[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 43 (Monday, March 13, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1764-S1772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Tribute to Dr. Jim Rollins
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I rise today to honor Dr. Jim Rollins,
an Arkansan who has dedicated his life to public education. Dr. Rollins
is the superintendent of the Springdale, AR, public schools, where he
has served since 1980.
Dr. Rollins started his career in the classroom as a science teacher
in North Little Rock. Since that time, he has consistently sought to
provide students with a quality education. The work he has done leading
Springdale's public schools speaks for itself.
Dr. Rollins' motto when it comes to education is ``Teach them all.''
This worthy goal has been especially important in Springdale, where
enrollment has grown from 5,000 students when Dr. Rollins arrived in
1980 to nearly 23,000 students today. Many of these students are part
of immigrant families where English is not their first language. More
than 55 percent of the district's students are not proficient in
English, and around 75 percent qualify for free and reduced lunches. As
you might imagine, this has presented unique challenges to educators in
Springdale.
In order to meet these challenges and ensure that the school system
is doing everything it can to provide these students with a great
education, Dr. Rollins has introduced innovative programs that cater to
immigrant families, including the unique Marshallese population in
Springdale.
As superintendent, Dr. Rollins has fostered an atmosphere where
families feel welcome and understood so that parents, students,
teachers, and administrators are working together to create a
supportive environment that leads to growth in the classroom. In the
spirit of engaging the entire family in the education of every child,
Dr. Rollins has helped lead an effort in Springdale's schools to
promote English as a second language instruction for students and
parents.
This year, Dr. Rollins is once again being recognized for his
outstanding efforts in the achievements Springdale public schools have
enjoyed under his leadership. Dr. Rollins is being recognized as one of
Education Week's 2017 Leaders to Learn From, which highlights forward-
thinking district leaders who are working to enact and inspire change
in our Nation's public schools. Dr. Rollins is certainly very deserving
of this honor. You only need to look at the work he has done over
several decades to understand that he has dedicated his professional
life to improving public education outcomes for every child in the
Springdale education district. The teachers and parents in his district
have also had wonderful things to say about Dr. Rollins and his
leadership in their community. I am so pleased that his trailblazing
work in Springdale public schools is being noticed by national
education organizations.
[[Page S1765]]
Dr. Rollins has made Arkansas very proud, and we are so grateful for
his leadership and commitment to educating children no matter where
they come from or their station in life. I am honored to know Dr.
Rollins, appreciate his friendship, and look forward to his continued
stewardship of the public school system in Springdale and the positive
influence he has on education throughout Arkansas.
Congratulations, Dr. Rollins, on a job well done.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the hard numbers are now in on TrumpCare,
and there is no sugarcoating them for the American people, as 24
million Americans get kicked off their insurance plans, as $880 billion
is slashed from Medicaid in the first decade, and as a payday worth
hundreds of billions of dollars goes out to the wealthiest and the
special interests. That is what is going to be dropped on Ms. Verma's
plate if she is confirmed and if the bill passes. It is her nomination
that is up for debate right now, and we should make no mistake that she
is going to be in charge of the specifics.
If TrumpCare passes, under section 132, the new Administrator would
be able to give States a green light to push sick patients into high-
risk pools when the historical record shows that these high-risk pools
are a failure when it comes to offering good coverage that is
affordable.
The new Administrator would be in charge of section 134 and could
decide exactly how skimpy TrumpCare plans would be and how many more
Americans would be forced to pay out-of-pocket for the care they need.
The new Administrator would handle section 135, which paves the way
for health insurers to make coverage more expensive for those who are
approaching retirement age. That is just the start.
The fact is that TrumpCare is about enormous tax breaks for the
fortunate few, financed by raiding Medicare, gutting Medicaid, and
hurting older people and the sick and those who are of modest income.
Ms. Verma would have the job of implementing all of this at the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
My view is that the Senate cannot debate this nomination without
debating the matter of the TrumpCare program itself because it will be
a very huge part of the job. Today, I am going to walk through some of
the specifics with regard to TrumpCare, beginning with the scheme that
I call ``Robin Hood in reverse.''
If you look at the funds, it is clear that this is an eye-popping
transfer of wealth away from older people, from women and kids--from
the most vulnerable--directly into the wallets of the fortunate few. No
part of the TrumpCare bill shows this more clearly than the fact that
it steals from the Medicare trust fund to pay for a tax cut that goes
only to the most fortunate--only to those who make a quarter million
dollars or more per year.
Everybody in America who brings home a paycheck has a little bit
taken out each and every time for Medicare. It is right there on the
pay stub. It is automatic. Under TrumpCare, the only people who are
going to see a Medicare tax cut are the people who need it the least. I
want to repeat that. Everybody in America, when one gets a paycheck,
sees a Medicare tax, and everybody pays it, and we understand why it is
so important. There are going to be 10,000 people turning 65 every day
for years and years to come. The only people who are going to get that
Medicare tax cut are the people who need it the least, and that tax cut
that is going to go to the fortunate few will take 3 years off of the
life of the Medicare Program, depleting the program in 2025 instead of
in 2028.
That particular cut breaks a clear Trump promise not to harm
Medicare. All through the campaign, then-Candidate Trump was very, very
firm in his saying that he would do no harm to Medicare.
He said:
You can't get rid of Medicare. Medicare's a program that
works . . . I'm going to fix it and make it better, but I'm
not going to cut it.
The promise not to cut Medicare lasted about 6\1/2\ weeks into the
Trump administration before it was broken. The bottom line is that
TrumpCare raids Medicare. It raids Medicare and causes harm to Medicare
in violation of an explicit Trump promise during the campaign, and it
brings Medicare 3 years closer to a crisis to pay for a tax cut for the
wealthiest in America.
So you have this enormous, eye-popping transfer of wealth from
working people, seniors, and people of modest means to the most
fortunate. Yet, somehow, people have the chutzpah to say it is a
healthcare bill? I do not think so. It is a huge, huge tax windfall for
the fortunate.
There is also the tax break on investment income. Once again, this is
a break that is going to only go to the most fortunate among us, and,
with the investment tax break, the overwhelming majority of the
benefit--nearly two-thirds of it--will go to the top one-tenth of one
percent of earners in America. That looks like an awful lot of money
that is going to be going to the fortunate few, but we are not even
done there.
On top of all of this, there is yet another juicy tax--this time for
health insurance executives' salaries. It is another juicy tax cut for
executives who are making over $500,000 per year.
It is not just Medicare that is getting raided under this proposal.
