J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I am astonished to learn that ethics in government should take a back seat to another agenda, but then again I forewarned this committee that folks would try to change the subject. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), esteemed colleague and chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it is important; and certainly my colleague would join with me in agreeing that the first step to sound public policy is an open, honest debate as we hold here on the floor. It should not be reserved solely for this Chamber or this Committee of the Whole House. Instead, it should also extend, as it does under law, to other committees. I am sure my colleague would concur with me that we may have differences on how best to insure uninsured Americans, but one vital step that I believe the gentleman's family and his long tradition of public service would point out is that there should be honesty with this policy, and so I trust he joins me in outrage about this meeting behind closed doors. Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record: House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, November 7, 1997. Bill Scanlon, Ph.D., General Accounting Office, Health Financing and Systems, Washington, DC. Dear Bill: I am concerned by reports that the Department of Health and Human Services is using an advisory committee without complying with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. I request that the General Accounting Office review the matter for the Committee. According to Department documents, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) makes recommendations to the Office of Clinical Standards and Quality in the Health Care Financing Administration concerning, among other things, whether particular medical technologies are appropriate for Medicare national coverage. Membership of the TAC comprises both government employees and selected medical directors of Medicare carriers, which are private sector entities. The Federal Advisory Committee Act provides generally that meetings of an advisory committee, as defined in the Act, must be open to the public. The TAC, because it has members who are not government employees, appears to fall within the definition of advisory committee in the Act, yet its meetings are closed. In addition, the TAC may be in violation of other provisions of the Act that govern the formation and operation of advisory committees. Please provide the following: (1) a description of the responsibilities and operations of the TAC; and, (2) a legal opinion concerning whether the TAC is in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and, if it is not, the legal implications of that violation. Thank you in advance for your assistance. If you have any questions about my request, please contact Allison Giles of the Health Subcommittee staff at 225-3943. Sincerely, Bill Thomas, Chairman. U.S. General Accounting Office, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, January 13, 1998. Hon. Bill Thomas, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Health Care Financing Administration created the Technology Advisory Committee to provide it will expert advice concerning whether Medicare should cover specific technologies on a national basis. In your November 7, 1997, letter to this Office, you asked that we provide a description of the responsibilities and operations of the Committee. You also requested that we provide our opinion whether the Committee is in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and, if it is not, that we discuss the legal implications of that violation. The purpose of the Technology Advisory Committee (the Committee) is to help the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) make decisions concerning whether Medicare should reimburse providers on a national basis for new procedures and technologies. Until HCFA makes a decision to provide national coverage, the carriers--the private- sector companies that operate the Medicare program under contract with HCFA--may decide individually whether they will cover a particular technology. The Committee meets several times a year to consider an agenda established by HCFA. The membership has consisted of both government employees and carrier medical directors. Although it merely provides information in some instances, the Committee has on occasion made recommendations to HCFA. As it was constituted as of December 31, 1997, the Committee was an advisory committee as defined in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (the Act of FACA), but was not operating in compliance with the Act. The Act requires that meetings of an advisory committee be open, unless a specific exception to that requirement is invoked. Although HCFA promptly publishes a summary of meetings of the Committee after they take place, the meetings are not open to the public, and no exception has been invoked. The Committee has also not been in compliance with other provisions of the Act. These include the requirements that the head of the agency, in consultation with the Administrator of General Services, make a formal determination that creation of an advisory committee would be in the public interest, that a charter for an advisory committee be on file with the agency using it and with the congressional committees having legislative jurisdiction, and that the committee have an expiration date. The Act is silent concerning the consequences of non- compliance. A person who can establish that he is adversely affected by the violation can seek relief from the courts, which are free to craft what they consider to be an appropriate remedy. For example, when the complaint is based on failure to hold open meetings, the courts have ordered that the meetings be opened. HCFA, in commenting on a draft of this letter, acknowledged that the Committee was ``likely not in compliance with the requirements of FACA,'' and indicates that it is taking steps to cure the violation. HCFA points out that the Committee ``performs