this money taken out of their pay 
in some form or fashion? Maybe we ought to, as a second step in this 
process, say that those persons should not be paid more than minimum 
wage. Maybe there is some other mechanism.
  But for Congress to do nothing is to say that Congress goes on record 
saying that it is okay for officials at the White House to lie to 
Federal courts under oath. We cannot have standards such as that. The 
Nation cannot afford a standard like that.
  Under any other President, what is the watchword? What are Washington 
and Lincoln known for? They are known for being honest with the 
American people. And part of being honest is also if we make a mistake, 
if it is an innocent mistake, we correct it.
  That was not done. Multiple people have been kept on the payroll who 
were involved in a pattern of deceit, deliberate deceit to the Federal 
court. This is the first step in correcting that process.
  Congress cannot stand idly by, cannot do nothing, cannot say it is 
only $285,000.
  I heard someone before in this Congress saying that it was only $1 
million. Well, next thing we know they will be saying it is only $100 
billion or some similar figure. If we find that deceit is being 
practiced by White House officials, we have the obligation to the 
American people to root it out, to say we cannot continue to let those 
persons continue on the public payroll.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, one, I would remind the distinguished gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that we offered a unanimous consent request which 
would absolutely cut out the payment with any taxpayers' money and it 
was rejected by his side of the aisle.
  I would further remind the gentleman that, while they have spent the 
better part of a year and a half or better part of a year trying to get 
rid of a duly elected Democrat to the House of

[[Page H293]]

Representatives who committed no crime, other than to get elected, the 
Republicans are harboring a convicted felon in their delegation and 
have done nothing except see that his salary is paid and that he is an 
active Member of the Republican House delegation.
  So I would suggest that one ought to be careful about talking about 
who pays money to crooks on whose time, because it is the Republicans 
that are supporting a crook in their midst and not doing anything to 
get rid of him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to comment. I want my colleagues 
to understand why I am on the floor today.
  I listened to one of the previous Republican speakers who said would 
it not be a shame if this resolution would not be brought up. And the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) said to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Kennedy) that he wanted to have an honest debate on what to 
do about the uninsured.
  My problem here today is the fact that my Republican colleagues bring 
up this resolution. They are in the majority. The Republican leadership 
decides what is brought up on the House Floor, and I do not think this 
resolution is important enough to waste the time of the House of 
Representatives.
  I would like to see an honest debate on how we are going to cover 
these 40 million Americans that do not have insurance. But the problem 
here is that they do not bring up those things. The Republican 
leadership does not allow us to deal with health insurance reform and 
how to deal with the uninsured.
  For the last couple of years, every time we wanted to address the 
concerns that were originally brought up by this President's task force 
about how to insure the people that were uninsured, whether it was the 
portability issue or preconditions in the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation 
or it was the kids' health initiative that the President talked about 
in his last State of the Union address, on both of those occasions the 
Republican leadership blocked any efforts to bring those issues to the 
floor. And it was only after we repeatedly said, as Democrats, over and 
over again, this is important, pass Kennedy-Kassebaum, this is 
important, we need a kids' health care initiative, then eventually they 
acceded and said, okay, bring it up.
  The problem is that what the President's task force started 5 years 
ago, to talk about the need to address the uninsured, those problems 
are still out there. They are getting worse. More people are uninsured 
today than were uninsured 4 or 5 years ago when Mr. Magaziner started 
this task force.
  So my Republican colleagues should not kid us and say to us this is 
important and we will deal with that issue later. They will not do it. 
We have got to constantly pressure and pressure and pressure.
  Right now, the President in his State of the Union address talked 
about the need to reform managed care. He talked about a consumer Bill 
of Rights to deal with the problems that people face with managed care. 
Bring it up. Bring up the President's agenda that so many people care 
about and that we know the public cares about. Bring up the problems of 
the near elderly, the people in the 55 to 65 year range who 
increasingly do not have health insurance.