Some of those who are hit the hardest by TrumpCare are those who are
approaching retirement age. If you are an older American and are of
modest income--55 or 60--and you have to get insurance in the private
market, TrumpCare is going to cause your prices to go through the
stratosphere. In parts of my home State, especially in rural areas, a
60-year-old who brings home $30,000 a year could see his insurance
costs go up by $8,000 or more.
Much of this is due to what we call an age tax. It is a key part of
TrumpCare. It is another key part of what Ms. Verma will be in charge
of implementing. The bill would give health insurance companies the
green light to charge older people five times as much as they charge
younger people. If you are a person of modest means, are a few years
away from qualifying for Medicare, and your insurance premiums jump by
$8,000, that means you are just out of luck. You are going to be locked
out of the system. You are, basically, going to have to hope that you
just do not get sick before you are eligible for Medicare.
Those tax credits that you hear so much about from TrumpCare
advocates are not going to be of much consolation to you. That is
because TrumpCare puts a hard cap on your tax credit as an older
person--just $4,000--and the odds are good that it would not come close
to covering the expense of a decent insurance plan.
Now, I am going to turn to Medicaid because TrumpCare does not just
make little changes around the margins. It does not strengthen or
preserve this program that covers 74 million Americans. TrumpCare hits
Medicaid like a wrecking ball, and it has particular implications for
seniors. I am going to walk through those.
The Medicaid nursing home benefit is very much at risk now because of
the TrumpCare cuts as it relates to Medicaid. Medicaid picks up the
bill for two out of three nursing home patients. These are the people
who have worked a lifetime, raised kids, put them through school, and
scrimped and saved all they could. These are the people who, in Kansas
and in Oregon and across the country, never went on the special
vacation, who never bought a boat. All they did was to try to scrimp
and save and educate their kids. The fact is that growing old in
America is pricey, and after a few years of balancing the rent bill
against the food bill and the food bill against the medical costs, what
happens is that a lot of seniors just exhaust their savings.
When I was director of the Oregon Gray Panthers, what I saw in my
State--and it is duplicated everywhere--was older people walking every
single week on an economic tightrope. They were balancing the food
bills against the medical bills and the medical bills against the rent
bills, and they just couldn't keep up. They burn
[[Page S1766]]
through all of their funds and they burn through their modest savings,
so when it is time to pay for nursing home care, they have to turn to
Medicaid.
Today in America, the Medicaid nursing home benefit is a guarantee
that those vulnerable older people--the people who are walking on that
economic tightrope--are going to be taken care of. TrumpCare breaks the
Medicaid nursing home guarantee, and it goes even further than that. A
lot of States--mine is one--worked hard to give more care choices to
seniors as well as those with disabilities. Maybe instead of living in
a nursing home or an institution, they would rather be in the
community. Maybe they would rather live at home where they are most
comfortable. TrumpCare could mean that those home- and community-based
choices could disappear as well.
So what we are talking about is that with these cuts in Medicaid, at
a time when, in Kansas and in Oregon and across the country--what we
have tried to build for older people is a continuum of services. There
would be help at home. There would be help in terms of long-term care
facilities. There would be a wide array of choices. And because of
Medicaid, there was enough money to fund these choices, to fund this
continuum of care for vulnerable older people. Now, as a result of the
Medicaid cutbacks, my concern is that there is not going to be enough
money for any of these choices--not going to be enough money for the
nursing home benefit, not going to be enough money for home- and
community-based services. Suffice it to say that my own home State has
indicated to me that they are very concerned about the cutback in home-
and community-based services.
Nobody wants to see older people get nickled and dimed for the basics
in home care they rely on and good nursing home benefits. Yet, when it
comes to Medicaid, TrumpCare would effectively end the program as it
exists today, shredding the healthcare safety net for older people and
millions of others in our country.
It puts an expiration date on the Medicaid coverage that millions of
Americans got through the Affordable Care Act. For many, it was the
first time they had health insurance. It brought an end to an era where
those individuals could turn only to emergency rooms for care. And now
TrumpCare is going to cap the Medicaid budget and just squeeze it and
squeeze it and squeeze it some more until vulnerable people will not be
able to get care.
The program is particularly important for seniors and the disabled,
and I want to make sure that people understand what it means for
children as well, for those in the dawn of life as well as those in the
twilight of life.
Medicaid pays for half of all births, and kids make up half of
Medicaid's enrollees. It is important to remember that in many cases,
these are kids who already have the odds stacked against them. They are
from low-income families. They are foster kids. They are kids with
disabilities. We know they are already facing an uphill climb.
Medicaid, though, has been there now with the Affordable Care Act to
make sure they could see family practitioners and even pediatric
specialists. That was just unheard of for these youngsters before the
Affordable Care Act. And when a kid needs emergency care, Medicaid is
what makes it affordable. TrumpCare puts that in danger.
I have talked about what it means for older people and what it means
for the disabled and what it means for kids, and I am just going to
keep on going because now that we have the hard numbers in--the hard
numbers have arrived here in real time from the budget office that is
charged with giving us this analysis--it is important to talk about
what it means, because budgets are not just facts and figures and cold
sheets of paper; they are about people's hopes and aspirations. And the
hopes and aspirations that I have had since those days when I was
director of the Oregon Gray Panthers were to make sure that people had
affordable, quality, decent healthcare choices because in America, if
you don't have your health, you really are missing much of what makes
life so special in our country.
The bill also takes an enormous toll in other areas, and I want to
mention next opioid abuse. By slashing Medicaid, TrumpCare is going to
make America's epidemic of prescription drug abuse-related deaths even
worse.
The papers this morning had accounts about how families were losing
most of their children to opioid addiction--most of their children lost
to opioid addiction--on the front pages of the papers. Medicaid is a
key source of coverage for mental health and substance abuse disorder
treatment, particularly after the Affordable Care Act, but this bill
takes away the coverage for millions who need it.
Republican State lawmakers, to their credit, have spoken out about
this issue. Frankly, it just ought to be a head-scratcher for anybody
who remembers the last Presidential race when, in the primary race, a
parade of candidates rolled through State after State that had been hit
hard by the opioid crisis, and all of those candidates were trying to
outpromise the one who had spoken previously in terms of how they would
help solve the opioid crisis. Then-Candidate Trump was one of the most
outspoken on saying that he would fix the opioid crisis. He said he was
the guy who could end the scourge of drug addiction and get Americans
the help they need. Instead, what we have is TrumpCare, which makes the
opioid crisis worse, and there is no getting around it.
