[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[House]
[Page 8291]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       A QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, page 23 of the Times today, the headline 
says, ``Agency Sees Withholding of Medicare Data From Congress As 
Illegal.'' That is pretty serious business.
  So we have finally secret documents. We have backroom deals. We have 
intimidation and misinformation. We have threats. We have exclusion, 
possible bribery, propaganda, lying. I am not referring to the KGB, I 
am not referring to the Chinese authorities, I am not referring to 
Napoleon's France, a medieval court, or Imperial Rome. No, there are 
elements of government scandal right here in the Medicare issue.
  All of these things describe a significant role in the narrow passage 
of the Medicare prescription drug bill. Members may wonder here who, in 
the United States of America, the freest country in the world, would 
employ such tactics to pass a controversial Medicare law; the Bush 
administration, that is who. The White House position of win at any 
cost eventually did lead to the new law, but what was the cost? The 
cost has been the credibility and reputation not only of the 
administration but that of the Congress, the integrity of this 
institution and the entire law-making process.
  The American people must ask themselves, is this how my government 
actually works? Everyone knew a Medicare prescription drug benefit was 
going to be expensive. To the end, the Bush administration assured 
Congress their plan would cost $400 billion. However, it has since been 
discovered that the White House knew 6 months before the vote that 
their bill had a price tag of $140 billion more, a slight error of $140 
billion.
  Further, it has been reported that the Center for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services, their administrator, remember this name, Tom Scully, 
he since has gone and found himself a lobbying job. Well, old Tom 
threatened to fire the chief actuary who was responsible for 
calculating the cost of the bill. The actuary's name was Richard 
Foster. If he had made this information available to congressional 
Democrats, he was going to be fired. At the time, Mr. Scully was 
negotiating with health care interests that had large financial stakes 
in the Medicare bill. Not only about the bill though, Mr. Scully.
  That is not to say Mr. Scully was in this alone. Last month, Mr. 
Scully told members of the Committee on Ways and Means that he had 
shared the information with Doug Badger, President Bush's health policy 
adviser, who is right in the White House, and James Capretta, associate 
director of the Office of Management and Budget, his analysis that the 
Medicare legislation would exceed its target goal.
  Not only was this underhanded, not only was it deceitful, but 
according to the Congressional Research Service, this gag order was 
against the law, and they made this public just yesterday. There has 
been a violation of the law, and this House has done nothing, nor has 
the other House, nor have the folks down the street. When you break the 
law, something should happen.
  According to the report, Congress' ``right to receive truthful 
information from Federal agencies to assist in its legislative 
functions is clear and unassailable.'' That is what it says.
  The issuance by an officer or employee in a department or agency of 
the Federal Government of a gag order on subordinate employees to 
expressly prevent and prohibit those employees from communicating 
directly with Members of Congress or the committees of Congress would 
appear to violate a specific and express prohibition of Federal law.
  McGrain v. Dougherty, a 1927 Supreme Court decision, states very 
clearly, as it does in other Supreme Court decisions, legislative 
bodies cannot legislate wisely or effectively, in the absence of 
information regarding conditions which the legislation is intended to 
effect or change. That decision by the Supreme Court goes back to 1927. 
Thus, ``Political gamesmanship must yield to the clear public interest 
of providing the people's elected representatives in the Congress with 
accurate and truthful information.''
  Mr. Speaker, they have broken the law. I come to this floor always 
with bipartisan hands open. My legislation will show that. The gloves 
are off.
  Mr. Speaker, you have been lied to; we have been lied to. The 
question is, what will we do about it? The question is, do not the 
American people deserve more, and should the people demand more from 
us, regardless of which side we are on? We did not know all of the 
facts, and that bill would not have passed if we did know all of the 
facts.

                          ____________________