a very important role in augmenting the limited clinical resources available on our staff to review the scientific evidence respecting the appropriateness of extending Medicare coverage to specific health care items and services.'' HCFA and the Department of Health and Human Services are therefore developing a proposal for a new committee, chartered under the Act, and with broad public membership, that would in effect replace the existing Committee. Pending that decision, HCFA will ``reformulate the current committee'' with membership limited to federal employees. (We were told that this would be done before the next scheduled meeting of the Committee in February.) A committee so constituted would not be subject to the Act, which excludes from coverage committees consisting entirely of full-time government officers or employees. We agree with HCFA's course of action. In the short term, it will cure the violations that now exist. In the longer term, HCFA's consideration of a reconstituted committee with broad public representation that will comply with the Act is worthwhile; although we have not analyzed the operation of the Committee in depth, we found no reason to doubt that it performs a useful function for HCFA. Moreover, it seems reasonable that, as HCFA believes, the presence on the Committee of carrier medical directors brings an added valuable perspective to the Committee's deliberations, and that there may be merit to having additional public representation. A more detailed discussion and a copy of the comments provided by the Health Care Financing Administration on a draft of this letter are enclosed. As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this letter until 30 days after this date. At that time, we will send copies to the Administrator of HCFA and interested congressional committees. Copies will be made available to others on request. If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-8203. Sincerely, Barry R. Bedrick, Associate General Counsel. Enclosures. The Technology Advisory Committee The Technology Advisory Committee (the Committee) was established by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to advise it concerning whether new medical techniques and products should be covered under Medicare on a national basis. HCFA has described the functions of the Committee in part as follows: ``[The Committee] serves in an advisory capacity to HCFA's Office of Clinical Standards and Quality (OCSQ). Its major focus is to assist HCFA in its technology assessment efforts, to recommend whether a technology is appropriate for Medicare national coverage policy, and to refer topics to the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research . . . or other technology assessment expert, for a comprehensive technology assessment when appropriate.'' Although many Medicare coverage decisions are made locally by the carriers that administer the program under contract, HCFA has an ``overall interest in increasing the consistency of coverage policy among carriers and making national policy for coverage issues that are significant.'' \1\ The Social Security Act specifies certain Medicare benefits, but in addition gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services discretion to cover additional items as long as they are ``reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member.'' The Committee is used to help HCFA decide which items fall within that definition: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Prepared statement, ``Medicare Coverage Policy,'' by Bruce C. Vladeck, Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration, before the Subcommittee on Health, House Ways and Means Committee, April 17, 1997. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``. . . The [Committee] provides interchange between local and national policy and considers when an issue becomes of such prominence that it warrants a national policy. HCFA develops the agenda that the [Committee] will follow to evaluate and make its recommendations. The [Committee] could recommend that HCFA: issue a national coverage policy, refer the issue for assessment by the Public Health Service or other qualified assessment organization, postpone the decision until there is more information, or decline to establish a new policy. HCFA can then accept or reject the [Committee's] recommendation.'' \2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Membership on the Committee was originally limited to HCFA employees, but was gradually broadened to bring in employees of other components of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as well as of other federal agencies and, eventually, the medical directors of the carriers. At present,\3\ the membership of the Committee comprises representatives of HCFA and other agencies within HHS,\4\ representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense, and medical directors of the carriers. An official of HCFA's Office of Clinical Standards and Quality serves as chairman. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\As discussed further below, HCFA is in the process of reformulating the membership of the Committee to bring it into compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This discussion applies to the Committee as it existed as of December 31, 1997. \4\ The other HHS components represented on the Committee are the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The expansion of the Committee's membership coincided with an evolution of its functions. Originally the Committee reviewed whether a technology assessment by the Public Health Service was needed and helped to prepare requests for such assessments. Over time, the committee took on additional responsibility and began to make its own assessments. Current practice is for the Committee to discuss the scientific evidence, and for members to express their views on whether that evidence supports Medicare coverage. Meetings of the Committee are closed, but HCFA has made information on the meetings, including agendas and