TrumpCare puts States in the unimaginable position of having to
decide whose Medicaid to slash. Are they going to tell seniors that the
nursing home benefit is no longer a guarantee and they are going to
have to get in a long waiting line for an opportunity to get a place in
the local nursing home? Should they tell pregnant women that births are
no longer covered? What about telling mothers and fathers that their
kids are cut off and they will have to hope for the best or make their
way back to the emergency room?
I also want to touch on a final point that really deserves some
discussion and hasn't gotten much, and the finance staff has been
looking at it; that is, how TrumpCare really creates a disincentive to
work, because I think TrumpCare and Ms. Verma's role implementing it
are going to have a substantial effect on American workers and
entrepreneurs.
It is my view that TrumpCare creates a substantial, significant
disincentive to work. Today, if you are on Medicaid, you are able to
pick up a few extra hours at work or go out and accept a higher paying
job without the fear that you will lose access to care. That is because
under the Affordable Care Act, low-income Americans get the most help
when it comes to paying insurance premiums. A lot of persons can get
health insurance for less than $100 a month.
Let's compare that with the TrumpCare approach. Under the TrumpCare
plan, those who are walking an economic tightrope, bringing home barely
more than the minimum wage, don't get the most help. They don't get the
most help, and they could see their insurance costs go up by thousands
and thousands of dollars each year, which would effectively mean they
would be locked out of the healthcare system. So for millions of
persons, staying on Medicaid would suddenly look a lot more attractive.
Making a little more money and losing your Medicaid coverage could mean
losing your access to high-quality healthcare altogether. So my view is
nobody has been able to counter this. TrumpCare, in effect, would keep
Americans trapped in poverty.
Entrepreneurs and Americans who want to go back to school to pursue a
degree would face the same dilemma. Somebody who wants to quit their
job and pursue their dream of starting their own business ought to be
able to do it without a fear that they won't be able to any longer
afford healthcare. The same goes for those who want to go back to
school full time to pursue a degree or certification. TrumpCare makes
insurance unaffordable for those persons.
TrumpCare is going to be the big issue on Ms. Verma's plate if she is
confirmed this afternoon in the Senate to administer this office. We
all understand that this bill has been taking a pounding from all
sides. Moderate Republicans and those who consider themselves
conservative Republicans are against it. Governors from both
[[Page S1767]]
parties are against it. Democrats are united. The AARP, the American
Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, and the
American Nurses Association have all come out against the bill--not any
surprise to me. I don't think these groups think that healthcare and
healthcare legislation is primarily about ladling out big tax breaks
for the fortunate few, but that is what this so-called healthcare bill
does. And it is financed by raiding Medicare, by gutting Medicaid, and
by hurting older and sicker and lower income Americans.
There has been a lot of happy talk about why we ought to support this
bill, but what I have tried to do this afternoon is lay out the broken
promises. This weekend, for example, the new Secretary of Health and
Human Services said: ``I firmly believe that nobody will be worse off
financially in the process that we're going through, understanding that
they'll have choices, that they can select the kind of coverage they
want for themselves and for their family.'' That statement from the
Secretary of Health and Human Services is disconnected from the facts.
The simple math shows that TrumpCare forces millions of people--
particularly older people and less affluent people--to pay thousands of
dollars more for their health insurance.
The OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, was pressed on why TrumpCare breaks
the President's promise of ``insurance for everybody.'' His response
was that TrumpCare is about access, and the bill ``helps people get
healthcare instead of just coverage.'' But we all understand that
access doesn't mean a lot if people can't afford to get coverage. That
is the future that TrumpCare is going to bring for millions of
Americans.
I asked Ms. Verma the most basic questions during her confirmation
hearing so we could get even a little bit of an insight into how she
would approach these issues. I asked for one example--these are not
``gotcha'' questions; these are the questions you ask if you want to
know about running a program involving $1 trillion. I asked Ms. Verma
for one example of what to do to bring down the cost of prescription
medicine. I gave her three or four to choose from. I particularly would
like to see more transparency by lifting this cloud of darkness
surrounding how medicines are priced. She didn't have any answers to
any of these questions.
So here is where this nomination stands. Ms. Verma gave the Finance
Committee and the public virtually nothing to go by in terms of how she
would approach this job, but the fact is that, if confirmed, she would
be one of the top officials to implement TrumpCare--a bill that raids
Medicare, slashes Medicaid, and kicks millions of Americans off their
health plan to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy.
I am unable to support this nomination, and I urge my colleagues to
oppose it.
Mr. President, over the past decade, the Trump administration's
nominee to be CMS Administrator, Seema Verma, has demonstrated a
conflicting pattern of working directly for the State of Indiana on its
health programs while also contracting with a handful of companies that
provided hundreds of millions of dollars in services and products to
the very same programs she was helping the state manage.
Those companies are Hewlett Packard, Health Management Associates,
Milliman, Inc., Maximus, and Roche Diagnostics. All were vendors to the
State's Healthy Indiana Program agencies, while Ms. Verma helped design
and direct that Program--first for Governor Daniels and then for
Governor Pence. As she describes her role on her company's website,
``Ms. Verma is the architect the Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP), the
Nation's first consumer directed Medicaid program under Governor Mitch
Daniels of Indiana and Governor Pence's HIP 2.0 waiver proposal. Ms.
Verma has supported Indiana through development of the historic program
since its inception in 2007, from development of the enabling
legislation, negotiating the financing plan with the state's hospital
association, developing the federal waiver, supporting federal
negotiations and leading the implementation of the program, including
the operational design.''
Ms. Verma collected more than $6 million from Indiana taxpayers while
overseeing the State's Medicaid reform and ACA implementation. At the
same time, while under contract with the State as a consultant, Ms.
Verma also collected more than $1.6 million from Milliman Actuaries,
more than $1 million from Hewlett Packard, $300,000 from Health
Management Associates, and tens of thousands of dollars from Roche
Diagnostics and Maximus. All while these companies held important
contracts with the State.
In addition to being on ``both sides of the table,'' in at least two
cases involving her contracts with Hewlett Packard and Health
Management Associates--her duties for the State of Indiana overlapped
directly with the tasks those firms were also billing the state to
complete.
While there are questions about Ms. Verma's work for the several
companies above, I want to focus for the moment on what I believe to be
the clearest conflict: her work on behalf of Hewlett Packard.
Hewlett Packard Conflicts. In 2014, the Indianapolis Star newspaper
reported:
``Verma's work has included the design of the Healthy
Indiana Plan, a consumer-driven insurance program for low-
income Hoosiers now being touted nationally as an alternative
to Obamacare. In all, Verma and her small consulting firm,
SVC Inc., have received more than $3.5 million in state
contracts. At the same time, Verma has worked for one of the
state's largest Medicaid vendors--a division of Silicon
Valley tech giant Hewlett-Packard. That company agreed to pay
Verma more than $1 million and has landed more than $500
million in state contracts during her tenure as Indiana's go-
to health-care consultant.''
