[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 66 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3361-S3365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        HEALTH CARE FUNDRAISING

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Friday's Washington Post reported that 
Secretary Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services ``has 
gone, hat in hand, to health industry [executives], asking them to make 
large financial donations to help with the effort to implement 
President Obama's landmark health care law. . . . ''
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington 
Post article following my remarks.
  The article further said that the ``unusual fundraising push'' comes 
after Congress has repeatedly rejected the administration's requests 
for additional funds to set up the Affordable Health Care Act. The 
article said many of the Secretary's calls have recruited support for 
Enroll America, described as the most prominent nonprofit working on 
the health care law's implementation. Its president, Anne Filipic--the 
article goes on to say--joined the group in January after serving as 
White House deputy director for public engagement.
  Today, the New York Times included an article by Robert Pear: 
``Cabinet Secretary Solicits Large Donations to Publicize Health Care 
Law.'' I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. In the article, it said:

       . . . Ms. Sebelius had made calls soliciting support from 
     the health care industry, including insurance and 
     pharmaceutical executives.
       . . . . a spokesman for Ms. Sebelius, said she had 
     suggested that health care executives and others support the 
     work of Enroll America, a private nonprofit group that shares 
     the president's goal of securing coverage for people without 
     insurance.
       An insurance executive said that some insurers had been 
     asked for $1 million [in] donations, and that ``bigger 
     companies have been asked for a lot more.''

[[Page S3362]]

       Administration officials said private donations were needed 
     because Congress had provided much less money than Mr. Obama 
     requested to publicize the new law and get people enrolled in 
     health plans subsidized by the government.

  The article further talks about Ms. Filipic. She worked on Mr. 
Obama's 2008 campaign. She was deputy executive director of the 
Democratic National Committee. She worked in the Obama White House as 
deputy director of the Office of Public Engagement. She said her time 
is not political in her work for enroll America.
  She says:

       We are thrilled to be working with Secretary Sebelius and 
     to have her support.

  Several executives who received these calls for money said ``they 
were uncomfortable with the discussions because the federal government 
has the power to approve or reject the health plans they want to sell 
in insurance markets that will be run by federal officials in more than 
30 states.''
  Secretary Sebelius's fundraising for and coordinating with private 
entities helping to implement the new health care law may be illegal, 
should cease immediately, and should be fully investigated by Congress.
  Later this week, I will be sending a letter, with several of my 
colleagues, to the Government Accountability Office asking them to 
examine the issue. We will be asking the GAO to examine the amount of 
coordination between the Department of Health and Human Services and 
Enroll America and whether Secretary Sebelius is trying to do through a 
private entity activities that Congress has refused to allow the 
Department to do.
  Such private fundraising, as these articles describe, circumvents the 
constitutional requirement that only Congress may appropriate funds. If 
the Secretary and others in her Department are closely coordinating 
with the activities of Enroll America, which is headed by the former 
White House aide, then those actions may be in violation of the Anti-
Deficiency Act.
  The limits of the Anti-Deficiency Act were fully explored by Congress 
during the Iran-Contra incident, when Reagan administration official 
Oliver North raised funds and directed their spending through private 
entities in support of Nicaraguan rebels even though Congress had 
refused to appropriate such funds.
  This produced a select joint committee of the Congress, including 
many of its most distinguished Members--the Iran-Contra joint select 
committee. The Senate ranking members were Senator Inouye and Senator 
Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. The House leaders were Lee Hamilton and 
Dick Cheney, who was the ranking Republican.
  The report of the Iran-Contra Joint Select Committee--Senate Report 
No. 100-216--at page 413 said:

       The constitutional plan--

  Referring to the U.S. Constitution--

     did not prohibit the President from urging other countries to 
     give money directly to the Contras.

  The rebel group in Nicaragua.

       But the Constitution does prohibit receipt and expenditure 
     of such funds by this government absent an appropriation. 
     This prohibition may not lawfully be evaded by use of a 
     nominally private entity, if the entity is in reality an arm 
     of the government and the government is able to direct how 
     the money is spent.

