Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the reason I am not supporting the rule is simply because I was told we would have a straight up or down vote. Let me just get to the crux of the problem. The American people, 90 percent of the families, as has been said, want the ability to protect their kids against violence and sexually explicit material. We have a way to do it, and we are not being given an up or down vote on that issue. Now, we hope that the amendment that is going to supposedly perfect mine, which does not do anything, will be defeated. I urge my colleagues to defeat it so we can get a straight up or down vote on that, because I am confident that Republicans and Democrats alike, if given the chance, will give the American people what they want, and that is the ability to protect their kids against violence and sexually explicit programs. To do otherwise, I think is a sin.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I know that this bill has a great deal of merit and a lot of hard work has gone into it, and I think the rule, with a few exceptions, is a pretty good rule. But when I appeared before the Committee on Rules a couple of days ago, I specifically asked the chairman of the committee if we were going to get a freestanding up or down vote on this amendment. I think there might have been a misunderstanding. I would not accuse the chairman of the committee of misleading anybody. But there definitely was a commitment, in my opinion, that we would have a straight, clear vote on the V chip amendment. The problem is that we now have, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] said, a perfecting amendment which will gut our ability to have an up or down vote on whether or not parents in this country will be able to block out sexually explicit programs and violent programs that they do not want their kids to see. This legislation that we are trying to get passed would be very, very helpful to parents who are working. There are going to be 2 to 3 hundred channels in most homes in the not too distant future. The only technology we have now will block out one or two or three programs, and parents are not going to take the time to go through and specifically block out program after program. But the technology we are talking about will allow them to block out whole categories of violence and sexually explicit programs. The amendment that is going to be offered as a preferential amendment to mine would stop that and just create a study commission.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk today about the conviction of Webster Hubbell, the indictment of Governor Jim Guy Tucker (both close friends of President Clinton) and the two Arkansas judges overseeing these cases. The judge in Webster Hubbell's case stepped aside because of his close ties to all of Arkansas' top Democrat politicians. The judge in Governor Tucker's case has made no move to recuse himself, even though many observers believe he has even more conflicts of interest. Mr. Speaker, about a month ago former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell was sentenced to 21 months in prison. On December 6, 1994, Mr. Hubbell pled guilty to one count of mail fraud and one count of tax evasion to the independent counsel investigating Whitewater, Kenneth Starr. Last week, Mr. Hubbell, who a little more than a year ago was the Nation's third highest ranking law officer, testified before the Senate about the death of Vincent Foster and the obstructions of the investigation at the White House. I'd like to talk for a moment about Webster Hubbell. He is often characterized in the media as the President's frequent golfing partner. But he is much more than that. Mr. Hubbell was a partner along with Hillary Clinton, William Kennedy III, and the late Vincent Foster at Little Rock's powerful Rose Law Firm. In fact, Mr. Hubbell served as the firm's managing partner. He also served as mayor of Little Rock, and was appointed by then-Governor Bill Clinton as interim Chief Justice of the Arkansas State Supreme Court. He came to Washington with the Clintons after the 1992 election and, in the opinion of many Washington insiders, ran the Justice Department until Janet Reno was confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Hubbell resigned as Associate Attorney General in March 1994 after his former partners at the Rose Law Firm began to investigate him for overbilling some of his clients, including the federal government for work done in a case against the auditors of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan. Now, like many of the President's friends from Arkansas, Mr. Hubbell has left the government in disgrace and legal trouble. On June 23, 1995, Mr. Hubbell asked the judge presiding over his case for leniency, stating that he had made proper restitution to his former firm. Under the sentencing guidelines, Mr. Hubbell was required to serve a mandatory minimum sentence unless the independent counsel asked the presiding judge for leniency. Mr. Starr replied to Mr. Hubbell's request by stating that he had no intention to ask for leniency. The fact that Mr. Starr had no intention of asking for the court to be lenient with Mr. Hubbell leads us to believe that Hubbell did little to help Starr's investigation. After he left the Justice Department, Hubbell landed a new job at G. William Miller and Co., the law firm of Michael Cardozo. Cardozo is the former Clinton Justice Department official who handles the Clintons' legal defense fund. He became notable in the summer of 1993 because he spent the entire weekend with Vincent Foster three days before Foster's death. Webster Hubbell and Michael Cardozo spent the weekend at the Eastern Shore secluded with Mr. Foster and his wife. Both have claimed that Foster did not seem unusually depressed, even though investigators have cited Foster's depression as the reason for his suicide 3 days later. And somehow, Mr. Hubbell's wife was offered a job at the Interior Department after Mr. Hubbell entered his plea. We know that Mrs. Hubbell's hiring was orchestrated by talks between the White House and the Interior Department. Since Mr. Hubbell and his wife were both being employed by their friends, many people wonder whether he cooperated with the Starr probe as much as he might have. The judge originally assigned to preside over the Hubbell case was one William Wilson in Little Rock. However, as is so often the case among the political and social elite of Arkansas, Judge Wilson had close associations with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and before becoming a judge was very active in the Arkansas Democrat party. Judge Wilson realized the possible conflict of interest, and 2 days after Mr. Hubbell's guilty plea he recused himself from the case. In doing so, Judge Wilson stated, ``Not only must you do justice, you must have an appearance of doing justice.'' I take that quote from an editorial in the June 21, 1995 edition of the Wall Street Journal and ask that this editorial be entered into the Record. Who Is Henry Woods? Last year, the President was reminiscing with Connie Bruck of The New Yorker about his 1990 gubernatorial race. At one point, he said, he was undecided about running and an influential Arkansan came up with a substitute: Hillary Clinton. The powerful member of the Arkansas political family ``desperately wanted her to run for governor,'' the President told Ms. Bruck, ``and it got out and around the state.'' That gentleman was Judge Henry Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ``Henry,'' a friend of the judge told Ms. Bruck, ``just hangs the moon on Hillary.'' Judge Woods has