[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2164-H2170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        INVESTIGATION VIOLATIONS

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues I would like to 
address today in my time here as a special order: leaking underground 
storage tanks, on this, today being Earth Day; and also on food safety; 
but first, Mr. Speaker, I have something I would like to say. I think 
I, as all Americans, we should be outraged by the actions of the so-
called investigations that are going on here in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately these are not investigations but 
violations of everything that we hold as dear as American citizens. 
Every basic right, every fundamental belief on which this great country 
was founded upon is being trampled by a select few. But it is this few, 
those who think they are above the law, that give Congress and 
government a bad name.
  But this is more than just giving Congress or government a real bad 
name. This is about privacy, it is about the Constitution, it is about 
the laws of this Nation, it is about the oath of office, and it is 
about our word.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), has released 
private recorded conversations covered by the Privacy Act to the news 
media. The conversations released were those of Mr. Hubbell, and those 
conversations were amongst himself to his wife and his family, and they 
were subpoenaed by the committee from the Justice Department.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was allowed access to these 
recordings because of his position as a Member of Congress and as 
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. The 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was warned by the Justice 
Department that Mr. Hubbell had a right to privacy, and that the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and his committee should safeguard 
these tapes against improper disclosure. The gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton), a Member of Congress, put himself above the law and has 
purposefully released these tapes.
  Does not a Member's oath of office, the Constitution of the United 
States, in which we are sworn to uphold the Bill of Rights, the Privacy 
Act, human decency mean anything any more? Since when is it okay for a 
Member of Congress to trample the rights of individual citizens, no 
matter who that Member of Congress is? It is never okay for anyone, let 
alone a Member of Congress, to trample the individual rights of 
individuals.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule of law applies to everyone on every occasion. 
This government cannot pick and choose when to follow the law. The laws 
of this Nation mean everyone must follow the law. Everyone includes, 
and especially it includes, Members of Congress, those of us who are 
sworn to uphold the law.
  When Members or individuals who are elected officials sit by and 
allow a chairman or any Member of this Congress to openly ignore the 
law, then we are not worthy of holding elected office. That is why I 
can no longer sit by while the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 
continues to place himself above and beyond the rule of law.
  And then I must ask who is going to be the next target? Who is the 
next target of invasion of privacy, of violation of our constitutional 
rights? I often have to ask myself, in the last few days, why do the 
American people sit idly by and tolerate such an invasion of rights of 
privacy?
  Mr. Speaker, in this case let us be very, very clear what is going on 
here. In this case the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is the first 
chairman in congressional history, in the 200-and-some years that we 
have had Congresses, to have the power to unilaterally, unilaterally 
issue subpoenas and release confidential information.

[[Page H2165]]

  The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight set up a so-called 
document working group, and it is comprised of three Republicans, 
including the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and two Democrats. 
The working group is supposed to issue nonbinding recommendations on 
whether the chairman should release particular documents.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) subpoenaed the Hubbell tapes 
from the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is prohibited 
from publicly releasing these tapes because of the Privacy Act. But the 
Privacy Act has an exemption, and that exemption is for releasing 
information to Congress. So DOJ under the Privacy Act releases it to 
the Burton committee because they can, under an exception to the 
Privacy Act.
  At the time of the release the Department of Justice informed the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) of his responsibility to treat the 
tapes in a very sensitive manner. After all, the privacy law does apply 
to the Department of Justice, the custodian of these tapes.
  Well, what happens? Then on March 19 the Wall Street Journal ran an 
article that excerpted pieces of tapes, of conversations contained on 
these tapes. So they put in their paper, they print parts of recorded 
private conversations. This is on March 19. At the time the Chairman 
was trying to force Mr. Hubbell to testify before the committee, so the 
way he was trying to force it was by leaking information. He was trying 
to intimidate the witness to testify.
  And then in the May edition of the American Spectator, if anyone 
reads it, if you read the American Spectator, they ran an article on 
information from the tapes that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 
received from the Department of Justice.
  As Democrats learned of this, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) in particular, he wrote to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) and asked him stop leaking the tapes: These are highly 
sensitive, you have been warned, do not do it. That was back on March 
20, 1998. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) wrote back and said, 
``Look, I didn't leak the tapes. Since I had a unanimous consent, 
inserted it in the record, then the tapes could be released.'' That was 
on March 27, 1998.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) went back through the 
tapes and went back through the record, and he found by going through 
the record of the committee that there was no unanimous consent to 
release these tapes. And that was on April 2 when the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) wrote back and said there is no authority or 
unanimous consent to release this information.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) did inform the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) on April 14 of his decision to make the tapes 
public. Private recorded conversations now going to be made public.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) requested that the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) should immediately convene the 
working group, convene the working group to meet to determine whether 
the documents could even be released. That was on April 15, 1998. The 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) answered that he would not convene 
the working group and he was going to release the tapes immediately on 
April 15, 1998. At this point it is unclear how much of the tapes were 
released.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem is here we have the Privacy Act that governs 
the release of information, a Member of Congress uses his office to 
obtain the information, and despite warnings that they not be released 
because they are subject to the Privacy Act, they are released anyway 
to intimidate a person to come and testify before a committee.
  I do not know Mr. Hubbell and I do not know all the players involved 
here, but when do we allow Members of Congress to place themselves 
above the letter, the intent and the spirit of the law? Since when do 
we as Members of Congress sit by and watch other Members openly violate 
the law? And such an abuse of power, if we cannot do it through a front 
door, we try to slip it in through the back door.
  Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress I was a police officer up in 
the upper peninsula of Michigan, in Escanaba, and also with the 
Michigan State Police. I was injured in the line of duty and I was 
medically retired. But one of the last cases I worked on when I was in 
the State Police and actually was finalized was a criminal 
investigation involving a State legislator.
  I did not leak information to the news media about the case. I did 
not violate her rights. I did not treat her unjustly, but only with 
humaneness and respect. I did not invade her right to privacy. I did 
not violate her constitutional rights. I did my job in a professional 
manner, and we got the conviction. I did my job within the bounds of 
the law, and we were still able to get our conviction. The case went to 
the Michigan Supreme Court and they upheld the conviction.