  The report also said:

       Congress's exclusive control over the expenditure of funds 
     cannot legally be evaded through the use of gifts or 
     donations to the executive branch. Were it otherwise, a 
     president whose appropriation requests were rejected by 
     Congress could raise money through private sources or third 
     countries for armies, military actions, arms systems or even 
     domestic programs.

  Let me read this again. This is the joint committee:

       Were it otherwise, a president whose appropriation requests 
     were rejected by Congress could raise money through private 
     sources or from third countries for armies, military actions, 
     arms systems or even domestic programs.

  That is page 412, page 413 of the Iran-Contra joint select committee 
report.
  Friday's Washington Post reported that the Secretary's spokesman said 
Sebelius is working with private entities on ``our mission'' of 
implementing health care law activities, although Congress has refused 
to appropriate more funds. If the Department of Health and Human 
Services closely coordinates with Enroll America and with other such 
entities, then the analogy with Iran-Contra is strong.
  It is hard for me to see the difference. There is a difference in 
where Oliver North got his money in 1985, 1986, and 1987 with Iran-
Contra. Some of it came from the hostages-for-arms sale. But the 
question is not as much where the money comes from--although in this 
case the Secretary may be raising it from people she regulates, which 
could also be illegal--the question is where the money is going. In the 
case of Iran-Contra, the money was going to a private entity, 
supporting a rebel army in Nicaragua, in contravention of the Boland 
amendment passed by Congress. In other words, Congress had said no, and 
the administration did it anyway.
  That is precisely, it seems to me, what is happening here. Congress 
has said: No, we are not going to appropriate any more money--or as 
much as you want--to implement the health care law. And the Secretary 
appears to be raising money from people she regulates, to give it to 
private entities with whom she coordinates, to do what Congress has 
refused to do.
  The problem with that, first, is the Constitution of the United 
States gives the power of the purse to the U.S. Congress, in Article I. 
No. 2, there is a Federal law that says you cannot do through private 
entities what Congress has refused to do. That is called the Anti-
Deficiency law. And, No. 3, there are some Federal laws about raising 
money from people you regulate for whatever purpose.
  The Secretary's activities may violate those Federal laws prohibiting 
raising private funds from those she regulates. Federal law permits a 
narrow band of private fundraising activities, but this has always been 
interpreted very narrowly.
  This would not be the first violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act by 
the Secretary's HHS. The General Accountability Office found HHS in 
violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act three times last year.
  I am most concerned that the Secretary's actions reflect a deep 
disregard, running throughout the administration, for the 
constitutional role of the elected representatives in the legislative 
branch.
  We saw it in the President's decision in January of 2012 to bypass 
the Senate's role of advice and consent and make appointments--recess 
appointments, which are authorized by the Constitution--at a time when 
the Senate said it was not in recess. A Federal court quickly ruled 
these appointments were unconstitutional, because the Senate was not in 
recess, but the individuals continue to show up at the National Labor 
Relations Board and pretend they have the authority to issue decisions.
  We see this in a number of executive orders the President has used to 
circumvent Congress on issues as important as immigration enforcement 
and in the number of czars whose responsibilities are intended for 
roles that need the Senate's advice and consent.
  We see it at the Department of Education, where the Secretary is 
turning a simple waiver authority in No Child Left Behind into a 
conditional waiver with the Secretary using his authority to make 
decisions that should be made by Congress or should be made locally by 
State and local governments.
  The HHS Secretary's actions may follow an administration pattern, but 
in this case it is in a pattern that appears it may be illegal and it 
demands investigation.
  So I will be, as I said, with other Members of Congress, later this 
week, sending a letter to the Government Accountability Office, asking 
them to look at these facts.
  Mr. President, I wish to read a few paragraphs from the Iran-Contra 
report that was issued by the Joint Select Committee in the late 1980s:

       The Constitution contemplates that the Government will 
     conduct its affairs only with funds appropriated by Congress. 
     By resorting to funds not appropriated by Congress--indeed 
     funds denied the executive branch by Congress--Administration 
     officials committed a transgression far more basic than a 
     violation of the Boland Amendment.