contributed 15 years of distinguished service to the judiciary, particularly in the long-running Little Rock school desegregation cases. At a critical point in 1987, Judge Woods named Mrs. Clinton counsel to a citizens' committee working for racial balance in the schools. ``I called on Hillary a lot,'' he told Ms. Bruck. ``She was not just functioning as advisor to the committee.'' Judge Woods will soon be back in the news, starting with tomorrow's arraignment of Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and two associates. They're charged with defrauding the government in a scheme linked to David Hale's Capital Management Services. While the arraignment will take place before other magistrates in Little Rock, the trial is scheduled to unfold in the courtroom of Mrs. Clinton's biggest fan. Gov. Tucker has angrily declared his innocence and says he may challenge Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's jurisdiction. ``None of the allegations,'' Gov. Tucker said, ``involve President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton or any other person in the executive branch that the regular U.S. Attorneys would have had a conflict in prosecuting.'' As we have noted in regard to the Clintons, this is correct in a narrow sense; but it is also true that the indictments and guilty pleas so far obtained by Mr. Starr paint a disturbing picture of the political and business landscape from which the President and First Lady emerged. Understandably, for example, Gov. Tucker would have preferred that ``the regular U.S. Attorney'' handle his case. That would be Paula Casey, the long-time Friend of Bill who first received criminal referrals from the Resolution Trust Corp. allegedly naming the Clintons and Mr. Tucker. After making some crucial decisions, Ms. Casey belatedly recused herself from the Madison Guaranty case, in November 1993, in the midst of a six-week period which saw Treasury contacts with the White House. Bruce Lindsey informing the President about the referrals, two Clinton-Tucker meetings, and Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell's own recusal from Whitewater matters. The problem, of course, is that everyone from the Arkansas political culture comes from the Arkansas political culture. When it came time for Mr. Hubbell to plead guilty to a scheme to defraud the government and his former partners at the Rose Law Firm, he stood before U.S. District Court Judge William Wilson in Little Rock. Two days after the plea, Judge Wilson stepped down from the case, saying his contacts with the Clintons over the years might be misconstrued. ``Not only must you do justice,'' Judge Wilson said, ``you must have an appearance of doing justice.'' Naturally Judge Woods has the same sort of associations. Now 77, he was for some 40 years a close associate of Arkansas financier and legislator Witt Stephens--head of the Stephens Inc. investment giant until his death in 1991. ``Mr. Witt'' first earned a reputation as a political kingmaker with the 1948 election of Gov. Sid McMath; Henry Woods was Gov. McMath's top aide. Mr. Woods later fought segregationist Gov. Orval Faubus and was a supporter of current Sen. Dale Bumpers and Rep. Ray Thornton, among others. Messrs. Clinton, Tucker, Hale, and James McDougal of Madison Guaranty fame all got their early political education from one of the towering figures in Arkansas politics, former Sen. William Fulbright. It's a tight, if sometimes feuding, family. Mr. Woods actively supported Mr. Bumpers' 1970 gubernatorial run. In 1974, Gov. Bumpers knocked Sen. Fulbright out of the Democratic primary and went on to the Senate; Mr. Fulbright went to work for the Saudis and Stephens Inc. In 1978, Mr. Woods supported Mr. Stephens' nephew, Mr. Thornton, in a three-way primary race against then-U.S. Rep. Tucker and David Pryor for the Democratic nomination to the Senate. President Carter nominated Mr. Woods to the federal bench in 1979; when he was sworn in, Gov. Clinton saluted him, saying he was a man who would ``feel the pain'' of the people. The defendant to the contrary, the Tucker case is not just another case, but one pregnant with implications for the President, the First Lady and the whole circle of the judge's friends and associates. Judge Woods can best honor his distinguished record on the bench by following Judge Wilson's example and stepping aside. This editorial raises an interesting question, because we are awaiting the trial of Bill Clinton's successor as Governor of Arkansas, Jim Guy Tucker. On June 7, 1995, Governor Tucker and two associates were indicated by a Federal grand jury in Little Rock. Governor Tucker was indicated for fraudulently obtaining a federally backed small business loan and evading taxes and is facing up to 12 years in prison if convicted. On October 6, 1993, Jim Guy Tucker and President Bill Clinton met privately at the White House. About a week before this meeting, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum and White House Advisor Bruce Lindsey and other top administration officials were informed of the fact that the Resolution Trust Corporation had forwarded criminal referrals regarding Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan to the Justice Department. These criminal referrals named not only Bill and Hillary Clinton but also Jim Guy Tucker. The White House has stated that President Clinton and Governor Tucker never discussed these criminal referrals, neither at the White House meeting nor at a later meeting in Seattle. But we have no way knowing. That is why so many people are so concerned about the many improper contacts between the White House staff and the Treasury Department. The judge assigned to preside over the Tucker case is Judge Henry Woods. For some background on Woods, I refer my colleagues to the Wall Street Journal editorial I quoted earlier, as well as a column by former elected Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson that ran in the June 23, 1995, edition of the Washington Times. I ask that these articles be entered into the Record. [From the Washington Times, June 23, 1995] The Life and Times of Judge Henry Woods (By Jim Johnson) To understand how the federal courts work in Arkansas, you have to understand Stephens Inc. To understand Stephens, you have to understand Henry Woods, 77, the senior U.S. judge in Arkansas, and the judge to whom the fortunes of Jim Guy Tucker, our governor now under federal indictment, have been assigned. You might say, ``it's an Arkansas thing.'' U.S. district judges and other major officials of the federal judiciary are selected by political appointment, and politicians are moved by political influence. The most powerful political influence in Arkansas for the past 40 years has been Stephens Inc., owned and operated for many years by Witt Stephens and his younger brother, Jack. Stephens Inc., is the largest bond house off Wall Street, bigger than any in Chicago or Los Angeles or Dallas, and one of the top commodities traders in the nation. Stephens took Tyson Foods and a number of other business giants public, for example, and continues to influence their operations. In 1992, when the Clinton campaign was knocked to its knees by the first allegations of the candidate's draft-dodging and womanizing, a Stephens subsidiary advanced him over $3 million to save his campaign. This advance was identical to the sum the Stephens organization got in a sweetheart deal it had manipulated with the Clinton-controlled Arkansas Student Loan Fund just a few months earlier. These people play hardball, and play it well. When Sen. John L. McClellan died in 1977, the Stephens brothers determined to