                              {time}  1745

  You have the ability to bring it up. You control the agenda. Do not 
sit here or stand here and tell us that this is more important than 
that, because it is not.
  I want to tell my colleagues why they are not bringing it up. My 
colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), pointed it 
out. That is because the Republican leadership is engaged in this war 
that they want to stop any health care reform. They want to get the 
money from the special interests. They do not want the public and the 
agenda that the President has put forward to come forth and be heard on 
the floor of the House of Representatives.
  What does Senator Lott say there? He says, the Republicans need a lot 
of help from their friends on the outside. Get off your butts, get out 
your wallets.
  The message we are getting from the House and Senate leadership is 
that we are in a war and need to start fighting like we are in a war.
  Do Members know why? Because the President's message that we need 
managed care reform works. The public wants it. The Democrats are 
saying, bring it up.
  They have got to start this war with all the special interest money 
to make sure it does not happen. That is what is going on here today.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I am astonished to learn that ethics in 
government should take a back seat to another agenda, but then again I 
forewarned this committee that folks would try to change the subject.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane), esteemed colleague and chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
yielding time to me.
  As parents we try to teach our children one of the most fundamental 
elements of decency, thou shalt not lie. If you do not tell the truth, 
there are consequences.
  Unfortunately we have before us today an issue that violates that 
tenet, and the punishment is being undermined by the President's 
administration. The court case we are talking about brings an almost 
$286,000 judgment against the Clinton health care task force which was 
led by Ira Magaziner. The court determined that Mr. Magaziner chose not 
to tell the truth when he was questioned about the members of the task 
force. To compensate for his deceit, he and the other task force 
members must pay the plaintiffs attorneys' fees and costs. He lied, and 
now he must pay, a justifiable punishment within our justice system.
  Instead of making Mr. Magaziner pay for his dishonest action, the 
administration has said it is appropriate for the American taxpayers to 
pay the penalty. It is similar to someone robbing a bank, getting 
caught, not returning the money and using it to pay for his defense. 
That is wrong, and why this is so difficult for the administration to 
understand is beyond me.
  Tax money should not be used to subsidize dishonesty, and I would 
urge my colleagues to cast their vote in support of honesty and 
integrity. Vote for H.J. Res. 107.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just point out a couple points. First, it is 
undisputed that this sense of Congress resolution has no legal effect. 
In fact if it had legal effect, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit would not 
be able to recover attorneys' fees, which is just the opposite of what 
the sponsors of this resolution would have us do.
  If we want to debate what should be the personal responsibility of 
someone who is employed by the government, then we should have on the 
floor legislation, generic legislation, the way we normally would take 
up bills, not aimed at one person or a personality, but aimed at 
whether this is good public policy or not. And then we would debate 
that issue and come to some resolution. I assume that we would have an 
opportunity to amend that particular bill, and we would have an open 
and full debate. But instead we are working on a resolution that has no 
meaning, that does not do what the sponsors claim it does, that, as the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) pointed out, it cannot have 
any effect. And if it did, we would have to amend the underlying law.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) made a unanimous consent 
request to deal with the underlying law, but that was objected to by 
the other side. So if we want to have a debate on responsibility, then 
bring forward a bill that does it in a generic sense, but do not hide 
behind one person and one court decision when your resolution does not 
even affect that resolution.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Archer), one of the true gentlemen of the House.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.

[[Page H294]]