minutes, publicly available through HCFA's Home Page on the Internet. According to the former Administrator, ``[t]his is one of the means by which we hope to increase participation by interested parties.'' \5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Vladeck statement, supra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The published minutes of Committee meetings provide illustrations of its operation. During its August 5-6, 1997 meeting, for example, the Committee considered, among other technologies, a test intended to assist clinicians in selecting chemotherapy agents by predicting tumor resistance to specific drug regimens. In determining the chemotherapy regimen for cancer, practitioners typically use the most powerful therapy available. If the first line of treatment fails, the second attempt at tumor control is rarely as successful as the first one. Therefore, it is important to be precise at the onset of treatment. The Committee considered evidence that the new test lets physicians avoid administering toxic agents that not only offer no benefit, but that lessen the likelihood that the next treatment will be effective. The Committee agreed that a test of this kind would be beneficial but was concerned with the lack of data demonstrating clinical utility and acceptance of the particular test under consideration. The committee recommended to HCFA that the test not be covered.\6\ (HCFA's coverage decisions do not prevent technologies such as this one from being used; the only issue for HCFA, and the Committee, is whether the technology should be reimbursable under Medicare on a national basis.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ This account is drawn from the summary of the meeting that HCFA posts on its Internet site. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Advisory Committee Act In explaining the purpose of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (the Act), the Congress acknowledged that the numerous committees, boards, commissions, and other organizations established to advise the executive branch are frequently a useful and beneficial source of expert advice, ideas, and diverse opinions. At the same time, it found that the need for many then-existing advisory committees had not been adequately established, and that some committees continued in existence after they were no longer useful. The Congress concluded that additional controls were needed over advisory committees, so that it and the public would be kept informed with respect to the number, purpose, membership, activities, and cost of these committees. 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. 2. The Act achieves these ends through a set of requirements that apply to the formation and operation of advisory committees.\7\ Advisory committees must have written charters on file with the head of the agency that created them, and with the congressional committees with legislative jurisdiction over the agency. 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. 9(c). They must announce and hold open meetings unless one of several specific exceptions applies. Id. Sec. 10. They must cease operation within two years of their creation, unless expressly renewed. Id. Sec. 14. Advisory committees must keep publicly available records of expenditures. Id. Sec. 12. Requirements of the Act are implemented in regulations of the General Services Administration. Id Sec. 7; 41 C.F.R. Subpart 101-6.10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ The Act provides different treatment in some respects for advisory committees created by statute, or created or utilized by the President. This discussion applies to advisory committees created by executive agencies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee is Subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act The Act covers the Committee. As defined in the Act, ``advisory committee'' includes ``any committee . . . which is . . . established or utilized by one or more agencies, in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for . . . one or more agencies or officers of the Federal Government. . . .'' 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. 3. The Committee is established and used by HCFA in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations. There are several exceptions in the law from the general definition in the preceding paragraph, but none applies to the Committee as it is currently organized. Two of the exceptions are for specific organizations; the third is for committees ``composed wholly of full-time officers or employees of the Federal Government.'' 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. 3(2)(C). As it was originally constituted, the Committee was composed wholly of full-time government officers or employees and therefore came within the latter exception. However, once the carrier medical directors became Committee members, that exception was no longer available.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ We understand that it has been suggested that the Committee might fall within the third exception on the theory that the carrier employees should be regarded as federal employees based on the unique and close relationship between the carriers and the federal government. However, this theory is untenable: carriers employees do not meet the legal requirements for status as officers or employees of the United States. Cf Ass'n of American Physicians and Surgeons v. Clinton, 813 F. Supp. 82 (D.D.C. 1993); rev'd. 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir.); remand 837 F. Supp. 454. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee is not in compliance with the Act. Among the most fundamental of the requirements with which the Committee does not comply is that meetings must be open and, subject to reasonable limitations, interested persons must be permitted to attend, appear before, or file statements with any advisory committee. 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. 