Dave Hobson

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, in a town famous for saying one thing and doing another, Congress is finally doing what it promised. The balanced budget amendment that Congress reached with the President delivers on the promises that we have made to the American people. The resolution puts that agreement into action. It balances the budget, saves Medicare, lets American families keep more of what they earn, and reforms entitlement programs. Certainly that is different than previous Congresses have done under previous controls. Under the balanced budget resolution deficits will be a thing of the past, and like every American family and American business, the Government will live within its means for the first time since 1969. If the budget resolution did nothing else but eliminate the deficit, it would still be a huge victory for the American people. But frankly, it does more. The balanced budget resolution saves Medicare from bankruptcy and gives seniors new health care choices. By changing the Medicare structure, it will protect its solvency for another decade while expanding benefits to cover mammography, diabetes self- management, immunizations, and special cancer screening. If this resolution just balanced the budget and saved Medicare, yes, that would be historic, but it goes even further than that. Over the next 10 years this budget will reduce tax burdens on American families by $250 billion, including reductions in capital gains, death taxes, a tax credit for families with children, an expanded IRA to encourage savings for retirement, and tax relief to help families send their children to college. To help make sure that the tax burden stays lower, we are going to change the entitlement programs that have put the real pressure on our budget year after year. Let us think about it: a balanced budget, a sound Medicare program, tax relief for families, entitlement reform, and I frankly am very proud of this budget resolution. I am proud of the people in the House and Senate who helped forge it. Special thanks go to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio Mr. John Kasich, and the ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina Mr. John Spratt, for helping move this bill through committee, and the committee staff under Rick May deserves our thanks for all their hard work over the years, and especially this year. We are doing something real and permanent here with this budget resolution. We are being responsible and we are heading off a fiscal crisis before it happens. This commonsense approach helped win strong bipartisan support for the budget in committee, where it passed 31 to 7. I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution, get involved in the process of enacting it into law. As an indication of the support the budget is already winning back home, I am submitting for the Record an editorial from my hometown paper that praises the bipartisan spirit in which the budget agreement was reached. Let us move on. Let us move on for the American people. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the editorial previously referred to. The editorial referred to is as follows: [From the Springfield, OH, News-Sun, May 12, 1997] Budget a Result of Serious Work Considering the bad blood between the Clinton White House and congressional Republicans, their agreement to balance the federal budget in 2002 is extremely gratifying. The work negotiators from both sides put into this accord is precisely the serious, public-spirited give-and-take Americans expect of their national leadership. On many substantive questions, negotiators kept their partisan instincts in check. They reached surprisingly easy compromises to curb domestic spending, to achieve Medicare savings at modest cost to beneficiaries and to check Social Security cost-of-living increases. They also restored benefits to legal immigrants--benefits which should never have been taken away. But what got this budget deal moving was the dynamism of an economy now whirring along at a phenomenal 5.6 percent annual growth rate and producing bulging tax revenues for Uncle Sam. In fact, budget negotiators were told at the last minute the Treasury was likely to take in $200 billion to $225 billion more than previously expected over the next five years. And this good news came during the same week that the Treasury announced it would be able to make a $65 billion payment against America's $5 trillion national debt, the first such payoff in 16 years. The budget deal does have its flaws--such as the increase in defense spending--but the major disappointment is the $135 billion in tax reductions. With the next few budgets still projected to be in the red, it is not time to start rewarding taxpayers for their sacrifices. Only one of these tax breaks can be defended as wise social policy: Clinton's tuition tax credits. No public investment is so vital to maintain this country's edge in technology and the world economy as educating Americans, both our youth and adults, for tomorrow's jobs. How much better for all of America it would have been if the billions of dollars in tax relief had been added instead to that $65 billion payoff on the national debt.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, in a town famous for saying one thing and doing another, Congress is doing what it promised. The balanced budget agreement that Congress reached with the President delivers on the promises we made to the American people. The resolution puts that agreement into action. It balances the budget, saves Medicare, lets American families keep more of what they earn, and reforms entitlement programs. Under the budget resolution, deficits will be a thing of the past, and like every American family and American business, the Government will live within its means for the first time since 1969. If the budget resolution did nothing else but eliminate the deficit, it still would be a huge victory for the American people. But it does more. The budget resolution saves Medicare from bankruptcy and gives seniors new health care choices. By changing Medicare's structure we will protect its solvency for another decade, while expanding benefits to cover mammography, diabetes self-management, immunizations, and special cancer screenings. If this resolution just balanced the budget and saved Medicare it would still be historic, but goes further. Over the next 10 years, this budget will reduce tax burdens on American families by $250 billion, including reductions to capital gains taxes, death taxes, a tax credit for families with children, an expanded IRA to encourage savings for retirement, and tax relief to help families send their children to college. And to help make sure the tax burden stays lower, we're going to change the entitlement programs that have put the real pressures on our budget year after year: A balanced budget; a sound Medicare Program; tax relief for families; and entitlement reform. I'm very proud of this budget resolution, and I'm proud of the people in the House and the Senate who helped forge it. Special thanks goes to Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich and Ranking Member John Spratt for helping move this bill through committee last week, and the committee staff under Rick May deserves our thanks for all their hard work getting the resolution ready for consideration. We're