House Ponders Rostenkowski’s Fate in Whispers

An uncommon code of silence enveloped the House on Wednesday as it confronted the strong possibility that Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) will step down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee as part of a plea bargain.

The powerful lawmaker, an unparalleled master of arm-twisting and deal-cutting, is considered crucial to the fate of health care reform, as well as the Democrats’ overall legislative record.

In corridors and cloakrooms on the House side of the Capitol, lawmakers wondered and worried about who would succeed him--and the implications the succession would have both for them and for President Clinton.

Yet congressional decorum prevented the lawmakers from talking openly about the looming crisis.

Indeed, with Rostenkowski possibly on the verge of a plea bargain for financial abuse of his office, House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) called an extraordinary press conference to declare that he has no interest in assuming the leadership of the committee to help secure the enactment of health care reform.

“I think in a way it’s an insult to the chairman and the members of the committee that I or someone else from the leadership would have to go to the committee so the committee could finish its work on health care,” Gephardt said.

House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) also was unwilling to talk openly about the ramifications of the Rostenkowski matter. “I’m not going to presume the resignation of Mr. Rostenkowski. That’s something I have no knowledge about,” he said.

First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was less reticent, however, to discuss the effect Rostenkowski’s departure would have on the Administration’s health care proposal.

“I certainly hope that doesn’t come to pass, but it would be an obstacle that Congress would have to figure out how to overcome,” she said at an International Women’s Media Foundation conference here.

“It would be a great loss to Congress, but health care reform and the need for it is bigger than any one person in this country,” she later told reporters.

Meanwhile, Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), a senior member of the panel and a Rostenkowski loyalist, remained uncharacteristically close-lipped about his own intentions.

Some members of Congress and their aides have speculated that, if Matsui challenges ranking committee Democrat Sam Gibbons of Florida for the chairmanship, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Pete Stark (D-Hayward)--both of whom are senior to Matsui--also would seek the job.

The nervousness over the chairmanship reflects widespread concern that Gibbons lacks Rostenkowski’s deal-making skills. He also is more a specialist in trade than health care.

If Rostenkowski leaves, the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee would then recommend a chairman to the Democratic Caucus. If the ranking member of the committee gets the nod, he would be entitled to a separate up-or-down vote before any alternative was considered, Foley said.

As the tension grew on Capitol Hill, sources close to the negotiations between Rostenkowski’s lawyers and U.S. Atty. Eric H. Holder Jr. indicated that the matter will not be resolved until next week. Holder reportedly was pressing for a decision on the plea agreement by Tuesday.

The U.S. attorney’s office has been investigating Rostenkowski for alleged misuse of office and campaign accounts, including the possibility that he improperly received money from the House post office, hired employees who did no work and made improper furniture and gift purchases from his office funds.

A plea agreement would enable him to avoid the humiliation of a public trial and the prospect of conviction and a lengthy prison sentence.

The chief barrier to an agreement, sources said, has been the wording of any charge to which Rostenkowski would plead guilty. The precise description of the charge would be crucial in determining the punishment that U.S. District Judge Norma H. Johnson could mete out under federal sentencing guidelines.

The guidelines require judges to explain in writing any departure they make from the sentences outlined for various crimes. The sentences are affected by such factors as the amount of money involved, whether the defendant abused a position of public trust and whether he has accepted responsibility for his actions.

In a fraud conviction involving a loss of more than $200,000, for example, the guidelines call for a sentence of 15 months to 21 months for a defendant with no prior criminal history. If the loss is between $70,000 and $120,000, the sentence would range from 10 months to 16 months.

In a fraud conviction involving an abuse of a position of public or private trust, the guidelines call for increasing the time of incarceration. In a $70,000-plus fraud, for example, the sentence would rise to 15 months to 21 months.

The guidelines also provide for decreasing the sentence if the defendant “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.”