[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E1931]]


          PRESIDENTIAL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOHN L. MICA

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, October 21, 1996

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that as one of its last 
actions this historic 104th Congress will pass the Presidential and 
Executive Office Accountability Act. In one of its first legislative 
actions, this Congress took the unprecedented step of making itself 
subject to the same laws that govern private citizens and businesses. 
Now, this legislation, which I introduced, will make the White House 
obey those laws, too.
  When the President signs this bill, the last plantation where 
American civilians toil beyond the reach of some of the basic labor and 
employment laws imposed on private enterprise will have fallen. As a 
result of the Congressional Accountability Act and this legislation, 
the political branches of government will be required to wrestle with 
the same knotty problems that private businesses face every day. They 
will face compliance with the same laws and edicts imposed on all 
Americans.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the bill we are passing today is not 
nearly as strong as the bill this House passed by a vote of 410 to 5 on 
September 24, 1996. It has been watered down in a number of areas, 
mostly as a result of administration pressure. Unlike Congress and the 
private sector, the White House will have the option of following the 
Federal sector version of some of these employment laws. That is, 
rather than obey the same law as the legislative branch and American 
businesses, the President may take advantage of special variations of 
those laws that apply to the executive branch.
  Some very important provisions have been stripped altogether. One was 
a long overdue revision of the definition of ``special government 
employee.'' These special government employees--who often serve without 
pay--are subject to conflict-of-interest statutes and financial 
disclosure requirements. Such checks on the activities of volunteer 
advisers to the President and White House employees are indispensable 
for safeguarding the integrity of governmental processes and decisions. 
Yet ambiguities in existing law were exploited by the Clinton White 
House and Justice Department to hold that Harry Thomason, whose 
questionable activities have been documented in the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight's report on the Travelgate scandal, was 
not a special government employee.
  The President needs his personal and confidential advisors, but the 
American people need to hold such people accountable. Harry Thomason 
and other political operatives used this White House like a personal 
office annex. He should have been accountable to the ethics laws, 
conflict of interest, and other measures that ensure the integrity of 
the highest offices in the land. These abuses must be stopped.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill this House passed on the 24th would have made 
it clear that such people are to be considered special government 
employees. Under that bill, they would have been subject to conflict-
of-interest rules and financial disclosure requirements. It would 
have prevented future abuses. But those provisions have been stripped 
from the bill we will pass today. When the next Congress convenes, I 
will again introduce legislation to make future Harry Thomasons 
accountable to the American people.

  Another key provision of the House-passed bill that is not found in 
the version passed by the Senate required the President to appoint a 
chief financial officer for the Executive Office of the President. The 
chief financial officer, which is found in other agencies throughout 
the Government, would review and audit the White House's financial 
systems and records. The Travelgate, Filegate, and hearings related to 
other White House scandals highlighted the shortcomings in this White 
House's financial responsibility.
  We will need to strengthen this law during the 105th Congress. During 
our hearings last year, we learned that the White House's financial 
operations lacked structure, so we could not achieve accountability. 
Sometimes, the White House paid for equipment it no longer needed. 
Other times, it paid for items that were never delivered. These 
hearings also revealed other egregious examples of waste and abuse 
because accounting controls were so poor the White House Communications 
Agency recently had $14.5 million in unvalidated obligations. The 
Department of Defense's inspector general reported that the Agency paid 
only 17 percent of its bills on time, so taxpayers got stuck for 
penalties and interest on the other 83 percent of its obligations.
  The House-passed bill also included provisions, advanced by 
Government Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee 
Chairman Representative Stephen Horn and Representative Charles Bass, 
that would have placed an inspector general in the White House. The 
White House opposed this provision, even though other Government 
agencies must comply.
  If you can believe it, Mr. Speaker, the same people who put a bar 
bouncer and political trickster in charge of White House personnel 
security insisted that they do not need to meet the same oversight 
standards as the rest of the Government. With the gross mismanagement 
and lack of accountability that we have uncovered in this White House, 
I can assure you that I will pursue these matters vigorously in the 
next Congress.

                          ____________________