10(a). Meetings of the Committee have been closed in the past. In addition, the Committee was not established based on a formal determination by the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, after consultation with the Administrator of General Services, that its creation would be in the public interest (Id. Sec. 9(a)(2)), and does not have a charter on file with the Department and the authorizing congressional committees (Id. Sec. 9(c)). The Department of Health and Human Services does not keep records of costs and activities of the Committee. Id. Sec. 12. The Committee has continued in operation for more than two years despite not having been renewed by the Department. Id. Sec. 14. Consequences of Violation The Act does not prescribe remedies or penalties for violations, nor does it specify who may bring suit to challenge alleged violations. This in effect leaves it to the courts to decide who may bring suit and to craft remedies for violations. Because the Act does not create a right to sue for violations, those seeking to challenge the operation of an advisory committee must first establish that they are directly affected in some fashion by the alleged impropriety concerning the committee. This establishes the requisite ``standing'' to sue. In those cases where a plaintiff has been found to have standing, legal challenges under the Act have generally focused on two of its requirements. One of these is balance; that is, the plaintiff argues that the constitution of the committee unfairly weights it in favor of one point of view, in violation of the requirement that the membership of an advisory committee ``be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented. . . .'' 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. Sec. 5(b)(2), (c). The other requirement that commonly forms the basis for a challenge is openness; plaintiffs allege that they have not been permitted to attend meetings, or that they have been denied access to information about the operations of the committee. Id. Sec. Sec. 8(b), 10(a)-(d). Although there is no statutory penalty for violations of the Act, a plaintiff can ask a court to order appropriate relief. Courts have generally responded to violations of the openness requirement by ordering that the committee's proceedings be opened.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Ass'n. of American Physicians and Surgeons v. Clinton, 813 F. Supp. 82 (D.D.C. 1993); rev'd. 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir.); remand 837 F. Supp. 454. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In one instance where an order to open the meetings of the committee would have had no effect because the committee had completed its work before the lawsuit concluded, a federal appellate court upheld an order to the agency not to use the product of the committee's deliberations ``for any purpose whatsoever, directly or indirectly.\10\ The court reasoned that ``to allow the government to use the product of a tainted procedure would circumvent the very policy that serves as the foundation of the Act.'' It is not clear whether courts in the other federal circuits would take the same approach. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v. Fish & Wildlife Service of U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1993 WL 646410 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 22, 1993), aff'd. 26 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Health Care Financing Administration, Office of Clinical Standards and Quality, Baltimore, MD, December 22, 1997. Barry R. Bedrick, Associate General Counsel, General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Bedrick: Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to comment on a draft of your response to Congressman Bill Thomas, who has asked you for a description of the responsibilities and operations of HCFA's technology advisory committee and a legal opinion concerning that committee's compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). We believe the committee has been performing a very important role in augmenting the limited clinical resources available on our staff to review the scientific evidence respecting the appropriateness of extending Medicare coverage to specific health care items and services. The committee has also added valuable perspectives to our discussions about these coverage decisions, based on the experience of other agencies faced with similar issues and the experience of our contractors responsible for processing Medicare claims. As your draft correctly points out, the composition of the committee has evolved since its inception in 1980. It began solely with a group of clinicians who were on the staff of HCFA. Over time, we added representatives of other Federal agencies, both within and outside the Department, and medical directors from some of the Medicare carriers. The functions of the committee have also evolved. The initial purpose was to review whether a technology assessment should be sought from the Public Health Service regarding coverage for a specific item or service and, if so, to help HCFA staff frame the issue properly and review the response from PHS. As the committee grew and gained experience, it began to undertake more extensive discussion of the scientific evidence available regarding the clinical utility of items and services under review and, eventually, the members began to express their views on whether such evidence supported Medicare coverage. We acknowledge that the committee is likely not in compliance with the requirements of FACA. Although we have publicized the existence of the committee, and now make the agendas and minutes of its meetings available to the public by means of the Internet, we have not made an effort to charter the committee under FACA. Nor have we opened its discussion of the scientific evidence to the general public. Since the reorganization and reorientation of HCFA in July of this year, we have been reviewing our coverage decision process and the role of this committee. We believe there may be merit in establishing a FACA-chartered committee, with broad public representation, to review and provide counsel on the policies and procedures for coverage policy. We are developing a proposal for such a committee and will be presenting it for review and approval by the Department. It will likely be several months before there is a final decision on such a committee. During this process, we plan to reformulate the current committee, so that it is comprised solely of Federal employees, in order that we can continue to receive the valuable services it provides. Thank you again for providing us a draft copy of your response and an opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Peter Bouxsein, Acting Director, Office of Clinical Standards and Quality. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the gentleman from Rhode Island and want to thank him for offering his letter or memo in enlarged fashion. Let me also point to another very enlightening piece of correspondence which again reaffirms our reason for this sense of the Congress resolution. It is because, despite the fact that the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has been rather forthcoming in his analysis and how he perceives the disposition of one Mr. Ira Magaziner vis-a-vis his involvement in government and while he may have a bone of contention with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), this case involving Mr. Magaziner is not an isolated incident. Mr. Chairman, I point to the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means. If it were not for the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), another committee would be meeting today behind closed doors in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The gentleman from California suspected that the Health Care Financing Administration's Technology Advisory Committee, the committee that makes national coverage decisions that affect our 37 million seniors, operated behind closed doors in violation of, with its handpicked members of the public. He immediately called for an investigation by the GAO. Mr. Chairman, here is the letter from the General Accounting Office dated January 13. Five major violations, Mr. Chairman, which include: one, failure to hold meetings that are open to the public; two, failure to provide public notification of the creation of a committee; three, failure to charter with the head of the agency, the administrator of general services and the congressional committees with legislative jurisdiction; four, failure to sunset the committee within 2 years unless renewed by the agency; and, five, failure to keep records that fully disclose the use of funds by the committee. Now this is the most important thing, and I am glad the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) was listening. Since this discovery, HCFA scrambled to comply. The first move was to cancel the scheduled meeting February 3 and 4. Mr. Chairman, as we see, they were going to continue the meetings right now behind closed doors. The breach of trust grows ever wider. It makes this sense of Congress resolution all the more important.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume before I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson), because the charges of my good friend from California and his very interesting, somewhat jaundiced revisionism of history certainly need a response. First of all, it is worth noting that this new majority in the Congress has worked to enact quality health care reforms. In 1997, in bipartisan fashion, our Balanced Budget Act saved the Medicare program from bankruptcy for at least a decade and helped extend health care coverage for up to 5 million uninsured children. This new majority in 1996 enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act to help workers keep health insurance when they changed jobs or lose their job, and, Mr. Chairman, I would point to a more recent piece of history that I am sure my colleague from California remembers. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) was one of only two Members of the House of Representatives, from all of the Republicans and Democrats here, to vote against the bipartisan Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which the General Accounting Office found would help 25 million Americans. I would concur with my colleague from California that some folks are absolutely beyond humiliation. I might also state that that may be one of the major problems we face in this Nation today. But again, the purpose of this sense of Congress resolution is to say this: It is to say, Mr. Chairman, to the executive branch and specifically to the President of the United States, that here is a chance to change our minds and go on record and mend this breach of trust and pay the fees. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank my colleague for asking me the question. As I am not part of the leadership, I am not sure when those bills will be brought up.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, as I am proud to note, I am a cosponsor of the access to emergency care bill. Mr. Chairman, in keeping with the tradition of maintaining debate on the subject at hand, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. English), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I would have to reserve the right to object, and I would object, because, in keeping with the comity of this House, in keeping with the nature of civil debate and full discourse, this is precisely intended, as I said just moments ago, as a first step. We offer this as an entreaty to the President of the United States to ask him to change his mind, to take the first step to mend this breach of faith and breach of trust, and I offer that in that spirit, and also again would make note of the record that exists earlier and the comments of my colleague from Arizona, who said he is perfectly willing to take solid action within the appropriations process. So I would have to object to the unanimous consent request, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, what