doing something real and permanent here with this budget resolution. We're being responsible and we're heading off a fiscal crisis before it happens. This commonsense approach helped win strong bipartisan support for the budget in committee where it passed by 31 to 7. I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution and get involved in the process of enacting it into law. As an indication of the support the budget is already winning back home, I'm submitting for the Record an editorial from my hometown newspaper that praises the bipartisan spirit in which the budget agreement was reached. [From the Springfield (OH) News-Sun, May 12, 1997] Budget a Result of Serious Work Considering the bad blood between the Clinton White House and congressional Republicans, their agreement to balance the federal budget in 2002 is extremely gratifying. The work negotiators from both sides put into this accord is precisely the serious, public-spirited give-and-take Americans expect of their national leadership. On many substantive questions, negotiators kept their partisan instincts in check. They reached surprisingly easy compromises to curb domestic spending, to achieve Medicare savings at modest cost to beneficiaries and to check Social Security cost-of-living increases. They also restored benefits to legal immigrants--benefits which should never have been taken away. But what got this budget deal moving was the dynamism of an economy now whirring along at a phenomenal 5.6 percent annual growth rate and producing bulging tax revenues for Uncle Sam. In fact, budget negotiators were told at the last minute the Treasury was likely to take in $200 billion to $225 billion more than previously expected over the next five years. And this good news came during the same week that the Treasury announced it would be able to make a $65 billion payment against America's $5 trillion national debt, the first such payoff in 16 years. The budget deal does have its flaws--such as the increase in defense spending--but the major disappointment is the $135 billion in tax reductions. With the next few budgets still projected to be in the red, it is not time to start rewarding taxpayers for their sacrifices. Only one of these tax breaks can be defended as wise social policy: Clinton's tuition tax credits. No public investment is so vital to maintain this country's edge in technology and the world economy as educating Americans, both our youth and adults, for tomorrow's jobs. How much better for all of America it would have been if the billions of dollars in tax relief had been added instead to that $65 billion payoff on the national debt.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I rise to support House Resolution 89 and join the House in asking the President to send a balanced budget to Congress. The President's budget was eagerly anticipated this year and there is a genuine desire to work constructively with him to enact a historic balanced budget plan that will eliminate the deficit by the year 2002. The budget committees of both Houses have spent the past several weeks examining the President's ideas in order to give them a full hearing and find the areas where we can work together constructively. This is a very different approach than previous years when the Capitol was a morgue for the storage of budget plans declared dead on arrival. This year, however, the Capitol has been an emergency room, and though we are working hard to save it, the President's budget is gravely ill, primarily because it is $69 billion in the hole, backloaded to the extreme, and fails to save Medicare for any significant period of time. I can recall, as many can, the President campaigning that he was going to save the Medicare trust fund for 10 years. I do not see that. Where is it? Let us talk about it. If the President still wants his budget proposal to be the starting point for consideration this year, and I believe that can still happen, he needs to send us a budget that meets the minimum threshold for consideration, a budget that balances in 2002 according to the estimates which he said he would use, the estimates of the independent budget office. I remember hearing him say that right here in this House. No gimmicks, Mr. President. Our friends on the other side of the aisle are challenging us to offer our own budget now, but my answer to them today is, we have already passed 2 years of balanced budgets in this Chamber. Those two budgets were the first of their kind in 26 years. We do not need to prove to anybody on this side of the aisle that we are committed to balancing the budget. The only reason it is in front and center of the congressional list of priorities right now, and the American people, is because we put it there. I am quite comfortable with our record of writing, supporting, and passing balanced budgets in this Chamber. Frankly, the President should be thankful that he has been given a second chance to fulfill the promises he made to this country. I hope he takes advantage of this second opportunity, and I hope he sends us a true budget that does balance without a lot of gimmicks after he is not even President of the United States anymore.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of heated rhetoric and partisanship in this case, as it has progressed. I think it is important that we step back and focus on the case, examine the specific charges contained in the statement of alleged violations. The first charge is that the Speaker should have sought legal advice in his dealings with 501(c)3 organizations. The second is that he gave inaccurate information to the Select Committee on Ethics. Those are the charges; no more, no less. I turn to the Speaker's response to these charges. He accepted the subcommittee's findings. He acknowledged that he should have consulted a lawyer, and that some of the information he gave was incorrect. Since the Speaker has accepted the alleged violations, it was the job of the full committee to determine an appropriate sanction. While the committee attempted to work through this process there was all kinds of rhetoric flying, from all sides, of those not involved in the process. Some called for the expulsion of the Speaker, and may still do that, while others called for a letter of reproval or even less. That may happen also. In the end, the special counsel submitted his report to the full committee, and the committee supported and voted out an unprecedented sanction, since there is no evidence that the Speaker engaged in misconduct that resulted in personal financial gain to him. I would like to take a few moments to discuss the counsel's report. Mr. Cole was hired by the Select Committee on Ethics as an investigator to lay out the facts of the Speaker's case. As a member of the Select Committee on Ethics, I understood that Mr. Cole was not hired to be a judge, nor a 501(c)3 tax expert. In either case, it was my understanding he had no prior experience. Rather, the resolution of preliminary inquiry authorizing Mr. Cole's employment specified that he was appointed to assist the subcommittee. I am submitting for the Record the biography of B. John Williams, who served as a judge on the U.S. Tax Court, and currently is in the Washington law firm of Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius, the very same law firm as Mr. Cole's hired tax expert. I am also submitting