While this in and of itself is deeply concerning, Indiana state
contract records show that Ms. Verma was instrumental in helping the
state determine this contract was even necessary in the first place.
Let me say that again: Ms. Verma, in her role of advising Indiana,
helped the state determine there was a need for the services of a
vendor like Hewlett Packard. She then joined the company on a bid to
provide those services, received a contract, and was ultimately paid
more than $1 million. Hewlett Packard bought the company that
originally contracted with the state, Electronic Data Systems in 2008.
That company, in a January 2008 press release characterized the Indiana
contract in this way:
`` `The EDS solution will provide Indiana with enhanced
transparency as it implements Gov. Mitch Daniels' package of
Medicaid reforms such as the Healthy Indiana Plan . . .' `At
the conclusion of the procurement process, it was evident
that EDS was able to bring great value and experience to the
taxpayers of Indiana,' said Mitch Roob, Family and Social
Services Administration Secretary. `The technology and
insight that EDS has to offer will be a tremendous asset as
we continue to make great strides in new, innovative
programs, such as the Healthy Indiana Plan.' ''
Ms. Verma helped Indiana outline Medicaid reform policy goals as
State contractor before joining a vendor in its bid to fulfill those
duties--and then remained a paid participant on both sides.
Furthermore, it appears that Ms. Verma was billing Hewlett Packard and
Indiana, in some cases, for the same work she was already performing
under her own contracts with the State. In written responses for the
record to the Finance Committee, Ms. Verma provided a 2013 presentation
from Hewlett Packard and herself to Indiana health program executives.
The presentation identified several functions that Ms. Verma would
provide to the State through the Hewlett Packard contract. Many of
those duties are exceptionally similar to duties the State had already
contracted with her directly to provide in 2012 and 2013.
For example, that 2013 presentation outlined specific duties HP was
paying her to perform that included: monitoring the Federal regulatory
environment, providing Medicaid policy expertise, and supporting
Indiana's State Plan Amendment waivers and process. These were things
Verma was already under contract to provide the state directly.
On February 21, 2012, Verma's firm was contracted by the State to
review Federal regulations that would impact Indiana's Healthy Indiana
Plan.
On May 13, 2013, she was contracted to provide the State with advice
on the impact of new ACA regulations related to Medicaid.
To me, that sounds a lot like monitoring the federal regulatory
environment in the HP presentation.
[[Page S1768]]
Under the February 21, 2012 contract, Verma's firm was contracted by
the State to provide general policy expertise to the Healthy Indiana
Program--also known as Indiana's Medicaid program.
To me, that sounds a lot like providing Medicaid policy expertise in
the HP presentation.
Under this same February 21, 2012 contract, Verma's firm was
contracted by the State to develop State Plan Amendments and waivers--
these are the agreement between the State and Federal Governments that
ensures the State adheres to Federal rules for Medicaid and CHIP.
To me, that sounds a lot like supporting Indiana's State Plan
Amendment waivers and process in the HP presentation.
Ms. Verma has not addressed how being paid twice for what appears to
be largely similar work was ethical. She has, however, consistently
denied that any conflicts of interest existed while she worked both
sides of these deals in Indiana. During her confirmation hearing before
the Senate Finance Committee on February 16, 2017, Ms. Verma claimed
she had her staff recused themselves when potential conflicts arose:
``When there was the potential or when we were working on
programs, we would recuse ourselves. So we were never in a
position where we were negotiating on behalf of HP or any
other contractor with the state that we had a relationship
with.''
That all sounds well and good but that claim has been disputed by the
former head of Indiana's Family and Social Services Agency. As first
reported in 2014 by the Indianapolis Star,
``Verma's arrangement with HP also came as a surprise to
former FSSA Secretary Debra Minott, who said she learned
about it sometime in 2013. `We had delayed paying an HP
invoice because of an issue we were trying to resolve, and HP
sent Seema to our CFO to resolve the issue on their behalf,'
Minott said. `I was troubled because I thought Seema was our
consultant.' ''
Ms. Minott made this allegation again just last month in a February
14, 2017 story by the Associated Press about Ms. Verma's conflicts,
``There was at least one instance where Verma crossed the
line in Indiana when she was dispatched by HP to help smooth
over a billing dispute, said Minot. `It was never clear to me
until that moment that she, in essence, was representing both
the agency and one of our very key contractors,' said Minot,
who was removed as head of the agency by Pence over her
disagreements with Verma. `It was just shocking to me that
she could play both sides.' ''
Additionally, in response to questions for the record that I
submitted to Ms. Verma, she said that her firm worked directly with HP
for the state, and that representatives from SVC participated in
meetings between the state and HP,
``SVC worked with the State of Indiana and its vendors,
including HP, to design systems for implementation of the
Healthy Indiana Plan. We helped vendors translate the policy
and waiver language into system operations. We did not
oversee HP or any other vendor in this regard, and did not
negotiate or participate in change orders or contract
amendments. To the best of my recollection, State officials
participated in all meetings with HP regarding the Healthy
Indiana Plan work at which SVC representatives were also
present.''
That sounds to me like Ms. Verma and her team were in meetings with
both HP and the State discussing issues where her duties clearly
overlapped and when she was being paid by both parties. In fact it
sounds like the only safeguard in place was that State officials sat in
on these meetings between her firm and HP.
Finally, with regard to her claim that she always recused herself, I
specifically asked her to provide for the record any documentation that
she had of the process for determining when she needed to recuse
herself and documentation of the recusals actually taking place. She
replied that there were none.
Consequently, it's hard to believe Ms. Verma was truly able to avoid
very real conflicts of interest while she and/or her firm were guiding
HP's work on behalf of the State and sitting in on meetings with both
the state and HP while being paid by both.
In the case of Health Management Associates, Verma also had contracts
with the state that covered the exact same work HMA was separately
being paid by Indiana to fulfill and while she was also being paid by
HMA. For example, in 2007, the State awarded Verma's firm a non-
competitive contract to develop the Request for Proposal for a company
to implement the Governor's Healthy Indiana Program. On the same day,
Indiana gave HMA its own non-competitive contract to develop the very
same proposal. This occurred while HMA was also paying Verma's firm on
a separate but related contract. Again, as in the case of HP, she was
helping the State manage key programs while being paid by contractors
performing work for those programs. In this case, what she was doing
for the State was essentially the same thing that the contractor was
being paid to do--develop a Request for Proposal to implement the
Healthy Indiana Plan.