replace him with their nephew, Rep. Ray Thornton, who then represented a district in southern Arkansas. Our governor, Jim Guy Tucker represented the Little Rock district, and David Pryor, now our junior U.S. Senator, was the governor. All three entered the race for Mr. McClellan's seat. The nephew ran a close third, leaving the Stephens brothers in a position to pick the winner in the runoff primary, by throwing the nephew's support to one of the two top candidates. They selected David Pryor, on condition that he arrange the appointment of their friend, Henry Woods, a Little Rock lawyer, to a U.S. district judgeship. As soon as Mr. Pryor was elected, he kept his promise. I first knew Henry Woods when I arrived in Little Rock in 1951 to represent Ashley County, where I was born, in the Arkansas state senate. Henry was the executive secretary to Sidney S. McMath, the governor. In that era, our governors exerted complete control over the state Highway Department, the agency that expended millions of dollars annually, by far the agency with the most rewards to dispense. Henry was promising roads to everybody who could offer something in return. He became such a promising fellow that I, along with a number of other members of the state senate, introduced legislation to require an audit of the state's highway-construction operations. Our bill became law, over the strenuous objections of the governor, and the audit commenced. It wasn't long until it appeared that Henry had his hands in the highway funds up to his elbows, and a Pulaski County grand jury was empaneled to determine whether crimes had been committed. The hearings waxed hot and heavy, and three weeks before the governor's term expired, and with it Henry's job as the governor's executive secretary, the judge presiding over the grand jury abruptly and unexpectedly resigned, thereby enabling the governor to appoint his replacement. The governor appointed a Little Rock lawyer distinguished mostly for his enthusiastic appreciation of distilled spirits, and his first judicial act was to dismiss the grand jury--which, according to speculation the grand jurors never discouraged, was about to indict Henry. Henry Woods is an empire-builder. He concerns himself not only with the appointment of federal judges, but clerks, magistrates, U.S. district attorneys, U.S. marshals, the office secretaries, clerks and even the janitors. Henry spent World War II on the home front, working as an FBI agent. He keeps himself informed as to every sparrow that falls by being the most active alumnus in the FBI association. Henry does not miss much. Henry was the closest friend Witt Stephens ever had. He took lunch with Witt every day for years in the private dining room at Stephens Inc., in downtown Little Rock, and when Witt passed away two years ago Henry gave the eulogy. Henry knew of every federal vacancy before it occurred, just in time to make the wishes of the Stephens brothers known to the official assigned to fill the vacancies. For example, Henry engineered the appointment of his former classmate and co-campaign manager, Elsijane Trimble Roy, to the federal bench in Arkansas. His public admiration of the president and the first lady has been remarked on for years, and when they went to Washington he saw to it that they leased a presidential office in the Stephens Building, even though ample space was available in Little Rock's spacious new federal office building. When Mr. Clinton became the president, another of Henry's friends, his former law partner, William R. Wilson, was appointed to a federal judgeship, too. Mr. Wilson had been Henry's leg man and gofer for years; it was well known in Little Rock that when Mr. Wilson walked into your office you were actually dealing with Henry. When Webster Hubbell, the U.S. associate attorney general and the No. 3 man in the Justice Department, pleaded guilty to having committed 2 of 47 felonies charged against him, the case was assigned to Judge Wilson for sentencing--even though Webb Hubbell worked on Judge Wilson's appointment, and as a lawyer Judge Wilson had represented Roger Clinton, the president's brother, when he was charged in a drug case. He had represented Mrs. Virginia Kelley, the president's late mother, in another matter. It did not occur to Judge Wilson to recuse himself until the pressure created by national news coverage became to intense that he finally stepped aside. This brings us to Whitewater. Six judges sit in Little Rock for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Three are there through the maneuvering of Henry Woods, affording those persons indicted as a result of the investigation that began with the president and Mrs. Clinton a 50-50 chance of drawing a judge with a connection to Henry and Stephens Inc. Jim Guy Tucker had just such luck. Further, anyone indicted as a result of an investigation into whether someone at Tyson Foods, Inc., bribed Mike Espy, the former U.S. secretary of agriculture, would be tried in the Western District of Arkansas, headquarted in Fort Smith, before Judge Harry Barnes, the former law partner of Sen. David Pryor; Judge Franklin Waters, the former law partner of James Blair, who is the chief counsel for Tyson and the guru of Hillary Clinton in the making of her miraculous fortune in the commodities-trading market; or Judge Jim Larry Hendren, the former personal attorney for Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart. Stephens Inc., took Wal-Mart public. Jack Stephens and Hillary Clinton have been members of the board of Wal- Mart. Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, appears to us in Arkansas to be conducting his investigation in a vigorous and professional manner, but members of Congress should bear in mind that even if these judges recuse themselves, the judicial machinery for the selection of U.S. grand and petit juries will remain in place and exercise a marked influence on the outcome. All clerks, marshalls, secretaries, and even the janitors know they will be spending the remainder of their careers under the supervision of the judges who would be stepping aside only until the great spotlight dims, silence falls and the special prosecuting lawyers leave Little Rock. If justice should be done with convictions secured, the convictions will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis. The chief judge there is Richard Arnold, a protege of Henry Woods, who lunches with him nearly every day he is in Little Rock, at Stephens Inc. Witt is gone but the private dining room lives on. His brother, Morris Arnold, also serves on the appeals court. Morris (or Buzz, as we call him at home) was the only Republican confirmed by the old Democratic Senate after Bill Clinton was elected president of the United States. On his last visit home, Mr. Clinton spent the first several hours with Richard Arnold, the chief judge of the St. Louis court, which hears all federal appeals in Arkansas. The Paula Jones case is before that court now. Judge Richard Arnold was an administrative assistant to Sen. Dale Bumpers, whose wife Betty is the chief Washington lobbyist for the largest utility company in our state. Arkansas can be an accommodating place. Judge Arnold was, in the president's own description, Bill Clinton's sentimental choice for the seat that finally went to Stephen Breyer. Judge Arnold said his health was not good. It was also disclosed, in the FBI check into his background, that he earned more than $500,000 last year in the commodities-trading market--the very same market where Hillary struck gold ``Brutus is an honorable man,'' said Mark Anthony ``So are they all, all honorable men.'' But why, someone