[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3090-H3096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  VIOLATIONS OF AMERICANS' RIGHTS DURING OUT-OF-CONTROL INVESTIGATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I came to the floor 
and I was talking about these investigations going on, and it was quite 
interesting, hearing my colleague from Oklahoma tonight talking about 
the First Amendment and morality and prayer and things like that, and 
he made some very good points. But I hope we apply that same standard, 
first amendment freedoms and rights and morality, into the 
investigations, into what is going on here in Washington, D.C.
  I could not help but notice last Sunday's ``60 Minutes'' program, Mr. 
Speaker, in which they had an individual on that program, Sara Hawkins, 
who was an employee of the Madison Savings & Loan, who was accused of 
illegally backdating appraisals by coworkers that had entered into a 
plea bargain with Mr. Starr's office. They came to Mrs. Hawkins, they 
wanted her to plead guilty to a felony, and she found that she did not 
do anything wrong, so she refused to do so. In fact, the independent 
counsel had threatened her.
  My concern is that as we are doing these investigations, we are 
violating individual's first amendment rights, fifth amendment rights, 
eighth amendment rights, sixth amendment rights, trying to threaten 
them in doing investigations.
  If we take a look at what went on and what has been taking place here 
in these investigations, they go, if you do not plead to the felony, we 
could bring charges, as they threatened Ms. Hawkins with, for all 80 
counts, which would mean 400 years in jail. Ms. Hawkins said that they 
told her, you know, you have kids, you do not want them to have to go 
through a jury trial, you do not want them to go through this. They are 
making all of these threats.
  At the time Ms. Hawkins was the sole supporter of her two daughters 
and her grandchildren. She had her own business. She earned 
approximately $100,000 a year.
  Word got around. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal and in 
other publications that she was the target of an investigation in this 
whole savings and loan situation, but when word got around she was a 
consultant, that was her business, her business just dried right up. 
She lost everything, under the threat of an investigation.
  In fact, she was working, she is now working part-time. Things were 
so tight, money was so tight she ended up having to go on food stamps, 
public assistance, if you will, to support herself. Her daughter that 
she was supporting, her daughter was going to college and had to drop 
out because her mother could no longer help her.
  So after months and months of threats from the Special Prosecutor's 
office, they then write her a letter and tell her, we do not have 
enough evidence to charge you on anything, not the 80 counts, but on 
anything; and therefore, she thought, she was relieved that her 
nightmare would be over.
  Well, a month later, a month later, they come back, and again, 
according to Mrs. Hawkins, they said that since she would not cooperate 
with them, they really wondered then what did she have to hide, and so 
they started to do some more digging, and they told her that we have 
come up with some new activity that we think that you may be involved 
in, criminal activity. We are not going to tell you what it is, but we 
are going to start the process all over again.
  The whole idea of, now we are going to investigate you on something 
else since you will not cooperate with us, is probably government at 
its worst.
  That is what I am concerned about here tonight and that is why I have 
taken the floor in the past, and I am here once again this evening. 
Where have we gone as a Nation that the government, the United States 
Government is beginning to do investigative tactics that are less than 
legal, less than moral, less than ethically correct?
  In that same program, another one of the tactics used by the Special 
Prosecutor, Mr. Starr, was that FBI agents showed up at a high school 
to issue a subpoena to a 16-year-old, a 16-year-old, the son of an 
individual who was subject to an investigation. Another individual 
linked to Mr. Starr's office tried to pressure him into making false 
statements regarding the President. In fact, one individual, Professor 
Smith, who was a professor at the University of Arkansas and the former 
president of an Arkansas bank and a business partner of Jim McDougal 
over 20 years ago he was an aide to then-Governor Bill Clinton, levels 
an even more serious charge about the operation of the Special 
Prosecutor, Kenneth Starr. Mr. Smith said, ``They asked me to lie about 
other people, and they have lied about what they have done.''
  In 1985, Mr. Smith pled guilty to a misdemeanor for misusing a loan. 
He took out a loan and he ended up using it for something other than 
what it said in there. Mr. Smith pled guilty to the incident and 
included an agreement to testify against others. That was part of the 
plea bargain. He was supposed to testify against others in the grand 
jury.
  Well, Mr. Smith has pledged his cooperation with the investigation 
and the cooperation has begun. But did Starr make it very clear, Starr 
and his investigators make it clear what they wanted Mr. Smith to say? 
Instead, Mr. Smith said, again on the program the other night, ``60 
Minutes'', he said that ``Oh, they made it very clear what they wanted 
me to say. They had typed up a script what was purportedly my 
testimony, and they wanted me to go in and read it to the grand jury,'' 
and that ``There were things that they were asking me to say that were 
untrue, things that I had repeatedly told them were not true, things 
that I told them I had no knowledge about, but yet they typed it up, 
and that was to be my testimony, and I was to enter it before the grand 
jury.'' Fortunately, he refused to do it.
  But if we take a look at what is going on here, Mr. Speaker, if the 
government can do this, bring the weight and pressure of the Federal 
Government, go back and comb 20 years of one's history and find a 
misdemeanor charge where one might have said something a little wrong; 
and then one says, okay, I will plead guilty and cooperate, and then 
they put before someone testimony that they type up and they make up 
the facts, and the person has to then go before a grand jury and say it 
is true, not only about yourself, but also about other people, have we 
crossed that line?
  If government, through these investigations, can do this to friends 
and associates of the President, then can they not do it to me? Can 
they not do it to the people sitting at home?

