Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. A couple of things. You agreed on the point that we were on some technicalities, but when you are doing investigations like this, or discussions, technicalities, truth has to prevail over technicalities. In the last comments of gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), you know he is talking about all these other things, but the end does not justify the means. We have the Constitution here. We have an oath of office. We have a Bill of Rights. We have a Privacy Act. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was warned not to release those things, and he still did. There the end is trying to justify the means, and you cannot do that. You cannot trample constitutional safeguards to make your points, whatever they may be. I do not think the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) or the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) or the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) or any others would have done that when they get a letter from the AG saying, this is highly sensitive, do not do that. I do not believe we would have been reading about these tapes in the paper. I think they are sensitive to those things. I do not think there is a personal agenda with these others, which the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has more or less admitted to. That is what loses credibility in our eyes and the eyes of the American people.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming down. I know a week or two ago when we did this, he also came down, and I appreciate his insight on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. I find it ironic that some of these laws we have spoken of tonight, especially the Privacy Act, that Mr. Burton and others were warned that there was sensitive information and that it should not be released. Under that Privacy Act, if that same information, those tapes, were released by the Attorney General or Ken Starr, they could have been prosecuted under the Privacy Act. But because Mr. Burton is a Member of Congress, and we are exempt from that law, he goes ahead and releases them and, under the debate clause of the rules and the Constitution, he is protected from any kind of criminal prosecution. I find it ironic that we, the government, pass laws, but that we, the government, choose not to live by them and we apply these standards differently as we proceed through these investigations. The laws of the land must apply to everyone, especially Members of Congress. Mr. Burton had an opportunity here, and it is sad to say it has not panned out well, and it brings disrespect to all of us in this House. So I really do hope that the Speaker considers removing him or putting someone else in charge. As the gentleman said, let us have a fair investigation. Let us look at both sides. There are problems on both sides. I think we would all acknowledge that. But when we start subpoenaing people before we even know what we are investigating, I just think we have it backwards. As I said earlier, I have always been taught to try to think before I speak. When I was in law enforcement, we always investigated before we issued subpoenas. Unfortunately, here we are issuing subpoenaes, unfortunately 1,047 of them, and we do not even know what we are searching for or what we are going after. And all we are doing is pressuring people and stripping them of their integrity, their reputation and their pride, and spending a lot of money to fight subpoenas when they have nothing to do with these investigations. The Senate has already investigated all this and submitted their report, but yet we keep going on and on and on. Again, that is why I guess I have always said that when there are politicians investigating politicians that just gets us into more politics. We have, unfortunately, lost sight here of the integrity of the investigation, the faith in our laws as a Nation, that all citizens should have faith and confidence in our judicial system and a belief that justice will be served. Unfortunately, I cannot say that about this campaign investigation that is going on in the House of Representatives. I know at times I hope folks back home are not saying we are just a bunch of Democrats up here trying to protect this person or that person. That is not the issue here. The issue is have we gone too far in giving one Member of Congress such an awesome power to subpoena people. Have we given Congress or a chairman or individual Members an exception to the Privacy Act where they can disclose private conversations of people, and then we find that certain words were doctored or altered to make it sound even more incriminating and where are we going? And if we can do this, if this committee and subpoenas can be friends of the President or Democratic fund-raisers, what is then not to say we will do all blond-haired people tomorrow and do the same kind of treatment to them underneath the guise of an investigation? I just think we have gone too far. And having been in law enforcement all those years as I was, I just find it quite repulsive that we would do this. And without more people speaking up, I am glad to see some of those newspaper articles and editorials are paying attention, I hope Members of Congress are, and somehow we do something, not just with these investigations that we have here in the House that have gone so one-sided and lopsided, but also with the special prosecutor statute. This has been going on now for, what, 6 years and $45 to $50 million and we are still in the investigative stage where, as I mentioned the other night, a 16-year-old son of an individual was subpoenaed by FBI agents at his school. I mean, how does his son go back to school the next day? We have gone overboard in this whole thing. And if we are worried about Big Brother and big government watching us before, with the abuses we have seen in these investigations from Ken Starr to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), where is government going to show up tomorrow? It is not a good day, not a good day at all. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) for joining us here tonight and I appreciate his input. And I know I am going to continue to speak out on these abuses. I think, as I said before this evening, if we do not, those of us who are elected to uphold the law, then I think we fail in our duties as elected representatives in the democracy.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment which reauthorizes the Olympic Education Scholarship program. This valuable program was first authorized in the 1992 Higher Education Act. It is designed and its purpose is to assist Olympic athletes continue their pursuit of education while training at the various Olympic training and education centers by authorizing up to $5 million for college scholarships. Olympic athletes train at four Olympic centers in the United States, Marquette, Michigan; Lake Placid, New York; Colorado Springs, Colorado; and San Diego, California. More than 450 athletes train full time at all of the training sites to prepare for the Olympic games and thousands more train there part time. Many of these athletes participated in the Nagano games just 3 months ago. Last week the President hosted our Winter Olympic athletes from the 1998 games at the White House. Except for a very few sports, there is no post-Olympic professional athletic career for most Olympians. As a result, Mr. Chairman, education becomes a critical factor in the lives of these young people. But as so many of our American Olympians will attest, too often they must postpone or even forgo an education in order to prepare to represent the United States in the Olympic games. Many of the athletes would have greater access to college because of the Olympic scholarship, and the education they receive while training provides them with an excellent opportunity to prepare them for post- Olympic life. Some athletes currently attend college while training. Many others, however, do not have the resources to pay for tuition and are unable to take classes. Unlike college athletes, many Olympic athletes spend thousands of dollars annually on equipment and travel to major events. The only way they can attend school is if scholarships are provided. That is why we need to reauthorize the Olympic scholarship program. One example of this need of the Olympic education scholarship is Mark Lenzi, a gold medal winner diver at the Barcelona games in 1992. Mr. Lenzi announced on network television that he would sell his Olympic gold medal to help him pay for his college tuition. Mr. Chairman, I am tremendously impressed with the dedication, determination and work ethic of our Olympic hopefuls. Given the opportunity, they apply the same dedication to their academic endeavors. Balancing a schedule of rigorous training and education is very difficult for any person. We should not, however, put our Olympic athletes in a position where they have to sacrifice an education in order to represent our country in the Olympic games. Last week we had the Olympic dinner. Many of us attended and many of us patted the athletes on the back for a job well done. But what about an education? Last week when we were here, many Members had their photograph taken with the Olympic athletes. In fact, I was walking over on the other side and there were many of them out on the steps of the Capitol taking their picture with the Olympic athletes. But more than photo opportunities with congressional representatives and more than a dinner and more than a pat on the back, they need a helping hand and not a handout. This is an opportunity to compete in the education field. Each Member in this House can help each Olympic athlete by reauthorizing this invaluable program. I know that there will be the other side who may say, well, we are not going to authorize new programs. This is a reauthorization of an old program. I know our job is only half done, that we still have to go to the Committee on Appropriations to get appropriations. Olympians know how to fight, they know how to compete. What we are asking for is to give them the opportunity to compete to reauthorize the Olympic Education Scholarship Program. This amendment will simply give us a chance to continue the Olympic education scholarship to provide a commitment to our Olympic athletes beyond their performances in the games. I urge my colleagues to vote with me to reauthorize the Olympic Education Scholarship Program.