must ask, given their loyalties and the uncanny coincidences that thrive in Arkansas like Delta cotton in August, must we lead them into temptation? Arkansas is a small state with a wealth and abundance of many wonderful God-fearing people. I was born here and when I die my mortal remains will return to the soil I love as a Southerner loves the land of his people. Many hearts have been broken by the squalid evidences of corruption paraded past America over these past 2\1/2\ years, besmirching the reputation of the state we love. We should have done something about it years ago. We failed. Now Congress must meet its obligations to the Constitution and to the people who sent them to Washington to defend that Constitution. Congressional hearings on the order of Watergate must be conducted at once, and only when they are concluded after a thorough and vigorous effort, and everything has been laid out before America, can America know that justice has been done. Judge Woods is a longtime member of the Arkansas political elite. He is a major power broker in the Arkansas Democrat party. He served as chief assistant to Democratic Governor Sid McMath. He freely admits that he is good friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Judge Woods named Mrs. Clinton to a State panel to work toward racial balance in schools. Woods and McMath later went on to form a law partnership, McMath, Leatherman, and Woods. McMath's son, Sandy McMath, a member of the law firm, was an instrumental leader in the early political campaigns of Jim Guy Tucker. So even if Judge Woods and Governor Tucker aren't the best of friends, they are undoubtedly members of the same tightly knit network from which Bill Clinton emerged. In the Webster Hubbell case, Judge Wilson realized immediately that he had no business trying the case. Even if he could have been completely objective, many people would still question what they saw as the appearance of a conflict. In the Jim Guy Tucker case, Judge Woods has given us no indication that he intends to recuse himself, despite his multiple potential conflicts of interest. With Judge Woods, the conflict of interest is more than just an appearance. It is a very serious matter. questions: If Jim Guy Tucker's attorneys move to throw out the indictments claiming that Kenneth Starr has exceeded his jurisdiction, would Judge Woods' many ties to the State Democrat party color his decision? What other connections exist between Judge Woods and Governor Tucker that we do not know about? With Judge Wilson's recusal due to possible conflicts of interest in the Hubbell case, isn't it in Judge Woods' best interest, after a long and illustrious career, to follow his example and recuse himself? What did Jim Guy Tucker and Bill Clinton talk about at their meeting at the White House in 1993? How can we ever know for sure whether or not they shared confidential information about the RTC criminal referrals that had been revealed to the White House? What did Jim Guy Tucker and Bill Clinton talk about in their meeting in Seattle? david hale When Jim Guy was indicted, the media were quick to proclaim that the indictment was not connected in any way to Bill and Hillary Clinton. But this isn't the case. The charges brought by the Independent Counsel against Governor Tucker are the direct result of testimony and documentary evidence provided by Judge David Hale. Judge Hale is the same man who has accused the president of pressuring him to approve an illegal loan in 1986 to obtain funds to help the failing Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan. Judge Hale pled guilty to defrauding the Small Business Administration. He has testified to a Federal grand jury that he was pressured by Governor Bill Clinton and his Whitewater partner, James McDougal, and by Jim Guy Tucker, to provide an illegal $300,000 loan to McDougal's wife, Susan McDougal. This loan was never repaid, and more than $100,000 of the loan reportedly ended up in Whitewater Development Company's account. The day after the Tucker indictment, Mr. Starr secured a guilty plea from Stephen A Smith, who was one of Bill Clinton's top aides during his first term as Arkansas governor. Smith pleaded guilty to defrauding the Small Business Administration, lying to obtain $65,000 from David Hale's lending agency, Capital-Management Services. The indictment of Jim Guy Tucker and the guilty plea of Stephen Smith show us that the grand jury--made up, incidentally, or normal citizens of Arkansas, not a bunch of right-wing Clinton critics--is looking closely at the documents and listening very carefully to the testimony offered by David Hale. The actions taken by Mr. Starr tell us that both the independent counsel's office and the grand jury consider David Hale a credible witness. [From the Washington Post, March 4, 1995] White House Officials Detail Aide's Role in Hubbell Hiring (By Susan Schmidt) Administration officials yesterday offered more details about the White House role in helping Suzanna W. Hubbell secure a political post at the Interior Department last month, saying that Bruce Lindsey, a top presidential aide, was involved only peripherally. Hubbell is the wife of former associate attorney general Webster L. Hubbell, who has agreed to cooperate with Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr in hopes of receiving a reduced sentence on felony fraud and tax charges. Among other matters, Starr is investigating Lindsey's handling of campaign funds in then-Gov. Bill Clinton's 1990 presidential campaign. Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R-N.C.), has complained that Lindsey should not have discussed Suzanna Hubbell's job with the Interior Department, given that her husband is cooperating with a criminal investigation that touches Lindsey. But White House officials said yesterday that Lindsey did nothing to help Suzanna Hubbell return to her $59,022-a-year job after an 11-month leave of absence caused by her husband's legal problems. Suzanna Hubbell, formerly a special assistant in the secretary's office, came back to a job as an assistant to the director of external affairs. Interior spokesman Kevin J. Sweeney said yesterday that Suzanna Hubbell had arranged to return to the department Feb. 6., and Interior officials sought throughout January to get the White House's okay, without success. When Suzanna Hubbell showed up for a staff meeting on that date, Interior Chief of Staff Tom Collier directed his deputy, B.J. Thornberry, to pull her out, until the White House approved her status. Hubbell and Thronberry then both got on the phone and tried to get an answer themselves, Sweeney said. ``Suzy called Lindsey to see if he could find out about the request for approval,'' said Sweeney. Lindsey, the associate White House counsel and a family friend, was unavailable, so she left a message. Suzanna Hubbell then called Deputy White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, who said he would get back to her, Sweeney said. While she waited, Lindsey returned Suzanna Hubbell's call, and talked to both Thornberry and Hubbell. ``He said he'd check and get back, which he did not do,'' said Sweeney. Later, Sweeney said, Bowles called Thornberry and said that Suzanna Hubbell could be reinstated. A White House official, who asked not to be named, described Lindsey's conversation differently. The official said that by the time Lindsey called Suzanna Hubbell back, the ``glitch'' already had been resolved and Thornberry told Lindsey that. The official said Lindsey was not asked to do anything, and was not involved in or aware of a decision by White House counsel Abner J. Mikva that day to allow Suzanna Hubbell to return to work. The accounts given by the White House and Interior Department officials yesterday not only differed slightly from each other, they varied from Sweeney's statement Wednesday that Thornberry initiated the contact with Lindsey as ``a courtesy'' to inform him that Suzanna Hubbell had been reinstated. Let me just end up by saying that Judge Woods, we believe, should recuse himself to eliminate any possibility of an appearance of impropriety in the case involving Jim Guy Tucker. I think that most of my colleagues, when they look at this information and read it in the Congressional Record, will agree with that. One other thing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put into the Congressional Record tonight and talk about is an article that was in the Washington Post today. The FDIC says that the Rose Law Firm, for which Hillary Rodham Clinton was a partner, was faulted by this agency's inspector general. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: [From the Washington Post, Aug. 1, 1995] FDIC, Rose Law Firm Faulted By Agency Inspector General (By Susan Schmidt) The inspector general of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. concluded yesterday that the agency ignored numerous conflicts of interest in hiring the Rose Law Firm and glossed over its failings in a report last year intended to examine whether Rose had been improperly hired. The report issued yesterday took both Rose and FDIC lawyers to task. The inspector general's investigation was prompted by Republican charges of a ``whitewash'' in the FDIC's earlier inquiry into conflict of interest charges involving the Arkansas law firm, where first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was a partner. The inspector general's office said it sent the report to the FDIC general counsel for possible legal sanctions against the Rose firm, including recovery of overbillings, and said it reported professional misconduct to authorities. The report came a week before the House Banking Committee is expected to examine Rose's work for the government as part of overall hearings into Whitewater. Former Rose partner Webster L. Hubbell came in for the harshest criticism for failing to disclose his own and his firm's extensive ties to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan when he agreed to sue the failed thrift's accountants on behalf of taxpayers in 1989. Hubbell, the former number three official in the Clinton Justice Department, is scheduled to report to prison next week for defrauding his firm and overbilling clients, including the FDIC. Among the conflicts the inspector general said Rose failed to disclose to the FDIC was the fact that the firm--in particular partner Hillary Clinton--had represented Madison before the Arkansas state securities department during the mid-1980s when the struggling S&L was seeking approval for a recapitalization plan. As part of that effort, Rose presented statements prepared by the accounting firm of Frost & Co. showing that Madison was in good financial shape, though the thrift was actually close to insolvency. Hillary Clinton was on a $2,000-a-month retainer at Madison during the mid-'80s. The inspector general's report found no conflict of interest in her performance of a few hours of work in an S&L case that involved Dan Lasater, a Little Rock bond dealer and Clinton supporter who went to prison for cocaine distribution. Hillary Clinton gave an affidavit to the FDIC inspector general, then submitted to an interview, but was not placed under oath. Her attorney, David Kendall, said she would have been willing to take questions under oath, but the inspector general did not want a court reporter present, as Kendall said he would have required. The inspector general's office launched its investigation 18 months ago after the FDIC legal division issued a report finding that neither the Rose firm nor the FDIC had al(?) look into both the alleged conflicts and how the report was prepared. In 1989, Hubbell circulated a memo among his colleagues saying he intended to sue Frost & Co. on behalf of the FDIC. He asked whether anyone knew of any Rose firm conflicts that would prevent the firm from taking the case, but got no reply. Hubbell's own conflicts should have kept the firm out of the case under a standard that forbids even the ``appearance of impropriety,'' according to the inspector general. Hubbell failed to tell FDIC lawyers that his father-in-law was a Madison consultant and borrower whose loans were among those the government contended Frost & Co. should have flagged for Madison board members. Rose's conflicts were so extensive, said the inspector general, that the firm was even representing a company partly owned by the very auditor who did Madison's books--putting Rose in position of both suing and representing the same person. Rose managing partner Ronald Clarke said lawyers there ``disagree with everything in the report. We did not have a conflict of interest in the Madison-Frost litigation.'' He said the firm hired two independent legal experts who agreed it did not have conflicts, but he said lawyers there believe the inspector general's findings were inevitable given the political interest in the issue in Congress. The House Banking Committee's hearings next week will focus on Madison and owner James B. McDougal's financial relationship with the Clintons, including their joint ownership of Whitewater. Madison failed in 1989 at a cost to taxpayers of $65 million. The voluminous FDIC report and backup documents were sent to congressional banking committee leaders Friday. The agency released a seven-page executive summary yesterday. A separate report is expected soon from the inspector general's office of the federal S&L cleanup agency, Resolution Trust Corp., for which Rose also did work. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is there have been numerous people indicted, numerous people removed from positions of authority in the White House, numerous people who have been convicted or will be convicted, I believe, because of the indictments that are coming down who are connected to this administration. I believe and hope that the Banking Committee here in the House and the corresponding committee in the other body, will get to the bottom of all of this and bring to justice those people who broke the law. At the very least, the appearance of impropriety for so many people in this administration is something that everybody in this country ought to be worried about. As the weeks and months come as these investigations continue to unfold, I will bring to the floor information for my colleagues to take a look at, because I think it is extremely important that the people's House and the people who represent the people of this country are apprised of all the facts of the case of Whitewater, the Arkansas Financial Development Authority, the Madison Guaranty Corporation, and other situations involving people in this administration. With that I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the relationship between Turkey, its Kurdish population, and the PKK--the Kurdistan Workers Party--is greatly misunderstood. Contrary to what Turkey's critics in the United States Congress would like the rest of the world to believe, Turkey's Kurdish population is not oppressed by the Government. In fact, the Turkish Constitution provides that all citizens, including Kurds, have the same political rights and civil liberties which they may exercise equally, without impediment, regardless of ethnic or religious background. Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin live freely throughout Turkey, and participate in all walks of life without discrimination. Kurds are doctors, lawyers, teachers, and artists. This is an important fact that is widely misunderstood. Twenty-five percent of the Turkish Parliament is composed of Kurdish Turks, even though only 18 percent of the general population is Kurdish. Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister is Kurdish. Even Turkey's former President Turgut Ozal was Kurdish. In addition, Turkey works to protect the livelihood of Kurds in northern Iraq. When Saddam Hussein attacked his own Kurdish citizens with poisonous gas years before the gulf war, Turkey opened its doors and clothed, fed, and sheltered them until it was safe for them to return to their homes. After the gulf war, Turkey again accepted half a million Kurds fleeing from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. Today, Turkey hosts Operation Provide Comfort, the international effort which operates from Turkish bases to protect Iraqi Kurds. These facts, however, are overshadowed by Turkey's fight against the PKK--Kurdistan Workers Party--a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group that is supported by Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Western societies fail to understand that the Kurds now fighting against Turkey are not the same Kurds suffering under the brutality of Saddam Hussein. Although the Kurdish people of Turkey have little sympathy for the PKK, the PKK has the audacity to claim that it represents the Kurdish people. Another little-known fact about PKK terrorists is that they are not all Kurds. The PKK ranks include mercenaries and the unemployed from a host of other countries. The only support it receives from within Turkey, it extorts from innocent Kurdish businesses. The PKK is only able to continue its war against Turkey by maintaining bases outside of Turkey, such as one in Syria's Bekaa Valley, and training with other extremist organizations. Not only is the PKK unrepresentative of the true aspirations of the Kurdish people, but its goal of ``freeing the Kurdish people'' is ironic when one considers what the PKK is ultimately seeking to accomplish: To set up an independent Kurdistan State based on Marxist-Leninist ideology. Such a Marxist-Leninist State would endanger the lives of many Turks and Kurdish Turks living in the region and threaten peace and stability throughout the entire Middle East. Since its inception in 1984, the PKK has based its operations on intimidation. To force its ideology upon the masses, the PKK uses an extensive policy of oppression, and forces villagers, both Turks and Kurdish Turks, who are loyal to the State, to vacate their villages and move elsewhere. It has killed thousands of civilians, many of whom are the same Kurds that the PKK claims to represent, while sabotaging economic development projects that would assist in the strengthening of democracy in Turkey. It has also extorted money from the Kurds. Those who resist are murdered in groups. Their houses are burnt, and their harvests and livestock are destroyed. It is absurd to say that the PKK is an organization waging an armed struggle for the freedom of the Kurdish people. What we are dealing with is a group that could seriously undermine the future of democracy in Turkey. It has defied the laws that are designed to promote economic opportunity and preserve law and order, in a democratic society that respects the rights and freedoms of all people in the region. Supporting a strong democratic Turkey in a generally volatile region has long been regarded as important to the United States. Therefore, it is in the interest of the United States to support Turkey's policies to combat PKK terrorism. It is not correct, however, to target Turkey's fight against terrorists like the PKK as a sign of democracy in danger. On the contrary, true danger would be signified if a democratic government were unwilling to protect its country's territorial integrity or its citizens' human rights from the inhuman measures of a terrorist organization. By conditioning and threatening to cut off aid to Turkey, the United States is undermining a democratic government that is only seeking to protect its citizens and its territorial integrity. It is especially counterproductive to condemn Turkey's policies at this critical juncture when the Turkish Parliament is considering a series of constitutional reforms to bring Turkey's laws in line with those of the European Union, and just recently approved a 6-month extension of Operation Comfort to provide relief to Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq. In order to promote Turkish democracy, the United States should support Prime Minister Ciller in her efforts to fight PKK terrorism and improve democracy. The Turkish people deserve the support of their democratic allies in the face of PKK intimidation.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, much attention was appropriately focussed on human rights abuses by the Indian Government against minorities in Kashmir and Punjab during recent consideration of H.R. 1868, the foreign aid appropriations bill for 1996. However, there exists another little-known human rights problem in India, which is every bit as grave. This problem, which received little discussion, is the exploitation of child labor. The United States Government and the international community have paid little attention to the prolific employment of young children. It is time to attend to this neglect. Child labor in India is a grave and extensive problem. Children under the age of 14 are forced to work in glass-blowing, fireworks, and most commonly, carpet-making factories. While the Government of India reports about 20 million children laborers, other non-governmental organizations estimate the number to be closer to 50 million. Most prevalent in the northern part of India, the exploitation of child labor has become an accepted practice, and is viewed by the local population as necessary to overcome the extreme poverty in the region. Child labor is one of the main components of the carpet industry. Factories pay children extremely low wages, for which adults refuse to work, while forcing the youngsters to slave under perilous and unhygienic labor conditions. Many of these children are migrant workers, the majority coming from northern India, who are sent away by their families to earn an income sent directly home. Thus, children are forced to endure the despicable conditions of the carpet factories, as their families depend on their wages. The situation of the children at the factories is desperate. Most work around 12 hours a day, with only small breaks for meals. Ill- nourished, the children are very often fed only minimal staples. The vast majority of migrant child workers who cannot return home at night sleep alongside of their loom, further inviting sickness and poor health. Taking aggressive action to eliminate this problem is difficult in a nation where 75 percent of the population lives in rural areas, most often stricken by poverty. Children are viewed as a form of economic security in this desolate setting, necessary to help supplement their families' income. Parents often sacrifice their children's education, as offspring are often expected to uphold their roles as wage-earning members of their clan. The Indian Government has taken some steps to alleviate this monumental problem. In 1989, India invoked a law that made the employment of children under age 14 illegal, except in family-owned factories. However, this law is rarely followed, and does not apply to the employment of family members. Thus, factories often circumvent the law through claims