  The point I am trying to make: There is a proper way and a way as 
Americans that we expect to conduct ourselves, not only as individuals 
but as law enforcement officers, as prosecutors, as chairmen of 
committees. You can do an investigation, an investigation which honors 
the law, and not violate the privacy rights. We did our investigation 
within the bounds of the law and not out of bounds.
  Mr. Burton's treatment of Mr. Hubbell is wrong, it is outside the law 
and is outside common decency, and it is contrary to what people and 
what we in government should and do stand for. I would hope that no 
future tapes would be released by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton). I would hope that the Justice Department would intervene to 
protect the rights of citizens to their privacy, to their right of 
privacy and to the rights afforded all citizens of this great country.
  Mr. Speaker, my theory is with the majority party, with all these 
investigations going on in Washington, D.C., from Mr. Burton's 
committee to special prosecutor Ken Starr, each and every day Americans 
are having their rights violated under the guise of criminal 
investigations or grand jury investigations.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker, the joke around here is, have you received your subpoena 
today? But it really is no joking matter when the prosecutor uses the 
grand jury and the subpoena power of the grand jury to conduct even the 
most basic initial inquiry of a witness; that is no substitute for 
professional investigation. It is my understanding from reading news 
accounts that the special prosecutor has some 70 to 75 FBI agents. 
People are being subpoenaed without ever being interviewed by law 
enforcement.
  Why have a subpoena power or law enforcement working on a case when 
you are just going to subpoena people in. Every time you subpoena 
people in before a grand jury there is a cost involved of getting legal 
counsel; there is humiliation and probably the damage to the 
reputation. Instead of doing our work and doing our job the old-
fashioned way, actually going out and pounding the pavement and 
interviewing witnesses to see if you have anything worthy to tell a 
grand jury, we are now dragging people underneath subpoena power.
  When and under what right and authority does the special prosecutor 
have to go into book stores to get a list of the latest books you may 
have read or purchased? Is there not a privacy right there protecting 
individuals on the books they read? Or have we sunk so far as a country 
that we now start making lists of books that people read?
  When is a mother forced to testify under subpoena about her own 
daughter? Once again, isn't there some privileged conversations here 
between a parent and their child?
  When is it allowable for someone to leave a message on a telephone 
answering machine and then only to have the caller be subpoenaed for 
expressing an opinion about the special prosecutor investigation?
  Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to ask ourselves what is going on here? 
How far have we gone? Why are we allowing this to go on? Where is the 
privacy? Where is the authority? Under what authority, what right, does 
the government have to do these things? Why are FBI agents, special 
prosecutors, chairmen of committees, Members of Congress, why do they 
believe they do not have to follow the law?

