Another novel legal interpretation by the maladministration and a nother bad precedent in place if this is allowed to stand... _________________ Official who withheld drug-bill costs didn't break law, report finds By Tony Pugh Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - Former Medicare administrator Thomas Scully broke no law when he repeatedly directed his chief cost analyst to withhold information that members of Congress sought about the cost of the Medicare prescription-drug bill, a report released Tuesday concludes. The finding by the Health and Human Services Department's independent Office of Inspector General relies heavily on a fresh opinion by the Bush administration's legal advisers, which concluded that the analyst wasn't legally independent enough to override his boss's order. Critics of that view - who included Republicans in the House of Representatives when the Clinton administration was in power - contend that Congress can legislate wisely only when executive branch experts share their information and expert opinions, especially about the costs of government programs. The new report, signed by Acting Principal Deputy Inspector General Dara Corrigan, found that on five occasions between June and October 2003, Scully blocked the efforts of his chief actuary, Richard Foster, to comply with congressional Democrats' requests for information about the cost of the Medicare drug bill. "Our investigation failed to produce evidence that criminal statutes were violated in connection with the failure to respond to congressional requests," the report concludes. Before 2003, the Medicare actuary's expertise and figures usually were provided to lawmakers who were debating Medicare legislation. The finding that Scully's actions violated no laws contradicts a report in April from the Congressional Research Service that also probed the matter. That earlier analysis concluded that Scully's efforts to muzzle and threats to fire Foster probably violated a 1912 statute that says a federal employee's right to communicate with and provide information to Congress "may not be interfered with or impeded." Lawyers for the General Accounting Office, Congress' watchdog agency, will be the final arbitrators of the conflicting opinions. The GAO is expected to report in a few weeks. For the Bush administration, the key issue was keeping Foster's analysis, which showed that the then-pending Medicare drug bill would cost $500 billion to $600 billion over the first 10 years, from critical Democrats. That was far more than the $395 billion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office and touted by the White House. In March, Knight Ridder reported exclusively that Foster nearly resigned in protest after Scully directed him to withhold cost estimates and other information sought by members of Congress who were drafting the Medicare legislation. Foster's figures threatened the passage of the White House-backed bill because 13 House Republicans had vowed to vote against it if it cost more than $400 billion. The bill initially passed the House by one vote in June 2003. A House-Senate compromise passed by five votes last November. In January, the Bush administration acknowledged that the bill probably would cost $534 billion over 10 years, not $395 billion. After Foster's allegations became public, Democratic lawmakers complained that Scully's actions were unethical and forced them to vote without full knowledge of the bill's costs. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, which handled the Medicare drug bill in the House, said Tuesday: "All I know is that the Congress did not have the best information available to make a judgment on vital legislation. ... We asked for it. We were not given it." Justice Department lawyers, in an analysis offered Tuesday, found that Scully was within his rights to order Foster to withhold information - as long as the directive was "not based upon an invalid or unlawful reason," wrote Katherine M. Drews, a Justice Department associate general counsel. The question Drews weighed was a narrow one: whether Foster could speak independently of his boss or needed to obey him. She concluded that Foster's job provides him "freedom from supervision in performing actuarial duties, not supervision of disclosure of Department records or information to the Congress." "Since the Chief Actuary is subject to CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Studies) supervision, the Administrator has the right to direct the Chief Actuary, just as any other CMS employee, to provide the Administrator with information for review prior to the information being provided to the Congress, or even direct that the information not be provided," Drews wrote. Foster, reached at home Tuesday, said he was surprised that the Congressional Research Service report and the HHS report differed so much in their findings. "My perception remains that Mr. Scully withheld that information for political purposes. And regardless of his legal right to withhold it, I continue to believe that it's wrong and unethical to withhold technical information from Congress." The HHS probe had been sought by HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson and five Democratic lawmakers. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9092199.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Hey, I don't go in until 9:00 MST, so it's usually winding up while I'm getting dressed and eating breakfast. Al Trautwig is the man!