this committee is preparing to deal with is a very serious matter that goes to the heart of our constitutional republic; and it is this: that, Mr. Chairman, fundamentally there has been a breach of trust emanating from the executive branch of this administration with the citizens of this constitutional Republic. It has been reflected in what a U.S. District Court judge calls a dishonest way by those who have led the so-called Health Care Task Force in the executive branch of government. It is clear what has transpired: In a debate on national health care, rather than involving the American people, rather than involving many Members of this institution, as has been pointed out by my colleague from California, those at the White House, specifically Mr. Ira Magaziner, strove to shut off public scrutiny, strove to make secret the deliberations of this so-called Health Care Task Force, to come up with a Rube Goldbergesque plan to socialize our Nation's health care that eventually collapsed of its own weight, because it fundamentally denied the American people what is so vital within our Republic, and that is the concept of choice. But above and beyond that, legal action was taken when a group of doctors went to court to say this is fundamentally wrong. It violates Federal law. And, as has been pointed out in the rules debate, Mr. Magaziner and other officials of the Health Care Task Force testified in front of Congress that this was only made up of Federal employees, that no one else was involved, and, therefore, no names need be submitted for the record as commensurate with public law. That was wrong. Accordingly, the courts ruled that was dishonest. And here we come to the fundamental breach of trust, and it is this: That in handing down his decision, Judge Lamberth said that there would be attorneys' fees that would be owed. Now, I appreciated in the rules debate the legal nuances offered by my colleague from California (Mr. Campbell). But let me simply restate what I perceived to be the mission of this House and the mission of those of us who serve in the legislative branch. We, Mr. Chairman, are here to be guardians of the public Treasury and the public trust. There is no reason on earth why hard working American taxpayers should be called upon to ante up in excess of $285,000 to satisfy the legal fees in this civil case, because the American taxpayers are not culpable. Those within the executive branch of our government, those within the administration, are in fact culpable for this, and this House should go on record with this sense of the Congress resolution. Now, I noted with great interest the comments of my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who in seeking to demean the whole notion of the sense of Congress resolution said it carried no effect. Mr. Chairman, that is incorrect, because the sense of the Congress resolution, first of all, sends a message to the executive branch, and serves as an entreaty to our chief executive, to the President of the United States, to say to him, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the President ought to rethink this, and he has the chance to change his mind. Because even more disturbing is the letter that was entered into the record a little earlier by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida, where the White House, in writing back to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, said that appropriate government funds would be used to pay this penalty. I believe that to be wrong. So, first of all, the sense of the Congress resolution serves as an entreaty to the executive branch to say, think again. Use another mechanism, but not the tax money of hard- working American people, to satisfy this fine in excess of $285,000. But, moreover, as pointed out by my colleague from Arizona, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, other action may be taken within the appropriations process. As my colleague stated and as he implied, there may be the entire action of rescissions of a like amount from the executive branch's budget to deal with this. So let me suggest to those who would try to say that somehow this is not important, that it is some sort of political posturing or stunt, nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Chairman, I must also point out, because we heard a bit of it in the rules debate, that I have no doubt that others will come here not to debate the focus of this resolution, which is to protect the money of the taxpayers, but, again, to come up with a type of soup-to-nut government-run health care plan that they will try to offer with some nuances here on this floor to change the subject. Let me again suggest to all of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that the subject of health care debate is important, and it should be held in this forum, but on another occasion, because this sense of the Congress resolution deals with something fundamental and vitally important, protection of the taxpayers' funds and healing this breach of trust. That is what we must do, and that is why I believe this resolution should be passed unanimously, if possible. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gracious gentleman for yielding to me. Basically, essentially what the gentleman is telling us is that, when it comes to this, in the words of another prominent member of the gentleman's party, there is no controlling legal authority? Is what the gentleman is trying to get across?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is an interesting response.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to ask my colleague from Massachusetts, and always am very interested in his observations, has he ever in the past voted for a sense of Congress resolution?