Professional Documents
Culture Documents
25976
people
on the
who have
rolls.
number
who
are to be
commended
for their
help
resolve
this
difficult
issue.
intro-
Even before you th&nk other Members you ought to thank the staff. We
have had staff working on these problems on both sides of the aisle for
and a
we have received from the administration in helping to develop this compromise agreement. I commend Secretary
Heckler, Secretary of HHS; the Justice
Department; OMB; and the other Federal agencies that have been working
with us over the past few years.
In my view, the Reagan administration has been very forthcoming. As I
mentioned earlier, this law vvas passed
in the Carter administration. The responsibility for conducting the reviews
fell to the Reagan administration. I
cannot seem to get that straight for
Spencer Rich, the Washington Post,
and the New York Times, but sooner
or later they will get it right. If they
do report the facts, they will report
that the review bill was passed in 1980
and Ronald Reagan was not the President in 1980. Today, the Congress is
acting to revise the 1980 law.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to
support the conference report on H.R.
3755. It is a good, solid piece of legislation that ought to have unanimous
support.
Mr. President, I have attached a
summary of the conference agreement
at the end of my statement. There are
several points I would like to clarify
September
19,
1984
guage on burden of proof was eliminated because it was seen as unnecessary and potentially confusing. The
conference report also changes the
language of the "no presumption" in
the Senate bill to make it clearer that
we do not intend for the Secretary or
the courts to draw any initial inference of the presence or absence of continuing disability from the fact that
the recipient was found to be under a
disability in a prior determination.
I would like to note that the Supreme Court held in Matthews versus
Eldridge that the burden of proof lies
with the recipient.
Second, the conference report eliminates portions of the language in the
effective date of the Senate bill relating to the time limits, exhaustion requirements, and other provisions of
section 205 of the Social Security Act
and regulations of the Secretary.
These provisions are critical to the orderly administration of the program,
and nothing in this legislation should
be interpreted as detracting from their
broad applicability. The effective date
provision does, however, permit all
class members of certified class actions
to seek review of their cases under the
medical improvement standard establishment by this act, even where they
may not have pursued their' appeal
rights in accordance with section 205
members
may
them
the opportunity to receive such further review. But this should in no way
be interpreted as a judgment by the
conferees that these individuals have
claims properly pending in court or
that these classes were properly certified. The conference bill's treatment
of these cases should be given no
broader reading, and certainly should
not be used as a precedent.
Third, the Senate bill expressly provides that the medical improvement
standard established by the bill does
not apply to unnamed putative members of uncertified class actions, and
that such individuals, to the extent
they have not individually sought judicial or further administrative review
of their cases, will not have any further administrative review of the determination of the Secretary. The
House bill is silent on the matter. The
conferees, after carefully considering
this matter, have concluded that the
best approach is to prohibit any further certifications of class actions that
raise the issue of whether a medical
September
from the
of
this
19,
1984
which more
directly
enactment
approach,
addresses the
arise
constitutional questions
only in the context of litigation to which
the government is a party. Because of those
Washington, DC. May 7, 1984.
facts the government Is more likely than
Hon. Robert Dole,
Involved In lawsuits
Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, U.S. any private party to be
parties which nonetheless
different
against
DC.
Washington,
Senate,
Dear Chairman Dole: I am writing to ex- involve the same legal issues.
A rule allowing nonmutual collateral espress the Department of Justice's strong opgovernment in such cases
position to the provision In Section 234 of toppel against the
the development
H.R. 3755 requiring the Social Security Ad- could substantially thwart
law by freezing
ministration (SSA) to follow adverse court of important questions of
rendered on a pardecision
payments
the^^ftrgfflnal
calculating
In
decisions
appeals
of
ticular legal issue. Allowing only one final
to beneficiaries who were not parties to the
this Court of the
adverse decisions but whose cases would adjudication would deprive
benefit it receives from permitting several
arise within the jurisdiction of that court of
courts of appeals to explore a difficult ques-*
appeals. The Department of Justice previcertiorari.
ously commented on this proposal in a tion before this Court grknts
were routineand
estoppel
nonmutual
1983.
30.
September
if
Indeed,
dated
you
to
letter
Atly applied against the government, this
in testimony given by Deputy Assistant
*
Departmemt of Justice.
*
Office of the Solicitor General.
U.S.
many
Human
Services or as
In this
agency.
Federal
other
by any
regard, I would like to make a part of
the Record a letter by the Solicitor
General of the United States stating
that nonacquiescence is constitutionally proper, and that a prohibition of
nonacquiescence would have serious
adverse implications for the Government's litigation in the Social Security
of Health
and
25977
can
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Solicitor General's letter
be printed in the Record along with
the summary of the conference report.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
significant
ing the provision, because it often is difficult to ascertain the precise scope of a particular appellate decision until subsequent
cases arise on somewhat different facts and
a court is asked to distinguish prior precedent. Finally, the provision would have the
effect of rigidly freezing the law in a particular circuit and thereby foreclosing the
Secretary from asking an appellate court to
reconsider the particular holding in light of
'
great
discretion to choose the cases it will appeal.
As^he Supreme Court recently recognized
82-849
in funited States v. Mendoza, No.
(Jan. 10. 1984). the Government is not in a
position identical to that of a private litigant" (at p. 5). In that case a unanimous Su-
cessfully in another action against a different party, even within the same judicial cirmany of
cuit. The Court's decision rested on
the same considerations we have relied on in
objecting to Section 234 of H.R. 3755. The
Court observed (at p. 6: emphasis added):
Government
volves legal
Importance;
tions of the
so generally
litigation
'
gius.
aeftikst
"
Rex
E. Lee.
SolicitouGeneral.
H.R. 3755. THE Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984