Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, that is like asking me to raise Newt Gingrich's fine. And it is not going to happen, and the gentleman and I know it. If in fact you are looking for the President to go out and give some hard-earned campaign funds to this issue, I think that that is what you should suggest. What you are trying to suggest is that the Republicans are doing something noble. You are not. You are coming up to the edge, but you do not have the nerve to make this a law. You do not, just like you are not solving the health care problems. You are talking about it, but you do not have the nerve. It is just like finding health insurance for children. You talk about it, but you do not have the nerve to do it. You are flimflamming the American people, and that is what this resolution is. You are worried, Magaziner is no charm, but you are worse. You are worse because you have the chance to correct it now, and you are misleading the American people because you will not act, you do not have the guts, you do not have the nerve to do it. We are offering you that chance. And you will not take it. You are sitting there on your hands just wondering, what do we do now? Come on, guys. If you want to legislate, legislate. But if you are afraid to, do not keep people up all night listening to this because the American public knows it is simple. It is very simple. This resolution has no force and effect. We, the Democrats, have offered you a unanimous consent request to make it law. It would happen just like that. No votes, no nothing. All you have to do is accept it, and you refuse. So what are we doing but wasting money and time while you want to argue about some guy who we all agree was a useless addition to the health care debate. I submit that the American public will recognize that it is the Republicans who will not protect Americans from HMOs by giving them a bill of rights. It is the Republicans who are frustrating the chance to provide decent health care to early retirees. It is the Republicans who are not getting children the care they need. I think that that is a sad commentary on this Congress and its current leadership. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to concur in what the gentleman is saying. I have some other language. The court found that ``The declaration Mr. Magaziner made was false.'' It was, ``The most outrageous conduct by the government in this case is what happened when it never corrected or updated the Magaziner declaration.'' I mean it was wrong. He did say, however, that the government did take action that amounted to what the court referred to as a total capitulation. So I do not think that is an issue with which we would debate with the gentleman. Magaziner either lied, misrepresented, or did not know what he was talking about. I would further go on to say I have not much faith in the gentleman's ability to get anything straight. So whether he made it up or whether he was just wrong, it is the same old Ira Magaziner. No quarrel from me. I do not feel that way, I might add for the record, about Mrs. Clinton, with whom I worked closely, as well as Mr. Magaziner, during all of that.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, the President under the law cannot. You want him to break the law twice. He has been ordered by the judge to pay the fine. It is only us who can prevent it. So I am offering you the chance again. Let us prevent it. You and I right now, before we go home for dinner, we can solve this.

Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just remind my distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), that this resolution does not do what he wants done. He knows that. He is a brilliant lawyer. But I offered, Mr. Chairman, him the opportunity to make this a law, and it was turned down by the Republicans. So if we really want to do what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is asking us to do, we will make this a law instead of a meaningless resolution. So while you can talk tough, you are not willing to fight. You are talking the talk, but you will not walk the walk. You are afraid to make this work. You are afraid of the consequences of what could happen. You will not do it. We are offering you the opportunity. Where are you, Republicans? If you want to embarrass the President, come on. I will repeat my request for unanimous consent to strike section 2 and make it a bill. Will the gentleman accept my challenge?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I was not allowed into those sessions and felt badly about that. What I am suggesting is that the issue was that subsequent to all of this the people who brought the original lawsuit, mostly asking for an injunction to stop it, that is what they started out asking for. And then, many years later, they came back to ask to get their legal fees back. So they were awarded legal fees; not a fine. Nobody was convicted. As a matter of fact, Ira was investigated by the U.S. Attorney, who found that he did nothing that would have warranted his being indicted. Now, that is where we are, and I believe those are the facts. And I do not know as we have to go on. He was wrong. The government admitted it. I do not know whether he ever admitted it. The people who brought the case were awarded legal fees that the government is obligated to pay because, under the law, nobody else can pay it. Now, that is where we are tonight. I would be perfectly willing to figure out how to prevent that. This resolution does not do it. So what I am suggesting is we may have more accord here than the gentleman thinks.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to the gentleman from Arizona, we can settle this right now. As we have heard earlier, the sense of the Congress resolution would have no legal effect. What the American Law Division told me is if its language was introduced as a bill, its effect would work, if it is not ruled unconstitutional. So I would ask the gentleman if he would object if I asked unanimous consent that on page 3, that we strike all of section 2, basically which is the section that talks about a joint resolution, and merely reword the language to say, ``No payment of award by taxpayers. The award of $285,684.78 in attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions that Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered the defendants to pay in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., et al., v. Hillary Rodham Clinton, et al., shall not be paid with taxpayer funds.'' I would offer that as a unanimous consent. We could agree, and go home.

Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it shows me the majority is not serious about doing this. This is, indeed, as this certifies, they are just playing games here and posturing, because if they wanted to not spend the money, we could have done it right then. I offered it, we could have passed it, gone home. Absolutely the money would not get paid. Now we are just posturing. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really cannot resist, gentlemen. I think my colleagues are on pretty thin ice when they start talking about who is lying and who is hurting the American people. I remember when Secretary Schlesinger and Secretary Kissinger lied to this Congress and thousands of Americans died unnecessarily in Vietnam. Put that in your book against 238,000 bucks and see how you come out. I can remember when Nixon lied and we put him away. I can remember when Harding lied over an oil deal, by golly, and we put him away. So there is nothing partisan or unique about politicians stretching the truth. Our own Speaker may have very well been dealt with and have to pay some money or have other people pay it. Let us not get into whether all politicians never lie, ever lie, maybe lie, should not lie. I am willing to stipulate to my distinguished friends that Ira Magaziner did the wrong thing in spades. I would go further and say, I think he is kind of a nut. But my colleagues should be happy that he is still working for President Clinton. He will do more to help us inside the White House than if we put him in jail. So I say, why do we not stay ahead of the game? Let the guy in there.

Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, seriously, nobody is debating that there was serious error, but I do not think anybody in this Chamber can debate the other side and say, nobody else has ever made an error as egregious or as costly, either in dollars or in human life. That is not the issue. I think I established with my good friend from Arizona that they would rather have this as a debate to in effect tweak the White House, see if they can humiliate the President a little bit. Although it seems to be with events that have led up to this, they have tried and have not succeeded. His popularity is high because he has done a good job with the budget; he has done a good job of addressing all of the things that the Republicans were unable to do that the Democrats did. So I do not know as this is going to make a major difference. But the resolution deals with government officials using private citizens. Is it any worse to meet with lobbyists in private to try and destroy health insurance to fight for improvements in health care in America? We have a memo from the Health Insurance Association of America, the for-profit health insurance lobby, and it talks about the Speaker's aides calling lobbyists up to Capitol Hill to trash a bill to provide consumer protections in HMOs. That was done in secret. Is that any worse than a goof-up like Magaziner making the wrong statement and not letting us find out about a health care plan that never came through? I do not think so, because I think every American wants to see managed care protections. So when the Republicans, to be trying to defeat the bill of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) in secret, to me is more harmful than bashing this and not really stepping up to the bar. I would like to save the $285,000 just like my colleagues would, but they turned down my unanimous consent request to do that. There is a fly-in today, not a fly in the ointment, I mean a fly into Washington. The National Association of Manufacturers, that outgrowth of the John Birch Society, is staging a fly-in to get sponsors off of the bill of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), which would protect consumers in this country from egregious treatment by managed care plans. Now, this was perpetuated by the Republican leadership, certainly not in open court, in an attempt to kill a bill that has enough cosponsors to pass. Is it egregious? No. Mean-spirited? Yes, I would say so. I think that trying to help get 41 million people insured who are uninsured was a good effort in 1993. The Republicans defeated that, and I think that there was indeed a screw-up by Mr. Magaziner and the administration, but I am just suggesting to my colleagues that this tends to point us away from the important issues of the day, and the issues of the day are not whether they are going to pay $285,000 out of the Treasury, because this resolution will not have any effect on that one way or the other. I offered to do that, my colleagues turned it down. It cannot be just about lying, because that does not seem to be the special province of any party or any body to government or any particular social institution in general. It certainly cannot be that my colleagues just want to humiliate the President, because there is a long line outside the White House of people who are trying to do that now, and it does not seem to have much effect, because at least, regardless of what went on in 1993, the President is doing this: He is addressing the issue of helping children. He is addressing the issue of getting insurance to people where the private sector will not give it to them now, and the only objection I am getting from the other side of the aisle is that government is doing it. Well, that is an objection, I guess, if my colleagues believe that. He is addressing the issue of a cleaner environment. He is addressing the issue of helping small business provide retirement funds. Now, we can embarrass him, but I will tell my colleagues, the American people know that he is trying to deal with the issues that are important to them. So I would hope we could say again and again, Ira Magaziner was a bum. Ira Magaziner ought not to have been there and he did not help promote the health