[[Page H2166]]

  In the 5 years that I have been here, we have been working so hard to 
get government out of our lives, but now government has not only taken 
over our lives, they are taking over every aspect, even the most 
private of conversations. Even conversations in which we have been 
warned that there is a Privacy Act here and these are sensitive 
matters, but we still release them in the name of some investigation.
  Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, a Liberal, a Conservative, 
or an Independent, you are an American, and if you are an American, you 
should be outraged by the actions and the abuses of power recently 
displayed in committees and by special prosecutors in these past few 
months.
  I do not personally know the individuals involved, who may or may not 
have been subpoenaed. I only know what I read and have heard about in 
the newspapers. I do not know the guilt or innocence of people, and I 
am not here passing judgment on guilt or innocence. But I do know that 
as you do an investigation, there is a right way and there is a wrong 
way. There are certain rights and liberties as Americans that we hold 
dear to us. And if there is going to be agility or innocence 
determination, then the evidence must be fairly obtained, without 
violating the law, without the abuse of power. And then the guilt or 
innocence of an individual is brought before a judge and a jury.
  It is not obtained by one government agency, subpoenaed by another 
government agency, and then released under the guise of some cloak of 
exception to the privacy rule because we are a Member of Congress. 
Whoever would do that has put themselves and this great body, the 
Congress of the United States, above the law, and we are not above the 
law. We are equal underneath the eyes of the law.
  I know, and I believe, that as an American citizen, I have certain 
rights. As an American citizen, not even the Congress of the United 
States can take away those rights, and the Congress does not have the 
legal authority to violate or take away any of these rights.
  As a human being, there is a certain decency and kindness, a dignity 
and respect, that all Americans and every individual should be 
afforded. Some would call those inalienable rights. They are to be 
upheld and honored. And that requirement goes to the chairman of the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee. It goes to the special 
prosecutors in this town, and I wish they would begin to conduct 
themselves in professional, courteous manners, as law enforcement does 
in this country.
  Having been there and having been in law enforcement and done these 
investigations, just coming back from break, I can't tell you how many 
of my friends in law enforcement have said what is going on out there? 
If we tried to do any of those things when we were doing criminal 
investigations or working the street, we would have certainly been in 
great difficulty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, 
the ranking Democrat on the Government Oversight Investigation 
Committee. I certainly appreciate his efforts in trying to bring these 
violations of rights forward that he sees happening on that committee. 
I am, quite frankly, ashamed of the way Congress has been conducting 
these hearings.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman on the 
superb job he has just done laying out the problems that we are seeing 
in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight under the 
leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). This committee 
has wide-ranging responsibility to conduct an investigation on an issue 
that is important to the American people. But the Republicans on that 
committee have delegated to Mr. Burton extraordinary powers.

  No chairman of any committee in the history of the House of 
Representatives has had the power to go out and issue subpoenas without 
asking anybody to approve it; not the minority, not even the majority 
members of his committee. And to date, Chairman Burton has issued 1,049 
information requests in connection with the campaign finance 
investigation.
  Of these, by the way, 1,037 or 99 percent were issued to investigate 
allegations of Democratic fund-raising abuses, and he also had 532 out 
of 541 subpoenas, and 144 out of 146 depositions all targeting 
Democrats.
  Now, no one in this Congress or the country can believe that the only 
campaign finance abuses have been by Democrats.
  What is also so troubling to me is the statement that Congressman 
Burton just made back home in his district. He was quoted as saying 
about the President of the United States, if I could prove 10 percent 
of what I believe happened, he would be gone. This guy is a scum bag. 
That is why I am after him.
  This is the statement of the chairman involved in an investigation. 
It is clear that he has a vendetta. He is not in any semblance trying 
to conduct an inquiry that will be fair and bring out all the facts, 
wherever they may lead. He is out to get the President of the United 
States.
  His statements, it seems to me, are so outrageous, quite vial. If 
they were delivered on the House floor as a Member of Congress, his 
words could be taken down. It is inappropriate for Members of Congress 
to speak that way. It is inappropriate for any American to speak that 
way about the President of the United States.
  But you have reported in this special order one of the most troubling 
things that also concerns me, and that is the fact that Chairman Burton 
has taken tapes of private, intimate, personal conversations, that Webb 
Hubbell has had with his wife and personal friends, and made them 
public.
  These are tapes about very personal matters. They have nothing to do 
with anything that relates to the campaign finance question. For his 
staff to have sat there and eavesdropped over these conversations, and 
then to send them, as he did, to the American Spectator, one of the 
right-wing magazines in this country, and other publications, to 
humiliate the man, there is really know other purpose but to humiliate 
him.
  Now, I do not know whether Webb Hubbell has committed any other 
crimes than that which he admitted to, and it is appropriate for law 
enforcement to investigate it. It would be appropriate for our 
committee to investigate any wrongdoing on his part that relates to the 
jurisdiction of our committee. But to use the power to release these 
personal conversations as a weapon against him, is so offensive, it 
reminds me of that comment that has gone down so well in history, that 
Joe Welch said at the Armey-McCarthy hearings: After all, have you no 
decency?
  I wrote to the Attorney General and, by the way, she, under the law, 
could not have made these tapes public. Ken Starr could not have made 
these tapes public. And under the Rules of the House, even Chairman 
Burton is not permitted to make these tapes public. He has done it, in 
violation of the rules of our committee, and I believe that the members 
of the committee will have to deal with that matter, and maybe even the 
Members of this House will have to further deal with the question of 
the ethical propriety of the chairman's conduct.
  But when he was given these tapes by the Attorney General, he was 
specifically told that these personal matters were to be kept personal 
and confidential.
  I am so troubled by Chairman Burton's conduct, I think it is 
reprehensible. His statements are vial. They do not befit a chairman 
who is trying to take on such important responsibilities.
  A lot of people have not paid attention to the investigation of the 
Burton committee, the way they did with Senator Thompson's committee. 
They just cannot take it seriously. But the power that this man has to 
subpoena documents, to force people to come in and be deposed, to have 
to hire lawyers to be there with them, and to ask questions that have 
nothing to do with campaign finance investigations. We have had 
witnesses who have been brought in and asked questions about their drug 
use, and if they don't want to answer that question, because it is not 
the business of the committee looking at campaign finance questions to 
ask such personal matters, they can argue that it is not pertinent, but 
then the chairman would make a ruling that it is.