  Mr. Chairman, the resolution the House takes up today is simply about 
five words. It is not about all of the other things that have been said 
that reach out on many different subjects. It is about protecting 
taxpayers and honesty in government.
  A Federal judge ruled last December that the Clinton administration 
engaged in, and I quote, dishonest, unquote, and I quote again, 
reprehensible, unquote, conduct by trying to deceive the court as to 
the makeup of its 1993 health care task force. The court found that the 
administration broke the Nation's sunshine laws and fined the White 
House $285,000. But President Clinton has announced that he intends to 
make the taxpayers pay this fine.
  Today the House of Representatives can send the President a message: 
Mr. President, protect the taxpayers. It is wrong to make the taxpayers 
pay this fine. Reverse yourself, Mr. President. Taxes are already at a 
peacetime record high, and do not make the taxpayers pay one penny 
more. It is your responsibility. These people acted in your behalf. It 
is up to you to find a way to protect the taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1993, the taxpayers narrowly escaped paying the 
price for the administration's failed attempt to have a government 
takeover of health care. Having come so close to paying the price back 
then, I do not see why the taxpayers should have to pay the price now.
  My colleagues, the fines at issue arise from no ordinary case. This 
matter sprang from the administration's extraordinary attempt to keep 
secret the deliberations of its 1993 health care task force. In a sworn 
affidavit, Mr. Ira Magaziner, currently a senior advisor to the 
President, swore the task force consisted only of government employees. 
As we all know, the task force contained many outside special interest 
representatives, private citizens, not government employees.
  But here is what the judge said, and I quote: The Magaziner 
declaration was actually false. It is clear that the decisions here 
were made at the highest levels of government, and the government 
itself is and should be accountable when its officials run amok. The 
court agrees with the plaintiffs that these were not reckless and inept 
errors taken by bewildered counsel. The executive branch of the 
government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court, and the 
government must now face the consequences of its misconduct. It seems 
that some government officials never learn that the coverup can be 
worse than the underlying conduct.
  That is the end of the judge's statement, which I quoted verbatim.
  Mr. Chairman, it is worth noting that the administration has not 
indicated that it will even appeal this ruling. That is why it is so 
important that we vote today to protect the taxpayers. Honesty in 
government is important always, at all times, for all of us everywhere. 
It is important in the Congress, and it is important in the White 
House. But when a breach occurs, the mistake should not be compounded 
by forcing the taxpayers to pay the price. And with this vote, we can 
help the President to change his mind. I hope that if the President 
will not protect the taxpayers, Congress will.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just remind my distinguished chairman, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Archer), that this resolution does not do what he wants 
done. He knows that. He is a brilliant lawyer. But I offered, Mr. 
Chairman, him the opportunity to make this a law, and it was turned 
down by the Republicans. So if we really want to do what the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer) is asking us to do, we will make this a law 
instead of a meaningless resolution.
  So while you can talk tough, you are not willing to fight. You are 
talking the talk, but you will not walk the walk. You are afraid to 
make this work. You are afraid of the consequences of what could 
happen. You will not do it. We are offering you the opportunity. Where 
are you, Republicans? If you want to embarrass the President, come on. 
I will repeat my request for unanimous consent to strike section 2 and 
make it a bill. Will the gentleman accept my challenge?
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that the 
intent and the effort of this resolution is to give the President the 
opportunity to resolve this issue without Congress having to come back 
in a way such as the gentleman suggests. We want to give the President 
the opportunity to do the right thing. And we hope that he will.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, the President under the law cannot. You want 
him to break the law twice. He has been ordered by the judge to pay the 
fine. It is only us who can prevent it. So I am offering you the chance 
again. Let us prevent it. You and I right now, before we go home for 
dinner, we can solve this.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the President does have the opportunity to find nongovernment funds 
that can be used to pay this. He has access to all sorts of 
opportunities for nongovernment funds. The President today has 
announced that he is going to raise $10,000 per person to go into his 
defense litigation fund, and so clearly he has plenty of opportunities. 
And I think it would be a much simpler thing if he would resolve it in 
the right way, and then the Congress would not have to take any precise 
sanctionable action.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, that is like asking me to raise Newt 
Gingrich's fine. And it is not going to happen, and the gentleman and I 
know it.
  If in fact you are looking for the President to go out and give some 
hard-earned campaign funds to this issue, I think that that is what you 
should suggest. What you are trying to suggest is that the Republicans 
are doing something noble. You are not. You are coming up to the edge, 
but you do not have the nerve to make this a law. You do not, just like 
you are not solving the health care problems. You are talking about it, 
but you do not have the nerve. It is just like finding health insurance 
for children. You talk about it, but you do not have the nerve to do 
it. You are flimflamming the American people, and that is what this 
resolution is.
  You are worried, Magaziner is no charm, but you are worse. You are 
worse because you have the chance to correct it now, and you are 
misleading the American people because you will not act, you do not 
have the guts, you do not have the nerve to do it. We are offering you 
that chance. And you will not take it. You are sitting there on your 
hands just wondering, what do we do now?
  Come on, guys. If you want to legislate, legislate. But if you are 
afraid to, do not keep people up all night listening to this because 
the American public knows it is simple. It is very simple. This 
resolution has no force and effect. We, the Democrats, have offered you 
a unanimous consent request to make it law. It would happen just like 
that. No votes, no nothing. All you have to do is accept it, and you 
refuse.
  So what are we doing but wasting money and time while you want to 
argue about some guy who we all agree was a useless addition to the 
health care debate. I submit that the American public will recognize 
that it is the Republicans who will not protect Americans from HMOs by 
giving them a bill of rights. It is the Republicans who are frustrating 
the chance to provide decent health care to early retirees. It is the 
Republicans who are not getting children the care they need. I think 
that that is a sad commentary on this Congress and its current 
leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I am troubled, as Members may have realized, and we are doing this 
just to recap, I least of all would have any brief for Mr. Magaziner 
and whatever attempts he may have made at public service. I have no 
brief for people lying, whether it is Republican Presidents or 
Democratic Presidents or Secretary Schlesinger, Secretary Kissinger, I 
do not care, Ollie North. People should not lie. It does happen.
  In this case, the administration apologized and recognized the error 
of its ways and it has been assessed legal fees to a bunch of right 
wing wacko doctors down south. And so if they