Ms. Verma claims there was no conflict because she did not directly
oversee these two contractors--HP and HMA--in her role with State. She
also points to the fact that in 2012 she received an opinion from the
Indiana Ethics Commission that stated her work for HP was not in
violation of state conflict of interest laws because she was a
consultant, not a State employee.
I do not believe that her work for the State and her work for these
contractors was a true arms-length relationship. As the Associated
Press recently highlighted, Ms. Verma maintained an office in the State
government center and that the AP characterized her work as ``usually
reserved for state administrators.'' The existence of this opinion, in
my view, does not absolve Ms. Verma from what look to be very clear and
obvious conflicts of interest.
I am not alone in this opinion, as President George W. Bush's ethics
lawyer Richard Painter--hardly a liberal partisan--said Ms. Verma's
consulting arrangement in Indiana, ``clearly should not happen and is
definitely improper.'' Ms. Verma helped the State decide it needed a
vendor like HP, and then went to work for HP on the resulting contract.
She was also under contract with yet a third company--Health Management
Associates--which was being paid to develop the Request for Proposal
for the same contract. That certainly seems like a conflict of interest
to me.
When I asked her in writing whether she had obtained similar ethics
opinions with regard to her work for any of the other state contractors
who had hired her--Milliman, Roche Diagnostics, Maximus, or Health
Management Associates, she said she hadn't.
All of these companies continue to do business with the State of
Indiana and with other State and Federal health programs that will be
under Ms. Verma's purview at CMS. Maximus, for example, is the largest
provider of enrollment services for these programs in the U.S.
Just because Indiana chose to play fast and loose with conflicts of
interest doesn't mean that these practices were right.
I have no confidence that Ms. Verma will take her responsibilities to
avoid such conflicts at CMS any more seriously than she did in Indiana.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the following
documents printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[from INDYSTAR, Nov. 29, 2016]
Seema Verma, Powerful State Health-Care Consultant, Serves Two Bosses
(By Tony Cook)
President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Seema Verma, a
consultant who helped craft the state's Healthy Indiana Plan,
to serve as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services. Verma worked closely to shape the health care
policy of both former Gov. Mitch Daniels and Gov. Mike Pence.
The health policy consulting company she heads, SVC Inc.,
also has provided its services to Iowa, Ohio, Kentucky,
Tennessee and Michigan. A 2016 recipient of the Sagamore of
the Wabash award, Verma also served as vice president of
planning for the Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion
County. She also holds a master's of public health from Johns
Hopkins University.
Meet the architect of Gov. Mike Pence's signature health-
care plan, Seema Verma.
For more than a decade, the little-known private consultant
has quietly shaped much of Indiana's public health-care
policy. The state has paid her millions of dollars for her
work--amid a potential conflict of interest that ethics
experts say should concern taxpayers.
Largely invisible to the public, Verma's work has included
the design of the Healthy Indiana Plan, a consumer-driven
insurance program for low-income Hoosiers now being
[[Page S1769]]
touted nationally as an alternative to Obamacare. In all,
Verma and her small consulting firm, SVC Inc., have received
more than $3.5 million in state contracts.
At the same time, Verma has worked for one of the state's
largest Medicaid vendors--a division of Silicon Valley tech
giant Hewlett-Packard. That company agreed to pay Verma more
than $1 million and has landed more than $500 million in
state contracts during her tenure as Indiana's go-to health-
care consultant, according to documents obtained by The
Indianapolis Star.
Verma's dual roles raise an important question: Who is she
working for when she advises the state on how to spend
billions of dollars in Medicaid funds--Hoosier taxpayers or
one of the state's largest contractors?
In a written statement, Verma said unequivocally that she
played no role in HP's contracts with the state. ``SVC has
disclosed to both HP and the state the relationship with the
other to be transparent,'' Verma said. ``If any issue between
HP and the state presented a conflict between the two, I
recused myself from the process.''
But the recently ousted head of the state agency
administering Verma's contract told The Star that Verma once
attempted to negotiate with state officials on behalf of
Hewlett-Packard, while also being paid by the state.
HP said it can find no one in its company with any
recollection of such a meeting. Verma declined to answer
further questions about her work with the state or HP.
Verma's dual roles have surprised some leading Republican
lawmakers and expose one of many loopholes in Indiana's
government ethics laws.
Ethics experts consulted by The Star called the arrangement
a conflict of interest that potentially puts Indiana
taxpayers at risk. If Verma were working for the federal
government, they point out, she would have to show how the
government was protected, or step aside.
``If I were a taxpayer in Indiana, I would be concerned
about whether the advice the government was receiving from
her was tainted by her own financial interest and the
financial interest of her other clients,'' said Kathleen
Clark, a professor at Washington University School of Law in
St. Louis who specializes in government ethics.
But in Indiana, government consultants aren't required to
disclose such potential conflicts, even when they have
offices in state government, as Verma does.
So the nature of Verma's work--and the extent to which it
benefited HP--remains unclear.
HP referred any other questions on the matter to the state.
Verma's spokesman, Lou Gerig, noted in a statement that ``all
contracts between the state and SVC Inc., or between the
state and SVC Inc. as a subcontractor, have been reviewed and
approved in accordance with all requirements of state law.''
Pence's office issued a written statement in response to
The Star's questions.
``Seema has played a valuable role in the state's health-
care policy since the O'Bannon administration, and we
appreciate her advice and counsel, especially on the
continuation of the Healthy Indiana Plan and HIP 2.0,'' said
Christy Denault, a spokeswoman for Pence.
State officials didn't directly address questions about
Verma's work for HP. But James Gavin, spokesman for the
Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, said the
state does take steps to prevent conflicts in the bidding
process.
He said the state's procurement guidelines ``clearly
require that all decision-making authority lie with state
employees and agency executives. These guidelines are
designed to eliminate conflicts of interest.''
Powerful contractor
Verma enjoys a tremendous amount of sway for a private
contractor. She has her own office at the state government
center. Earlier this year, Pence turned to her to broker a
deal with the state's hospital industry to help finance his
plan to expand the Healthy Indiana Plan. And when Verma and
one of Pence's Cabinet members--Family and Social Services
Administration Secretary Debra Minott--butted heads over how
soon to roll out the program, it was Minott who lost her job.
Verma's influence reaches back at least a decade and across
the administrations of four governors, two from each party.
During his first term, Gov. Mitch Daniels tapped Verma to
help create a new health-care plan to address the state's
uninsured population. Her solution: the Healthy Indiana Plan,
a new low-income health insurance program that features high
deductibles and requires participants to contribute a portion
of their income to a health savings account.