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, just to clarify for a second to my colleagues in this hall and in this Chamber and to the American people, I would agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts to this degree: We do have many pressing issues. But where I would part, and indeed I think an important case to make in this rule is the fact that $285,000, while in the Washington scheme of things, certainly as it relates to a proposed $1.7 trillion budget, might not mean much in Washington numbers, but, Mr. Speaker, to the American people and to the taxpayers of this country, it is very important that this House go on record as saying we are here to protect the taxpayers, even for this sum. Because the very same working families that my colleague from Massachusetts mentions have a right to be protected on this issue. Especially when, in the wake of a district court ruling, it was found that this Health Care Task Force met in secret, devising plans that in the words of the court were reprehensible and fundamentally dishonest, and we should protect the public purse. That is why I think this is a fair rule and why I welcome the debate on the floor and am happy to reach an accommodation with the Minority to have this House go on record that it is the sense of this Congress that no taxpayer funds should be used.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. Actually, I believe I understood what he said a little bit earlier. I just want to make sure.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment on the grounds that it is not germane to the resolution.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 107.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce [Mr. Bliley] for his consideration and cooperation in this regard. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1354, and I would be remiss if I did not also take this time to thank the ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], for his help as well. Madam Speaker, it is safe to say this is a good bipartisan bill. This legislation was sponsored in the other body by my colleague from Arizona Senator McCain, and I would like to publicly thank our senior Senator for his hard work on this issue. Madam Speaker, as the chairman mentioned, this bill corrects a technical glitch in section 214(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 that has created a serious problem for certain telecom carriers, particularly some Indian tribes. The current language in section 214(e) does not account for the fact that State commissions in some States have no jurisdiction over certain carriers. Some, not all, but some States have no jurisdiction over tribal-owned carriers, which may or may not be regulated by a tribal authority that is not a State commission per se. This is especially true in my home State of Arizona and also in South Dakota. The failure to account for these situations means that such carriers may have no way of being designated as a carrier eligible to receive Federal universal service support which provides intercarrier support for the provision of telecommunications services in rural and high-cost areas throughout the United States. Section 214 as currently written does not consider whether a tribal- owned carrier is a traditional incumbent local exchange carrier that provides the core universal services, whether they have previously received Federal universal support or whether they will be deemed a carrier of last resort to serve every customer in their service area. In my home State of Arizona, there are four tribal authority telephone cooperatives that are not subject to State jurisdiction. Passing this bill would ensure that these entities can continue to serve their customers as eligible carriers. Without this bill, Madam Speaker, customers of these carriers could face enormous rate increases. For instance, if Gila River in my district in Arizona lost its Federal universal service support, its customers could be hit with a $32 monthly charge per subscriber starting this January, so it is critical that we pass this bill now to protect these consumers. Again, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] for agreeing to bring this bill forward, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote from all of our colleagues.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I listened with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to my colleague and friend from Arkansas, and again I would simply say to my friend, so passionate today about reforming campaigns, that first things should come first, and it is to obey existing law. Because, you see, Mr. Speaker, it is already illegal for noncitizens to come into this country and try to buy influence in our political parties, and it is already illegal for Federal office holders to use their offices, including those at the White House, to solicit donations. You see, friends, it is really simple: If people would obey existing law, much more would be done, much more would be achieved. So even as we join in this call for meaningful campaign finance reform, let it not be lost upon this House or upon the American people that the first act of business should be to obey existing law.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest and I must admit, Mr. Speaker, a trace of disbelief the headline in yesterday's Washington Times: Clinton Labels Tax Cut Selfish. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the President that it is not the American people who are selfish. Instead, it is a government that takes more and more and more of what people earn and then unfairly takes it away from them. I would point out the experience of a 93-year-old American who suffered from Alzheimer's disease who sent a check to the Internal Revenue Service for $7,000. Even the IRS admitted that was a mistake. But when it came time to give that money back, the Internal Revenue Service said, no, the statute of limitations had run out. So the IRS was protected with its own selfishness. Today, Mr. Speaker, in our bill to reform the Internal Revenue Service, we take away that statute of limitations. For that senior citizen's family, including an Arizona couple, we will try to make it right. No, it is not the people who are selfish; it is a brutal, repressive tax regime.