care of this Nation at all. He is an embarrassment, he ought to go back and continue to ruin General Motors or Electric or whatever he did before he came here. I stipulate to that. I do not care. If there is a way my colleagues could find, and I offered it to them to get the $285,000 out of his hide. I lead the parade. My colleagues turned down that offer. So why do we not just agree, I say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), my good friend, that he was a bum, the government made a mistake, we do not want him to pay $285,000, my colleagues do not want him to pay $285,000, but this bill is not going to stop it, and we have had an interesting debate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one, I would remind the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that we offered a unanimous consent request which would absolutely cut out the payment with any taxpayers' money and it was rejected by his side of the aisle. I would further remind the gentleman that, while they have spent the better part of a year and a half or better part of a year trying to get rid of a duly elected Democrat to the House of Representatives who committed no crime, other than to get elected, the Republicans are harboring a convicted felon in their delegation and have done nothing except see that his salary is paid and that he is an active Member of the Republican House delegation. So I would suggest that one ought to be careful about talking about who pays money to crooks on whose time, because it is the Republicans that are supporting a crook in their midst and not doing anything to get rid of him. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

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

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me for a colloquy. Prior to this rule resolution, the gentleman and I had discussed the following scenario for the advice of Members. It is this gentleman's hope on this side of the aisle that there would be no amendments for which a recorded vote would be requested. And that if there are no amendments that come to a vote, final passage, not necessarily the rule, which may or may not call for a vote, but after the rule, it would not be our intention to ask for a recorded vote. I think the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) would concur in that, with the understanding that we obviously cannot control our colleagues' actions. But I ask the gentleman if that is his understanding.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I thank the gentleman; and I hope we can conclude. We will have a strenuous debate, and I have a hunch that the gentleman will win on a voice vote. So, anticipating that, I hope Members can make their plans accordingly.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendments that have been offered, with the anticipation that they would be denied the opportunity for debate, should illustrate to the American people what we have tried to suggest here. There is, in fact, no question that there was a serious breach of behavior on part of the administration, for which they apologized and a Federal judge assessed legal costs; and we have agreed that the American taxpayers should not pay for it. And the Democrats have offered as an amendment, as a unanimous consent request, a concrete, absolute way to see that that is denied. My colleagues, on the other hand, have ducked that and not wanted to. Perhaps they wanted to see how it will twist in the wind a little longer. Secondly, the other amendments have called attention to the American people that, while the President has sought to extend health care to the 40-plus million Americans who do not have it, to provide health care coverage or access at no cost to the Federal Government and at no cost to anyone else, to the early retirees, to extend health care to children, to give people who are in managed-care plans the protection from the egregious actions of the for-profit insurance companies by denying them access to emergency room care, by denying young children needed medical procedures which could save their lives, and then having these same corporate plans hide behind the skirts of ERISA as they attempt to avoid liability. And while the Republican leadership has refused to support Dr. Norwood's bill which would accomplish this and has bipartisan support and has more than enough cosponsors to pass this House, it shows that it is the Republican leadership that is conspiring with the lobbyists in secret to keep the American people from getting the managed care protection they need, from getting the health care they need at a reasonable cost and indeed getting fair treatment by this Congress. Because that fair treatment is being denied by the Republican leadership. Mr. Chairman, with that unhappy assessment of this rather waste of time of a resolution, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is germane. It refers to the work of the task force, which is still uncompleted and, instead of concentrating on the mistakes of 4 years ago, calls on Congress to help all Americans obtain health security. Members, we in the Congress, have excellent health insurance; and we should support similar coverage for our constituents. It is, after all, the nexus of what this whole resolution is about, is the issue of the task force and why it failed; and I think that it should indeed be included so that we show our resolve to show all Americans that they should have at least as good health insurance as they are paying for us Members of Congress.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Arizona, who is on the Committee on Appropriations, while this may not come before his subcommittee, is he aware of other times when we have appropriated money to pay legal fees for officers or employees of the executive branch of the government in cases like this?