for the Record a statement written by Mr. Williams concerning the potential significance of the American Campaign Academy case, which he provided when he was interviewed by the committee for the position of special counsel. I am going to read just a little bit from that, but I have submitted the entire statement as I have it for the Record. Mr. Williams' quote: * * * there is an adage taught in the first year of law school that ``hard cases make bad law.'' American Campaign Academy seems to be a good example of that adage. While the case reached the right result because of the integral closeness of the Academy and the Republican Party sponsorship and direction, the reasoning of the case reaches the result by focusing heavily on a vague term that the Court called ``secondary benefit.'' The ``secondary benefit'' of the Academy's program was the benefit to employers--Republican candidates--of the training period acquired by academy graduates. The court found the secondary benefit disproportionately benefited Republicans as they were the only ones hiring the graduates. The court's reasoning really plows uncharted waters and leaves only ill-defined notions of how to access whether recipients of the secondary benefits serve the organization's exempt educational purposes. My purpose for submitting Mr. Williams' statement is not to point out who is right or who is wrong but, rather, to point out that knowledgeable people on tax issues can and will have different interpretations about the law in this area, even two tax experts from the same law firm. These different interpretations may give some justification for Mr. Gingrich's actions, although I still believe and I believe now that he should have consulted a tax lawyer. After reviewing the Speaker's case and examining House precedents on sanctions, I believe the sanction was more harsh than the charges in the case warrant. For the Record, I am submitting a memo which outlines the rules and precedents on disciplinary sanctions. I believe a careful reading of this memo supports my conclusion. But the Speaker accepted the charges and the sanction against him. I believe that it demonstrates to all of us and to the American public that he truly regretted his actions and sends a message that the Speaker's conduct should be held to a particularly high standard, as should every other Member's. But there is another message in this for all of us as Members. The reimbursement of $300,000 sets a new standard for the ethics process. Some may disagree with that. It says that those who create additional and unnecessary work for the committee are going to pay a price. This should also alert those Members who trump up charge after charge and file frivolous complaints with the Select Committee on Ethics that they may be held to a similar monetary standard. There have been numerous allegations and charges filed against Mr. Gingrich over the past few years, and they have been investigated by the Select Committee on Ethics and at an enormous cost to the taxpayers. All of these cases have either been deemed minor or dismissed except for the current issue. This leads me to believe that there is an orchestrated effort by certain opposition forces, some even involving tax exempt organizations to attack the Speaker. And the attacks did not stop with the Speaker. For the first time in my career on the committee, there has been a relentless attack on members who serve on the Select Committee on Ethics, including myself. I have served on the Select Committee on Ethics for 6 long years. It was not until we handled the Speaker's case that I experienced and saw the attacks on members of the Select Committee on Ethics from other Members and outside groups which, I might my add, by the way also included certain tax exempt groups. Intense political pressure was brought to bear on the members purely for the reason that they served on the Select Committee on Ethics. These and other distractions were detrimental to the entire process. Had these actions and certain other committee problems not occurred, this case could have been resolved much earlier and been far less disruptive to the House and the American people. Fortunately that is all behind us and we are here today. This has been a long and difficult case and would have been completed much earlier had it not been for these disruptions. But fortunately, due to the leadership of the Chair of the Select Committee on Ethics and the work of the subcommittee, we are here. For the past 2 years, Nancy Johnson forced the committee to do its job. Rather than referring the tough issues to others to decide, she kept the committee on track and kept the pressure on the commit to resolve cases. Nancy Johnson, more than any other Member, has paid a heavy political price for her determined service to the Select Committee on Ethics. This, in my opinion, is absolutely totally unfair and her constituents should understand the extent of the partisan political forces working against her. Despite the enormous pressures brought to bear against the Chair, the Chair endured and pressed on to resolve this most difficult and contentious case. After 6 years, I am today leaving the Select Committee on Ethics with mixed emotions, as Mr. Cardin also said. I think most of us getting off agree. It troubles me that this case brought out the worst partisan rancor and resulted in inappropriate actions of certain Members, but at the same time I am pleased that this case has been resolved in a bipartisan manner and we can move forward in the House and do the work that the people sent us here to do. In closing, as I stated earlier, I believe the committee sanction was more harsh than the charges warranted but I will vote for the resolution because it was the bipartisan decision reached by the committee and agreed to by Mr. Gingrich. The material referred to follows: B. John Williams, Jr. B. John Williams, Jr. is a partner in the Tax Section resident in the Washington, D.C., office. His practice focuses on federal tax controversies and litigation before the U.S. Tax Court, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, U.S. District Court, and the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. He also represents clients before the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department on rulings and regulations. Mr. Williams, who is vice-chairman of the Tax Section, represented and continues to represent clients in a variety of fields, including the oil, coal, newspaper, consumer products and construction industries. From 1981 through 1984, Mr. Williams served as Special Assistant to the Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, in the Department of Justice (supervising five civil trial sections, the Office of Legislation and Policy, and the Review Section). In 1985, Mr. Williams, then a partner at Morgan Lewis was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Tax Court. He served with distinction on the bench where he wrote many important opinions and tried several highly complex factual cases involving hundreds of millions of dollars in dispute and where he served on the Court's Rules Committee. In March, 1990, he resigned from the Tax Court and re-entered the practice of law as a partner with Morgan Lewis. Mr. Williams speaks regularly before business and bar groups on litigating large tax cases. He has served as a panel member of