``This structure melds two themes of American society that
typically collide in our health-care system, rugged
individualism and the Judeo-Christian ethic,'' Verma wrote in
a 2008 Health Affairs blog article co-authored with former
FSSA Secretary Mitch Roob. ``HIP combines these diametrically
opposed themes by promoting personal responsibility while
providing subsidized health protection to those who can least
afford it.''
The plan won the support of both Republicans and Democrats
in the Indiana legislature and was implemented in January
2008. Today, 52,000 Hoosiers are enrolled in the program.
Now, Pence wants to expand the plan to an additional
350,000 low-income Hoosiers through what he's calling HIP
2.0. And like Daniels, he turned to Verma for help in
developing the plan and negotiating a financing agreement
with the state's hospital industry. If approved by the
federal government, billions of new Medicaid funds would flow
to the state.
And because HIP 2.0 would generate significantly more
claims, some of that money would likely go to Hewlett-
Packard, Verma's other client.
The extent to which Verma's advice has benefited HP is
difficult to determine, given that none of the parties
involved will talk much about the subject. Further obscuring
the issue: Several of her most recent contracts weren't
publicly available on the state's online transparency portal
until The Star began making inquiries. Denault said that was
because ``some of them were mistakenly coded as not for
publication.'' The contracts have since been added to the
online list.
What they show is that her duties involve crafting
requirements for contractors. negotiating with contractors
and supervising vendors. Her company's website also says she
provided ``requirements for the state's three technology
vendors to support HIP.'' That would include Hewlett-Packard.
One contract gives her the authority to ``initiate and/or
track'' a contract or contract amendments with the state's
fiscal intermediary, which is HP. Another puts her in charge
of technical changes to the state's medical management
information system, which is operated by HP.
Those responsibilities put Verma in the position of making
decisions about a state contractor that is also paying her
hundreds of thousands of dollars. HP's claims management and
information system contracts show it has agreed since 2007 to
pay Verma's company $1.2 million as a subcontractor for
``health consulting services.''
During that time, HP received more than $500 million in
state contracts, including millions of dollars in contract
changes to accommodate the Healthy Indiana Plan that Verma
helped create and other new programs.
``Certainly on the face of it, there is the appearance of a
conflict,'' said Trevor Brown, an expert on government
purchasing and director of Ohio State University's John Glenn
School of Public Affairs.
If Verma was a federal contractor, her dual roles ``would
certainly raise tremendous concern for regulators and
purchasing officials,'' he said. ``This is exactly the kind
of thing that would land an agency in a hearing before a
legislative oversight committee.''
Lawmakers in Indiana, however, were unaware of Verma's work
for HP.
``I was only aware she was working for the state,'' said
Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, chairwoman of the
Senate Health Committee.
``There certainly appears to be the potential for conflict,
and appearances matter,'' said Ed Clere, R-New Albany,
chairman of the House Health Committee.
Verma's arrangement with HP also came as a surprise to
former FSSA Secretary Debra Minott, who said she learned
about it sometime in 2013.
``We had delayed paying an HP invoice because of an issue
we were trying to resolve, and HP sent Seema to our CFO to
resolve the issue on their behalf,'' Minott said. ``I was
troubled because I thought Seema was our consultant.''
HP spokesman Bill Ritz said the company ``checked with a
number of its employees and can find no one with any
recollection of such a meeting.''
Gerig, Verma's spokesman, said Verma's work for HP was a
matter of public record because she is listed as a
subcontractor in HP's contracts with the state.
A lack of rules
Ethics experts say that kind of scenario would be unlikely
at the federal level, where government purchasing officers
are required to identify and avoid ``organizational conflicts
of interest,'' which occur when a person is unable or
potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice
to the government because of other business relationships.
Many states, including Maryland, Virginia, Minnesota and
Illinois, have adopted similar rules at the state level,
according to Dan Forman, a Washington, D.C.-based government
procurement attorney. Other states, such as Tennessee and
Washington, have implemented rules at the agency level. Still
others, such as California and Maine, have introduced rules
via standard state contract provisions.
But in Indiana, that's not the case.
Minott said when she brought her concerns to FSSA's ethics
officer, she was told Indiana's ethics rules didn't apply to
conflicts of interests among state contractors.
The lack of any such rule is just the latest in a litany of
loopholes that good government advocates say Indiana needs to
address.
In recent months, The Star has reported on several high-
profile cases--including those of state Rep. Eric Turner,
former highway official Troy Woodruff and former state
schools chief Tony Bennett--where ethics officials criticized
the behavior of public officials but took little or no action
due to exemptions in state ethics rules.
The issues raised in Verma's case are not unique to
Indiana, said Brown, the Ohio State professor. State
governments across the country are increasingly grappling
with potential conflicts of interest as more private
contractors perform what has traditionally been government
work.
[[Page S1770]]
``Historically, the practice was these decisions would be
made by the leadership of the agency, and in many states they
are,'' he said. ``But Indiana is not alone in having to rely
on advice and services of a private actor to perform what is
at the boundary of, if not a clear instance of, a government
function.''
State reliance on private contractors is especially common
in the health-care arena, where rapid changes in federal
health-care law have put a premium on speed. And indeed,
several executive summaries of Verma's contracts emphasize
the need to quickly utilize her services amid the threat of
losing federal grant money.
``Over the short run, it sounds like you're going to get
speed,'' Brown said. ``And you may get some cost savings over
the short run.''
But in the long run, states can become dependent on private
contractors, who can then jack up their prices.
``They essentially become a monopoly, and there's a risk
that they can raise costs over time,'' he said. Verma's
arrangement with the state demonstrates how difficult it can
be to control such costs.
An amendment to her contract in January added $300,000
without increasing her workload or extending the term of the
contract. The reason listed: ``to cover claims.'' State
officials declined to elaborate.
The hourly rates listed in her contracts also have
increased over time, from $110 in 2007 to $135-$165 this
year.
Lawmakers expressed surprise when told by The Star that the
state paid Verma's company $1.15 million in the past year
alone.
``I had no idea her firm received that much money. I think
it would come as a surprise to most legislators,'' Clere
said. ``I think there's a larger issue of transparency and
accountability as the state increasingly relies on
contractors, including consultants. I'm all for harnessing
the power of the private sector, and the key word is
`harness,' which suggests the state is in control. The
question here is, `Whose hands are on the reins?' ``
____
[From the Associated Press, Feb. 15, 2017]
Pick for Medicare Post Faces Questions on Indiana Contracts
(By Brian Slodysko and Carla K. Johnson)
Indianapolis.--President Donald Trump's pick to oversee
Medicare and Medicaid advised Vice President Mike Pence on
health care issues while he was Indiana's governor, a post
she maintained amid a web of business arrangements--including
one that ethics experts say conflicted with her public
duties.
