[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.
____________________