Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the balance of my time, so that the gentleman will have 1\1/2\ minutes to close.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to know what language the gentleman from Virginia speaks. He sounds like he is from down South some place.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), my good friend.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. First of all let me point out to my colleague from California, the people of Puerto Rico are citizens of the United States. They already are citizens. He says if they want a bite of the American dream. They already are Americans. The only problem is they are Americans without representation. They do not have any Congressmen. They do not have any Senators. They do not have any representation in this body. Yet they are American citizens. They are like orphans out in a storm walking around saying, ``Where are my parents?'' It does not make any sense. This plebiscite is an advisory plebiscite, I will say to my colleague from California. This is an advisory plebiscite. What is he afraid of? All we are asking for is an opinion from the people of Puerto Rico on what they want. If they come back and only 51 percent say that they want statehood or they want commonwealth, we decide in this body whether or not we want to proceed any further. I think if it was that close, we probably would not. But let us say they come back and that 70 percent want statehood and only 10 percent or 20 percent want commonwealth. At that point I think that we as a body ought to make that determination. But make no mistake about it, these are American citizens without representation in the Congress of the United States, and that is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am one of the 165 cosponsors of H.R. 123, which was a bill to declare English as the official language of the Government of the United States. I strongly believe that that is a good piece of legislation. However, after having said that, I do not believe that that particular piece of legislation belongs in this bill. This bill is a bill that is designed to give the people of Puerto Rico the right to let the Congress of the United States know whether they want to be an independent nation, whether they want to remain a Commonwealth, or whether they want to become a State. It does not mean that they will become a State, because any decision that they make in this referendum will have to come back to the Congress of the United States for final determination. And the process is going to take about 10 years if the process is followed according to the legislation that we have before us. So the fact of the matter is this bill is designed to find out what the people of Puerto Rico really want. Why are we doing this, because there was a plebiscite in Puerto Rico just a few years ago? A few years ago, there was a plebiscite; and each of the parties, the Commonwealth party, the statehood party, and the independent party were able to define for themselves what Commonwealth meant, what statehood meant, and what independence meant. Because of that, the people of Puerto Rico, when they voted, were voting based upon the determination that was being made by the party who wanted their vote. What we decided to do was, we decided to find out from leading legal authorities what statehood meant, what Commonwealth meant, and what independence meant so that the people of Puerto Rico, when they voted on the plebiscite, would be voting on the facts and not on what some party said. We have contacted the legislative counsel of the Congress of the United States for their input. We have contacted the Congressional Research Service for their input. We have contacted the Department of Justice of the United States for their input, and other constitutional experts. What we have determined in this bill is what is constitutionally defined as statehood, independence, and Commonwealth status. And so the people of Puerto Rico, when they vote on this plebiscite, will be voting on what the facts are and not what some party says in Puerto Rico who has a reason to define their party in a certain way. The Commonwealth Party, in the definition that was on the plebiscite a few years ago, was not defined correctly. What we are doing is clarifying that in the language that is in this bill, that will go on the ballot if we pass this legislation. Like I said earlier, I am for the English legislation that was before this body some years ago. I was a cosponsor of that. I do not believe the Solomon amendment as written has any place in this legislation. Because there is some confusion about this, this is becoming an English-only bill, which it should not be. I have a perfecting amendment or a substitute amendment which will, effective immediately, allow for English proficiency in Puerto Rico by the age of 10. I think that the people of Puerto Rico, when they read the substitute that I have, will be very happy with that because it encourages learning English in all the schools and all the institutions down there by the age of 10. We think that that will happen. Let me just add one more point. That is, the people of Puerto Rico already are citizens of the United States of America. We are not talking about some country out there in the middle of nowhere. Those people have citizenship already. For us to deny them the ability to decide whether they want to be a commonwealth or if they want to become independent or a State I think is just dead wrong. Let us not muddy up the waters by adding the Solomon language to this, which is a pervasive issue. He is talking about English for the entire United States of America. We are talking about a plebiscite bill for Puerto Rico. Let us decide the Puerto Rico issue with the amendment that I am going to add which will encourage English as the language down there, proficiency by the age of 10. And then later on if we want to, let us go back to the English-only bill that we had before this body some time ago and debate that as a separate issue, but not on the Puerto Rico bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have 15 minutes, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has 15 minutes in opposition. That is what was decided.