  That was the amendment that said you cannot use Federal dollars to 
support rebels in Nicaragua.

       The power of the purse--

  Continued the joint select committee. This was written at a time when 
we had a Democratic Congress.


[[Page S3363]]


       The power of the purse, which the Framers vested in 
     Congress, has long been recognized as ``the most important 
     simple curb in the Constitution on Presidential Power.'' The 
     Framers were determined not to combine the power of the purse 
     and the power of the sword in the same branch of government. 
     . . . The constitutional process that lodges control of 
     government expenditures exclusively in Congress is the 
     Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits an officer of the 
     United States from authorizing an expenditure that has not 
     been the subject of a Congressional appropriation or that 
     exceeds the amount of any applicable appropriation.

  Thus, the Anti-Deficiency Act provides:

       An officer or employee of the United States Government may 
     not make or authorize an expenditure or authorization 
     exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for 
     the expenditure or obligation; or involve [the] government in 
     a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an 
     appropriation is made unless authorized by law.

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my 
remarks these excerpts from the joint committee's report; and I refer 
the Record to Article I, Section 8 and Article 1, Section 9 of the 
Constitution, which says:

       No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
     Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. . . .

  Then two other things. One is the purported authority that the 
Secretary's spokesman is citing for her actions in raising money. I 
have not seen the authority for raising money from people she 
regulates. But 42 U.S.C. section 300u-1(a) talks about grants and 
contracts for research programs, and says:

       The Secretary is authorized to conduct and support by grant 
     or contract (and encourage others to support) research in 
     health information and health promotion, preventive health 
     services, and education in the appropriate use of health 
     care. Applications for grants and contracts under this 
     section shall be subject to appropriate peer review.