[[Page H295]]

want their $280,000, then let these Neanderthals collect it. And we can 
do that by, in fact, accepting my unanimous consent request to make 
this resolution binding.
  I do not think my colleagues want to touch it. I think the 
Republicans are afraid that what they have done is so silly that it 
would cause more harm than good. We have offered to give it to them. We 
are offering it again. They can have it. They can win. Make it a law. 
Stop the taxpayers from having to pay the money.
  But they do not dare. They do not dare. They are backing away. They 
are cowards. Come on. Here we are, we are willing to prevent it in a 
law, and they will not do it.
  I think the American people, Mr. Chairman, have to recognize that the 
Republicans brought up this issue, they marched up the Hill and, when 
faced with no opposition, they raised the white flag of surrender and 
ran away from saving the very day that they tried to win. I say I think 
that defines the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close the debate.
  It is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, that just a short time ago my 
colleague from California came to me with an entreaty to maintain the 
civility and the smooth running procedures in this House and yet has 
attempted, perhaps, sadly, because the facts are not on his side, to 
goad this side of the aisle into some sort of debate when he starts his 
``mano a mano'' type of talk, and then refers to right wing wackos and 
cowards.
  Look, the situation is clear here, and despite all the name calling 
and the lack of civility, Mr. Chairman, that I hope our friends in the 
fourth estate noticed in the closing remarks of my colleague from 
California, despite all the incendiary verbiage, the facts are these: 
Members of the administration deceived this Congress and moved to 
deceive the American people. Their deceit has been found out. They have 
been fined. And American taxpayers should not foot that bill.
  That is the sense of this Congress resolution. And all the insults 
hurled from across the aisle, and all the other entreaties to move to 
other forms of policy and change the subject are not germane.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention the hard work and 
efforts of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Barr) on their original investigation of the health 
care task force. I also want to mention the hard work of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, on 
publishing the names on the list.
  Let us mend this breach of trust. Pass the resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.J. 
Res. 107 of which I am an original cosponsor. I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), for his leadership on this 
matter.
  Contrary to the belief of many, the administration is actually 
considering using taxpayer dollars to pay a court ordered fine. A fine 
that resulted from a misstatement of fact--a lie--by the President's 
National Health Care Reform Task Force.
  The resolution simply expresses the sense of Congress that the court 
ordered fine not be paid by the taxpayer.
  The case centered primarily on the status of the Task Force's 
employees. Under the terms of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 
Task Force should of been comprised of ``full-time officers or 
employees'' of the federal government. It was not. The Task Force 
convened behind closed doors and inappropriately included individuals 
who were not employees of the Federal Government.
  The courts not only found the Task Force's declaration a 
misstatement, but also found that representatives of the administration 
engaged in ``dishonest'' and ``reprehensible'' conduct in 
characterizing the membership of the Task Force. The court awarded the 
Associations of American Physicians and Surgeons, the plaintiffs in the 
case, $285,864.78 for attorney's fees, costs and sanctions.
  Well, the administration is now considering paying the fine with 
taxpayer dollars. The taxpayers of the United States, who work hard for 
their money and already send too much of it to Washington, should not 
be forced to send more of it to cover the deliberate dishonest actions 
of others.
  I urge the adoption of the resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the joint resolution is considered as having 
been read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 107 is as follows:

