[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 137 (Monday, October 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H9348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   VA PSYCHIATRIST LIES ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AND IS CONVICTED AND 
                               SENTENCED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, often times in life while you are looking 
at a problem, you find there is a parallel set of activities that are 
occurring at the same time while you are looking at your present 
problem. I have such a case this morning, I think, which is a good 
example.
  Last April the U.S. Department of Justice charged a staff 
psychiatrist, a female at a VA Medical Center, with obstruction of 
justice. It seems that in 1992 a male patient sued the female 
psychiatrist at the VA alleging that the psychiatrist committed medical 
malpractice when she engaged in sexual relationships with him during an 
office visit in 1991.
  Now, what happened is the psychiatrist requested that the United 
States Justice Department certify that under the Federal Tort Claims 
Act that the Justice Department would defend her and substitute itself 
as a defendant because the alleged misconduct occurred within the scope 
of her employment. She was a psychiatrist for the VA Medical Center, 
and she felt the suit should be covered under the Federal Torts Claim 
Act and that the Justice Department should defend her.
  So in 1992, attorneys from the U.S. Attorney's Office interviewed 
her, talked to her about the case. She denied engaging in a sexual 
relationship with the patient. The U.S. Attorney, therefore, based upon 
her testimony, certified that she, the psychiatrist, for her conduct 
would be certified through the dates of the alleged office incident. So 
to the extent that the psychiatrist was, quote, certified she would not 
have been liable for any damages.
  On July 13-14, 1995, Chief Magistrate Judge Mikel Williams conducted 
a hearing to determine the scope of the female psychiatrist's 
employment at the VA. During the hearing she testified falsely under 
oath about what had happened between the male patient and her during 
his visit on June 27, 1991. In so doing, she violated the obstruction 
of justice statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503. She is 
scheduled to be sentenced this year before the Honorable Edward J. 
Lodge.
  Okay, now we are here in 1998. As I mentioned Judge Mikel Williams 
conducted a hearing to determine the scope of the female psychiatrist's 
employment at the VA and what occurred at this hearing. But in so 
doing, it turns out she was not telling the truth, and she violated the 
obstruction of justice statute, which is Title 18, United States Code, 
Section 1503.
  So here we are, Mr. Speaker. She testified falsely under oath about 
what happened during the patient's visit in 1991. So in so doing, she 
was charged with violating the Federal statute, and in effect she was 
lying about her misconduct and her sexual relationship with this 
patient who came in to see her. In this case, she lied about sex under 
oath and violated a Federal statute and was convicted and sentenced. I 
might add these activities occurred in a Federal building, on federal 
time, and while she was on a federal salary.
  Today our Committee on the Judiciary is meeting to discuss something 
that parallels this case. They have a constitutional duty to the public 
to investigate and remedy breaches of public trust. Of course it will 
be painful, but they have a responsibility to ensure that future 
holders of the Presidency, whoever they might be, have to be 
accountable for their statements. To neglect to do so would be to 
debase our Constitution.
  Let me conclude by referring to the former Representative Peter 
Rodino, Jr., who was Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary 
during the Watergate scandals. This is what he said.

       We cannot turn away out of partisanship or convenience from 
     problems that now are our responsibility to consider.

  So I bring to the attention of my colleagues a very similar case to 
what is being discussed today by the Judiciary Committee involving not 
telling the truth about a sexual affair and obstructing justice. I put 
that into the Record, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is helpful to 
know this information. It shows the U.S. Justice Department prosecuting 
a federal employee for lying under oath about sexual misconduct and 
obtaining a conviction. Isn't that what we are talking about today at 
the judiciary hearing. Often times there are past activities that can 
be used to judge the present activities.

                          ____________________