Dr. No's Reaction To Senate Panel: 'So what?'
By Martin Kady II/Politico ~ The Senate Ethics Committee has told Republican Sen. Tom Coburn that he’ll be engaged in a “serious violation of Senate rules” if he continues delivering babies back home in Oklahoma.
Coburn’s response: So what?
“On my own time, I’m taking care of women who have a need, and I’m going to continue to deliver babies,” Coburn, an obstetrician, told Politico. “I’m not going to stop.”
Coburn would not say specifically whether he has actually delivered a baby since the June 22 deadline set by the Ethics Committee, but he made it clear that he could deliver one any day now — and thereby force the Ethics Committee to put up or shut up.
Coburn — an irascible Republican known as Dr. No — has been fighting with the Ethics Committee for years over whether he can continue to practice medicine.
As a member of the House, Coburn delivered approximately 400 babies under an arrangement with the House ethics committee that allowed him to provide medical services as long as the fees he collected allowed him to only break even on his costs. When Coburn was elected to the Senate — and was told that his existing arrangement violated Senate rules on outside income — he stopped collecting money altogether, delivering babies for free so that he could keep up his medical skills and return to private practice after leaving elected office.
All of Coburn’s work is pro bono, and he pays malpractice premiums and administrative fees out of his own pocket.
But in recent correspondence, the Senate Ethics Committee told Coburn that because his local facility — the Muskogee Regional Medical Center — is now owned by a for-profit entity, it’s a conflict of interest for him to provide services there for free.
Coburn says that’s nonsense. “The hospital gets nothing from my services,” he said. “I don’t bill anything.”
The Ethics Committee does its work in secret, and its members are not allowed to comment on ongoing proceedings. Thus, neither the chairwoman, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), nor the ranking member, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), would discuss the Coburn situation.
But according to a series of letters obtained by Politico, the panel has repeatedly told Coburn that delivering babies — even pro bono — at a for-profit medical facility violates ethics rules. The panel gave Coburn the same advice when Republicans controlled the Senate, and both Boxer and Cornyn have signed letters telling him to stop delivering babies.
Coburn, known for tying up the Senate in procedural knots, thinks he has the upper hand. If the Ethics Committee actually gets to the point where it calls for a public reprimand, Coburn can appeal to the full Senate for a vote, and he’s betting that he’d win a vote if 100 senators were asked whether he should be allowed to deliver babies for free — especially since most of his patients are “at risk,” meaning they could be drug users, uninsured or poor patients, or women with high-risk pregnancies.
Coburn also insists that, with all the high-profile ethics scandals facing Congress — leading off with Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens’ federal criminal trial this fall — the Senate would look petty by going after someone who is donating his money and medical services to help pregnant women.
Senate aides would not comment on the record, but ethics experts on and off Capitol Hill say the Senate Ethics Committee needs to be consistent in applying its conflict of interest rules, even if Coburn presents a sympathetic case. Aides also point out that many senators have given up their professional lives when they were elected. Sen. John Ensign gave up his Nevada veterinary practice, Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia stopped selling real estate and former Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee stopped performing heart and lung transplant work. All three are Republicans.
The committee’s case against Coburn is based on Senate rules that prohibit senators from being involved in professional affiliations that would create a conflict of interest. Stanley Brand, a congressional ethics expert who has represented several legally troubled members of Congress, including Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), says the Ethics Committee is wasting its time.“If he wants to deliver babies, and there’s no direct pecuniary conflict, why make this into a cause célèbre?” Brand said. “It’s so absurd to be squeezing this guy. It’s another example of leadership run amok.”
Coburn’s response: So what?
“On my own time, I’m taking care of women who have a need, and I’m going to continue to deliver babies,” Coburn, an obstetrician, told Politico. “I’m not going to stop.”
Coburn would not say specifically whether he has actually delivered a baby since the June 22 deadline set by the Ethics Committee, but he made it clear that he could deliver one any day now — and thereby force the Ethics Committee to put up or shut up.
Coburn — an irascible Republican known as Dr. No — has been fighting with the Ethics Committee for years over whether he can continue to practice medicine.
As a member of the House, Coburn delivered approximately 400 babies under an arrangement with the House ethics committee that allowed him to provide medical services as long as the fees he collected allowed him to only break even on his costs. When Coburn was elected to the Senate — and was told that his existing arrangement violated Senate rules on outside income — he stopped collecting money altogether, delivering babies for free so that he could keep up his medical skills and return to private practice after leaving elected office.
All of Coburn’s work is pro bono, and he pays malpractice premiums and administrative fees out of his own pocket.
But in recent correspondence, the Senate Ethics Committee told Coburn that because his local facility — the Muskogee Regional Medical Center — is now owned by a for-profit entity, it’s a conflict of interest for him to provide services there for free.
Coburn says that’s nonsense. “The hospital gets nothing from my services,” he said. “I don’t bill anything.”
The Ethics Committee does its work in secret, and its members are not allowed to comment on ongoing proceedings. Thus, neither the chairwoman, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), nor the ranking member, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), would discuss the Coburn situation.
But according to a series of letters obtained by Politico, the panel has repeatedly told Coburn that delivering babies — even pro bono — at a for-profit medical facility violates ethics rules. The panel gave Coburn the same advice when Republicans controlled the Senate, and both Boxer and Cornyn have signed letters telling him to stop delivering babies.
Coburn, known for tying up the Senate in procedural knots, thinks he has the upper hand. If the Ethics Committee actually gets to the point where it calls for a public reprimand, Coburn can appeal to the full Senate for a vote, and he’s betting that he’d win a vote if 100 senators were asked whether he should be allowed to deliver babies for free — especially since most of his patients are “at risk,” meaning they could be drug users, uninsured or poor patients, or women with high-risk pregnancies.
Coburn also insists that, with all the high-profile ethics scandals facing Congress — leading off with Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens’ federal criminal trial this fall — the Senate would look petty by going after someone who is donating his money and medical services to help pregnant women.
Senate aides would not comment on the record, but ethics experts on and off Capitol Hill say the Senate Ethics Committee needs to be consistent in applying its conflict of interest rules, even if Coburn presents a sympathetic case. Aides also point out that many senators have given up their professional lives when they were elected. Sen. John Ensign gave up his Nevada veterinary practice, Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia stopped selling real estate and former Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee stopped performing heart and lung transplant work. All three are Republicans.
The committee’s case against Coburn is based on Senate rules that prohibit senators from being involved in professional affiliations that would create a conflict of interest. Stanley Brand, a congressional ethics expert who has represented several legally troubled members of Congress, including Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), says the Ethics Committee is wasting its time.“If he wants to deliver babies, and there’s no direct pecuniary conflict, why make this into a cause célèbre?” Brand said. “It’s so absurd to be squeezing this guy. It’s another example of leadership run amok.”
Labels: Senate Ethics Committee, Tom Coburn
posted by Mike McCarville @ 9:46 AM
<< Home