                             H. J. Res. 107

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,   

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the President's Task Force on National Health Care 
     Reform, convened by President Clinton in 1993, was charged 
     with calling together officials of the Federal Government and 
     others to debate critical health issues of concern to the 
     American Public;
       (2) the Task Force convened behind closed doors and 
     inappropriately included individuals who were not employees 
     of the Federal Government;
       (3) United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled in 
     Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., et al. 
     versus Hillary Rodham Clinton, et al., that representatives 
     of the administration engaged in ``dishonest'' and 
     ``reprehensible'' conduct in characterizing the membership of 
     the Task Force;
       (4) Judge Royce C. Lamberth on the basis of such conduct 
     ruled against the defendants and ordered them to pay 
     $285,864.78 in attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions for the 
     plaintiffs; and
       (5) American taxpayers should not be held responsible for 
     the inappropriate conduct of Federal Government officials and 
     lawyers involved with the Task Force.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the award of 
     $285,864.78 in attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions that 
     Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered the defendants to pay in 
     Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., et al. 
     versus Hillary Rodham Clinton, et al., should not be paid 
     with taxpayer funds.

  The CHAIRMAN. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone 
a demand for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a 
minimum of 5 minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that 
immediately follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on 
the first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the joint resolution?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cardin

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cardin:
       In section 1(1), insert after ``American Public'' the 
     following: ``, including the need for meaningful national 
     quality standards for all group and individual health care 
     plans and the need of individuals enrolled in such plans for 
     access to an independent external appeals process which would 
     ensure that treatment decisions are made by medical 
     professionals whose only interest is to provide medically 
     sound care''.
       In section 1, redesignate paragraphs (2) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively, and insert after 
     paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
       (2) legislation has not been enacted to address such 
     issues, including the specific needs identified in paragraph 
     (1);
       In section 2, insert after ``It is the sense of Congress 
     that'' the following: ``(1) legislation that provides 
     meaningful national quality standards (such as those included 
     in legislation introduced by Representative Norwood or by 
     Representative Dingell) for all health care plans and assures 
     enrollees in such plans access to an independent external 
     appeals process (similar to that available to medicare 
     beneficiaries) should be enacted in a timely manner, and 
     (2)''.

  Mr. CARDIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve point of order against this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very clear. It deals with 
the same action that the underlining resolution deals with, and that is 
the action of the health care task force that the President 
constituted.
  This amendment would make it clear in the sense of Congress that we 
want to consider on the floor as quickly as possible legislation that 
would provide national quality standards for health care plans.
  I make specific reference to two bills, and I do that intentionally, 
one by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a Republican, and one 
by the

[[Page H296]]

gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a Democrat, because I know that 
there is bipartisan support for quality standards for managed care 
programs. By the number of cosponsors of these bills, it is clear that 
the majority of the Members of this House want this body to take up 
standards to protect our consumers in managed care programs so that 
medical decisions can be made by medical professionals and not health 
insurance bureaucrats.
  Now, the reason why I think this is so important to put on this sense 
of Congress resolution, and I will relay a story of someone who visited 
my office yesterday who was interested in an environmental bill and had 
a meeting with the Republican leadership and was told that it was 
unlikely that that bill could be brought up this year because there was 
not enough time. Mr. Chairman, we are in the second week of this 
session of Congress and we are already being told that because of the 
condensed schedule that the Republican leadership has brought forward 
that there will not be time to consider important legislation.
  Well, let us go on record now to say that protecting our consumers 
who are in managed care programs is a priority that we want to deal 
with before Congress adjourns this year.
  My amendment is simple. It adds to the sense of Congress resolution 
that we bring up basic consumer protection this year before we adjourn. 
Matters such as external appeal, so that consumers have a right to 
challenge a managed care operator as to whether health care is needed 
or not; matters such as access to emergency care, that I mentioned 
before, so that prudent layperson standards can be used so people can 
be reimbursed when they go to emergency rooms; to get rid of the gag 
rule so that doctors can talk to their patients without fear of 
conflicting the contract that they have with an HMO; antidiscrimination 
rules, so we do not discriminate against providers, that HMOs do not 
discriminate against providers.
  And the list goes on and on and on. There is need now for this 
Congress to act. My amendment makes it clear that this Congress will 
take up that legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment. It is a sense of 
Congress resolution. It makes it clear to the leadership that we want 
to take up and debate the issue this year. That is the least we can do 
as we debate this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to accept the 
resolution.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr HAYWORTH. I make a point of order against this amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, on the grounds that it is not germane to the joint 
resolution. Now, it is a good attempt to try to change the subject, and 
certainly we all agree that health care is a vital issue that we should 
debate but, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane to this joint 
resolution.
  The fundamental purpose or common thread in the joint resolution is 
very narrow. It is limited to expressing the sense of Congress on the 
fine imposed on government officials for conduct on the President's 
health care task force. It does not concern the subject matter of 
health care matters generally, therefore, the amendment is outside the 
scope of the bill and is, therefore, not germane.
  I urge the Chair to sustain this point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Maryland wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I do. My amendment has the same fundamental 
purpose as the resolution before us. The fundamental purpose has a 
longstanding test of germaneness by this body.
  The resolution addresses the actions of the health care task force, 
so does my amendment. It was one of the major issues before the health 
care task force that we return to medical professionals the right to 
make decisions about our health, and that we should be able to express 
ourselves against insurance company bureaucrats making those judgments 
rather than health care professionals.
  It is the same fundamental purpose as the underlining resolution, and 
I urge the Chair to rule in favor of germaneness.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The gentleman from Arizona has made a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland is not germane to the 
resolution.
  The joint resolution, H. J. Res. 107, proposes to express a sense of 
Congress that the award of attorneys' fees, costs and sanctions ordered 
by a Federal judge should not be paid by taxpayers' funds.
  The amendment proposes to express the sense of Congress on the duties 
of a Presidential task force referenced in the resolution. The 
amendment also proposes that specified health care legislation pending 
in Congress should be enacted into law in a timely manner.
  Clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House require that 
amendments be germane to the proposition to which it is offered. One of 
the general principles of the germaneness rule is an amendment must 
relate to the subject matter under consideration. This principle is 
recorded on page 611 of the House Rules and Manual. The pending 
resolution focuses on the source of payment of various charges ordered 
by a Federal Court judge in a specific court case. By contrast, the 
amendment addresses the enactment of specific legislative proposals 
currently pending in Congress. In the opinion of the Chair, the 
enactment of specific health care legislation by the Congress falls 
outside the ambit of a resolution focusing on a source of payment for 
charges resulting from a court case.
  The resolution, H. J. Res. 107, as introduced, was referred solely to 
the Committee on the Judiciary. The health care policy legislation 
addressed in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland does 
not fall within the jurisdiction of that committee. An amendment 
concerning a subject matter outside the committee of jurisdiction of 
the pending bill may not be germane.
  For the reasons stated, the Chair finds that that amendment is not 
germane and the point of order is sustained.
  Are there further amendments to the joint resolution?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cardin

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer another amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Cardin:
       On page 3, strike all of section 2 and insert the 
     following:
       ``Section 2. No Payment of Award by Taxpayers.
       The award of $285,864.78 in attorneys' fees, costs, and 
     sanctions that Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered the defendants 
     to pay in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, 
     Inc., et. al. versus Hillary Rodham Clinton, et. al., shall 
     not be paid with taxpayer funds.''

  Mr. CARDIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment on the grounds it is not germane to the joint resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has made a point of order. 
Does the gentleman from Maryland wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I do. And since we cut off the reading, let 
me explain what the amendment does and why. It is in compliance to the 
Chair's most recent pronouncement on my previous amendment.
  What this amendment does is what the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark) tried to do by unanimous consent.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will entertain brief comments on the point of 
order from the gentleman from Maryland, and would ask that the 
gentleman from Maryland confine his remarks to the point of order made 
by the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I was trying to do that. The amendment