of hiring distant family. Also, in rural areas, there are few enforcement mechanisms, and punishment for factories violating the mandate is minimal, if not nonexistent. Legal action taken against the proliferation of child labor often produces few results. Laws against such abuses have little effect in a nation where this abhorred practice is accepted as being necessary for poor families to earn an income. Thus, an extensive reform process is necessary to eliminate the proliferation of child labor abuses in India which strives to end the desperate poverty in the nation. Changing the structure of the workforce and hiring the high number of currently unemployed adults in greatly improved work conditions is only the first step in this lengthy process. New labor standards and wages must be adopted and medical examinations and minimum nutrition requirements must be established in India. Establishing schools and eliminating the rampant illiteracy that plagues the country would work to preserve structural changes. However, these changes cannot be accomplished immediately. Pressure from the international community, especially the United States Government, is absolutely necessary to bring about change in India. I believe that it is imperative for the U.S. Congress and the Clinton administration to pay more attention to the exploitation of children in India as well as other areas in South and Southeast Asia. Currently, Germany has instigated a pilot program that places a stamp on all imported carpets that are child labor free, thus urging consumers to buy these products. Because of the high price range of these carpets, similar programs can and should be given serious consideration in the United States. The Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1993, which is still under consideration, prohibits importing to the U.S. any product made, whole or in part, by children under 15 who are employed in industry. While this aspect of the bill may be effective, the United States needs to take action regarding child labor abuses, specifically targeted at India. Mr. Speaker, I call on every Member of Congress to pay more attention to this little-recognized problem. We must acknowledge the fact that we cannot continue to sustain the exploitation of children by purchasing carpets woven by the hands of children.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I do not think anybody on our side would object.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say this: That does not affect cost-of-living increases. It is only merit pay and bonuses, and the purpose of the amendment is to send a very strong signal to the BATF that we do not want innocent women and children or anybody else killed because somebody makes a big mistake, because they do not think these things out well. At Ruby Ridge and at Waco, Americans were killed unnecessarily because of bad judgment, because of mistakes that were made, and that needs to be changed. We need to send a very strong signal that that needs to be changed. No American should be killed by a Federal agent of any agency because of bad judgment, because they made a mistake and, therefore, signals have to be sent. I cannot understand why the BATF now has an Air Force. It makes no sense to me. Why do they have weapons of that type? That is for the military, not for the BATF. Let me say one more thing real quickly. At this good old boys network that my colleagues are concerned about racism, there are members of these agencies that they have on videotape with tee shirts depicting the Reverend Martin Luther King in gunsights' crosshairs, with black boys in hoods straddling across police cars. These are people from these agencies, the BATF. A signal needs to be sent that that kind of situation, that kind of thing should not be tolerated, and that is what this amendment is all about.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would just like to make this comment. I believe that this side would not object to each side having an extra 5 or 10 minutes should they want to do that. But to use time that has already expired I think would be something that is not fair. I would not object and I do not think anybody on our side would object if they wanted an extra 5 minutes on each side. But to include time that has already been consumed I do not think would be acceptable.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if you make it equal on both sides, I will not object. But if you are going to do that, I will object.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman is saying. I thank him for his contribution. But I have great confidence in our conferees that they are going to hold firm. When you have confidence in Members like the gentleman from Ohio, your confidence is well founded. I think we will have an agreement that was reached last night, one that was acceptable to all factions of our party. I hope to the Democratic Party as well as those of all political persuasions. I would just like to say to my colleagues who are members of various organizations in the Republican Conference that we worked long and hard last night to hammer out our differences. I cannot think of anybody, liberal, moderate, or conservative, that cannot support this rule. I would like to urge all of my colleagues, when they come to the floor, if they have any doubts about the rule, to look up their friends of the various philosophical persuasions and ask them what happened last night so that they will be fully informed and will vote correctly on the rule. We should have unanimous consent on the rule, unanimous passage. I doubt if my Democrat colleagues agree with that. But at least on the Republican side, we should have 232 hard votes.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the members of the Committee on Rules and all those who worked so late into the night last night to reach agreement on this rule. The amount of money that is going to go to the NEA, should this rule pass and the bill pass, will be the same as was originally planned and probably a little bit more. The only difference is, instead of having it in 3-year tranches, it is going to be in 2 years. That will definitely let the people who support the NEA know that after the 2-year period, the money is going to be there, but after the 2-year period they go to private sources to get funding for NEA projects.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, Ethiopia is one of the real bright spots in Africa. I firmly oppose the Jackson-Lee amendment on Ethiopia which would send a very bad signal throughout Africa. It is completely superfluous, as the State Department already monitors human rights all over the world. As former ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Africa, I had occasion to follow the situation in Ethiopia very closely. The current Government liberated Ethiopia from Mengistu, who was Africa's Hitler and Stalin rolled into one. They deserve a chance to continue to build Ethiopian democracy which is exactly what they have been doing for the past 4 years. In that short time, this Government has: Ended the war; ended the famine; instituted free markets; and instituted freedom of the press and other democratic institutions. They are not perfect, but under the leadership of President Meles, one of the most dynamic young leaders in the world, they have made an excellent start. They deserve our support.