A review by The Associated Press found Seema Verma and her
small Indianapolis-based firm made millions through
consulting agreements with at least nine states while also
working under contract for Hewlett Packard. The company holds
a financial stake in the health care policies Verma's
consulting work helped shape in Indiana and elsewhere.
Her firm, SVC Inc., collected more than $6.6 million in
consulting fees from the state of Indiana since 2011, records
show. At the same time, records indicate she also received
more than $1 million through a contract with Hewlett, the
nation's largest operator of state Medicaid claims processing
systems.
Last year, her firm collected an additional $316,000 for
work done for the state of Kentucky as a subcontractor for HP
Enterprises, according to documents obtained by AP through
public records requests.
In financial disclosures posted this week, Verma reported
she has an agreement to sell SVC Inc. to Health Management
Associates of Lansing, Michigan, within 90 days of her
confirmation.
In a statement, a spokesman for Verma said there was no
conflict of interest and added that she has the support of
former officials who served with her under Pence.
Her firm was ``completely transparent in regards to its
relationship with HP and that there was never a conflict of
interest,'' spokesman Marcus Barlow said in a statement.
A spokesman for Pence did not respond to a request for
comment.
Verma faces a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Thursday.
Democrats in Washington are aware of many of her consulting
arrangements, and have broader concerns about her philosophy
about government entitlement programs, lack of background in
Medicare and inexperience leading a large organization.
As a trusted adviser to Pence, she had an office in the
state government center and took on duties usually reserved
for state administrators. Verma was also widely respected for
her grasp on policy and designed a federal Medicaid waiver
that allowed Pence to undertake his own conservative
expansion of the program while still accepting money made
available through the Affordable Care Act.
Verma did not specifically address how she would handle
decisions related to HP in a letter to the Department of
Health and Human Services that was released this week. The
letter outlined her plan for managing potential conflicts of
interest should she be confirmed by the Senate to lead the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Her relationship
with HP was first reported by the Indianapolis Star in 2014.
Legal and ethics experts contacted by AP say Verma's work
for Hewlett, and offshoot HP Enterprises, raised questions
about where her loyalties lay--to the company, or to state
taxpayers.
Richard Painter, former President George W. Bush's chief
ethics lawyer, called Verma's arrangement a ``conflict of
interest'' that ``clearly should not happen and is definitely
improper.''
Such arrangements are typically prohibited for rank-and-
file state employees under Indiana's ethics rules and laws,
but they're murkier when it comes to consulting work.
Contractors have often replaced state employees in a GOP bid
to drive down the number of public employees, distinctions
between the two can be hard to discern.
``She was cloaked with so much responsibility and so much
authority, people thought she was a state employee,'' said
Debra Minot, a former head of Indiana's Family and Social
Services Agency under Pence who worked with Verma.
Indiana University law professor David Orentlicher compared
Verma's dual employment to an attorney who represents both
the plaintiff and the defense in a lawsuit. It's also similar
to federal contract negotiator with a side job for a company
they regularly negotiate with, he said.
``If you have one person on both sides of the negotiating,
they can't negotiate hard for both sides,'' said Orentlicher,
a former Indiana Democratic state lawmaker.
There was at least one instance where Verma crossed the
line in Indiana when she was dispatched by HP to help smooth
over a billing dispute, said Minot.
``It was never clear to me until that moment that she, in
essence, was representing both the agency and one of our very
key contractors,'' said Minot, who was removed as head of the
agency by Pence over her disagreements with Verma. ``It was
just shocking to me that she could play both sides.''
State contracts show Verma's duties to Indiana and Hewlett
have overlapped at times. One agreement she held with the
state's social services agency required her to ``provide
technical assistance'' to state contractors, as well as the
governor's office. Another duty was ``contract development
and negotiation'' with vendors, which included HP and HP
Enterprises
Verma reported her salary with SVC is $480,000 and her
business income from the company as nearly $2.2 million.
____
[From Electronic Data Systems Corporation, Jan. 7, 2008]
Indiana Awards EDS New $209 Million Medicaid Contract
Agreement Extends 16-Year Relationship with Hoosier State
Indianapolis.--EDS, Indiana's Medicaid partner since 1991,
has been awarded a $209.9 million, six-and-a-half-year
contract to upgrade and continue to maintain the state's
Medicaid Management Information System.
The new contract will leverage EDS' leading-edge
interchange Health System, which serves as an industry model
and is in operation or being implemented in more than a dozen
states, including Kansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and
Kentucky. Among the upgrades are a Web-based tool that will
enable health care providers to electronically enroll in the
Medicaid program as well as a number of internal processes.
EDS will continue as fiscal agent to the state and its
27,000 health care providers, who care for more than 800,000
recipients and comprise the nation's 17th-largest Medicaid
program.
The agreement includes a seven-month phase to design,
develop, test and implement the additional features followed
by a six-year management term.
The contract, which was signed in late December, extends a
16-year relationship between EDS and Indiana.
The EDS solution will provide Indiana with enhanced
transparency as it implements Gov. Mitch Daniels package of
Medicaid reforms such as the Healthy Indiana Plan, which
provides health coverage to previously uninsured Indiana
residents, and the movement of aged, blind and disabled
residents to a care management model. It also will continue
claims processing coverage for other Indiana health programs.
``At the conclusion of the procurement process, it was
evident that EDS was able to bring great value and experience
to the taxpayers of Indiana,'' said Mitch Roob, Family and
Social Services Administration Secretary. ``The technology
and insight that EDS has to offer will be a tremendous asset
as we continue to make great strides in new, innovative
programs, such as the Healthy Indiana Plan.''
``As Indiana's technology partner for more than a decade
and a half, EDS understands the Healthy Indiana Plan and the
state's goal to cover its uninsured residents,'' said Sean
Kenny, vice president, EDS Global Health Care. ``Our
continued relationship will provide stability not only for
the current Medicaid program, but also for future reforms.''
``Long relationships are reflections of earned trust and
understanding of cultures and goals,'' said Barbara Anderson,
vice president, EDS U.S. Government Health Care. ``Over the
years, Indiana and EDS together have delivered program
efficiencies to enable reforms and help push forward vital,
new programs to improve health outcomes for Hoosiers.''