the ALI-ABA Course of Study, ``How to Handle a Tax Controversy at the IRS and in Court;'' the Georgetown CLE program, ``The Perfect Trial of a Tax Court Case;'' and the Tax Executives Institute's seminar on ``Strategies for Success: How to Handle an IRS Audit.'' Mr. Williams is a member of the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania bars, the American Law Institute and the American Bar Association. He served as a member of the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1992-96). Mr. Williams is noted in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in American Law and Best Lawyers in America. He is a Fellow of the American College of Tax Counsel. He received his undergraduate degree from George Washington University with distinction and university honors and with departmental honors in history; he is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and Omicron Delta Kappa. Mr. Williams received his law degree with distinction from George Washington University where he was a member of the law review. He served for two years as a law clerk for the late Judge Bruce M. Forrester of the U.S. Tax Court. In examining the relationship between GOPAC funding and the course taught by Mr. Gingrich at tax exempt colleges, and taped for later broadcast distribution, the Committee has asked about the potential significance of American Campaign Academy, 92 T.C. 1053 (1989). In my view this case offers uncertain guidance to the Committee at best. First, the task before the Committee is to judge the propriety of Mr. Gingrich's behavior, whereas the case has direct application only to an issue about the exempt status of the colleges at which he taught his course. The case simply does not articulate any principle that would condemn or exonerate the presentation of Mr. Gingrich's course content. Further, the case does not provide any standard for determining the propriety of Mr. Gingrich's teaching a course, even if partisan in content, at a tax exempt institution of higher learning. Finally, the case does not provide standards for condemning or exonerating the funding of the course by GOPAC. Assuming Mr. Gingrich's course was partisan, and designed to be so, and further assuming that GOPAC provided funds for the course, American Campaign Academy would apply, if at all, only to determining whether ``no more than an insubstantial part'' of the colleges' activities furthered a ``nonexempt purpose.'' In this exercise, which seems inappropriate for the Committee, the issue would require an examination of the colleges' educational operations and a determination that any private benefits conferred were more than an incidental part of the colleges' activities and purposes. Second, there is an adage taught in the first year of law school that ``hard cases make bad law.'' American Campaign Academy seems to be a good example of that adage. While the case reached the right result because of the integral closeness of the Academy and Republican Party sponsorship and direction, the reasoning of the case reaches the result by focussing heavily on a vague term that the Court called ``secondary benefit''. The ``secondary benefit'' of the Academy's program was the benefit to employers (Republican candidates) of the training acquired by Academy graduates. The Court found the ``secondary benefit'' disproportionately benefited Republicans (they were the only ones hiring the graduates). The Court's reasoning really plows uncharted waters, and it leaves only ill-defined notions of how to assess the whether recipients of the ``secondary benefits'' serve the organization's exempt educational purposes. If this Committee were to investigate whether the colleges' exempt purposes were served, delicate issues arise which the Committee will most likely not be in a position to assess, e.g., whether ``conservative'' or ``liberal'' viewpoints can be equated with partisan positions, whether the self- selection of an audience can constitute a cognizable group that can be said to receive a private benefit (or whether the possibility that some in the audidence will be motivated to join conservative or liberal causes entails a private benefit to a political party), or whether a tax exempt institution of higher learning with an established educational program loses its exempt status by presenting a political figure who offers definite views and is funded by designated contributions. These issues were not the subject of American Campaign Academy and to apply that case as if it were applicable precedent will not, in my view, answer the questions before the Committee or serve its best interests. [Memorandum] To: Members of the House of Representatives. From: David L. Hobson, Member of Congress. Date: January 21, 1997. Subject: Rules and Precedents Regarding Disciplinary Sanctions. i. legal authority to impose disciplinary sanctions The U.S. Constitution expressly authorizes the House to discipline its Members. Section 5, Clause 2 of Article I states that each House ``may punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.'' House Rule X, Clause 4(e), authorizes the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate any alleged violation by a Member of ``the Code of Official Conduct or of any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member. . . .'' House Rule X, Clause 4(e) also authorizes the Committee ``to recommend to the House from time to time such administrative actions as it may deem appropriate to establish or enforce standards of official conduct for Members. . . .'' Committee Rule 20(e) states: With respect to any proved counts against a Member of the House of Representatives, the Committee may recommend to the House one or more of the following sanctions: (1) Expulsion from the House of Representatives. (2) Censure. (3) Reprimand. (4) Fine. (5) Denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or immunity of the Member if under the Constitution the House of Representatives may impose such denial or limitation. (6) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to be appropriate. Alternatively, the Committee may issue a Letter of Reproval without obtaining the approval of the House if, pursuant to Committee Rule 20(d), it determines that such a letter ``constitutes sufficient action. . . .'' Committee Rule 20(g) provides the following guidance regarding the appropriateness of the different types of sanctions: A reprimand is appropriate for ``serious violations.'' Censure is appropriate for ``more serious violations.'' Expulsion is appropriate for ``the most serious violations.'' A monetary fine is ``appropriate in a case in which it is likely that the violation was committed to secure a personal financial benefit.'' A denial or limitation of a right, power, privilege, or immunity is appropriate ``when the violation bears upon the exercise or holding of such right, power, privilege, or immunity.'' Rule 20(g) also states that the above standards comprise only ``general guidelines'' and do ``not limit the authority of the Committee to recommend other sanctions.'' ii. precedent regarding sanctions Outlined below, in escalating categories of severity, are precedents regarding sanctions recommendations by the Committee since 1967, when the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was established as a standing committee of the House. Pursuant to House Rules, the memorandum omits mention of any case concerning a current House member. A. Letter of reproval 1. In re Rep. Jim Bates, H. Rep. No. 101-293, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989). In connection with allegations that Member sexually harassed female staff in violation of House Rule XLIII, Clause 9, Committee issued public letter of reproval directing Member to apologize to former staff. (The House took no action.) 