                              {time}  2130

  Can they do it to any American citizen? My concern is that, as all 
Americans, we should be outraged by the actions of the so-called 
investigations going on here in Washington, D.C.

[[Page H3091]]

  Unfortunately, these are not investigations, but violations of 
everything we hold dear as American citizens. Every basic, every 
fundamental belief and right on which this great country was founded is 
being trampled by a select few. But it is these few, those who think 
they are above the law, that are giving Congress and the government a 
very, very bad name.
  This is more than just giving Congress or government a very bad name. 
This is about privacy, it is about our Constitution, it is about the 
laws of this Nation. It is about the oath of office. It is about our 
own word that we as elected officials take every year, every 2 years, 
when we are sworn in.
  If we take the case of the chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who has 
released private, recorded conversations, and these conversations were 
covered by the Privacy Act, but yet they are released to the news 
media, the conversations of Mr. Hubbell, his wife, his attorney, and 
his family, when these tapes were subpoenaed by the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight from the Justice Department, who had 
access to them, the committee and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) were warned.
  He was allowed access to them, but he was warned not to release them, 
because they had very sensitive information. But because of his 
position as a Member of Congress, as the chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, and because Congress is not subject to 
the Privacy Act, he had the right to release these tapes?
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was warned by the Justice 
Department that Mr. Hubbell had a right to privacy that was protected, 
and that the gentleman from Indiana and his committee should safeguard 
these tapes against any improper disclosure. Still, as a Member of 
Congress, they put themselves above the law. They have purposely 
released these tapes.
  Now we have learned in the past week or so that to make them sound 
even more incriminating, a word or two may have been altered or changed 
to make them sound more incriminating.
  Does not one's oath of office, does not the Constitution of the 
United States, does not the Bill of Rights, does not the Privacy Act, 
does not human decency mean anything anymore in this country? Since 
when is it okay for a Member of Congress to trample on the rights of an 
individual? I submit, Mr. Speaker, whether we agree or disagree with 
that individual, no one has the right to violate another individual's 
rights in such a purposeful manner.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule of law applies to everyone. No one should be 
held above the law. No one should be held beneath or below the law. 
This government cannot pick and choose whether or when it will follow 
the law. The laws of this Nation mean that everyone must follow the 
law, everyone, but especially Members of Congress.
  When those of us 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 the high office to which we are elected. 
That is why I came down to the floor a couple of weeks ago, and I am 
here again tonight, and have been doing special orders and one-minutes; 
that we as Members, or the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) as the 
chairman, cannot place ourselves above the law or beyond the rule of 
law.
  I must ask, Mr. Speaker, who is the next target? Where is the 
morality of the law that the last group spoke of? Where is the law? Why 
do the American people tolerate such an invasion of their privacy? Mr. 
Speaker, in this case, and particularly with the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, look at what happened. This is no 
different from Ms. Hawkins, from the 16-year-old who was subpoenaed.
  On March 19, if we just go back and look in the last 2 months, on 
March l9th the Wall Street Journal wrote an article that excerpted 
pieces of tapes of the conversations between Mr. Hubbell that were 
rather private and sensitive. The chairman, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton), was trying to force Webb Hubbell, once again trying to 
pressure people to testify before the committee. So to get him to 
testify, because he refused to, you start leaking information. He was 
trying to intimidate Mr. Hubbell into testifying; not whether it was 
the truth, not whether it is appropriate, but to testify.
  Does it not really sound familiar, like the Hawkins case we saw on 
``60 Minutes,'' or Professor Smith, who was threatened with a 
misdemeanor some 20 years ago?
  Then they go further. That was March 19. Take the May edition of the 
American Spectator. We all know the owner of that magazine is not a 
real big fan of the President, who ran an article with the information 
from the tapes. Where does he get the information from the tapes if it 
is protected underneath the Privacy Act?
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of 
that committee, he wrote to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and 
asked him to stop leaking the tapes on March 20, 1998. The gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Burton) writes back and says, I have not leaked any 
tapes; and plus, even if I did, I had unanimous consent to insert the 
tapes in the Congressional Record; therefore, they are public record.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and his staff went back 
and checked, and there was no unanimous consent in the record. He wrote 
back on April 2. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) informs the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) of his decision that, okay, I 
got caught on that one, there is no unanimous consent; I am still going 
to release these tapes, and I am doing it.
  April 14th. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) requested that 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) immediately convene a working 
group to determine whether the document should be released. The 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) answered he would not convene the 
working group, he was going to release the tapes anyway, and he did. 
Now we know that words have been substituted, things have been changed. 
We really have to ask, who is next?
  Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress I was a police officer for 
some 12 years, a city police officer and a Michigan State Police 
trooper. I was injured in the line of duty and medically retired. One 
of the last cases I worked on, finalized, and actually went to court 
on, was the criminal investigation of someone in the city and State 
legislature.
  We did not leak information to do our case. We did not violate her 
rights. We did not invade her privacy. We did not threaten her 
unjustly, but only treated her with humaneness and respect. We did our 
job in a professional, courteous manner. We did not run to the Michigan 
legislature and ask one party or the other party to release the 
investigation. We convicted her, and the case went to the 
Michigan supreme court. The conviction was upheld.