[[Page H297]]

deals with the payment of counsel fees. The Chair just ruled on the 
previous amendment that it was not germane because it did not deal with 
counsel fees.
  My amendment has the same fundamental purpose as the resolution 
before us. Fundamental purpose has a long-standing test of germaneness. 
The resolution addresses the action of the health care task force, so 
does my amendment. The resolution suggests how the payment of 
attorneys' fees in this case should be resolved, so does my amendment. 
My amendment changes the sense of Congress resolution to make it 
effective; to change it into law. It has the same underlining purpose.
  The people who have spoken on behalf of the resolution all have said 
that its underlying purpose is identical to what this amendment would 
do. Therefore, the test of germaneness has been met.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The gentleman from Arizona has made a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is not 
germane.
  H. J. Res. 107, again expresses the sense of the Congress that the 
award of attorneys' fees, costs and sanctions ordered by a Federal 
judge in a specific case should not be paid with taxpayers' funds. The 
amendment would convert the joint resolution from an expression of 
congressional sentiment to a legislative prohibition on the use of 
Federal funds for that purpose.
  The Chair finds guidance in two relevant precedents. Under the 
precedent carried at section 6.20 of volume 10 of Deschler-Brown 
Precedents, to a bill extending the advisory functions of a 
governmental agency charged with conducting voluntary programs to 
resist inflation, an amendment directing the issuance of orders and 
regulations stabilizing economic transfers was held not germane.

                              {time}  1815

  Order the precedent carried at section 30.22 of volume 11 of 
Deschler-Brown Precedents to a section of the bill stating the 
Congressional intent of proposed legislation, an amendment to insert a 
further statement of intent was held to be germane.
  Central to the Chair's ruling in that case was the view that the 
amendment was merely an indication of Congressional intent and ``not 
binding on anybody.''
  The Chair is unable to interpret the amendment in this case as 
similarly not binding but rather is of the opinion that the amendment 
is intended to prohibit the use of Federal funds as a matter of law.
  Therefore, the precedents cited earlier are relevant in supporting a 
decision finding that the amendment is not germane. The Chair sustains 
the point of order.
  Are there further amendments to the joint resolution?
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I certainly understand the Chair's rulings on my past two amendments. 
I am disappointed by the rulings. But I am more disappointed by my 
friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), raising points of 
order against these amendments. If he had not raised points of order, 
we could have either changed this resolution from a sense of Congress 
to a law and we could have tested whether we were sincere in what we 
are trying to do today.
  And on the other amendment, if my colleague had not raised that point 
of order, we could have at least told the people of this country, the 
taxpayers of this country, which this resolution is aimed at, that we 
will take up this year consumer protection and managed care and health 
care.
  The President's task force was aimed at maintaining and improving 
quality of care for all Americans. That was the central purpose of the 
task force. My amendment would have made it clear that we wanted to 
bring up this year quality assurances in managed care programs.
  I regret that my friend from Arizona raised a point of order. But I 
would hope that the Republican leadership in this House will give us 
some commitment that we will have time to debate this very important 
issue on the floor of this House and then let the majority rule. Let us 
have an open debate. Give us an opportunity to take up these issues so 
that the American people know where we stand on the very important 
issues as to whether medical personnel should make medical decisions or 
insurance company bureaucrats.
  I urge my colleagues to support efforts to bring these matters to the 
floor. The Chair's ruling confirms that this resolution does absolutely 
nothing. If it did something, according to the Chair, my amendment 
would have been made in order. I regret that. And I hope we will have 
another day in order to argue these issues.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the joint resolution?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Stark

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stark:
       On page 3, line 7, strike ``.'' and insert ``, and further, 
     it is the sense of the Congress that Speaker Newt Gingrich 
     and his staff should not be paid with taxpayer funds for any 
     time that they spent convened behind closed doors with 
     lobbyists plotting to block legislation improving health 
     insurance and health quality for the American people.''


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, again I would make a point of order 
against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment on the grounds that it is not germane to the joint 
resolution.
  Again, despite our best efforts to maintain civility, this amendment 
is just totally improper. It is not germane to the joint resolution.
  As we know, the fundamental purpose or common thread in this joint 
resolution is very narrow. It is limited to expressing the sense of 
Congress on the fine imposed on Government officials for conduct on the 
President's Health Care Task Force. Therefore, this amendment, once 
again, is outside the scope of the bill and is, therefore, not germane.
  Again, I would urge the Chair to sustain this point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. STARK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, of course.
  The amendment is germane. It draws on the language of paragraph 2 in 
section I and extends the very purpose of the resolution to similar 
actions by Members of Congress.
  I believe that the Parliamentarian will find that Speaker Muhlenberg, 
during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1793, had a precedent, saying, ``Sauce 
for the goose is sauce for the gander.'' And I think Speaker Clay, in 
dealing with the war in 1812, said, ``Take no prisoners and lie about 
it.''
  So that, I believe, this is indeed germane. I hope that the Chairman 
will find it so.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment offered concerns subject matter not addressed in the 
underlying resolution. Specifically, the amendment addresses persons 
not touched upon in the underlying resolution. For these reasons, the 
amendment is not germane; and, accordingly, the point of order is 
sustained.
  Are there further amendments to the joint resolution?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Stark

