Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my colleagues appear to be so sanctimonious and self-righteous about somebody going out and having a hamburger or dinner with somebody saying that is buying influence when the same Members that are making these statements and trying to make the American people feel like we are doing something wrong by playing golf with somebody or tennis with somebody or having dinner with somebody are accepting thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], according to the information on his FEC report, got 52, count them, 52 $5,000 contributions from PAC's. I would not accuse him of wrongdoing, but if there is any influence peddling, if the appearance of influence peddling is something we are talking about, I would think 52 $5,000 contributions would have more of an impact on the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Bryant], than somebody buying me a sandwich, or somebody playing tennis with someone, or someone playing golf with someone; 52 $5,000 contributions. In 1994, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] got $273,689.51, and over half of those were from special interest PAC's, but he does not want to talk about that. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] got $196,400, and 69 percent, over two-thirds, came from PAC's. He got contributions from the American Federation of State, county and municipal people. He got the cable industry, human rights campaign, Democrat, Republican, Independent Voters Educational Political Action Fund, and a lot of labor unions. But those do not have influence, folks, those $5,000 contributions to him does not have any influence. I believe that. But if I have a hamburger with somebody I am breaking the law? That is buying influence? I think my colleagues have their priorities kind of skewed. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that many of these functions that we are talking about raises money for charitable contributions, like leukemia research and cancer research. I say to my colleagues, I think that is very important. I would rather have these private individuals do this and private groups do this than the taxpayers.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, then let me respond.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman a question? I will limit the campaign contributions to $1,000. Will he vote for that?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I have played golf at the expense of people raising money for leukemia research and for cancer research so the taxpayers do not have to.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The gentleman is going to get that chance, because we are going to propose that amendment to your bill.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Did you get 52 $5,000 contributions?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I do not know which the gentleman is talking about. We had several.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would have to check.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No. The people who put on fundraisers for cancer research are organizations, not lobbyists. [[Page H 8567]]

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, about 4 or 5 weeks ago I took a special order talking about a judge in Arkansas, in Little Rock, a Federal judge who has close political ties to the current Governor, Jim Guy Tucker, and President Clinton, and particularly the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Judge Henry Woods has been a longtime political adviser to the President and to Mrs. Clinton. He has appointed her to a number of boards. He recently was given a case involving the current Governor, Jim Guy Tucker, which was brought to his attention and put before his court by Mr. Starr, who is investigating the Whitewater matter and other related matters. At that time, when I had my special order. I suggested that in order to eliminate any appearance of impropriety, Judge Henry Woods should recuse himself and not be the judge to hear this case, because no matter what he did, if he rendered a decision in favor of Mr. Tucker, Governor Tucker, it would have the appearance of impropriety. One of the other judges down there in a related case dealing with Webb Hubbell, who was indicated and convicted, you remember Webb Hubbell, he was the Assistant Attorney General appointed by President Clinton, did recuse himself. He did it because he felt like the appearance of impropriety was something that should not even be considered by a Federal judge. I urged during my special order that Judge Henry Woods recuse himself, as the other Federal judge did in a related case, but Judge Henry Woods did not do that. This week it was announced that he dismissed one of the indictable offenses against Governor Jim Guy Tucker, and it certainly does give the appearance of impropriety because of this connection with Jim Guy Tucker and the people who are currently residing in the White House, as well as other Democrat leaders throughout Arkansas. Tonight I would like to submit for the Record, Mr. Speaker, all of the information I have regarding Judge Henry Woods, my previous special order, an article that was written by a person from little Rock who served in the Arkansas State Senate with Judge Henry Woods when he was in the Senate, and I would like for all of these articles to be included in the Congressional Record so at some future date, if Judge Henry Woods renders decisions that are of concern to Members of the House, there will be a record in the Congressional Record. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say to all who are on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight that we ought to have a complete and thorough hearing on the Whitewater case and all the related cases, including the one currently pending before the courts involving Jim Guy Tucker, the Governor of Arkansas, I think there is so much that appears to be collusion down there that it boggles the mind. For Judge Henry Woods to participate and render the decision he did last week regarding Jim Guy Tucker is just beyond comprehension. As a matter of fact, I would like to just read one thing that was said in the newspaper article which I think was put in the paper today. ``It's typical hometown anger at the Feds coming in,'' says James Madison University political science professor Robert Roberts. ``But if it hadn't been for Federal prosecutors, the level of scandal at the local and State level would be 10 times greater than it is today,'' Roberts predicted. This is the part I want to put in the Congressional Record. In particular, ``Roberts predicted Starr would win on appeal,'' that is the decision by Judge Henry Woods he is going to appeal, that ``Roberts predicted Starr would win on appeal because of the long tradition of granting independent counsels widespread discretion. This is nothing for President Clinton to cheer about,'' says Roberts. ``He is best served by letting the investigation run its course quickly, and this just delays things.'' I submit to my colleagues here in the House that the reason for this delay is because of the close personal relationship Judge Henry Woods has with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and other people in the Jim Guy Tucker administration. It is unfortunate this happened. It should not have happened. He should have recused himself. The material referred to follows: [From the USA TODAY] Independent Counsel Challenged (By Tony Mauro) A Little Rock federal judge's decision Tuesday to dismiss fraud indictment against Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker marks the first time the broad powers of an independent counsel have been trimmed. U.S. District Judge Henry Woods said Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr overstepped his authority in June by indicting Tucker of fraud charges related to a federal loan to finance a cable TV venture. Starr contends the judge has no authority to rule on the scope of the investigation, which was launched to look into irregularities relating to the Whitewater real estate venture in which President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton were partners. ``I cannot accept the proposition that . . . no court has the power to determine where there is jurisdiction to proceed in the matter,'' wrote Woods, a 1979 Carter appointee. Starr promptly announced he would seek an expedited review by a federal appeals court in St. Louis. Tucker still faces an 11-count indictment stemming from dealings with Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, which was owned by the Clintons' Whitewater partners, James and Susan McDougal. They also have been indicted. The ruling comes amid debate over the power of independent counsels, a hybrid breed of prosecutors created by a post- Watergate federal law in 1978. Independent counsels are appointed by a three-judge panel at the request of the attorney general when a high-level official is suspected of violating federal law. Originally viewed as properly insulated from political influence, critics now say [[Page H 8580]] independent counsels are too insulated--politically unaccountable and prone to lengthy fishing expeditions that go far beyond the original allegations. ``The logic of the law is to sweep in more and more potential cases, things the Justice Department would not have punished,'' says former Justice Department official Terry Eastland, who wrote a book on independent counsels. ``It becomes a very messy business and it's bad for the system.'' Starr, a former Republican administration official, came under attack in Arkansas and in the White House for straying beyond Whitewater and reviewing every political transaction in recent Arkansas political history. ``It's typical hometown anger at the feds coming in,'' says James Madison University political science professor Robert Roberts. ``But if it hadn't been for federal prosecutors, the level of scandal at the local and state level would be 10 times greater than it is today.'' Roberts predicted Starr would win on appeal because of the long tradition of granting independent counsels wide discretion. ``This is nothing for President Clinton to cheer about,'' says Roberts. ``He is best-served by letting the investigation run its course quickly, and this just delays things.''

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague who just spoke. The parents should be the ones who make the decision, but they need the tools with which to implement that decision, and they do not have it right now. With 50 or 100 channels, there is no way they can block out the objectionable material that is coming across the airwaves. They can block out one channel, one station, one period of time, but they cannot block out the myriad of channels and the myriad of time slots and the myriad of pornography and violence that is coming across the airwaves unless they have this V-chip in their set. All we are saying is that for 15 or 20 or 30 cents it can be put in a set because that technology is already there. It is in there with the closed captions for the hearing impaired. This Congress demanded that several years ago. So the technology is there. Now, let me just tell you about the networks. The networks came around to see me, and they said, we will put $2 million. Do you want more? We will put $5 million into a fund to study this, to study this. Why do they want to study it? Because they know when the ratings start going down on a show because the parents will block it out, the money goes down, and when the money goes down, then the advertisers do not buy the advertising, and when that happens, Mr. Chairman, you send a message to Hollywood really clearly: You clean up your act, and you stop this violence and sex that is coming into the homes, or you will not get the money for it. That is where we are going to hit them. There have been boycotts in the past that have not worked. This is the greatest boycott in the world because the parents in the home controls what is coming into their homes, what their children are seeing, and if they block that out, then by gosh we are going to see some changes in this country. The violence we see in our streets, the sex we see, the sex crimes are directly related to what our kids are consuming on television, and here is a chance not for Government but for the parents to control it. For God's sake, we have been talking about this for years. It is time we gave the parents the tools, and this study he is talking about, the Coburn study, 3 years we will be talking about this. The Coburn study will not do a darn thing. Vote down the Coburn amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the recommittal motion is approved, does that kill the bill?