[[Page H2167]]

  They then have the choice of being in contempt of Congress and 
fighting it out in court, where they would probably win. But do you 
know what it means when an American citizen, who has never been accused 
of doing anything wrong, has to face the overwhelming intrusive power 
of the Congress of the United States, asking for their personal 
records, asking them the most personal questions? I can think of no 
greater invasion of personal liberties than what we have seen in this 
Burton investigation.
  I think the disclosure, so out of sync with the rules of these 
Hubbell tips, are only the tip of the iceberg. What they have done to 
other witnesses by way of harassment speaks so poorly of any committee 
of the Congress of the United States.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and allowing me to join 
with him in expression of concern about the conduct we have seen.
  Mr. STUPAK. If the gentleman would remain, we still have some time 
left. Before I get to other issues, you said a couple of things I would 
just like to ask about. You said there has been 1,049 different 
documents subpoenaed and depositions taken by this committee.
  If the chairman of the committee, Mr. Burton, is going to release 
information protected underneath the Privacy Act, obviously contrary to 
the intent and spirit in the written law, then what is there to prevent 
him from releasing these documents or the depositions or interviews of 
other people?
  Have we gone so far that whatever government wants to do, despite 
personal liberties that we as Americans possess, government, at least 
this committee, can release whatever they want with impunity towards 
the law? Is there any recourse for action like this?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Let me draw a distinction. If a committee of Congress 
asks a witness to come and testify at a hearing or to testify under 
oath in a deposition, that information should be made public. That is 
on the record.
  Mr. STUPAK. A committee hearing.
  Mr. WAXMAN. A committee hearing or deposition ought to be made 
public. We have insisted these depositions be made public, and some of 
them are still being held back from the public. But what we have in 
these that is so offensive about the process is that witnesses are 
being harassed to come in and testify, not one day, but sometimes two, 
three, four and five days. Just to answer any question they want to ask 
these witnesses. And that means that any witness that comes before a 
committee of Congress has to have an attorney. He just can't take a 
chance that he will do anything wrong. You need to have legal 
representation.
  For someone working in the Department of Commerce, for example, or 
Secretary Babbitt's committee, where they were looking at the question 
of whether there ought to be a dog track approved to be turned into a 
gambling casino in Hudson, Wisconsin, we had 3 days of hearings on this 
issue. A lot of people were deposed before those hearings. Their 
depositions were released, but they never testified.
  The people who worked as government civil servants were brought in to 
answer extensive questions. They had to hire a lawyer at their own 
expense, answer the questions. They did.