  I did my investigation. We did honor to the law. We did it without 
violating people's rights. We did our investigation within the bounds 
of the law, not outside the bounds of the law.
  Today, we had three pieces of legislation to honor law enforcement 
officers, because this is Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Week. We 
honored those who gave their lives in the line of duty, upholding the 
law. After all, we are a Nation founded on law, right? This Nation 
requires us to have faith and confidence in the judicial system and a 
belief that justice will be served.
  That is why I am really profoundly troubled and, quite honestly, 
angered by the way the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight has handled this investigation of campaign finance 
reform. I am disturbed about released, doctored tapes. It has involved 
name-calling of the President of the United States, and a disregard for 
procedures, criminal procedures, civil procedures, legal procedures 
that bind every law enforcement agency and every law enforcement 
officer. And the Privacy Act binds the Attorney General, it binds Ken 
Starr, but apparently it does not apply to Members of the House of 
Representatives, and certainly not the chairman of that committee.
  It is sad and unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we find ourselves in the 
way that we are disgracing not only our institution, but we are failing 
to maintain the high standards that we should be setting.

[[Page H3092]]

  Mr. Speaker, the threat of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) of 
the Hubbells is wrong; threats to subpoena people, to drag them in, to 
make them subject to an investigation, to subpoena sons of people who 
are subject to investigation, that is way outside the law. It is 
outside common decency. It is contrary to what people, we who are in 
government, should stand for. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the 
Justice Department will intervene here and protect the rights to 
privacy afforded all citizens.
  My fear is that with the majority party, with all these 
investigations in Washington, D.C., from the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton) to Special Prosecutor Ken Starr, each and every day 
Americans are having their rights violated under the guise of an 
investigation. The joke around here, quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, is, 
have you received your subpoena today? And since I have been speaking 
out, I may very well receive a subpoena about something I should have 
known or must have known.
  But when we use a prosecutor, a grand jury, the subpoena power of the 
grand jury, as a substitute for professional law enforcement 
investigation, then we have gone overboard, Mr. Speaker.
  There are over 70 FBI agents working with the Starr investigation. 
Yet, they do not have contact with witnesses; instead, they are 
subpoenaed. What is the cost? What is the humiliation? What is the 
reputation? As Ms. Hawkins said, I had a $100,000-a-year position, was 
supporting my two kids, my two grandchildren. I am on food stamps 
today. No one trusts me. They have taken my good name and my integrity. 
They have humiliated me.
  When is a mother forced to testify under subpoena about her daughter, 
or about facts that are untrue, like Professor Smith? When someone 
leaves a message on a telephone answering machine and then the caller 
is subpoenaed for expressing an opinion, have we gone too far? Has Big 
Brother taken over? What are we doing here? Where is the privacy? Under 
what authority or what right does government have to do these things? 
Why are agents, special prosecutors, chairmen of committees, Members of 
Congress, why do they believe they do not have to follow the law?
  Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal, conservative, 
Independent, if you are an American you really have to be outraged at 
the abuses of the power recently displayed in the name of 
investigations.
  I do not personally know the parties involved who may or may not have 
been subpoenaed, who may or may not have told the truth, who may or may 
not be guilty or innocent. That is for judges and juries. But I do know 
that I believe, as an American citizen, I have certain rights that not 
even Congress can take away, not even a Member of Congress can violate.
  As a human being, there is a certain decency, a kindness, a dignity, 
a respect that people should afford one another. These are the so-
called inalienable rights we all enjoy. That is what we should be 
honoring here during Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Week. We should 
be honoring those who uphold rights, not be here on the floor talking 
about big government affecting the rights of every individual.
  Who is next, Mr. Speaker? Is it I? Is it my colleagues who may join 
me here tonight? Is it the folks listening at home? I hope all 
Americans look at this and not pass judgment, but look at it and say, 
where have we gone? Where have we led ourselves, in this crazy 
political world, to try to get the other side? We have trampled the 
privacy law, we have trampled the Constitution, we have trampled the 
Bill of Rights. When does all this stop? Who is next?
  I think it is time for government to step back. If I can use the 
Speaker's words, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), when we 
first started this, he asked everybody to step back and let the facts 
come out. Maybe we ought to step back from this dangerous precipice we 
are on of violating peoples' rights in the name of investigations. We 
have gone too far.
  As a law enforcement officer, I never would have lasted in the 
department if I conducted investigations like this. Why, because I am a 
Member of Congress, do I have some special rights that I can violate, 
knowingly, intentionally violate, peoples' rights?
  Mr. Speaker, I see my colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) 
is here, the first one here. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
do not come here tonight with any enthusiasm. I am a member of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and I have to say, it has 
been a discouraging year-and-a-half on that committee.
  There are matters here that need to be investigated and fully 
investigated, but it is clear to me that the committee has failed to 
conduct a professional and competent investigation under Chairman 
Burton's leadership.
  I have heard the chair and other members of the majority party say 
that there are Democrats who are stonewalling, who are trying to 
prevent the committee from getting at the truth. They point to the fact 
that a couple of weeks ago all of us Democrats on the committee voted 
against granting immunity for several witnesses. I want to talk about 
that tonight, because there were good reasons for us to vote against 
immunity a couple of weeks ago, and there are very good reasons why I 
expect we will do the same tomorrow.
  Last fall the same issue came before our committee. Every single 
Democrat voted for immunity for several witnesses that were coming 
before us. We voted for immunity in the past, and we certainly will 
again. But we had a problem last fall. Here is the problem. One of the 
witnesses came forward and testified to certain violations of 
immigration and tax laws, and we did not know that he was going to 
testify about that subject matter. We did not know that he had 
potential criminal liability in those particular areas. But because we 
had granted, the committee had granted, full immunity to that person, 
he can now go scot-free on charges that might have been brought.