  This small section relates to support for contracts for research and 
information programs in the form of grants or contracts. The 
parenthetical, ``encourage others to support'' has to be read as 
encouraging others to support such programs. It is far-fetched to say 
it gives the Secretary authority to encourage third parties to give 
money to nonprofits providing ObamaCare information that the Department 
of Health and Human Services cannot fund directly because Congress has 
refused to appropriate.
  This small section and the words in parenthesis cannot amend the 
Constitution of the United States and invalidate Article I. This 
section cannot supersede the Anti-Deficiency Act, according to the 
language of the Joint Committee. There is obviously a way to have 
appropriate public-private contracts. We have them all throughout 
government, public-private associations to try to improve our country. 
We do that with HIV/AIDS, we do it with a whole variety of things.
  When I was Education Secretary, I worked with the first President 
Bush to set up the New American Schools Development Corporation, which 
encouraged a private corporation headed by former New Jersey Governor 
Tom Kean, which would raise money to create models for private schools.
  Then later on President Bush 1 asked Congress to do some things in 
support of those schools. All of us encouraged that, but that was quite 
different. That was an effort that would be typical of many public-
private partnerships in which the Federal Government is involved, where 
in this case we said we want to encourage the support of model schools. 
Here is a private corporation that is doing that. We encourage that. 
Congress was not objecting to that. Congress has not said: You cannot 
do that. Congress has not been asked to vote on an appropriation for 
the New American Schools Development Corporation. Congress had not 
said: You cannot do that.
  So that would be true with dozens, may be hundreds of public-private 
partnerships between the Federal Government and private organizations 
for the same goal. But what we are talking about, and why the analogy 
between what Secretary Sebelius is doing and what Oliver North was 
doing in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s is so strong, is 
because in each case the money seems to be raised privately and spent 
through private entities for a function for which Congress has refused 
to appropriate money.
  It is not so much where the money came from, it is more where the 
money is going. The Constitution itself, in Article I, makes it 
absolutely clear no one can appropriate dollars for a Federal program 
other than the Congress of the United States. A subterfuge that goes 
around that, seeks to go around that by raising private money, putting 
it in private entities for the same purpose that Congress has either 
refused to appropriate money for or said that you cannot do, that is 
outside the Constitution. It is not allowed by the Constitution of the 
United States, and it is against the Anti-Deficiency Act.
  Then there is the separate question of whether it is appropriate to 
raise money from people the Secretary regulates. I am deeply concerned 
about this. I hope the Secretary will stop this action. I hope the 
public-private partnerships we have throughout government will continue 
where they are appropriate, but we need for the executive branch of 
government to show proper respect to the people of this country who 
elect their Members of Congress.
  We are Article I. They are Article II. The purpose of the power of 
appropriations is to put a curb on the executive branch. If the 
Congress says no, then the executive cannot spend money, nor can the 
executive go through a subterfuge of private organizations and private 
fundraising in support of the very same objective that Congress has 
refused to approve.
  In this case, the Secretary seems to say the reason they are doing 
that is because Congress has refused to appropriate more money to 
implement the health care law. That seems to me to be just admitting a 
violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, admitting a violation of the 
proper division of responsibilities in the Constitution.
  Yes, Congress has refused to do that, but that is the Congress's 
privilege to do that. When the Congress does that, the administration 
may not proceed to spend the money the Congress has not authorized, 
whether directly through the government or indirectly through private 
entities.
  Later this week we will be asking the Government Accountability 
Office to look into these facts. I am sure we will be hearing more 
about it. I would hope in the meantime the Secretary will stop making 
the phone calls, stop coordinating with private entities to do things 
that Congress has specifically refused to do.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of 
my remarks an article published July 8, 1991, ``Bush Sets Up Foundation 
to Start Model Schools'' as an example of an appropriate way to have a 
public-private partnership or a private enterprise that is encouraged 
by the government but not in a way that seeks to do something Congress 
has refused to do.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to also have printed in the 
Record the names of the members of the Iran-Contra select committee.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From The Washington Post, May 10, 2013]

 Budget Request Denied, Sebelius Turns to Health Executives To Finance 
                               Obamacare

                            (By Sarah Kliff)

       Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has 
     gone, hat in hand, to health industry officials, asking them 
     to make large financial donations to help with the effort to 
     implement President Obama's landmark health-care law, two 
     people familiar with the outreach said.
       Her unusual fundraising push comes after Congress 
     repeatedly rejected the Obama administration's requests for 
     additional funds to set up the Affordable Care Act, leaving 
     HHS to implement the president's signature legislative 
     accomplishment on what officials have described as a 
     shoestring budget.
       Over the past three months, Sebelius has made multiple 
     phone calls to health industry executives, community 
     organizations and church groups and asked that they 
     contribute whatever they can to nonprofit groups that are 
     working to enroll uninsured Americans and increase awareness 
     of the law, according to an HHS official and an industry 
     person familiar with the secretary's

[[Page S3364]]