                              {time}  1530

  But they were asked to give depositions after they had already 
testified in the Senate and given depositions in the Senate committee. 
So they were being harassed for no purpose, because the information was 
already available.
  This is a different issue, these subpoenas and depositions, than what 
happened with Web Hubbell, because what happened with Web Hubbell was a 
tape made without the intention of it ever being made public. Those who 
were involved in the conversations never dreamed that their private 
discussions would be made public. That is different from someone who 
comes in for a deposition.
  Imagine just having a conversation with your wife about the family, 
about very intimate kinds of things, being taped; and you may even know 
it is being taped, but you expect it is never going to be disclosed; 
but then having it disclosed, or pored over by people who are, in 
effect, eavesdropping on the most sensitive kinds of communications.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, my concern with this whole mentality we have 
going right now in Washington, D.C. with all of these investigations, 
as we see in the Ken Starr case, going in the bookstores to find out 
what people read or what they may have purchased, someone leaving a 
message on a telephone answering machine, and then being subpoenaed 
before a grand jury to explain it because they expressed an opinion 
contrary to what, contrary to what the special prosecutor thought in 
this case; or a mother being forced to testify under subpoena about her 
daughter's activities.
  As American citizens, again, whether you are a liberal, conservative, 
Democrat, Republican, or Independent, I think we should be concerned 
about where these investigations are going. Whether it is Web Hubbell, 
whether it is the Ken Starr investigation, we have certain rights and 
certain liberties that must be respected by law enforcement, by 
prosecutors.
  Certain things are guaranteed in the Constitution, and I am afraid 
that in the last few months these things are getting so out of focus 
that we are using every possible means to force people to testify, 
whether it is against their will or not.
  Certainly in the Hubbell matter, he chose not to testify before the 
committee, so tapes are being released to try to coerce him into 
testifying. We always hear that people are concerned about government 
is always in their face and is all-intrusive, and you cannot get away 
from the government. What are we getting, here? We are getting more and 
more of this, not less.
  As we try to get government out of our lives, when it comes to an 
investigation, government not only is in our life, it is in the 
bookstore, it is on our answering machine, and it is in our personal 
conversations, and we have no control over it. And if we object, they 
find a way to come through the back door and violate our rights on what 
they cannot get through the front door.
  As a former law enforcement officer and an attorney, I just really 
resent what is going on here. It reflects terribly upon every Member of 
Congress, because it is the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight and everyone who sits on that committee. I no longer sit on 
it. I did at one time, and we did some work in my first term here.
  Where have we gone with this whole thing? This is totally out of 
control. Every Member of Congress should be outraged, and every 
American citizen should be outraged. These are rights and personal 
liberties guaranteed to us which are being trampled in the name of an 
investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this committee spent $6 million. They ought 
to have something to show for it. We have had only six public hearings 
over a period of 13 days, as opposed to Senator Thompson, his 
investigation, where they held 33 days of hearings, and they issued a 
1,100 page report at a cost of less than $3.5 million.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) it has been reported in the 
press is hoping to be on the committee that Speaker Gingrich will set 
up if there is a possible inquiry of impeachment of the President of 
the United States. How can we have someone on a committee to decide 
whether to impeach the President of the United States when a Member has 
already said such a vile accusation against the President, and 
indicated he is out to get the President of the United States? We have 
clear bias, a vendetta, no objectivity or fairness. He is not 
interested in the facts. He has already made up his mind.
  So I point that out. Let us stop spending money unless it is really 
for an investigation that will get to the facts, and not just be used 
recklessly for partisan purposes. I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming down. I am 
not sure if he is aware, I was reading some articles, and I was so 
outraged over what I read. When I think back over what has happened in 
the last few months, I think every American should be outraged over 
what is going on.
  I often tell my folks back home that when you have politicians 
investigating other politicians, what do you get? More politics. I 
really wish we would

[[Page H2168]]

leave these to professional law enforcement, who certainly do respect 
the rights of individuals.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for yielding to me. It is an honor to be here. I 
want to compliment the gentleman for bringing this to the body's 
attention here, and I want to compliment the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) for the fine job he has done.
  Like the gentleman, I was amazed when I looked at the article in the 
Wall Street Journal several weeks ago that talked about the taping of 
Webster Hubbell's conversations. I am not here to defend Webster 
Hubbell. I do not think anybody here is doing that. But there is a 
concern here that I think every American has to pay attention to, what 
we are doing here.
  I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) ask the question, 
have you no decency? That was exactly what went through my mind as I 
read what is going on here with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman 
Burton) and the committee we are dealing here with today.
  The article was from the Wall Street Journal of March 19, 1998: ``As 
he wasted away, the prisoner had but one thing on his mind. What he had 
on his mind was food during the time he was in prison. Webster Hubbell 
lost a lot of weight. He was concerned about food.
  ``His conversations were recorded, his phone conversations with his 
wife were recorded. There were no nefarious plots discussed, there were 
no illegal discussions that took place. They talked about incredibly 
mundane matters between a man and his wife. Unfortunately, those 
verbatim conversations made their way not only into the Wall Street 
Journal, but also into the American Spectator.''
  I would like to read or make reference to a letter that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) wrote to the Attorney General, if I may, 
talking about this.