                              {time}  2145

  That is the problem. What happened? The Republican majority did not 
ask for a proffer of testimony. That is what every good prosecutor 
would do. Before we are going to grant immunity, we need a written 
statement of just what your testimony will be and then we will grant 
you immunity that will cover the subject matter of that testimony and 
not go beyond it.
  Two weeks ago, Chairman Burton asked for the committee to grant full 
immunity for additional witnesses. Well, as far as we are concerned, 
once burned, twice shy. Democrats asked him, have you secured a proffer 
of the testimony of those witnesses? And the chairman said, no, we do 
not have a proffer, no statement of expected testimony. As I said, 
every good prosecutor would get a proffer, but in this case there was 
none.
  Now, we are not going down that road again. I believe the Democrats 
on this committee will grant immunity in the future as we have in the 
past, but first this committee has got to clean up its act. Once we 
have a fair proceeding, once we have a professional investigation, the 
chair will get full cooperation again.
  I have to say that the comments from the newspapers around the 
country are uniform. We are seeing the same thing all around the 
country. This is a quotation from USA Today: ``Republican leaders will 
only compound the impression of partisanship if they fail to turn the 
fund-raising over to a committee with a less biased leader.''
  It is unfortunate that that is the case. I think back to when we 
started this investigation and we said, we objected as Democrats to 
rules of procedure that gave this chairman more power than had ever 
been given to any chair of any committee in the House of 
Representatives in its history; that is, the chair of this committee 
has complete power to subpoena any documents he wants, to depose any 
witnesses he wants and to release any information he wants, all without 
a committee vote and without the consent of the minority. And since the 
Republicans have a majority on this committee, we know that if they are 
unified, they can vote to do all that. But at least they would air the 
issues before they go out.

[[Page H3093]]

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Burton, is he not the first 
chairman in congressional history to have the power to unilaterally 
issue subpoenas and release confidential information?
  Mr. ALLEN. That is my understanding. Never before, that in the past 
the rule has been that before you can subpoena that information or 
before you could release information which is gathered in the course of 
a committee investigation, you would need either the consent of the 
minority or you would have to bring the matter to committee for a 
committee vote. The majority, as I said, they have more members on the 
committee. Because they are the majority, they can carry the day. But 
what is missing when you bypass that procedure is you do not get a 
chance to air the issues. That is the healthy way to conduct an 
investigation. That is the way to make it have the flavor of a 
bipartisan investigation, which this one really does not.
  Mr. STUPAK. It is my understanding that, I am not on that committee, 
it is my understanding that there have been 1,049 subpoenas issued in 
this case, and of those 1,049 subpoenas, 1,037 were unilaterally issued 
by Chairman Burton without permission or consulting the committee. So 
that leaves only 12 subpoenas that have been issued by the committee in 
a bipartisan manner. The other 1,037 have been unilaterally thrown out 
there to see who can get in this big dragnet.
  I was always taught, you investigate before you subpoena; you do not 
subpoena, then begin the investigation. One Member was telling me from 
California that one of these subpoenas landed on one of his friends. He 
has spent $100,000 trying to collect information, trying to consult 
with attorneys. And he is just distressed. He has spent $100,000 trying 
to comply with this all-encompassing subpoena, and they do not even 
know if they have good reason to be subject to this subpoena, but if 
you do not, you get dragged in in front of these hearings, government 
reform, or the Ken Starr investigation, and there you go. Your 
reputation, your business, your humility, everything is just stripped 
away from you, not to mention the financial impact.
  I appreciate the gentleman coming down and sharing some input on this 
government reform.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, Chairman Burton not only has issued the 1,037 unilateral 
subpoenas, he has also issued unilateral subpoena power that is so 
incredibly one-sided. It only attacks Democrats. He issued 551 document 
subpoenas, and all but 9 have gone to Democratic affiliated persons or 
entities.
  The Democratic National Committee alone has received 17 separate 
document subpoenas, many of which were designed to uncover the 
Democratic Party's campaign strategy and policy decisions. Along with 
other members of the committee, we have written the chairman to 
investigate allegations against some Republican donors. Let us be 
evenhanded. There has been wrongdoing on both sides of the aisle. But 
all of the attention has been so partisan, so one-sided that it has 
really destroyed all credibility. On the Senate side, there was an 
effort for a bipartisan investigation. It was a far more credible 
investigation.
  Mr. STUPAK. Did not the Senate basically go over the same ground 
during their investigation?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. It is very repetitive. Everything is 
repetitive.
  Mr. STUPAK. So we are having a repeat of the same thing with a 
different twist with a chairman who has unilateral subpoena power who 
is just all over the place.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
was just noticing a quotation that was in the Wall Street Journal, 
April 10, 1997, a year ago, just over a year ago, a column by Al Hunt. 
Here is the quotation:

       Mr. Burton has little regard for fairness. The biggest 
     losers will be taxpayers. The Burton-led circus could cost 
     between $6 million and $12 million.