2. In re Rep. Charlie G. Rose, III, H. Rep. No. 101-526, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988). In connection with allegations that Member borrowed campaign funds for personal use in violation of House Rule XLIII, Clause 6, and filed an inadequate Financial Disclosure Statement in violation of House Rule XLIV, the Committee adopted a Statement of Alleged Violation and issued a public letter of reproval. (The Member subsequently repaid the funds and amended his Financial Disclosure Statement.) 3. In re Rep. Richard H. Stallings, H. Rep. No. 100-382, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987). In connection with allegations that Member borrowed from his campaign fund for himself and a member of his staff, the Committee investigated and issued a public letter of reproval. B. Reprimand 1. In re Rep. Austin J. Murphy, H. Rep. No. 100-485, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987). Following an investigation and disciplinary hearing, Committee recommended reprimand regarding allegations that Member: allowed another person to cast his House vote in violation of House Rule VIII, Clause 1; permitted his former law firm access to official resources in violation of 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a), and Paragraph 5 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service; and maintained an employee on a committee payroll who was not performing duties commensurate with the employer's pay, in violation of House Rule XLIII, Clause 8. The House reprimanded the Member. 2. In re Rep. George Hansen, H. Rep. No. 98-891, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. (1984). Following a criminal conviction for making false statements on Financial Disclosure Statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, Committee held inquiry and disciplinary proceeding regarding violation of House Rule XLIV. Committee recommended reprimand, and the House concurred. 4. In re Rep. Daniel B. Crane, H. Rep. No. 98-296, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983). In connection with allegations that Member had an improper sexual relationship with a House page in violation of House Rule XLIII, Clause 1, the Committee conducted an investigation and recommended a reprimand. The House voted to censure the Member. 5. In re Rep. Gerry E. Studds, H. Rep. No. 98-295, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983). Committee recommended reprimand following investigation of allegations that Member had an improper sexual relationship with a House page in violation of House Rule XLIII, Clause 1. The House voted to censure the Member. 6. In re Rep. John J. McFall, H. Rep. No. 95-1742, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978). Committee adopted Statement of Alleged Violation, held a public investigative hearing, and recommended reprimand concerning allegations that Member failed to report campaign contribution by Tongsun Park in violation of House Rule XLIII, Clause 1. The House reprimanded the Member. 7. In re Rep. Charles H. Wilson, H. Rep. No. 95-1741, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978). In connection with allegation that Member made a false statement to the Committee concerning the receipt of funds from Tongsun Park, the Committee filed a Statement of Alleged Violation, held a hearing, and recommended a reprimand. The House voted to reprimand the Member. (See discussion below.) 8. In re Rep. Robert L. F. Sikes, H. Rep. No. 94-1364, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976). Committee recommended reprimand concerning allegations that Member used his office to further his personal financial interests in violation of Paragraph 5 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service and failed to disclose stock holdings in violation of House Rule XVIV. The House voted to reprimand the Member. C. Censure As indicated above, the House voted for censure in two 1983 cases (concerning Representatives Crane and Studds) in which the Committee recommended a reprimand. Other cases resulting in censure are outlined below. 1. In re Rep. Charles H. Wilson, H. Rep. No. 96-930, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980). Committee adopted Statement of Alleged Violation and recommended censure in connection with allegations that Member: accepted gifts from a person with a direct interest in legislation, in violation of House Rule XLIII, Clauses 1 and 4; and made personal use of campaign funds, in violation of House Rule XLIII, Clause 6. The Member was censured by the House. 2. In re Rep. Charles Diggs, H. Rep. No. 96-351, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979). Following criminal convictions for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341) and making false statements (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001), the Committee adopted Statement of Alleged Violation and recommended censure concerning allegations that Member inflated staff salaries to enable him to pay his personal and congressional expenses. (Member apologized and agreed to make restitution.) The House unanimously voted to censure the Member. 3. In re Rep. Edward J. Roybal, H. Rep. No. 95-1743, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978). Committee adopted Statement of Alleged Violation, held public investigative hearing, and recommended censure in connection with allegations that Member: failed to report campaign contributions in violation of House Rule XVIII, Clause 1; converted campaign funds to personal use in violation of House Rule XVIII, Clause 6; and made a false statement to the Committee in violation of House Rule XVIII, Clause 1. The House subsequently voted to reprimand the Member. (See discussion below.) 4. In re Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, H. Rep. No. 27, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). Special Select Committee considered allegations that Member used committee travel funds for personal travel, improperly authorized clerk hire payments to his wife, and committed contempt of court by failing to comply with New York state court orders. Special Select Committee recommended that Member be seated but deprived of his seniority, that he pay restitution for improperly authorizing the expenditure of official funds, and that he be censured by the House. House voted to exclude Member, imposed a fine, and denied him seniority. U.S. Supreme Court subsequently found that Member's expulsion was unconstitutional. D. Expulsion 1. In re Rep. Mario Biaggi, H. Rep. No. 100-506, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988). Following a criminal conviction, the Committee unanimously recommended expulsion in connection with charges that the Member: accepted illegal gratuities in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(g), House Rule XLIII, Clauses 1, 2, and 4, and Paragraph 5 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service; and failed to report gifts on Financial Disclosure Statements in violation of House Rule XLIV. House deferred action on expulsion resolution while Member defended against second prosecution. The Member resigned from the House. 