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, should we ask unanimous consent that each one of the amendments, since there is only two, be given 15 minutes for each amendment for debate, equally divided among proponents and opponents? I will make a unanimous consent request to that effect.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, we are going to be under the 5-minute rule which would govern the time distribution; is that correct?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask of the Chair how the time on my amendment, when it comes in order, will be divided and how it should be divided?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I and the gentleman from California jointly would like to control the remaining 30 minutes in opposition to be equally divided.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. A perfecting amendment, Mr. Chairman, precedes the determination of an amendment. A substitute comes after the amendment or at the end of the amendment process. Am I not correct?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make some observations about the White House efforts to avoid accountability to the American people. It is very apparent that there has been a concerted White House attack on independent counsel Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who has been investigating a number of serious allegations against the Clinton administration. First, regarding all these attacks on Ken Starr: Attorney General Janet Reno approved the expansion of Starr's investigation into the Lewinsky-related matters as well as the Travelgate and Filegate matters of 1996. Three Federal judges approved expansions of Mr. Starr's jurisdiction each time serious allegations arose. There was overwhelming approval of these actions from the Justice Department, according to reports. In the past, the President said he was in the cooperation business with investigators. That simply has not been the experience of anyone investigating anything to do with this administration. What we have here is an orchestrated attack on Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, in order to change the subject and avoid answering the real questions. The Clinton White House has a history of engaging in smear campaigns against anyone conducting legitimate investigations. The President's attorneys and friends have attacked and demonized everyone who has conducted investigations of the President or members of his administration. When FBI director Louis Freeh called for an independent counsel, the White House staff started maligning him in the press and trying to undermine one of the Nation's chief law enforcement officials. The President allowed these attacks. Independent counsel Donald Smaltz, who has obtained six guilty pleas and six convictions and millions recovered in fines from wrongdoers, testified before my Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and was compared by one of my Democrat colleagues to a Nazi. Such mindless attacks are unprecedented and the Washington Post even attacked this senseless smear. The Clinton White House has attacked every committee chairman who has conducted investigations: Senator Thompson, who conducted the Senate campaign finance investigation; the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Jim Leach), when he conducted the Whitewater investigation here in the House; Senator D'Amato, when he conducted the Senate Whitewater investigation; and Mr. Clinger, my predecessor, who had actively participated in many investigations of Republicans as well as Democrats. So when we have the Clinton White House once again attacking, this time, Mr. Starr, the independent counsel, it is predictable and consistent. Instead of answering questions, the White House attacks the questioners, evades the press and changes the topic. These are all legitimate and necessary investigations. The Clinton White House does not cooperate with investigators to get the truth out; they attack them. Ken Starr has been doing the work the Justice Department has directed him to do. This attack on Mr. Starr is extremely misdirected. Mr. Starr has had a distinguished legal career. He clerked for the Supreme Court, for Chief Justice Warren Burger when he first got out of law school. He served as the chief of staff to Attorney General William French Smith during the Reagan administration. He served as solicitor general of the United States and argued cases on behalf of the United States before the Supreme Court. He also served as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and has taught constitutional law at New York University Law School. Mr. Starr also was called upon by the Senate to review Senator Packwood's diaries when Senator Packwood was embroiled in an ethics scandal. No one criticized him when he was involved in an investigation of a Republican Senator. Now we learn that private investigators, get this, private investigators were hired to investigate Mr. Starr's team of Democrat and Republicans, a bipartisan group of career prosecutors. Last year, we learned these same private investigators investigated Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles' wife, and I believe other Members who have been investigating the White House have had private investigators looking into them and their past as well. And I believe that is being done to intimidate those who are trying to get the truth out. Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, attacked the actions that were taken against Don Nickles' wife in last fall's Senate hearings. This suggests an effort to intimidate and silence both investigators and witnesses. That is just wrong. If we are trying to get the facts out to the American people, as investigators looking into illegal activities, or alleged illegal activities, we should not be intimidated, or there should be no attempt to intimidate us in doing our job. And that goes for Mr. Starr as well. In his various positions, Mr. Starr had to go through the confirmation process; and never, never was his integrity put into question by anybody, Democrat or Republican. When he was appointed independent counsel, he was almost unanimously applauded as a fair and seasoned jurist. Ken Starr selected as his legal ethics adviser for his office a Mr. Sam Dash, the chief counsel for the Watergate Committee. Ken Starr has selected a team of lawyers who are both Republican and Democrat, yet still the attack. Why? All of these attacks are designed to do two things: change the subject and delay the investigation. This has been a pattern and practice of the Clinton White House in response to each investigation, whether it be Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, the campaign finance investigation or this latest scandal. This, after all, was going to be the most ethical administration in history. Yet consider this: Numerous close friends and senior aides of the President, such as Webster Hubbell, former Governor Jim Guy Tucker of Arkansas, and the President's former business partners, Jim and Susan McDougal, have been convicted and have served prison terms. Four independent counsels have been appointed by Attorney General Reno, his Attorney General. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr has secured 11 guilty pleas, three convictions and two indictments that are pending. Independent counsel Donald Smaltz in the Espy investigation over at the Agriculture Department has secured six guilty pleas and six convictions with three indictments pending, including an indictment against former Agriculture Secretary Espy. Independent counsel David Barrett, Cisneros investigation, has seven indictments pending, including an indictment of former HUD Secretary Cisneros. Independent counsel Donald Pierson, of the Ron Brown investigation, his investigation was turned over to the Justice Department, which has now indicted DNC fund-raisers Nora and Gene Lum, as well as Ron Brown's son, Michael Brown. And consider this: In the campaign finance investigation which I am conducting, over 70 people have taken the Fifth Amendment or fled the country. This is not a history of the most ethical administration in history. It is not even close. Just in the past few weeks, Attorney General Reno called for an appointment of an independent counsel regarding Secretary Babbitt at the Department of the Interior regarding actions with Indian tribes who are large DNC donors. All of this has come to pass because of the actions of the President and his appointees. The attacks on Ken Starr should stop. The President has had five independent counsels appointed by his Attorney General. Some of his closest friends have been convicted of serious crimes and others have taken the Fifth Amendment or fled the country. Instead of attacking Mr. Starr, the President's lawyers, associates and friends should be allowing the answers to many legitimate questions to be answered. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put into the Record four editorials by leading newspapers regarding this because I think it is very relevant. So, without objection, I hope you will do that. Let me say one last thing. When we had the FBI director before my committee and I asked him if he had ever seen scandals before of the magnitude that we were investigating, he said, well, as a matter of fact, I have. And I said, could you tell me when that was? He said, when I was investigating organized crime in New York City. Now, I am sure he wished he had that comment back, but the fact of the matter is these scandals are huge, they are out of control, and Mr. Starr should not be taken to task because he is trying to do his job.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding this time to me. Let me just say that anybody who serves this country in the armed services and fights and lays their life on the line for all of us deserves everything that we can give them. Honor. Respect. Everything. But those who spend time in prison camps, prisoner-of-war camps, and have had to endure the hardships and the torture and pain of that are special to me and should be to every American because they pay a price even above those that give their lives because they have to go through daily torture for long periods of time. And so my heart goes out to them and their families who have had to pay that sacrifice over the years and during the Vietnam war. Today I want to specifically talk about my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who is a Member of this body, who spent 7 years, 7 years in a POW camp in Vietnam during the Vietnam war. Mr. Speaker, our good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) was shot down on April 16, 1966, while flying on his 25th mission over North Vietnam, and as I said, he spent 7 years in POW camps and 2 years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. And during the time he was in the Hanoi Hilton along with his colleagues, I think there were 11 or 12 of them, he lived in leg irons, suffered malnutrition and lived in appallingly primitive conditions. And they were mistreated, they were tortured, and yet the gentleman from Texas never, never gave in. He was a real patriot under very difficult conditions. And here he is 25 years later, now a Member of the Congress of the United States, and the resoluteness he showed during his incarceration in Hanoi and the Hanoi Hilton is just as strong today as it was back then. He is a patriot whose spirit was never broken, and I am very proud he is a Member of the Congress of the United States, and I am very, very proud that he is my friend.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on February 5, 1998, I was unavoidably detained, therefore, missing roll call votes 8-10. Had I been here I would have voted Yea on roll call vote 8 (H. Res. 348) providing for the consideration of H.R. 2846; Yea on roll call vote 9 (H.R. 2846) prohibiting spending Federal education funds on national testing without explicit and specific legislation; and Yea on roll call 10 (H.R. 2631) disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President on October 6, 1997, regarding Public Law 105-45.