  That was over one year ago. Mr. Hunt's words have stood the test of 
time. As I understand the word now, we are now past the $6 million, 
headed toward $12 million and the gentlewoman from New York is right. 
One of the problems with this investigation is that it is so 
duplicative. We have done this in the Senate side. The Senate, for a 
mere, a mere $3 million of the taxpayers' money, has gone ahead and 
held 33 days of hearings and produced an 1100 page report. I quarrel 
with that report because it did not deal with campaign finance reform 
at all, but still they completed the investigation within one year. 
Here we are pushing $6 million, and we have had 13 days of hearings. 
And we have got no report to show for it, and the whole investigation 
is discredited.
  Mr. STUPAK. Many times in my town hall meetings and in correspondence 
from constituents, we talk about these investigations. I have always 
felt and one of my answers is, when you start having, those of us who 
are elected officials, politicians, if you will, investigating other 
politicians, what do you get? More politics. That is exactly what USA 
Today is saying, Republican leaders will only compound the impression 
of partisanship if they fail to turn the fund-raising over to a 
committee with a less biased leader. That is May 6, 1998. New York 
Times, right over here, Friday, May 8, 1998, the Dan Burton Problem, by 
now even Representative Dan Burton ought to recognize that he has 
become an impediment to a serious investigation of the 1996 campaign 
finance scandals. Or take the editorial page by the the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), Our Opinion, Burton unfit to lead Clinton 
probe. It is no wonder that even some Republicans want Burton replaced.

  You start these things and they are driven by politics. Then you have 
the heavy-handedness of government. Where do we stop this? I think we 
have to step back. Government has just gone too far here. I am not here 
defending the guilt or innocence of anyone. This has just gone crazy 
when we subpoena people before we even know what the investigation is 
about. I was always taught you are supposed to think before you speak. 
I wish we would not investigate before we subpoena.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity 
to be here with my friend from Maine and and my friend from New York 
and my friend from Michigan. There are a lot of places I would rather 
be tonight than right here. This is not exactly my idea of a good time. 
I think for all of us we ran for and were elected to Congress because 
we want to deal with the problems that concern our constituents: 
education, child care, health care, fighting drugs. But the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 
and I all serve on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight so 
we have sat through these hearings for the last year and a half, and we 
know what is going on. It has not been a happy year and half for us, 
but we recognize that we are in the minority. We recognize that it is 
the Republicans that control the agenda here.
  So I think for probably a year our cries of foul have fallen on deaf 
ears because it is not unusual for minority members to complain about 
treatment by the Republicans or by the majority party. But I think that 
the events in the last several weeks have now revealed to the American 
people exactly what is going on. And what I would like to do is take a 
couple minutes and go through a few of the editorials that have come 
from newspapers around the country, and the reason I think it is 
important to do that is because if I were someone sitting at home 
tonight and I were watching four Democrats, I would say, those are just 
Democrats complaining. But what we saw, going back, as Mr. Allen 
indicated, to last October, when every Democrat on the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight did vote for immunity for three 
separate individuals, unanimously we voted for immunity, what did we 
find out, we found out that the majority staff had not done its 
homework, and we had given legal immunity to a person who probably did 
not deserve it.
  I think people have to understand what a vote for immunity is. We 
have many, many votes here in the House of Representatives. Some votes 
are important; some votes are not very important. A vote for immunity 
is a very important vote. That was the first time in my career that I 
had ever voted to give someone legal immunity. What that meant was that 
any crimes that

[[Page H3094]]

that person may have committed that basically were coming before our 
committee, that they would be excused of. That is a pretty heavy excuse 
or a pretty heavy price to pay to give someone the opportunity to 
testify before a committee. So it was not with a lot of enthusiasm that 
we take that step. It is actually, I think, a vote that probably makes 
most people nervous, if you are voting to give someone immunity, 
because it can blow up in your face. But we did that. We did that to 
act in good faith with the majority. But then we find out that that was 
something that should not have been done.
  But it was really the events in the last month which were the straws 
that broke this camel's back in terms of convincing me that this was no 
longer even an attempt to try to have a fair investigation. The 
comments that Mr. Burton made to his home newspaper, comments that I 
will not even repeat in public, that I would be embarrassed to say. In 
fact, I think Mrs. Maloney indicated that if her children had used 
those comments, she would have washed their mouth out with soap, and 
that probably would be the same thing that would have happened to me as 
a child if I had used the phrase that he used.
  Then he went on to say that he was out to get the President. Now, 
when you have a chairman of a committee say that he is out to get the 
President and slurs the President, that does not increase your 
confidence that this is an attempt to be a fair committee.
  But then we saw the release of the Hubbell tapes and we saw the 
editing of those tapes. Again, I think what that did was that showed 
anybody who was looking at this that this was a circus, this was not an 
attempt to be fair at all, and that if we were going to try to be fair, 
we would have to take a step back and have someone new run this 
investigation. I want to go through some of these editorials, but 
before I do that, Mrs. Maloney has a statement she wants to make.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
continuing to yield to me. I would like to speak to the Speaker and my 
colleagues and really say that I really have not seen an investigation 
meltdown like this one since I watched Inspector Clousseau look for the 
Pink Panther. Of course, what all of us are talking about is the House 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's alleged investigation.
  Three of us serve on this committee, and they are looking into the 
alleged fund-raising abuses in the 1996 campaigns. Many of us are 
beginning to believe that the investigation which would yield more 
results would be one that would focus on the people or the person in 
charge. The antics of the chairman have reduced this probe to a series 
of bulbles and blotches and embarrassments.
  Six hundred subpoenas have been issued without the consent of the 
full committee. This is the first time this has happened since the 
McCarthy era. The committee has spent $6 million to hold just 6 
hearings so far. The Senate investigation ran for days on just over 
half that cost. Then just in case those numbers were not incriminating 
enough, the name calling began that my colleague, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) just referred to.
  Now tapes are being doctored. The lead investigator has been forced 
to step down. We have all been labeled squealing pigs, and we are all 
on the Sunday morning talk shows. What is next? Oprah, Jerry Springer? 
When they start throwing chairs in the committee, I think we are going 
to all try to get off that committee.
  But in all seriousness, the only chair that should move is that chair 
which is controlling the so-called probe, the one that is occupied by 
Mr. Dan Burton.
  The committee is no longer credible. It can no longer move forward 
under the leadership of the current chair. This is no longer a partisan 
request. Even the Speaker of this House has indicated that some of Mr. 
Burton's actions have been an embarrassment to him.