2. In re Rep. Raymond F. Lederer, H. Rep. No. 97-110, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981). Following a criminal conviction for bribery arising out of the ``ABSCAM'' case, the Committee held an inquiry and disciplinary hearing, and subsequently recommended expulsion, concerning allegations that the Member accepted money in return for promising to use official influence, in violation of House Rule XLIII, Clauses 1 through 3. The Member resigned, and the House took no action. 3. In re Rep. Michael J. Myers, H. Rep. No. 96-1387, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980). Following a criminal conviction for bribery arising out of the ``ABSCAM'' case, the Committee held an inquiry and disciplinary hearing, and subsequently recommended expulsion, concerning allegations that the Member accepted money in return for promising to use official influence. The House expelled the Member. iii. cases concerning false statements to the committee In light of Speaker Gingrich's admission to the charges in the Statement of Alleged Violation, the two 1978 cases concerning Representatives Wilson and Roybal may be of particular interest to Members of the House. In the Roybal case, the Committee considered allegations that Representative Roybal received $1,000.00 in cash from Tungsun Park. The Committee found by ``clear and convincing evidence'' that Representative Roybal knowingly gave false testimony when he denied under oath that he received a gift or campaign contribution from Mr. Park, and concluded that Representative Roybal's false testimony constituted a violation of House Rule 43, Clause 1. In re Rep. Edward J. Roybal, H. Rep. No. 95-1743, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 1, 3-4 (1978). The Committee recommended that the House censure Representative Roybal, but the House voted to reprimand him instead. In the Wilson case, the Committee found that Representative Wilson knowingly made a false statement to the Committee in writing when, in a response to a Committee questionnaire sent to each Member of the House, Representative Wilson denied receiving anything of value greater than $100.00 from Tongsun Park. In re Rep. Charles H. Wilson, H. Rep. No. 95-1741, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 1-3 (1978). After a hearing, the Committee adopted a Statement of Alleged Violation in which it found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Representative Wilson had violated House Rule 43, Clause 1. Id. at 4-5. The Committee recommended to the House that Representative Wilson be reprimanded, and the House adopted that recommendation.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I had planned to speak longer, but I do not have time. But the only thing I would like to point out is I oppose this because there is not a date certain for ending this committee. We had an agreement that it would be in writing on the 21st. This merely just takes out the 21st date and leaves an open end so this committee can go on forever and ever, and therefore I oppose this motion.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member, and I urge support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report on the 1997 appropriations bill for the VA, HUD, and independent agencies. I would first like to commend my chairman, Jerry Lewis, and his excellent staff for their hard and tireless work on this legislation. I believe that we have produced an excellent bill which will provide for our veterans, help to meet our Nation's housing needs, protect the environment, and maintain our investment in space and science. Specifically, the conference report appropriates $84.8 billion in new budget authority which is an increase of $2.4 billion over 1996 levels. More than half of the total spending under the bill supports military veterans by providing health, housing, education, and compensatory benefits. We increased funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by $323 million and for the Environmental Protection Agency by $184 million over 1996 levels. Also, I am pleased that of $1.3 billion appropriated for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, funds will be available to provide disaster relief for those areas hardest hit by Hurricane Fran. The conference report also provides $13.7 billion for NASA and $3.3 billion for the National Science Foundation. The conference report also includes priorities which are important for citizens of the State of Ohio. For example, in Chillicothe, OH, the VA Medical Center has been trying to expand their ambulatory care facility for several years. In fact, the Veterans Integrated Service Network ranked the Chillicothe project as the highest priority in the network last year and the design work on the project was recently completed. However, because of a shortage of funds within the network, no dollars were available for Chillicothe last year. I am pleased that this conference report recommends $2.9 million in minor construction funding for Chillicothe's ambulatory care facility. The conference report also provides $206 million for FEMA's emergency management and planning assistance, which will fund priority emergency management programs in the States. In my home State, officials from the Ohio Emergency Management Agency have told me how important this funding is to supporting local response and recovery programs, preparedness training and exercises, and mitigation programs. I am glad this conference report supports these critical programs for the states. I am also pleased that the conference report directs FEMA to look into a new emergency response system developed in my congressional district by MTL in Beavercreek, OH. There is a critical need to replace and upgrade emergency response vehicles and equipment, and the conference report specifically requires FEMA to come up with a priority list for upgrading its emergency equipment by the end of the year, including the MIDAS system built in my district. To help address the shortage of affordable housing for persons with disabilities in Ohio and across the country, the conference report includes a $50 million set aside for section 8 tenant-based assistance for persons with disabilities. This appropriation is in line with the authorization provided in the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1995 and will provide much needed relief to persons with disabilities. Additionally, the conference report includes language encouraging more cooperative efforts between NASA and other Federal agencies such as the Department of Defense. I believe such cooperative programs will result in budget savings and the elimination of duplicative programs. For example, in Ohio, NASA Lewis and Wright-Patterson Air Force base have entered into several cooperative aeronautics research agreements which allow knowledge and expertise to be shared between the two organizations. Finally, I want to raise an issue that was not included in the conference report but is of importance of Ohio and hopefully will receive further consideration next year. The Wallace-Kettering Neuroscience Institute at Kettering Medical Center is a high technology neuroscience center which offers innovative programs dealing with brain diseases and injuries. The institute would like to expand its facilities to better serve patients in Ohio and the region. I look forward to discussing Kettering's neuroscience expansion with my colleagues. In closing, I would like to again commend Chairman Lewis, his staff, my colleagues on the subcommittee and our Senate counterparts. We have produced a good bill and have received every indication that it will be signed by the President.