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

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stark:
       On page 3, line 7, strike the ``.'' and insert the 
     following: ``, and since the Task Force failed to develop a 
     plan to ensure access of all Americans to affordable health 
     care similar in scope to the type of health insurance 
     available to Members of Congress, the United States Congress 
     should develop, pass, and submit such a plan to the President 
     of the United States prior to August 1, 1998.''


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment on the grounds that it is not germane to the resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman makes a point of order.
  Does the gentleman from California wish to be heard on his point of 
order?
  Mr. STARK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is germane. It refers to 
the

[[Page H298]]

work of the task force, which is still uncompleted and, instead of 
concentrating on the mistakes of 4 years ago, calls on Congress to help 
all Americans obtain health security. Members, we in the Congress, have 
excellent health insurance; and we should support similar coverage for 
our constituents.
  It is, after all, the nexus of what this whole resolution is about, 
is the issue of the task force and why it failed; and I think that it 
should indeed be included so that we show our resolve to show all 
Americans that they should have at least as good health insurance as 
they are paying for us Members of Congress.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order by 
the gentleman from Arizona.
  As mentioned in the Chair's earlier ruling, the pending joint 
resolution expresses a sense of Congress with respect to the award of 
attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions ordered by a particular court. 
For the reasons stated by the Chair on the first amendment offered by 
Mr. Cardin of Maryland, the pending amendment urging development of a 
health care proposal is not germane as addressing matters not addressed 
in the underlying joint resolution. The point of order is sustained.
  Are there further amendments to the joint resolution?
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendments that have been offered, 
with the anticipation that they would be denied the opportunity for 
debate, should illustrate to the American people what we have tried to 
suggest here.
  There is, in fact, no question that there was a serious breach of 
behavior on part of the administration, for which they apologized and a 
Federal judge assessed legal costs; and we have agreed that the 
American taxpayers should not pay for it. And the Democrats have 
offered as an amendment, as a unanimous consent request, a concrete, 
absolute way to see that that is denied.
  My colleagues, on the other hand, have ducked that and not wanted to. 
Perhaps they wanted to see how it will twist in the wind a little 
longer.
  Secondly, the other amendments have called attention to the American 
people that, while the President has sought to extend health care to 
the 40-plus million Americans who do not have it, to provide health 
care coverage or access at no cost to the Federal Government and at no 
cost to anyone else, to the early retirees, to extend health care to 
children, to give people who are in managed-care plans the protection 
from the egregious actions of the for-profit insurance companies by 
denying them access to emergency room care, by denying young children 
needed medical procedures which could save their lives, and then having 
these same corporate plans hide behind the skirts of ERISA as they 
attempt to avoid liability.
  And while the Republican leadership has refused to support Dr. 
Norwood's bill which would accomplish this and has bipartisan support 
and has more than enough cosponsors to pass this House, it shows that 
it is the Republican leadership that is conspiring with the lobbyists 
in secret to keep the American people from getting the managed care 
protection they need, from getting the health care they need at a 
reasonable cost and indeed getting fair treatment by this Congress. 
Because that fair treatment is being denied by the Republican 
leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, with that unhappy assessment of this rather waste of 
time of a resolution, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the joint resolution?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bliley) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the joint resolution 
(H.J.Res. 107) expressing the sense of Congress that the award of 
attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions of $285,864.78 ordered by United 
States District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth on December 18, 1997, 
should not be paid with taxpayer funds, pursuant to House Resolution 
345, he reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bliley). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution 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 joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 273, 
nays 126, not voting 31, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 7]

                               YEAS--273

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--126

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Houghton

[[Page H299]]


     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Bonior
     Borski
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Gekas
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Hall (OH)
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     McKeon
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Pickering
     Sanchez
     Schiff
     Souder
     Spratt
     Talent
     Whitfield
     Yates

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. POSHARD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________