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress will soon be introducing a bill to provide affordable health insurance for people in the age 62- 65 bracket and for displaced workers over age 55. The bill will let Americans buy-into Medicare at full cost--that is, without any cost to the existing Medicare system. Five Senators have already voted for this proposal: Senators Roth, Stevens, Thurmond, Byrd, and Inouye all voted for it in 1972, when the Senate version of H.R. 1 included a proposal from the Senate Finance Committee to let spouses of Medicare eligible individuals and early Social Security retirees buy into Medicare. Senator Dole also voted for the proposal. The Senate floor statements by Republican Senator Gurney of Florida and Democratic Senator Cranston of California are still an eloquent testimony to why this year's proposal makes great sense. I would like to include this legislative history in the Record at this point. The numbers cited in speeches have to be updated, of course, but the reasons why we should give people the option of spending their own money to buy into Medicare are still accurate: Social Security and Welfare Reform--Summary of the Principal Provisions of H.R. 1 as Determined by the Committee on Finance, Committee on Finance, United States Senate, Russell B. Long, Chairman, June 13, 1972 Medicare Coverage for Spouses and Social Security Beneficiaries Under Age 65 Present Law Under present law, persons aged 65 and over who are insured or are deemed to be insured for cash benefits under the social security or railroad retirement programs are entitled to hospital insurance (part A). Essentially all persons aged 65 and over are eligible to enroll for medicare insurance (part B) without regard to insured status. The House bill includes a provision that would permit persons aged 65 and over who are not insured or deemed insured for cash benefits to enroll in part A, at a premium rate equal to the full cost of their hospital insurance protection ($31 a month through June 1973). Problem Many additional social security cash beneficiaries find it difficult to obtain adequate private health insurance at a rate which they can afford. This is particularly true if they are of an advanced age, say, age 60-64. Frequently, these older beneficiaries--retired workers, widows, mothers, dependents, parents for example--have been dependent upon their own group coverage or that of a related worker who is now deceased for health insurance protection. It is a difficult task for such older persons to find comparable protection when they no longer are connected to the labor force. Finance Committee Amendment The provision makes Medicare protection available at cost to spouses aged 60-64 of Medicare beneficiaries and to other persons age 60-64 (such as a beneficiary who elects early retirement at age 62) entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act. Social Security Amendments of 1972--Amendment amendment no. 989 (Ordered to be printed and referred to the Committee on Finance.) Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I am today introducing an amendment to H.R. 1 that would apply to that part of the bill dealing with medicare. My amendment is directed toward the 3 million or so people between 60 and 65 whose husbands or wives receive medicare benefits but who are not eligible for it themselves. By and large these people live on limited retirement incomes and, as retirees, are more vulnerable to economic hardship resulting from serious illness. The most reasonable solution would be to bring them under the umbrella of medicare, while adding as little as possible to the cost of that program. This amendment would do just that. It provides that one spouse must be over 65 and already enrolled in the medicare program for the other spouse, who must be at least 60, to enroll in the program and receive equivalent benefits at cost. The cost of these benefits to the newly eligible spouse should be reasonable enough to attract enrollees yet comprehensive enough to provide the necessary medical coverage. For an estimated $30 to $35 a month, spouses will get the same hospital insurance and insurance to cover physician's charges that anyone else enrolled in medicare gets. To discourage people from waiting until they are sick to enroll, this amendment provides for a 10-percent increase in premiums for each year they delay. Thus, the potential enrollee has an incentive to sign up when he or she is 60. Such a proviso will put the program on a sounder financial basis. In summary, this proposal will provide the spouse of a retiree on medicare with adequate medical insurance at reasonable rates during a 5-year period when getting a policy from a private company would be either impossible or prohibitively expensive. Once the person reached age 65, regular medicare would take over, dropping the $30 to $35 a month charge to an estimated $5.80 per month. Since the financial burden of this proposal would be underwritten by the subscribers and since its implementation would utilize the administrative services of a program already in existence--medicare--this seems to be the most efficient and most economical way to reduce some of the trails and tribulations faced by our senior citizens. They have worked hard for their retirement and they deserve a chance to live it in peace and contentment. This amendment would help give them that chance without depriving them of their dignity or overburdening the already hard-pressed American taxpayer.