  In the letter, which is dated April 20, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) wrote: ``I wrote to Chairman Burton on March 20, 1998, and 
noted that the only possible sources for the tapes,'' the release of 
the tapes, ``to the Wall Street Journal and the American Spectator were 
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr or Chairman Burton. It would be 
illegal for Mr. Starr to release the tapes, and it would be a violation 
of our committee rules if Chairman Burton had released the tapes 
without notice.''
  On March 27 the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) responded 
and argued that the released tapes were not a leak. In his letter he 
noted that, ``In fact, the tapes in question were entered into the 
committee record on December 10th, 1997, during a hearing regarding 
Attorney General Reno's decision to seek appointment of an independent 
counsel.''
  That statement was not correct, as the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) responded on April 2 to Chairman Burton's letter and informed 
him, and this is Mr. Waxman, now: ``I have thoroughly reviewed the 
transcript from the December 10th committee hearing. At no point were 
the tapes entered into the hearing record.''
  Mr. Waxman also challenged Chairman Burton's assertion that the 
leaked tapes discussed matters under investigation by the committee. 
Again, the reference in the media was to food.
  ``On April 14th of this year, just last week, in an apparent 
recognition that he had not received prior approval for the release of 
the Hubbell tapes, Chairman Burton wrote and informed him of his intent 
to release the tapes and other records. And then in an April 15 letter 
the minority staff director informed Chairman Burton's staff director 
that he objected to the release of the tapes because they would be an 
unnecessary invasion of privacy and serve no purpose.''
  So what we have here is we have a situation where these tapes have 
been released. I understand that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) does not like Mr. Hubbell, and it is clear he does not like 
President Clinton. That is his right. If he does not like these two 
gentlemen, that is his right. He is in a position of authority. He is 
in a position of authority that should not be abused.
  My concern is that the committee that I serve on along with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is abusing not only the rules of 
this House, but common rules of decency. We have an individual who has 
been punished under the law, as he should have been, Mr. Hubbell. But 
that does not mean that he has lost his citizenship, that does not mean 
he has lost all his rights. What it means is that he should be 
punished, and he has been. But even as a prisoner, he has some rights. 
To violate those rights I think is a gross invasion of privacy and is 
an embarrassment to this body.
  I wanted to come down here to share the gentleman's sentiments, share 
the sentiments of the gentleman from California. The letter I was 
reading from was a letter from the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) to Attorney General Janet Reno. I concur with his question. The 
Attorney General should be looking into this matter, because it is an 
important matter. As soon as this body starts violating the rights of 
American citizens, we are on the road to tyranny, because it is just 
not something that should be tolerated.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for adding to this 
discussion here today. The issue is not whether the conversation was 
about food or how mundane the discussion may have been, and what was or 
what was not the discussion that was recorded and then later released. 
It is the principle here. It is the constitutional right. It is the 
invasion of privacy.
  We are not here defending Mr. Hubbell or even the President of the 
United States. They can defend themselves. If someone does not 
appreciate the job they are doing or did, that is their right. But 
there are some rights where you are restricted from going, whether you 
are a private citizen or a member of the United States Congress or a 
law enforcement officer.
  The principle of privacy is something we as Americans have always 
held near and dear to us, so when they say you have no shame, or you 
have no respect or no decency, I guess those who would release this 
information have no shame and have no respect for the Constitution and 
the laws of this country.
  When we start putting ourselves above the law, or using documents 
that are obtained, and the only way they were obtained is because a 
Member of Congress, a chairman of a committee, subpoenaed them, 
otherwise, no other citizen could get them; and then to be used to 
release or to try to intimidate a person to come in and testify, where 
have we gone as a country?
  We talk about morals and ethics and values in this country, but when 
we use those kinds of tactics to try to force people to testify, if you 
will, against themselves, then have we really gone way too far?
  I really do hope that the Attorney General does investigate this and 
puts some restriction on, or calls back these tapes. I would hope that 
the media would use their good judgment and not release these documents 
that are sensitive and private conversations between a husband and his 
wife.
  Whether we agree with the parties or not, they still have an 
expectation of privacy. We know that expectation of privacy has been 
invaded, has been violated, but I do not think that then gives the 
media justification to print it. So I would hope that by bringing forth 
this discussion today, that all Members of Congress and our friends in 
the media would use some good common sense as these investigations go 
on and as questionable tactics come to light.
  Again, it is not just the Burton investigation, if you will, but also 
what is happening with Ken Starr, with people going into bookstores to 
see what you may or may not have read or purchased recently, on tape 
recordings, on answering machines, and people then get subpoenaed.
  I would hope, I would certainly hope, that we would respect and bring 
some decency to these investigations and what is going on. Whether 
people are guilty of this or that will be determined by another body. 
We would need a judge or jury, and we should at least respect the 
Constitution and laws which we all live under.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

[[Page H2169]]