     activities. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk 
     openly about private discussions.
       An HHS spokesperson said Sebelius was within the bounds of 
     her authority in asking for help.
       But Republicans charged that Sebelius's outreach was 
     improper because it pressured private companies and other 
     groups to support the Affordable Care Act. The latest 
     controversy has emerged as the law faces a string of 
     challenges from GOP lawmakers in Washington and skepticism 
     from many state officials across the country.
       ``To solicit funds from health-care executives to help pay 
     for the implementation of the President's $2.6 trillion 
     health spending law is absurd,'' Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) 
     said in a statement. ``I will be seeking more information 
     from the Administration about these actions to help better 
     understand whether there are conflicts of interest and if it 
     violated federal law.''
       Federal regulations do not allow department officials to 
     fundraise in their professional capacity. They do, however, 
     allow Cabinet members to solicit donations as private 
     citizens ``if you do not solicit funds from a subordinate or 
     from someone who has or seeks business with the Department, 
     and you do not use your official title,'' according to 
     Justice Department regulations.
       HHS spokesman Jason Young added that a special section in 
     the Public Health Service Act allows the secretary to support 
     and encourage others to support nonprofit groups working to 
     provide health information and conduct other public-health 
     activities.
       Sebelius is working ``with a full range of stakeholders who 
     share in the mission of getting Americans the help they need 
     and deserve,'' Young said. ``Part of our mission is to help 
     uninsured Americans take advantage of new, quality affordable 
     insurance options that are coming thanks to the health law.''
       Young said that Sebelius did not solicit for funds directly 
     from industries that HHS regulates, such as insurance 
     companies and hospitals, but rather asked them to contribute 
     in whatever way they can.
       But the industry official who had knowledge of the calls 
     but did not participate directly in them said there was a 
     clear insinuation by the administration that the insurers 
     should give financially to the nonprofits.
       Meredith McGehee, policy director for the nonpartisan 
     Campaign Legal Center, which researches government ethics 
     issues, said she was troubled by Sebelius's activities 
     because the secretary seemed to be ``using the power of 
     government to compel giving or insinuate that giving is 
     going to be looked at favorably by the government.''
       The success of the Affordable Care Act largely hinges on 
     whether enough people sign up for insurance coverage. If only 
     a small number of sick people participate, premiums would 
     spike.
       But spreading information about the law to the 30 million 
     uninsured Americans has been a struggle, partly because there 
     isn't enough money to fund the effort, HHS officials have 
     argued.
       The Affordable Care Act included $1 billion to be used in 
     overall implementation of the law. Congressional Budget 
     Office projections, however, estimated that federal agencies 
     will need between $5 billion and $10 billion to get the law 
     up and running over the next decade. And because many states 
     have refused to partner with the federal government in 
     setting up the law, the burden on HHS has grown.
       HHS has repeatedly requested additional funds from Congress 
     to assist in the implementing but has been turned down.
       After Congress rejected a request in March for nearly $1 
     billion in additional spending for fiscal 2013, the White 
     House asked for $1.5 billion for fiscal 2015 to set up and 
     run dozens of exchanges that will provide Americans options 
     for health insurance. The new marketplaces will launch in 
     October for open enrollment.
       ``We requested additional money . . . but we didn't receive 
     any additional funding for the exchanges,'' Ellen Murray, 
     HHS's assistant secretary for financial resources, said last 
     month at a budget briefing. ``So we've had to come up with a 
     Plan B. We've been working very hard to develop that.''
       In 2012, budget documents show that HHS pulled hundreds of 
     millions of dollars from programs not specifically earmarked 
     for the Affordable Care Act's implementation.
       On top of that, the agency announced Thursday that it would 
     use $150 million in Affordable Care Act funds meant to build 
     additional community health centers to train thousands of 
     health-care outreach workers at facilities that already 
     exist.
       ``Investing in health centers for outreach and enrollment 
     assistance provides one more way the Obama administration is 
     helping consumers understand their options and enroll in 
     affordable coverage,'' Secretary Sebelius said in a 
     statement.
       Many of Sebelius's calls have gone to current supporters of 
     Enroll America, the most prominent nonprofit group working on 
     the health care law's implementation, an HHS official said. 
     Its president, Anne Filipic, joined the group in January 
     after serving as the White House's deputy director for public 
     engagement.
       ``We all have a lot of work to do between now and the 
     Marketplace opening in October,'' Filipic said in a 
     statement. ``That's why it's so important that the public, 
     private and non-profit sectors are coming together to educate 
     consumers about the opportunities that will be available to 
     them later this year. Secretary Sebelius recognizes how 
     important the work Enroll America is doing and we're thrilled 
     to be working with her.''
       Health insurers plan to run their own outreach campaigns 
     alongside the work of the Obama administration. They have a 
     vested interest in recruiting Americans to enroll in their 
     specific products rather than those of their competitors.
       ``As open enrollment gets closer, health plans will be 
     engaged in a variety of innovative outreach activities,'' 
     spokesman Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for the trade 
     association America's Health Insurance Plans, said.
                                  ____