                              {time}  2200

  When I looked outside the Beltway and into the pages of my hometown 
newspaper, The New York Times, it wrote, after the release of the 
edited tapes of personal conversations between Webb Hubbell and his 
wife, and I quote, and there is a part of it right here from my 
hometown newspaper,

       By now, even Representative Dan Burton ought to recognize 
     that he has become an impediment to a serious investigation 
     of the 1996 campaign finance scandals. If the House inquiry 
     is to be responsible, someone else on Mr. Burton's committee 
     should run it. Coming on the heels of an impolitic remark of 
     Mr. Burton about the President 2 weeks ago, the tapes fiasco 
     is forcing House Republicans to confront two blunders. The 
     first was to entrust the investigation of campaign finance 
     abuses to Mr. Burton; the second was to give him unilateral 
     power to release confidential information.

  In the past 16 days more than 50 editorials and columns have been 
written in papers printed everywhere from Washington, D.C., to Omaha, 
Nebraska, to Tacoma, Washington, questioning whether Mr. Burton should 
continue in this position and taking him to task for his tasks in this 
supposed probe.
  This is not a Beltway sentiment, this is not a partisan sentiment, it 
is a sentiment that is shared across this country and across party 
lines.
  I truly believe that there are skeletons in the closets of both sides 
of the aisle and that the real solution is reform. And many of us on 
both sides of the aisle are working toward that. In the meantime, we 
need to move forward with a fair, bipartisan investigation.
  It is appropriate that the lead investigator step down. It is now 
appropriate that this should be terminated or sent back to the Senate, 
which was able to have a more reasoned, sensible hand in the 
investigation. It just cannot continue the way it has. It has really 
been an embarrassment not only to Mr. Burton and the Republicans, but I 
believe to this entire body.
  Mr. ALLEN. I have one closing comment for myself and that is this: 
The power, the investigatory power of this House, is so broad, so 
powerful, so important that it has got to be handled carefully. It has 
got to be handled in a way that does not deteriorate into partisan 
bickering.
  As those of my colleagues who are on the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight with me understand, we continue to slide down. And 
I think that the only way to pull this investigation back, to get it on 
track and bring it to a sensible conclusion is to make a change in 
leadership; and I say that with regret. But it seems to me that it is 
very important for the health of our democracy and for our ability to 
function in this House.
  This investigation is out of control. On the one hand, it seems no 
longer to respect people's rights of privacy; on the other, it seems to 
be wasting taxpayers' money. I think that the fundamental flaw, the 
thing that went wrong from the beginning, was the sense that it could 
be run by one party against the other.
  Whatever the numbers are, whether we look at the numbers of documents 
subpoenaed, the number of witnesses deposed or the targets of the 
document requests that have been issued by subpoena, they are 98 
percent to 99 percent to Democratic targets.
  We know that both sides have violated the campaign laws. Both sides 
should be investigated in an efficient, responsible way. And at the end 
of the day, what we should draw from this is the determination that we 
are going to change this system; that we are going to contain the 
influence of money and politics and we are going to step forward and 
get back to the people's business that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Barrett) was referring to, the education, the health care, the 
Social Security, all of those issues that really brought us to this 
House in the first place.
  So it is with some sadness that I say that it seems to me we need to 
get this investigation back on track, and that means a change in 
leadership, a change in direction, and get back to the business of this 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming out and 
joining us tonight, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), and we will continue 
this, but the point the gentleman is making, whether it is this 
democracy, this House of Representatives, this government, we cannot 
pick and choose when we are going to follow the law.
  The laws are there. The laws of this Nation mean everyone must follow 
this law. ``Everyone'' includes especially us.

[[Page H3095]]

 We are sworn to uphold the law when we take the oath of office, 
especially Members of Congress.
  So when those of us who are elected officials, if we just sit by and 
allow the chairman of this committee, or any other member, to openly 
ignore the law and we do not speak out, then we certainly are not doing 
our job as elected representatives in trying to uphold the principles 
of this democracy.
  As the gentleman from Maine said, there are problems on both sides, 
but it does not give one side the right to violate the rights of 
individuals. Whether we like that individual, agree with that 
individual, or not, no one has that right. And I am pleased that my 
colleagues here tonight have spoken out with me.
  I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), who has been 
patiently waiting.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and a 
point I want to make here that might be sort of unusual for a 
politician to make, as a partisan, as a Democrat, frankly, probably the 
best thing in the world would be to have Dan Burton remain as chair of 
this committee, if the only thing we were interested in was to make the 
Republicans look bad.
  Because I think, as this editorial from my hometown newspaper points 
out, this is from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Saturday May 9th, 
``Our opinion: Burton unfit to lead Clinton probe. It is no wonder that 
even some Republicans want Burton replaced.''
  If we wanted to just center it on the difficulties that our 
colleagues on the Republican side were having, we would just say, keep 
him in that chair, let him continue that investigation, because there 
is no credibility. I have said that for months. This committee has no 
credibility.
  But I think this is an issue where we have to go beyond our party 
identification and say, this is a waste of money to have this person 
run this investigation. We have spent literally millions of dollars on 
this investigation and it simply does not have any credibility.
  I want us to have a fair investigation. I think that there have been 
problems. I think that there have been problems on both sides of the 
aisle, and I think there is a duty for us to investigate those.
  Again, I am very cognizant of the fact that many people say, well, 
they are just a bunch of Democrats complaining. But I want to read from 
a couple of editorials. These are all editorials from the last week, 
and they are from all different parts of the country.