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what the 
gentleman is saying. I think the people of this body and of this 
country have to understand the magnitude of what is going on. Webster 
Hubbell may not be a particularly admirable figure to many Americans, 
but he does have rights. Every American has rights.
  If we start down the road where we can basically violate someone's 
rights because we do not like them, then I think every one of us in 
this Chamber is in danger, I think every American is in danger.
  Just think about it for a second. Think about any conversation that 
you have with your spouse, about any conversation you have with a 
family member, think about any conversation you have with a friend. 
Think about that conversation being taped. Then think about that 
conversation being released to the public, to the media, because 
someone in a position of authority does not like you. They do not like 
your politics, they do not like what you have done in the past, and 
they are going to use that position of authority to try to destroy you.
  That is extremely dangerous. That is something that Americans cannot 
just let happen on a daily basis. I am afraid that what we are seeing 
in this Chamber and what we are seeing in this committee structure and 
some of the investigations is we are seeing steps toward that, where 
truly the ends justify the means, and an investigator has decided that 
we do not like this person and they are guilty of something.
  There is an article from the Star News today, or actually from April 
16, and it talks about the committee's database that we have here in 
Washington from the committee that I serve on:

       The oversight committee's database on Capitol Hill contains 
     90,000 entries that pertain to questionable conduct by the 
     administration. Somewhere in all that Burton believes is an 
     indictable offense.

  I will take any American, any American, and if you give me 90,000 
entries about their life, they have done something wrong. What we have 
here is we have a situation where a completely one-sided investigation 
is out to paint Democrats and the administration in a bad light.

  I think the American people see through it. They recognize that 
virtually none of the subpoenas have been directed towards Republicans, 
and there is not a person in this world, in this country, who believes 
that all Republicans are wonderful and all Democrats are terrible. That 
is just not the way it is. I am not here to say that Democrats are 100 
percent good, but I am certainly here to say that Republicans are not 
100 percent good.
  If we are going to have an investigation, we should have a fair 
investigation. This is not a fair investigation.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And whether we are a 
Democrat or Republican, again it is the basic principles and beliefs 
that all Americans hold near and dear to them. And if we are going to 
do an investigation, let us do it based upon the law of this land and 
not upon the position we may hold in the government or elsewhere, and 
respect those laws.
  I thank the gentleman and thank him for coming down. He probably did 
not realize that I was going to do this today, and neither did I until 
I woke up this morning and read the paper. It got me going.
  Mr. Speaker, I did say I was going to spend a few minutes on leaking 
underground storage tanks and if there is time, I would still like to 
do that. Being Earth Day, one of the bills that I have worked on in the 
104th and 105th Congresses is the leaking underground storage tanks. 
Today being Earth Day, it is a bill that both myself and the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Dan Schaefer), a Republican and member of the 
Subcommittee on Health and Environment with me on the Committee on 
Commerce, we have been pushing this bill for the last two years.
  The last Congress, the 104th Congress, it passed this House by near 
unanimous agreement and went to the other body, and unfortunately it 
died over there. In the 105th Congress, I believe it was July of last 
year we once again passed the bill.
  The bill is supported by the administration and supported by the 
Environmental Protection Agency. And the reason why it is, the greatest 
pollutant of our groundwater is leaking underground storage tanks which 
contain gasoline and other petroleum products, oil, gas, kerosene, 
whatever it may be.
  That bill once again sits before the other side of this House, over 
in the Senate side, and we would hope that they would see to it that 
they would bring that bill up very, very soon.
  What the bill does is reorganize the program. There is a trust fund 
which petroleum companies and others pay into to help clean up leaking 
underground storage tanks. Again, the greatest pollutant of our 
groundwater is leaking underground tanks. On this Earth Day one of the 
best things we could do is pass this bill to get that leaking 
underground storage tanks program up and running in this country.
  In my home State of Michigan we did have a Michigan Underground 
Storage Tank Act. Unfortunately, that fund has gone bankrupt and we 
need to pump some new life and some new money into it, and the bill we 
have would certainly do that.
  Mr. Speaker, one other issue that I said I would speak on is food 
safety. In my work on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment we 
have been watching closely food safety and food safety agreements and 
how they are affected by trade agreements.
  In this country we have the world's highest standards when it comes 
to food and food safety. Unfortunately, from statistics from the 
Centers on Disease Control, we have found that every second of every 
day an American is stricken with food poisoning. We know that 33 
million Americans this year will suffer from food poisoning. Of those 
33 million Americans, 9,000 deaths will occur due to food poisoning.
  Why do we have so many deaths when we have the highest standards in 
the world? Why are so many Americans getting sick based on food 
poisoning? If we take a look at statistics put forth by those who are 
in charge of food inspection, the Food and Drug Administration and the 
Department of Agriculture and others, back in 1981 we used to make 
25,000 inspections of food. In 1996, we made 5,000 inspections of food 
in this country.
  During that same period of time, especially since the passage of 
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, food imports in this 
country have gone up some 40 percent. In fact, in my home State of 
Michigan during the winter months 70 percent of the food, the fruits 
and vegetables, 70 percent of the fruits and vegetables that come into 
Michigan come from foreign countries. And we know that a food item from 
a foreign country is likely to have three times greater amount of 
pesticides on it than those grown domestically in the United States.
  So as we were doing food safety issues relating to trade agreements, 
we asked the President as we are negotiating these trade agreements if 
three things could happen: Number one, certainly increase our 
inspections at the border so that we prevent contaminated foods or 
foods laced with pesticides, prevent them from coming into this 
country, and to make sure that those foods, fruits, vegetables, meats, 
fish or poultry, meet United States standards.
  Secondly, to renegotiate some of the provisions of the trade 
agreements that allow us time to inspect food shipments coming into 
this country. Right now we inspect about 1 percent. We have 9,000 
trucks a day coming in from the southern border bringing in food 
products, but we are only inspecting 1 percent. Is it any wonder why 
more and more food is getting into this country not being inspected?
  And finally, the last but not least, we asked the President if we 
could put forth and if he would endorse the idea of a country of origin 
food labeling, so if we go to the supermarket and take a look at the 
tomatoes and decide whether or not to purchase those tomatoes, we would 
know if they were grown in Florida, which at one time had the world's 
tomato market and now they are second to Mexico, or whether or not they 
were grown in Mexico. And those are the issues that the American 
consumers, who will have the ultimate choice here, consumers really 
should make.
  In my home State of Michigan we had, in the spring of 1997, 179 
schoolchildren stricken by tainted strawberries in the school lunch 
program.