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the initiatives of the Government of Benin. Benin, a country the size of Pennsylvania with a population of 5 million, is located in West Africa on the Gulf of Guinea. It captured international attention when in 1991 it was the first African nation to democratically elect a head of state, President Nicephore Soglo, a former World Bank director and friend of the United States of America. Over the last 5 years President Soglo and his administration have instituted a series of economic reforms intended to reduce debt, increase exports, control inflation, and foster growth in general. By 1992 Benin's economy began to respond and by the first quarter of this year, economic growth was evident. As a result of this economic turnaround, investment possibilities abound in many of Benin's industries, especially oil production and agriculture. Benin is clearly one African country setting out to disprove the notion that the continent is becoming marginalized. One of the most important of Benin's economic reforms was the devaluation of its currency, the CFA franc, in 1994. As a member of the West African Monetary Union, Benin uses the CFA--French for African Financial Community--franc which is tied to and supported by the French franc and is fully convertible. The overvalued CFA franc had skewed the economy towards trade rather than investment which is necessary for growth. ``Finance & Development'' magazine stated in a June, 1995 article that, since the devaluation, member countries of the franc zone have made great strides toward economic recovery. The goal of the devaluation was to help member nations regain competitiveness by shifting resources from low growth sectors, often artificially protected, to sectors where the country enjoyed a comparative advantage. These objectives were largely met in Benin, as evidenced by the growth in GDP, limited inflation, and improved balance of payments. Benin has numerous resource-based enterprises which offer many investment opportunities for American businesses. One of the most promising is oil and gas. An offshore petroleum field is located near Cotonou, the principal city in Benin, and 4 billion cubic meters of gas reserves were recently discovered in the Seme oil field. These discoveries have generated serious attention in the World Bank plans for a major natural gas trunk line from Nigeria to run west through Benin, Togo, and Ghana. Recently, many American investment houses have started to see Africa as an economic area on the cusp of exploding growth, the last true emerging market. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government must support all efforts of African nations like Benin to democratize and continue on the path of economic reform and growth. The Government of Benin's efforts will mark a new era not only in West Africa but in all of Africa.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we do have occasionally here in the United States voting irregularities, but they are not really widespread. I was one of the monitors sent by President Bush to monitor the elections in Namibia, and that was a very, very big election on independence and freedom and democracy over there, and there was a lot of opportunity for vote fraud, but very, very little of it occurred in Nambia. In South Africa, likewise, there were some irregularities, but it was very minimal. I think in many, many of the developing countries, there have been some minor voting irregularities. But the problem we saw in Haiti last week was there were widespread voter irregularities. Ballots were lost. People could not vote. Polls were closed. And as a result, the entire election was tainted. For that reason, I rise in support of the Goss amendment and in opposition to the gentlewoman's substitute.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I say to the gentleman from Florida, to restate what he said, his amendment is consistent with the Constitution of Haiti and leaves no room for doubt, and for that reason I think we should support his amendment and vote down the substitute.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I missed the last rollcall vote, No. 429. I ask that the Record reflect had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, that being the case, then I think we need more than the 3 minutes. We need 10 minutes.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the other body, the authorizing committee over there was below the chairman's mark in the House by $33 or $34 million, so you have two of the authorizing committees that are well below the figure that the appropriators are coming up with here today. The thing that bothers me the most is not that my colleagues are not well-intentioned. I have the highest respect for both the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], but my problem is that they are believing the people over at AID. I have worked with those people for 12 years. Mr. Chairman, I am not accusing them of being liars, but I am saying they stretch the truth an awful lot. The chairman's mark on the Committee on International Relations was set at $465 million. That is a 10 percent cut. Let me give a figure that will surprise my friends on the Committee on Appropriations. Since 1985, AID's program costs have gone down by 23 percent. The money they are spending for worthwhile projects has gone down 23 percent. At the same time that their costs for programs have gone down 23 percent, they have increased their overhead by 41 percent. How can you cut the size of your programs by 23 percent and at the same time increase the number of personnel and the overhead by 41 percent? It is obvious there is inefficiency in that agency, major inefficiency. That is why the chairman's mark on the Committee on International Relations cut them back to $465 million. I came to your office and wanted to cut it back to $400 million or less, but it could not be done, according to the people on the staff of the Committee on Appropriations. Now you are coming back and saying you want to increase it by $29 million over the chairman's mark on the authorization committee. I just do not understand that. When you say the reason that you are increasing it by almost $30 million is because, quote, AID says they need the money to close down, what evidence do you have except their word? Mr. Chairman, if you went to any single bureaucracy within the jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States, any one of them, they would tell you they need more money for closing down or downsizing. The fact of the matter is the only way you are going to cut those bureaucracies is to say, ``Hey, we're cutting you by 10 percent. You figure out how to do it.'' If one were in any business, and I know the gentleman from Alabama was a businessman before he came to Congress, if you have to cut your overhead or go in the red and go bankrupt, you would call your staff in, you would call your board of directors in and you would say, ``Hey, how do we get from here to there? How do we cut the spending?'' And you would say, ``We've got to do it or we go bankrupt,'' and they would figure out a way to do it. Mr. Chairman, the AID bureaucrats will figure out how to live without this $30 million. We are telling the taxpayers of this country they are going to have to do with less. We are cutting programs, domestic programs, left and right. Now here we have a chance to stick with the chairman's mark on the Committee on International Relations, and you are telling me you want to go $30 million above it? I do not buy it. I hope my colleagues in this body will see fit to live within the chairman's mark on the Committee on International Relations, save $30 million, live within the budget, do the [[Page H 6349]] right thing and save the taxpayers money. I absolutely guarantee, AID will be able to live with it.

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