Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 345, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that we got the rule out with the gentleman's help. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), author of the resolution.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman for or against the rule?

Mr. GOSS. If the gentleman would perhaps like to get rid of the Committee on Rules, if saving time is the final goal.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I think we have established the gentleman's views.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will try and be brief. I have got about 2 minutes' worth of summation here. I realize that when we talk about the rule in this hour set aside for the rule sometime some of the technical aspects seem to get lost in some of the other material that comes forward. I would like to refocus that this is actually the right rule and I believe it deserves all of my colleagues' support, no matter what their feeling is on the subject matter. To describe this as a silly rule, especially by the gentlewoman from Texas, who is a regular attendee at the Committee on Rules meetings and knows how hard we work up there, is indeed disappointing. I do not think this is silly at all. And, frankly, I think the substance is silly. I think it is troubling. We have got an underlying resolution here that actually brings forward an important question to the American taxpayer, and it is simply this: Should the taxpayer be held liable for what in this case a judge has determined to be dishonest conduct of high-ranking Government officials and lawyers? And I am not going to specify any. Should hard- working Americans be made to pay penalties of those at the White House who have been caught up in what the judge determined was a cover-up? That is what is being posed here in the resolution. Granted, it is the sense of Congress. I believe most Americans would say no to those questions. They would simply say, pay your own penalties. Stop the shenanigans, and do not expect us to pay for these things. The resolution to that question is what we are discussing today. But, obviously, a sense of Congress is not going to resolve the matter. I think there is an important point here. The President himself said it in this very Chamber not too long ago in the State of the Union address. We should all be accountable. Accountability is really what this is all about. Straightforwardness and accountability are really two of the basic precepts that we have in our Democratic governance. Occasionally, these things seem to be the first ones thrown overboard when there is a squall in the area; and sometimes we rue the fact that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are on the casualty list inside the Beltway. The information seems to surface in bits and pieces, and people are left with less than a clear and timely disclosure of facts that they are entitled to know about. So the specific misdeed that we are addressing here today took root early in the Clinton administration, as I understand it; and in an effort to avoid, what I think was a wrong effort to avoid, candid public debate on the merits of a health care proposal which involved universalizing or nationalizing our health care system, the White House did, in fact, hold secretive closed-door sessions, which is, in my view, completely contrary to the spirit and the intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which calls for sunshine. They had something to hide, as it turns out. It turned out to be an ill-conceived health care scheme that they were trying to sell to the United States of America. The idea I think of that scheme was that Washington, not your own doctor, knows what is best in terms of our own health care; and when the sunshine finally shone on that proposal, the American people saw it for what it was, and it fell of its own weight, and it was soundly rejected. But to compound to this circumstance, and here is what I think why it is a real problem and why this is serious business and we are taking it up today, is that White House officials and White House lawyers, at someone's direction, stonewalled efforts by the judiciary branch to determine the makeup and content of these health care advisory meetings. There was something wrong there. In fact, the administration produced a statement to the court that was, to use the court's words, the judge's words, ``simply dishonest.'' We cannot ignore that the judge called it a cover-up at the highest levels of government and ordered over $285,000, $285,000, in sanctions and penalties costs. These are not words and actions of some alleged radical right wing group. This is the court. These are the conclusions of the sister, co- equal group of government, the judiciary, doing its job. The White House was, quote, simply dishonest, acting in bad faith. So said the judge. We cannot ignore that. Now that the facts are in and the sanctions have been levied, the White House's guile on this I think is matched by arrogance, which I frankly do not like. They got caught. The judge said they acted dishonestly. And now they are saying to the American taxpayers the equivalent of, tough luck, you have got to pay the penalty. Now we have heard some of the legal reasons from our distinguished colleague and jurist from California, and I suggest the American people are more interested in justice than they are in the legalese of lawyers. I would like to submit for the Record the letter of December 29, 1997, from the Deputy Chief of Staff of the White House to the Honorable Bill Archer, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, saying that the White House will rely on the taxpayers paying this fine, paying these sanctions. Because I think that is wrong. I think this is running and hiding behind a piece of legislation that is not appropriate at this point and that is not acceptable, either, to the Americans. American taxpayers, in my view, should not have to pay for White House misdeeds. The White House, Washington, December 29, 1997. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your December 27, 1997 letter to the President concerning Judge Royce Lamberth's ruling regarding the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons' claim for legal fees related to the Health Care Task Force litigation. The Department of Justice is still reviewing whether to appeal Judge Lamberth's ruling. Nevertheless, the President is confident that Mr. Magaziner acted appropriately in this matter. The facts as well as the findings by the U.S. Attorney's Office in its 1995 investigation of Mr. Magaziner's conduct in this matter support this conclusion. In particular, the U.S. Attorney's Office determined that ``there is no basis to conclude that Mr. Magaziner committed a criminal offense in this matter. There is no significant evidence that his declaration was false, much less that it was willfully and intentionally so.'' Moreover, Mr. Magaziner acted upon the advice and guidance of government lawyers. As the President has stated, Mr. Magaziner is and will remain a valued member of this Administration. He is a hardworking and dedicated public servant. Judge Lamberth awarded fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. Should his ruling stand, the fees will be paid in the normal course, using appropriate government funds. Sincerely, John Podesta, Deputy Chief of Staff. Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution is not binding. We said that. We are not forcing the administration to do anything today. We are not trying to point fingers at individuals, at least I am not. But we are sending a clear message to constituents across the country that Government officials and lawyers must be held accountable for their actions. We are asking for accountability. There is no reason why hard-working Americans should pay through taxes almost $300,000 in sanctions levied against the Clinton White House. Somehow I think those taxpayers have got better use for that money. When there are ethical breaches of the White House, especially this White House that pledged to be the most ethical of all White Houses, the fault lies there. I think they should accept the responsibility and pay these sanctions, and I do not think the American people should be asked to do this. I applaud my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), for bringing this issue forward. I urge my colleagues to consider the American taxpayers when they vote and to consider the underlying need for accountability and what that means for the credibility of governance in this democracy, which is, after all, the foremost democracy in the world. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time; and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to advise my colleague and friend from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that all that remains on this side, as far as I know at this time, are some illuminating closing remarks.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is as straightforward as it gets when it comes to rules. This is a wide open rule that was voted out of the Committee on Rules last night without dissent or, in fact, really without debate. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, as we have heard, equally divided between the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) or his designee and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) or his designee. The rule provides that the Joint Resolution be considered as read and provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, which is of course the guarantee we always provide for the Minority. It is truly a bipartisan product that should elicit universal support, in my view. I cannot understand that this could in any way be a controversial rule. The only point that could have been of controversy was overcome last night by a brilliant suggestion by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), which was accepted unanimously by the full committee to make this as fair and as bipartisan and as open as has ever been done in the recorded history of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time,

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for reminding us that this is a debate about this good rule, and I am relieved to hear that he has no objection to it. I was hoping, actually, for an endorsement for the rule. But since I did not get that, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. May I inquire of the Speaker how the time divides at this point?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], who has done extraordinarily good work on 245(i).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order the fiscal year 1998 Commerce, Justice, and State conference report, the final appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. This is the standard rule for conference reports, waiving points of order against the conference report and its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report be considered as read. That is it. Another great rule from the Committee on Rules under the leadership of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] to get the job done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time. The rule is not controversial. We are prepared to yield back as soon as the gentleman is.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that actually this debate was supposed to be on the rule. I did not hear much objection to the rule. Actually I heard some praise for it. I think it is a fine rule, and perhaps we can get on with the debate about the census, which I know we have all been waiting for eagerly. I would like to compliment the gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman Livingston, and the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, for the fine work they have done through the appropriations process, which we now hope is drawing to a close. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], the Duke.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, in a moment of uncharacteristic optimism, I felt earlier that there was a possibility we might actually debate the rule. And since it is such a good rule and really not controversial, I thought we could dispose of it rather quickly. However, some very fine words have been uttered, and some of the provisions of the measure that the rule carries forward, and it seems that we are in a debate. So I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 301 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dan Schaefer of Colorado was allowed to speak out of order.) Removal of Name of Member as Cosponsor of H.R. 1173