  The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, ``Tale of the Tapes. Representative Dan 
Burton brings a serious inquiry into disrepute,'' from May 8, 1998. 
This refers to the apology that Mr. Burton made to his fellow 
Republicans and that the Speaker made to the Republicans as well. ``In 
apologizing to House Republicans for his mistakes, Representative 
Burton should have also apologized to the American people. It is they 
who lose the most by having an important inquiry turned into a 
circus.''
  From Roll Call, which is a very respected newspaper right here on 
Capitol Hill, the title of the editorial, ``Out of Control,'' May 7th, 
1998. ``So at long last, House Speaker Newt Gingrich realizes that Dan 
Burton is an embarrassment to House Republicans.'' The editorial goes 
on to state. ``Removing Burton as chairman might ease GOP 
embarrassment, but Gingrich also needs to watch his own rhetoric lest 
he too become an embarrassment.''
  From the San Antonio Express News, May 6, 1998. ``Burton bumbles in 
bad faith. Burton's antics as chairman of the House Government Reform 
and Oversight Committee have stripped credibility from the panel's 
probe.'' The editorial goes on to state: ``Burton's release of the 
doctored transcripts was a partisan cheap shot, not full disclosure in 
the name of justice. Clearly, Americans cannot rely on a Burton-led 
probe to produce the whole truth. Republican House leaders should 
replace him immediately.''
  There are several more, if I could continue here. From the USA Today, 
May 6, 1998, ``GOP Stumbles, White House Stonewalls. The distorted 
record gave proof that the GOP committee leader was engaged in a 
partisan vendetta. Burton was rightly chastised for his indecent tape-
editing. Republican leaders will only compound the impression of 
partisanship if they fail to turn the fund-raising over to a committee 
with a less biased leader.''
  That editorial was also critical of the Democrats, I should add.
  The fifth one, from the Allentown Morning Call, May 5, 1998, 
``Congressman Plays Dirty with Tapes. The current clumsiness of the 
likes of Representative Dan Burton,'' the editorial then goes on to 
say, ``isn't very persuasive that a dispassionate search for the truth 
is all anybody really wants.''
  The Omaha World Herald, May 5, 1998, ``Republican ineptitude in the 
United States House of Representatives makes it harder to be confident 
that the public will ever know the truth about the White House 
scandals. Serious allegations ought to be treated with more 
professionalism than Burton has shown. The harm done by Burton's 
earlier appearance of vindictiveness may become difficult to undo.''
  And finally, from the Tacoma Washington News Tribune, ``Transcript 
Release Unfair, Partisan,'' May 5, 1998. ``Burton says he condensed the 
transcripts to make these easily understandable and to protect 
Hubbell's privacy, but these claims do not pass the straight-face test. 
Somehow he has further undermined public confidence in Congress' 
ability to conduct credible investigations.''
  There are problems, and I think that we have acknowledged that, and 
there are concerns with Democratic fund-raising, but there are also 
concerns with Republican fund-raising. I am embarrassed by the amount 
of money that is in politics, but to argue that somehow the Democrats 
have raised their money from assorted sources while the Republicans 
have raised all their money from widows and orphans just defies logic. 
And I do not think there is an American listening to this who believes 
that.
  The difficulty is that we have to have a fair investigation. That is 
what the American people want. They want a fair investigation, and we 
are not getting a fair investigation under Chairman Burton.
  So we can continue. We can continue down the road we have gone for 
the last year-and-a-half and we will continue to have problems.
  I am not interested in granting immunity if I think that all we are 
doing is continuing a partisan witch-hunt. I will vote for immunity if 
I think that there is going to be a fair investigation. But that is not 
what I see happening, and I do not see any signs under Chairman 
Burton's leadership that that is going to change, and that does not 
make me happy.
  As I said earlier, there are many things I would rather be doing. I 
would rather be working on the issues that the people in my district 
sent me here for.
  I have three small kids at home. I would much rather be home with 
them than standing here late at night in Washington, D.C.
  But this is an important issue and it is important for us to let the 
American people know what the complaints are that we have with the 
process.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming down. I 
know a week or two ago when we did this, he also came down, and I 
appreciate his insight on the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
  I find it ironic that some of these laws we have spoken of tonight, 
especially the Privacy Act, that Mr. Burton and others were warned that 
there was sensitive information and that it should not be released. 
Under that Privacy Act, if that same information, those tapes, were 
released by the Attorney General or Ken Starr, they could have been 
prosecuted under the Privacy Act. But because Mr. Burton is a Member of 
Congress, and we are exempt from that law, he goes ahead and releases 
them and, under the debate clause of the rules and the Constitution, he 
is protected from any kind of criminal prosecution.
  I find it ironic that we, the government, pass laws, but that we, the 
government, choose not to live by them and we apply these standards 
differently as we proceed through these investigations. The laws of the 
land must apply to everyone, especially Members of Congress.
  Mr. Burton had an opportunity here, and it is sad to say it has not 
panned out well, and it brings disrespect to all of us in this House. 
So I really do hope