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very hard fight, and for some of us, it is kind of emotional because we have seen what happens when violence occurs in the home. I used to see that violence on a regular basis when I was a kid, and as I grew up, I started watching that same kind of violence on television, and then I say society become more and more violent. I saw kids start killing other kids. I saw 12-year-old kids raping other 10- and 11-year-old children, and we say, ``why is this happening?'' Mr. Speaker, I submit that, in large part, it is due to what Frank Wolf of Virginia said a while ago, ``Garbage in, garbage out.'' The kids are seeing a steady diet of violence and sex, and there is no way for parents who are working day and night to keep their kids safe from it. There is no way. This is the only technology that is available that will do it. Mr. Speaker, I love all my colleagues. I know we have differences of opinion. I respect all of them, but I am really disappointed today because we have not given the people of this country, the parents, the ability to help protect their kids.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this legislation in a tougher form, in a tougher form, passed the Senate with 73 Members of that body voting for it. Members who were here before, conservatives, liberals, moderates, they are not for Government censorship. They would not [[Page H 8494]] vote for it. People you guys and I respect. This is not Government censorship; this is very, very simply a tool that we are going to give parents to protect their kids from the filth that is coming across the airwaves.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, I yield myself 10 seconds. In the 10 seconds I want to say that it does not cost $78. It costs between 7 and 20 cents to add to already technology that is in the sets now for closed caption for the hearing impaired. This is a bogus argument. It is not $78. It is 28 cents to bring this technology forth. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield myself 2\1/4\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this amendment is not just the Markey amendment. It is the Markey-Burton-Wolf-Hunter amendment and a lot of other Republican's amendments. It crosses party lines. Mr. Chairman, the reason I asked that this be left up here is because what my predecessor at this microphone just said is true, these models will allow parents to block out a channel, but we are in a technology explosion. Almost everybody that has cable or a satellite can receive at least 50 channels and there are going to be 300, 400, 500 channels before long. Can my colleagues imagine a parent blocking out one channel and going to work and thinking their child is going to be safe from pornography and violence on TV? Of course not. So we need a system where a parent can block out a whole category of violence and sexually explicit programs if they want to, so that a two- parent working family can go to work and know their children, even when they channel surf, while their parents are gone, are not going to see two women, two men, a whole bunch of people having sexual experiences, or see horrible violence in the home. All we are saying, Mr. Chairman, is give the parents, not government, but the parent the control over what their children see. Ninety percent of the people in the country want that. This does not cut it. This does not cut it because it will only handle one program, one time slot at one time; and it will not protect any child from that kind of violent or sexually explicit material. Mr. Chairman, in addition to that, there is no bureaucracy that is going to be created, no huge bureaucracy. This is a voluntary rating system that is submitted, if the networks do not come up with one on their own, a voluntary rating system that is recommended. We hope that the parents of this Nation will put pressure on the networks to have them adopt a system, but regardless of what the system happens to be, the total control is in the hands of the parents. I say to all my colleagues, ``The total control is in the hands of parents in their own home.'' If they do not want certain programs to come in, they block out that category; if they want them to come in, they leave them there. They have got a little pick system in there like a bank money machine. Mr. Chairman, this is something that vital for the moral well-being of the Nation.

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], one of the most respected Members of the House.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].