                [From The New York Times, May 12, 2013]

Cabinet Secretary Solicits Large Donations To Publicize Health Care Law

                            (By Robert Pear)

       Washington--Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and 
     human services, has solicited sizable donations from the 
     Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and H&R Block, the tax 
     preparation service, as part of a multimillion-dollar 
     campaign to ensure the success of President Obama's health 
     care law, administration officials said Sunday, even as a 
     leading Senate Republican raised questions about the legality 
     of her efforts.
       The foundation is expected to contribute as much as $10 
     million, while H&R Block is expected to make a smaller 
     donation of about $500,000, the officials said.
       The senior Republican on the Senate health committee, 
     Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, said the fund-raising 
     ``may be illegal.'' He likened it to efforts by the Reagan 
     administration to raise money for rebels fighting the leftist 
     government of Nicaragua in the 1980s, after Congress had 
     restricted the use of federal money. Aides to Mr. Alexander 
     said Sunday that he would ask the Government Accountability 
     Office, an investigative arm of Congress, to examine the 
     propriety of the Obama administration's fund-raising efforts.
       The Department of Health and Human Services said that Ms. 
     Sebelius's actions to supplement money appropriated by 
     Congress were proper and would continue, despite criticism 
     from Republicans. After first denying that administration 
     officials had engaged in fund-raising, the department 
     confirmed Friday that Ms. Sebelius had made calls soliciting 
     support from the health care industry, including insurance 
     and pharmaceutical executives.
       Jason Young, a spokesman for Ms. Sebelius, said she had 
     suggested that health care executives and others support the 
     work of Enroll America, a private nonprofit group that shares 
     the president's goal of securing coverage for people without 
     insurance. Several people who received solicitations said 
     that current and former administration officials had 
     suggested seven-figure donations.
       An insurance executive said that some insurers had been 
     asked for $1 million donations, and that ``bigger companies 
     have been asked for a lot more.''
       Administration officials said private donations were needed 
     because Congress had provided much less money than Mr. Obama 
     requested to publicize the new law and get people enrolled in 
     health plans subsidized by the government.
       The Johnson Foundation describes itself as the largest 
     philanthropy devoted exclusively to public health. H&R Block 
     sees a large role for itself in helping low- and middle-
     income people apply for tax credits that can be used to buy 
     private health insurance.
       While Ms. Sebelius asked for support from health care 
     executives, she did not make ``a direct fund-raising appeal'' 
     to entities regulated by the government, Mr. Young said. In 
     any event, he said, under a decades-old federal law, the 
     secretary can encourage support for private nonprofit 
     entities promoting public health.
       The president of Enroll America, Anne Filipic, worked on 
     Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign, became an aide to Ms. Sebelius, 
     was later deputy executive director of the Democratic 
     National Committee and then worked in the Obama White House 
     as deputy director of the Office of Public Engagement. But a 
     former Obama administration official, who spends time raising 
     money or Enroll America, said its work was ``not political.''
       In an interview, Ms. Filipic said, ``We are thrilled to be 
     working with Secretary Sebelius and to have her support.'' 
     Ms. Filipic refused to say how mut money had-been raised 
     through the efforts of Ms. Sebelius, refused to disclose the 
     budget of Enroll America, and refused to say if the group had 
     been requesting million-dollar donations. Mr. Young, the 
     spokesman for Ms. Sebelius, said that her fund-raising 
     efforts began in March, around the third anniversary of the 
     signing of the health care law.
       Insurance executives said they supported the president's 
     goal of maximizing enrollment in the new health care program 
     and encouraging healthy people under 40 to sign up, so 
     insurers would not be stuck with a pool of older, less 
     healthy subscribers. But several executives said they were 
     uncomfortable with the discussions because the federal 
     government has the power to approve or reject the health 
     plans they want to sell in insurance markets that will be run 
     by federal officials in more than 30 states.
       Ronald F. Pollack, the executive director of Families USA, 
     a liberal-leaning consumer group, is the founder and chairman 
     of Enroll America. He said that he raised $7 million for the 
     organization in the last two years, and that the group had 
     collected substantially more than $7 million in more 
     donations this year. He confirmed that ``there