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, we must have the facts to debate the relative merits of alternative tax systems. I commend the following New York Times article to my colleagues and urge them to take a hard look at the math before endorsing the concept of a national sales tax to replace the current income tax. [From the New York Times, Jan. 23 1998] The 23 Percent Solution? (By Robert S. McIntyre, Director, Citizens for Tax Justice) Washington.--Suppose a bunch of rich people want to promote a national sales tax to replace the Federal income tax. How do they try to persuade the public to support such a plan? Simple: play with the arithmetic. Earlier this month, the well-financed group Americans for Fair Taxation, based in Texas, kicked off a sales-tax campaign with a full-page advertisement in several large newspapers. It called for replacing all the main Federal taxes--personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes and the estate tax--with a 23 percent national retail sales tax. According to the group, such a plan would raise exactly as much money as current laws do, while cutting taxes for just about everyone. The group's plan has been implicitly endorsed by Representative Bill Archer, a Republican from Texas, the chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee and a longtime sales-tax fan and income-tax hater. I was curious about how the group did its arithmetic, so I checked about its Web site--www.fairtax.org_and sent a note to the E-mail address to get further information about the group's calculations. According to the group's figures, at 1995 levels a new sales tax would have to raise $1.36 trillion to replace all Federal income taxes, payroll taxes and estate and gift taxes. Under its plan, the group says, taxable spending would be $4.6 trillion (after accounting for rebates to partly protect lower-income families). So, $1.36 trillion divided by $4.6 trillion would be the required sales tax rate. Fine, except that $1.36 trillion divided by $4.6 trillion is not 23 percent. It's about 30 percent. It turns out that the group's purported 23 percent tax rate is misleading and hypothetical. It came up with that number by dividing the sales tax by the cost of a purchase plus the tax. So if the tax on a $100 purchase is $30, the group prefers to call it a 23 percent ``tax inclusive rate'' ($30 divided by $130). Ever hear of computing a sales tax like that? The fact that the group's sales tax, even by its own figures, entails a 30 percent tax rate is only the beginning of the math problems. The group's backup materials also assert that almost a third of its projected sales-tax revenue is supposed to come from taxes the Government will pay to itself. Build a road, pay yourself a tax. Buy some planes for the Air Force, pay yourself some more. And so on. Unfortunately, that shell game won't work. Without these phantom governmental tax payments, the sales tax rate would have to jump to 42 percent to break even. A bit more digging reveals that a quarter of the remaining sales taxes are supposed to be paid on things like church services, free care at veterans hospitals and a variety of hard-to-tax financial services like free checking accounts. If we discount the taxes on these items, the sales tax rate would have to climb to an astronomical 56 percent to break even. Apparently, the millions of dollars that American for Fair Taxes says it has spent on focus groups and polling have taught it an important lesson: giving people the real facts about a national sales tax is politically disastrous for its proponents. So the group is trying the only other available route: cooking the numbers.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize Fred Korematsu, a man who stands as an example of the immutable struggle for human rights and social equity. Fifty-six years ago, a young Japanese American man stood up for justice and, as a result, had his freedom taken away. In 1942, Fred Korematsu resisted the order which sent 120,000 Japanese Americans into internment, as perceived threats to national security during World War II. Fred Korematsu defied the order because he was an American citizen who merely wanted to life his life as an American. His refusal to report to internment resulted in conviction of a felony. he was placed in a confinement camp in Utah. In 1944, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, his case was brought before the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of that discriminatory order, but the court upheld the conviction. It took four decades for that injustice to be redressed. In 1983, evidence was brought to light which showed officials in the Navy and the Justice Department had suppressed information showing Japanese Americans were not a threat to national security. With that proof, Fred Korematsu made another appeal for justice. Recognizing that internment had been based on fraudulent information, a federal court finally vacated his conviction. On January 15, 1998, the man who was handcuffed and taken to jail as an enemy alien over half a century ago, was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor our nation can bestow. His steadfast belief in freedom and liberty should have evidenced him as a true American in 1943. today, I applaud Fred Korematsu on his reception of the Medal of Freedom. It is a recognition too long deferred. His case reminds us of the ease with which discrimination can be perpetrated and freedom violated. The internment of Japanese Americans is a deplorable part of our nation's history, and it should always be remembered as such. They were American citizens treated as alien enemies. Let Fred Korematsu continue to stand as an ideal of commitment to progress and perseverance against injustice.