EDS is the nation's largest provider of Medicaid and
Medicare process management services, administering more than
$100 billion in benefits a year. EDS processes about 1
billion Medicaid claims annually, more than any other
company, and provides fiscal
[[Page S1771]]
agent services/Medicaid information technology support for 21
states. Through its global healthcare services and solutions,
EDS touches more than 200 million patient lives each day.
About EDS
EDS (NYSE: EDS) is a leading global technology services
company delivering business solutions to its clients. EDS
founded the information technology outsourcing industry 45
years ago. Today, EDS delivers a broad portfolio of
information technology and business process outsourcing
services to clients in the manufacturing, financial services,
healthcare, communications, energy, transportation, and
consumer and retail industries and to governments around the
world. Learn more at eds.com.
The statements in this news release that are not historical
statements, including statements regarding the amount of new
contract values, are forward-looking statements within the
meaning of the federal securities laws. These statements are
subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, many of which
are beyond EDS' control, which could cause actual results to
differ materially from such statements. For information
concerning these risks and uncertainties, see EDS' most
recent Form 10-R. EDS disclaims any intention or obligation
to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether
as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
____
[From Hewlett-Packard Development Company, Nov. 21, 2013]
FSSA Executive Tour
(By John Wanchick)
Presenters
John Wanchick, Account Executive; Scott Mack, HPES Regional
Manager, State Health and Human Services; Jason Schenk, HPES
Sales; Heather Lee, Claims Director; Doug Weinberg, CFO and
Third Party Liability Director; Sandra Lowe, Provider and
Member Services Director; Rebecca Siewert, Managed Care
Director; Beth Steele, Long Term Care Director; Lisa Pierce,
Audit and Compliance Director; Maureen Hoffmeyer,
Publications Director; Patrick Hogan, System Director; Darren
Overfelt, ITO Director; Bev Goodgame, PMO and Business
Analysis Director; Julie Sloma, DDI Project Manager; Pat
Steele, Operations Manager; Seema Verma, Executive Healthcare
Policy Consultant.
Indiana Core MMIS HP-SVC Partnership
Provides innovative services to support Medicaid Policy;
External Scan: Monitoring federal regulatory environment,
Financial, demographic, utilization, public health data, Best
practices; Support Goal & Objective Setting Process; Develop
and Maintain Program Policy; State Plan Maintenance: Support
with State plan and waivers.
____
March 30, 2012.
Ethics Opinion
Dear Ms. Verma: Thank you for contacting our office. I
understand you are requesting ethics advice to determine
whether a conflict of interest would arise under the Indiana
Code of Ethics set forth in 41 I.A.C. 1-5 (``Code of
Ethics'') if SVC, Inc. d/b/a Seema Verma Consulting (``SVC'')
entered into a consulting agreement with Hewlett-Packard
Company (``HP'') to assist HP on a contract HP has and/or
would have with the Indiana Family and Social Services
Administration (``FSSA''). In your inquiry, you explain that
SVC is an Indiana Corporation that provides a range of
consulting services on health policy, including policy and
legislative analysis, grant and proposal development, project
and grants management, managing community and stakeholder
relationships, survey and evaluation design and data
analysis. You further explain that SVC is currently a
contractor to the State of Indiana (``State''), specifically
FSSA. Pursuant to this contractual relationship, I understand
that SVC provides overall management, project leadership and
support for the Indiana State-Operated Health Insurance
Exchange Level One Grant Activities. You also state that SVC
has been a long-standing contractor to HP and its
predecessors-in-interest, Electronic Data Systems Corporation
and EDS Information Services L.L.C. You indicate that SVC and
HP have entered into discussions about a new contractual
arrangement between the parties. Generally, the draft
proposal you've submitted along with your request for an
informal advisory opinion indicates that SVC would assist HP
in their efforts relating to work on State's Medicaid
Management Information System (MMIS).
The threshold question in this case is whether the Code of
Ethics applies to SVC. The Code of Ethics applies to a
current or former state officer, employee, and special state
appointee and a person who has a business relationship with
an agency. SVC is neither a state officer nor a special state
appointee. The term ``employee'' is defined in 1.C. 4-2-6-
1(a)(8) to include an individual who contracts with an agency
for personal services. In this case, the contract between SVC
and FSSA appears to be a personal services contract. However,
SVC is not an individual, it is a corporation. Because SVC is
not an individual, SVC would not be considered to be an
``employee'' as the term is defined.
It would appear that SVC would be a ``person who has a
business relationship with an agency.'' Specifically, the
term ``person'' is defined to include a corporation. I.C. 4-
2-6-1(a)(12). SVC is a corporation. Furthermore, a business
relationship includes the dealings of a person with an agency
seeking, obtaining, establishing, maintaining, or
implementing a pecuniary interest in a contract with an
agency. I.C. 4-2-6-1(a)(5)(A)(i). SVC has a contract with
FSSA, a state agency. Accordingly, the Code of Ethics would
apply to SVC as it applies to a ``person who has a business
relationship with an agency.''
While the Code of Ethics contains fifteen rules, including
two that specifically address conflicts of interest, the only
rule in the Code of Ethics that applies to a person who has a
business relationship with an agency is the Donor
Restrictions rule set forth in 42 IAC 1-5-2. The Donor
Restrictions rule prohibits a person who has a business
relationship with an employee's agency from providing any
gifts, favors, services, entertainment, food, drink, travel
expenses or registration fees to the employee if the employee
would not be permitted to accept the item under 42 IAC 1-5-1,
the Gifts rule.
As a person who has business relationship with an agency,
SVC is not subject to the conflict of interest rules set
forth in the Code of Ethics. Accordingly, a conflict of
interest under the Code of Ethics would not arise for SVC if
it entered into a consulting agreement with Hewlett-Packard
Company (``HP'') to assist HP on a contract HP has and/or
would have with FSSA.
Thank you again for contacting our office. I hope this
information is helpful. Please note that this response does
not constitute an official advisory opinion. Only the State
Ethics Commission may issue an official advisory opinion.
This informal advisory opinion allows us to give you quick,
written advice. The Commission will consider that an employee
or former employee acted in good faith if it is determined
that the individual committed a violation after receiving
advice and the alleged violation was directly related to the
advice rendered. Also, remember that the advice given is
based on the facts as I understand them. If this e-mail
misstates facts in a material way, or omits important
information, please bring those inaccuracies to my attention.
Sincerely,
Cyndi Carrasco,
Executive Director, Indiana State
Ethics Commission.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). Under the previous order, the
question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Verma
nomination?
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced---yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 86 Ex.]
YEAS---55
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS---43
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING---2
Isakson
Peters
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to table the motion to reconsider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table.
[[Page S1772]]
The motion was agreed to.
____________________