[[Page S3365]]

     have been solicitations in excess of $1 million.''
       Health care executives said they were reluctant to make big 
     contributions for several reasons, including the fact that 
     insurers are required to pay more than $100 billion in new 
     taxes over the next 10 years to help defray the cost of 
     expanded coverage. Drug companies must pay new fees totaling 
     $34 billion over the same period.
                                  ____

       Excerpts of report of the Congressional Committees 
     Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, Chapter 27, pp 411-413
       ``The Constitution contemplates that the Government will 
     conduct its affairs only with funds appropriated by Congress. 
     By resorting to funds not appropriated by Congress--indeed 
     funds denied the executive branch by Congress--Administration 
     officials committed a transgression far more basic than a 
     violation of the Boland Amendment.
       The power of the purse, which the Framers vested in 
     Congress, has long been recognized as ``the most important 
     simple curb in the Constitution on Presidential Power.'' The 
     Framers were determined not to combine the power of the purse 
     and the power of the sword in the same branch of government. 
     . . .
       When members of the executive branch raised money from 
     third countries and private citizens, took control over that 
     money through the Enterprise, and used it to support the 
     Contras' war in Nicaragua, they bypassed this crucial 
     safeguard in the Constitution. . . .
       The appropriations clause was intended to give Congress 
     exclusive control of funds spent by the Government, and to 
     give the democratically elected representatives of the people 
     an absolute check on Executive action requiring the 
     expenditure of funds. . . .
       Congress' exclusive control over the expenditure of funds 
     cannot legally be evaded through the use of gifts or 
     donations made to the executive branch. Were it otherwise, a 
     President whose appropriation requests were rejected by 
     Congress could raise money from private sources or third 
     countries for armies, military actions, arms systems, and 
     even domestic programs. . . .
       The Constitutional process that lodges control of 
     Government expenditures exclusively in Congress is the Anti-
     Deficiency Act (31 USC Section 1341) which prohibits an 
     officer of the United States from authorizing an expenditure 
     that has not been the subject of a Congressional 
     appropriation, or that exceeds the amount of any applicable 
     appropriation. Thus it provides:
       ``An officer or employee of the United States Government 
     may not make or authorize an expenditure or obligation 
     exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for 
     the expenditure or obligation; or involve [the] government in 
     a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an 
     appropriation is made unless authorized by law.''
       . . . The Constitutional plan did not prohibit the 
     President from urging other countries to give money directly 
     to the Contras. But the Constitution does prohibit receipt 
     and expenditure of such funds by this Government absent an 
     appropriation. This prohibition may not lawfully be evaded by 
     use of a nominally private entity, if the private entity is 
     in reality an arm of the Government and the Government is 
     able to direct how the money is spent.
                                  ____


             Bush Sets Up Foundation To Start Model Schools

                    (By Karen De Witt, July 9, 1991)