[[Page H3096]]

that the Speaker considers removing him or putting someone else in 
charge.
  As the gentleman said, let us have a fair investigation. Let us look 
at both sides. There are problems on both sides. I think we would all 
acknowledge that. But when we start subpoenaing people before we even 
know what we are investigating, I just think we have it backwards.
  As I said earlier, I have always been taught to try to think before I 
speak. When I was in law enforcement, we always investigated before we 
issued subpoenas. Unfortunately, here we are issuing subpoenaes, 
unfortunately 1,047 of them, and we do not even know what we are 
searching for or what we are going after.
  And all we are doing is pressuring people and stripping them of their 
integrity, their reputation and their pride, and spending a lot of 
money to fight subpoenas when they have nothing to do with these 
investigations. The Senate has already investigated all this and 
submitted their report, but yet we keep going on and on and on.
  Again, that is why I guess I have always said that when there are 
politicians investigating politicians that just gets us into more 
politics. We have, unfortunately, lost sight here of the integrity of 
the investigation, the faith in our laws as a Nation, that all citizens 
should have faith and confidence in our judicial system and a belief 
that justice will be served.
  Unfortunately, I cannot say that about this campaign investigation 
that is going on in the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  2215

  I know at times I hope folks back home are not saying we are just a 
bunch of Democrats up here trying to protect this person or that 
person. That is not the issue here. The issue is have we gone too far 
in giving one Member of Congress such an awesome power to subpoena 
people. Have we given Congress or a chairman or individual Members an 
exception to the Privacy Act where they can disclose private 
conversations of people, and then we find that certain words were 
doctored or altered to make it sound even more incriminating and where 
are we going? And if we can do this, if this committee and subpoenas 
can be friends of the President or Democratic fund-raisers, what is 
then not to say we will do all blond-haired people tomorrow and do the 
same kind of treatment to them underneath the guise of an 
investigation?
  I just think we have gone too far. And having been in law enforcement 
all those years as I was, I just find it quite repulsive that we would 
do this. And without more people speaking up, I am glad to see some of 
those newspaper articles and editorials are paying attention, I hope 
Members of Congress are, and somehow we do something, not just with 
these investigations that we have here in the House that have gone so 
one-sided and lopsided, but also with the special prosecutor statute.
  This has been going on now for, what, 6 years and $45 to $50 million 
and we are still in the investigative stage where, as I mentioned the 
other night, a 16-year-old son of an individual was subpoenaed by FBI 
agents at his school. I mean, how does his son go back to school the 
next day?
  We have gone overboard in this whole thing. And if we are worried 
about Big Brother and big government watching us before, with the 
abuses we have seen in these investigations from Ken Starr to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), where is government going to show 
up tomorrow?
  It is not a good day, not a good day at all. I thank the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) for joining us here tonight and I 
appreciate his input. And I know I am going to continue to speak out on 
these abuses. I think, as I said before this evening, if we do not, 
those of us who are elected to uphold the law, then I think we fail in 
our duties as elected representatives in the democracy.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. In the spirit of fair play, my friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is here and he indicated he 
wanted to put in his word on the other side. So I am more than happy to 
yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me ask my friends; They all have been 
kind of bashing the style, not the person, but the style of our friend 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) who we all know to be a man of 
integrity and of honor. But they mentioned the rules about putting 
Congress under the same laws as the private sector.
  Did my colleagues vote for that rule, which was, as my colleagues 
know, a Republican rule and generally passed on a partisan vote? Did 
they leave their side of the aisle and vote with the Republicans to 
make that a reality on the first day of Congress in 1995?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Yes, I did. In fact, I was a cosponsor of 
that bill to have the laws that apply to the private sector also apply 
to Congress.
  Mr. STUPAK. And the same for me.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I am glad to see that.
  Would my colleagues urge their Democrat colleagues, the 19 who will 
not vote for immunity for the key witnesses, in order to get around 
this partisanship, in order to get on with the investigation, would my 
colleagues urge their Democrat colleagues to vote for immunity, the 
ones that the Democrat Department of Justice have given and granted 
immunity to?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I am one of those 19 that did not vote for 
it. And I will not vote for immunity tomorrow because I do not believe 
this is an attempt to find truth. I do not think this is a fair 
investigation.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would further yield, one of those 
witnesses is a guy named Kent La, who, as my colleagues probably know, 
is an associate of Ted Sioeng, who is a business operative with the Red 
Pagoda Mountain Tobacco Company, which, as my colleagues know, is the 
third largest selling cigarette in the entire world and it is 
Communist-owned, and it gave $400,000 to the Democrat National 
Committee.
  Do my colleagues not think that it is important to hear from Kent La 
on why would a Communist-owned cigarette company give $400,000 to the 
Democrat Committee?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time, I do not know what the 
gentleman would be testifying to; and that is part of the problem we 
have had in the committee. We have given immunity to an individual 
earlier. He came in. There was no proffer of his testimony. He gave 
testimony that was different than what the committee expected.
  So, again my point is, under the leadership of the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton), this committee does not have credibility.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my original time, let me answer 
that quickly if I may.
  My problem with this is, the way my colleague phrased his question 
is, because this person was an associate and there was a business 
operative and there is a Communist cigarette, he just made three 
assumptions there.
  My answer would be, send the FBI agents out. Check with this 
individual. If there is a need to bring him before a committee and need 
to subpoena him, then do their investigation before they subpoena.

                          ____________________