[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.
____________________