[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 55 (Wednesday, May 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2924-H2925]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE BURTON COMMITTEE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the hour is late. There has 
been much fanfare this week in Washington over the Burton committee, 
and the actions that were taken by the chairman of that committee. I 
just want to reflect on those actions and reflect on that committee 
which I have served on for the last 5\1/2\ years.
  My first two years, I served under the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), who is here with us tonight and who has spoken about this 
issue earlier. For two years Mr. Clinger headed the committee and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has headed this committee for the 
last year and a half.
  Earlier this week and late last week there was much criticism of the 
19 Democrats on that committee who had voted against immunity. I was 
one of those Democrats and I am 100 percent comfortable with my vote. 
There are many times when it is difficult when legislators have to 
think about whether they are doing the right thing or the wrong thing, 
and believe it or not, legislators sometimes actually think about this 
and they are concerned about whether they are doing the right thing or 
the wrong thing.
  I am very confident that what we did on that committee was the right 
thing to do. And I just want to take a minute to explain the concerns 
that I and other Members of that committee have had.
  First, I have to go back a year and a half when the committee was 
formed and started this investigation. We argued that there were 
problems, and that there are problems, but those

[[Page H2925]]

problems did not occur exclusively on the Democratic side of the aisle 
and if we were going to have a true investigation, it should be an 
investigation in the fund-raising practices of both the Democrats and 
the Republicans.
  We were realistic because we realized that the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton), who had a reputation of being highly partisan, would not 
go along with that. And we recognized that he was the man who held the 
gavel and that he could do what he wanted, so we had to live with that. 
And I understand that and I accept that.
  But I expected and I think that the other committee members expected 
the one thing that is imperative for any committee chairman in this 
building, and that is that the person is fair. And that is where this 
committee has failed miserably because I do not think that the chairman 
or the committee have run a fair investigation.
  We have had other complaints over the last year and a half, but time 
and time again the chairman said, well, this is the way that I am going 
to run the committee, and basically squashed the complaints of the 
minority. Again, we lived with that because we understand the rules.
  But it was two weeks ago when the chairman made a statement in his 
home town that was the straw that broke this camel's back, because he 
used a phrase in describing the President that I frankly am not 
comfortable in mentioning in public. And he said, ``That is why I am 
out to get the President.''
  Now, when someone is a member of the committee and walks into that 
committee room and knows that the chairman's goal is to get the 
President, they lose all belief in the system that he is running 
because he has basically publicly said that he is not interested in 
running an investigation to look for truth. What he is interested in is 
getting the President.
  Back in October before he made those statements, I and every other 
Member of that committee, every other Democrat on that committee, had 
voted for immunity for several witnesses. As it turned out, one of 
those witnesses should not have received immunity because of other 
legal problems that he had. But we went along with the committee 
chairman because we felt that we had to be acting in good faith and we 
had to act fairly.
  But when the committee chairman says that he is out to get the 
President, from the perspective of this Member all the credibility of 
that committee is gone. It is impossible for me to have confidence in 
this committee, when I know that the goal of this committee chairman is 
to get the President.
  It is not an attempt to find the truth, it is not an attempt to be 
fair, it is not an attempt to listen to all Members, and I think what 
we have seen with some of the committee staff reflects that.
  Last year one of the leading employees on that committee left because 
of the tactics of the committee. As was mentioned earlier, the head 
legal counsel of the committee earlier this week advised Chairman 
Burton not to release the tapes, the Hubbell tapes and he did. I 
respect Mr. Bennett, who is the lead counsel, and I think he was trying 
to do the right thing.
  But any doubts that anyone could have over whether we did the right 
thing in voting against immunity I think had to be really put to the 
side when we talk about the actions that took place this last weekend. 
When Chairman Burton released portions of tapes and only those portions 
that tended to incriminate the President or tried to incriminate the 
President, but did not release portions of the tapes that would have 
showed the other side of the story, he showed not only to the committee 
members, not only to the members of this body, but he showed to the 
entire American public that this is not a search for the truth because 
if it were a search for the truth he would have released all relevant 
parts of those telephone conversations. He would not have excluded 
those portions of the conversations that tended to exonerate the 
President. But again that was not the purpose and that has never been 
the purpose of this committee, and that is why I feel comfortable with 
what we are doing.

                          ____________________