[[Page H2170]]

Now it is up to 324 case of hepatitis A. Those strawberries came from 
Mexico. When they were shipped into the United States, they were 
packaged in the hot lunch program and distributed throughout this 
country.
  Our concern and our problem, and I said earlier that are there is a 
greater likelihood that foods and fruits and vegetables from other 
countries have three times more pesticides than what we use here in the 
United States, our concern is simply this: While we have these young 
children ages 10 to 11 in Michigan being very ill with hepatitis A, 
they got over hepatitis A but now they are suffering from secondary 
symptoms. The secondary symptoms are atypical of hepatitis A. By that I 
mean they have hair loss and skin rashes and sores in their mouth and 
shingles at 10 years old, and a number of secondary symptoms and 
illnesses, certainly not due to hepatitis A but other things that were 
in those strawberries.
  Recently we were down in Mexico doing some work on trade agreements 
and we saw the sanitation, or I should say the lack of sanitation, the 
lack of clean water, the use of pesticides on agricultural crops. So it 
is no wonder that they are having secondary symptoms when we do not 
know what is the cause of those secondary symptoms. Could it be lead? 
Could it be mercury? Could it be pesticide use? Those are some of the 
suspected agents that we have.
  We then went to the Central Valley of California and we saw their 
conditions and standards that they use to grow, package and bring forth 
produce in this country. A vast world of difference. But yet the 
farmers there were telling us that many of the products that we may see 
in our store and canned under U.S. label are actually grown in other 
countries, and they do not have to put where it was grown, just where 
it was canned or packaged.

  In particular, olives, black olives, the market used to be in 
California. It is now in Mexico. It comes over, they cut off the top 
and the bottom, take the pit out and put it in the can and it says 
``canned in the United States.'' It does not say that the produce, or 
in this case the olives, were canned in the United States but in fact 
they were grown in Mexico.
  So we can see how the problems of food safety enter into our food 
supply each and every day. So having the world's highest standards 
concerning fruits vegetables, meat, poultry, there are some things we 
can do as American consumers.
  We have been pushing legislation to get proper labeling with country 
of origin, so that we as the American consumer can decide whether or 
not we want to serve these strawberries from Mexico or from southern 
California to our family; or Guatemalan raspberries, where we had 
15,000 people stricken last year with those; or whatever other fruit or 
vegetable or meat or poultry it may be.
  So as we continue this debate, Mr. Speaker, on trade issues, I would 
hope that we stop and not lower our standards to allow trade and items 
to come into the United States, but maintain the rigid standards that 
we have in the United States, not just for fruits and vegetables and 
meats and fish and poultry but for all products. I find it amazing that 
in this country we can insist upon standards for CDs and intellectual 
property and movie rights, but yet we cannot insist on the same 
standards that would apply to our food and our food sources in this 
great country. While we have the world's highest standards, we must 
maintain them.
  We are not opposed to trade policies; we are opposed to trade 
policies which reduce or lessen our standards that we have accepted 
here in the United States.
  So, Mr. Speaker, with that I would close. The next big fight on trade 
may be the Multinational Agreement on Investment, which once again 
would attack our health, our environmental and our food and safety 
standards in this country. So I would ask all Members to be alert for 
the MAI, the Multinational Agreement on Investment, which once again is 
a way of lowering our standards that we are used to here in this 
country and attacks our sovereignty as a Nation.

                          ____________________