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, the final version of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act includes the provision that you just heard about that Congressman Sawyer and I wrote to modernize the way health care financial transactions are conducted, and we have worked for a number of years in a bipartisan fashion through a couple of Congresses to achieve this. Americans have the most advanced health care services in the world largely because of the technological advances that have been made. It is time we make the same technology apply to the way our health care system is run. The same high-speed electronic networks that modernized banking can be applied to our health care system so that bills can be filed easier, payments paid faster, and efficiency improved. In addition, the reductions in paperwork and improvement in speed, security and efficiency in billing helps get at one of the biggest problems currently facing the health care industry: fraud. Today we try to fight fraud with rooms full of clerks checking bills after they are paid, but billions of dollars of fraud simply slips by. Fraud will be easier to fight if every transaction can be coordinated electronically. Again, my thanks and congratulations to everyone who worked on this project. It has been a model of cooperation between the private and public sectors and between congressional Republicans and Democrats. I am looking forward to voting for this provision in the bill and encouraging everyone here to vote for not only the rule but the bill, this is truly a bipartisan bill.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time for the Speaker, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXII, to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997, that the first reading of the bill be dispensed with, that all points of order against consideration of the bill be waived, that general debate be confined to the bill and be limited to 2 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, that after general debate the Committee of the Whole rise without motion, and that no further consideration of the bill be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment, and I oppose the amendment because it will limit access to family planning services. This changes the law in 23 States and the District of Columbia. And I believe limited access to these services will lead to more abortions. Let's be clear on this amendment. This is not parental notification. This is parental consent, and there's a big difference. For the past 25 years, family planning services have been made available to low-income women and men through the Title X Program. In many cases, this program is their only source of health care. We're talking about basic primary health services, not abortion services. By law, title X funds cannot be used to pay for abortions. Through family planning services, unintended pregnancies have been reduce. Low-cost contraception can prevent the tragic personal and social impact of unwanted pregnancies and can save our health care system up to $14,000 per woman, over 5 years of use, compared to the cost of childbirth or pregnancy termination. The bottom line is that this amendment will limit access to family planning services. And I believe limiting access to these services will lead to more abortions. This is a health care issue, not an abortion issue. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I believe these services will actually lead to more abortions. Let us be clear on this amendment. It is not parental notification. This is parental consent, and there is a big difference. For the past 25 years, family planning services has been made available to low-income women throughout the title X program. In many cases this is the only health care source that these people have. This is a basic health care issue; it is not one of abortion because, by law, title X funds cannot be used for that. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should oppose the Istook amendment and pass the Obey substitute.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, my third grandchild was born June 1, and as I welcome him into the world, I can't help but wonder what kind of future he will face. How much will prices rise during his lifetime? Will the country still be a place of opportunity? Will there be a thriving economy to support his generation? When I think about the answers to these questions, it becomes increasingly clear to me that the best thing I can do for my new grandson is to vote ``yes'' for the conference agreement on the budget resolution. We're a year into balancing the budget, and the sky has not fallen like some said it would. Our budget has matured over the past year, but the quality of the debate about it has not. We moved on while our critics hung on to year-old arguments that don't fit the facts. They claim the sky is falling because they know it is easier to generate fear than understanding. Our budget is about conquering fear--conquering the fear that the next generation will have less opportunities than we've had. Over the past year, we've taken some good ideas and made them better. We've listened to our critics, and where they made a valid point, we compromised. And we've watched President Clinton distance himself from outdated ideas about big government and embrace Republican ideas as his own. But let's be clear: There are some real differences. President Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and would raise them again in his latest budget. We provide permanent tax relief. President Clinton would increase discretionary spending over the next 3 years, and put off decisions about cuts to his successor. We decrease discretionary spending every year. The most dramatic difference, however, is that President Clinton and our friends in the minority tell you to fear our budget and to put your faith in Washington spending and bigger Government. Instead, we take a view they consider extreme--we put our faith in the American people. Protect our children's and grandchildren's future and shift power, money and influence out of Washington and back to Americans. Join me in passing the 1997 budget resolution.