       In a move he described as a milestone in the ``educational 
     revolution'' he outlined in April, President Bush today 
     announced the establishment of a foundation to foster the 
     creation of model schools.
       In a Rose Garden ceremony, Mr. Bush, who was accompanied by 
     Education Secretary Lamar Alexander, introduced 18 business, 
     education and political leaders as members of the board of 
     the New American Schools Development Corporation, saying they 
     would help ``set aside stale preconceptions'' about how 
     schools should work and ``seek nothing less than a new 
     generation of schools.''
       Mr. Bush has said he hopes the private, nonprofit 
     corporation will persuade businesses to donate as much as 
     $200 million for the creation of 535 experimental schools 
     intended to be models of reform for the nation. The schools, 
     one in each Congressional district and two more for each 
     state, are part of Mr. Bush's education legislation now being 
     considered by Congress.
       ``We want to encourage and experiment,'' Mr. Bush said. 
     ``No one will conduct our educational revolution for us. 
     We've got to do it ourselves. We've done enough hand-wringing 
     about the state of our schools and now let's act.''
       The Rand Corporation's Institute on Education and Training 
     will serve as the research arm for the new corporation. An 
     advisory panel of educators is to assist the corporation.
       Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Governor and chairman 
     of the corporation, said the group had already received $30 
     million in donations. Walter H. Annenberg, the publisher and 
     former diplomat, is a member of the board and donated a $10 
     million ``challenge'' grant to encourage other corporations 
     to help.
       But with a recession, some companies that plan to 
     contribute to the new program are cutting back on financial 
     commitments to existing education projects.
       The Exxon Corporation, for example, told Theodore R. Sizer, 
     a professor of education at Brown University, that it would 
     give him one year's worth of financial aid instead of the 
     five years he had requested for his Coalition of Essential 
     Schools, a nationwide group of schools that have been 
     promoting innovative teaching and learning techniques.
       Edward F. Ahnert, executive director of the Exxon Education 
     Foundation, said, ``We have not made a decision to cut back 
     our longer-term funding but rather to review our long-term 
     commitments to his program in the light of the New American 
     School Program.''
       Here is complete list of members of the board of the New 
     American Schools Development Corporation. Thomas H. Kean, 
     president of Drew University and former Governor of New 
     Jersey, chairman. W. Frank Blount, president of the 
     Communications Products Group of the American Telegraph and 
     Telephone Company, president. Louis V. Gerstner Jr., chairman 
     of R. J .R. Nabisco, vice president. James K. Baker, chairman 
     of Arvin Industries, vice president. Frank Shrontz, chairman 
     of the Boeing Company, vice president. Walter H. Annenberg, 
     philanthropist, former diplomat and publisher. Norman R. 
     Augustine, chief executive of the Martin Marietta 
     Corporation. Gerald L. Baliles, former Governor of Virginia. 
     John L. Clendenin, chairman and chief executive of BellSouth. 
     James R. Jones, chairman and chief executive of the American 
     Stock Exchange. Lee R. Raymond, president of the Exxon 
     Corporation. Paul Tagliabue, commissioner of the National 
     Football League. Earl Graves, publisher of Black Enterprise 
     magazine. Joan Ganz Cooney, chairman of the executive 
     committee of Children's Television Workshop. Kay Whitmore, 
     chairman, chief executive and president of Eastman Kodak. 
     James J. Renier, chairman and chief executive of Honeywell. 
     John Ong, chairman of B. F. Goodrich. Stanley A. Weiss, board 
     chairman of Business Executives for National Security and the 
     BENS Education Fund.
                                  ____


              Members of the Iran-Contra Select Committee


                                 senate

       Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman (Hawaii); George Mitchell 
     (Maine); Sam Nunn (Georgia); Paul Sarbanes (Maryland); Howell 
     Heflin (Alabama); David Boren (Oklahoma).
       Warren Rudman, Vice Chairman (New Hampshire); James McClure 
     (Idaho); Orrin Hatch (Utah); William Cohen (Maine); Paul S. 
     Trible, Jr. (Virginia).


                                 house

       Lee H. Hamilton, Chairman (Indiana); Dante Fascell, Vice 
     Chairman (Florida); Thomas Foley (Washington); Peter Rodino 
     (New Jersey); Jack Brooks (Texas); Louis Stokes (Ohio); Les 
     Aspin (Wisconsin); Edward Boland (Massachusetts); Ed Jenkins 
     (Georgia).
       Dick Cheney, Ranking Republican (Wyoming); Wm. S. 
     Brookfield (Michigan); Henry Hyde (Illinois); Jim Courter 
     (New Jersey); Bill McCollum (Florida); Michael DeWine (Ohio).

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________