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the House resolution, as a grandfather, and urge passage. My third grandchild--and second grandson--will be born soon, and as I think of welcoming this new Hobson into the world, I can't help but wonder what kind of future he will face. How much will prices rise during his lifetime? Will the country still be a place of opportunity? Will there still be a thriving economy to support his generation? When I think about the answers to these questions, it becomes increasingly clear to me that the best thing I can do for my new grandson is to vote ``yes'' for this budget package. When they look back on this Congress, our own children and grandchildren will judge us harshly if we pass up this chance, and we continue to rob them because we do not have the backbone to control our spending in this Chamber. Every time we deficit spend we are refusing to take responsibility for our actions. Many constituents I've talked to have had concerns about specific programs they benefit from, but without fail, they also remind me to follow through with the promise to balance the budget. People are willing to accept the changes necessary to preserve our country's fiscal security, but they want us to make sure that what we do is fair, and that we follow through on our commitment to balance the budget. We're a year into the balanced budget mission, and the sky has not fallen like some said it would. In fact, we all know that the sky will continue to brighten the closer we get to 2002 and to balance. I know there are many here today whose parochial interests lead them to declare this plan unfair. To those people I ask them to consider this: is it fair to take the money and future and opportunity from generations of Americans who aren't even born yet? That's what we do when we deficit spend and run up the debt. Someone pays and it isn't those of us in this room, it is our children and grandchildren who trust us to look out for them. Protect our children's and grandchildren's future and shift power, money and influence out of Washington and back to Americans: pass the 1997 budget resolution.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Budget may have until midnight tonight to file a report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997, and that it be in order on Wednesday, May 15, 1996, to consider that concurrent resolution under the following terms: One, the Speaker may declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the concurrent resolution; Two, the first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with; Three, all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution shall be waived; Four, general debate shall be confined to the congressional budget and shall not exceed 3 hours, including 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget; Five, after general debate, the Committee shall rise without motion; And six, no further consideration of the concurrent resolution shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute. I think the substitute is a laudable effort, but there are a lot of other things that we can do that are important to this issue. There is a bipartisan bill, it is called Hobson-Sawyer, and it is called Bond- Lieberman in the Senate, and it is in our bill, it is not in this bill. It is the administrative simplification bill. It gets rid of a lot of forms that have to be transferred around, a multiplicity of forms. It makes it simple. Everyone agrees that that is good. It also gets at fraud. Everyone agrees we ought to do that, but it is not in my colleagues' bill, and it should be in their bill. Everybody agrees that it is a good bill. There is no opposition. This part of the bill passed out of the committee 30 to zip. It is a good piece of legislation, it ought to be passed. That is why I support our bill and do not support the substitute.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members and staff of the Commerce and Ways and Means Committees for including administrative simplification in the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act. This provision is based on legislation that Tom Sawyer, Nancy Johnson, and I introduced earlier in this Congress. We have the most advanced health care services in the world due mainly to our success in using technology. We can use this same technology to improve the way our health care system is run. Our provision removes the barriers that have prevented modern technology from replacing outdated, paper-based health information systems. Today, the lack of uniform standards for financial and administrative health information is a barrier to modernizing health information systems. Most health plans already transmit data electronically, but the data is nonstandard or incomplete, and cannot be used to coordinate benefits or effectively track fraud and abuse. Uniform standards for health information would enable the private sector to reduce paperwork (which adds nearly 10 cents to every health care dollar), expose fraud (which is difficult to do in a confusing, disjointed paperwork system), and provide consumers with the information they need to compare health plans and services. The Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] is implementing a Medicare transaction system for handling standardized Medicare claims. Under current law, HCFA has the authority to adopt Government standards for health information, and to mandate the use of those standards by the private sector. Our administrative simplification provision, as it was included in this bill, limits HCFA to adopting standards that already have been developed by a voluntary, consensus process that has included input from the private and public sectors. It establishes a process for the standardization of health data that builds on progress in the private sector. Our provision was developed over several years in a cooperative effort between the private and public sectors. Political support for our provision is bipartisan and bicameral--it was introduced as H.R. 1766 by Representatives Dave Hobson, Tom Sawyer, and Nancy Johnson, and as S. 872 by Senators Kit Bond and Joseph Lieberman. Also, as the original author of this provision, I want to clarify that our intention is that health benefits under employee welfare benefit plans would not include hospital or fixed indemnity, specified disease, accident, disability income, dental, and vision benefits. These provisions and the overall bill respond to the need for health care reform in a responsible way. I encourage Members to vote for the bill.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is not an easy place to serve, and I appreciate the bipartisan support that we have worked with within that committee. The rule that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct presented to the House was arrived at after much spirited negotiations among its members but, I think, in good faith by all members of the committee. The goal of the rule is to solve various problems that we identified with the House's current policies relative to the publishing of books by Members. There were various views expressed by members of the committee, and this rule is a compromise. Not everybody agreed with every point in it, but it was a compromise. I support the committee's position and its rule. But, more importantly than that, I think it is important for the House to have this debate in a comity, for the most part which we have had, and whatever rule that comes out of this, it is important that we resolve this problem in a consensus manner without bitter debate because we have to judge ourselves and be judged by others and work together. So whatever rule comes out of this, it is important that we end it now and go back to our work together in the committee.

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

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the time on each side?

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]. (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my leader. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time.