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, and now I mean Speaker Gingrich, you have begun personal attacks on the President. Mr. Speaker, you have told your Republican cash cow GOPAC that the President is obstructing justice. By stating your attacks on the President in a partisan manner, before a partisan group, you have shown that you cannot lead the House in a fair and impartial manner in any review of any inquiry. In fact, it appears that you have already reviewed the alleged facts and you have prejudged and you have made yourself judge and jury. Mr. Speaker, let us stick to the facts, not by GOPAC but just the facts. But instead, Mr. Speaker, even a Roll Call editorial calls your actions ``Shame In The Making.'' Let us not bring shame to this House. You have a responsibility to lead, not mislead. You should be a statesman without prejudging any inquiry. Instead you have become a lightning rod of partisanship. Just over a year ago, we had to reprimand you and fine you over $300,000 for bringing shame and disrespect to this House. Do we have to go down that shameful road again? Do not bring shame and disrespect to this House, Mr. Speaker, by your personal attacks.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for letting me proceed at this time, because I did want to address what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was speaking of, because, earlier today, I came down to the House floor and I spoke of the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), and his remarks before GOPAC, and I hope to do it in a way that does not bring any disservice to the House or any personal malice toward anyone. Look at what is going on here because of comments on both sides. We have all become a lightning rod of partisanship around here. It seems to me, about a week ago, it was the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) who began the personal attacks on the President. While I am a Democrat, a member of on the minority party, I think every member of this country should be outraged. You have an ongoing investigation. So let us let the investigation proceed. It seems to me the Speaker some time ago said we should all hold our breath and step backward and let this thing play out. But when we got before a GOPAC dinner, the cash cow of the Republican Party, we just could not seem to leave it go. The claim was that the President is obstructing justice. We can get up here all night and say all kinds of things about the President and this administration, but let us put forth the evidence; and, by evidence, I mean credible evidence. By stating or by starting attacks on the President in a partisan manner before a partisan group like GOPAC, I am afraid the Speaker has shown that he cannot lead the House in a fair and impartial review of any inquiry that may take place. I do not know what the President's guilt or innocence is or whatever it may be in this matter, but what I do know is that, if we stick to the facts and let it properly proceed, and if we rely on, as our constitutional oath requires us to do, credible evidence, credibly submitted to a trier of fact, then maybe we can get to the bottom of this. Unfortunately, it appears that the Speaker has already reviewed the alleged facts. If he has reviewed the alleged facts, he obviously has made a prejudgment, and he has made himself a judge and jury. So then I must ask, where is this evidence? Where are these alleged facts? Bring them forth. If he has a report, if the report has been filed with the Speaker's office, bring them forth so all of us in the House have an opportunity to see it. Make it available to at least the Committee on the Judiciary who, by law, has a right to review any inquiry. Mr. Speaker, I wish we would just stick to the facts of the case and not what GOPAC wants to hear but to the facts of the case. But, instead, the Speaker and, as even Roll Call, I mean it is supposed to be a nonpartisan paper, even Roll Call says, ``Shame in the Making.'' That is exactly what we have when we have investigations and Members coming up here and, if I can use the majority leader's words, put spin on what is going on. Let us not bring shame to the House, but let us have the responsibility to lead and not mislead the House or this country. The Speaker of the House should be a statesman without prejudging any type of inquiry which may or may not even occur. Instead, I am afraid we have become a lightning rod. I hate to remind the House, but just over a year ago we had to reprimand the Speaker and fine him approximately $300,000 for bringing shame and disrespect to this House. Five out of eight ethics charges he was found responsible for by our own Committee on Ethics. Do we really want to go down this shameful road once again? I ask that we not bring shame and disrespect to the House by personal attacks. I would hope the Speaker would recuse himself from any participation in any House inquiry. I have been there. I have done investigation of political people. But you have to do it in an objective manner and not necessarily before the press. You can, and we should, do an investigation, and let the investigation proceed. But, I mean, even, where have we gone with this whole thing? Even the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight underneath the leadership of the majority party, we have a Privacy Act in this country that the Members of Congress are exempt from. Yet, when given tapes of a personal conversation of a witness who refused to appear, the Privacy Act suddenly did not apply, and the tapes were leaked to the news media, and the personal conversations of this individual were released to the news media. Is that not abuse of office? Have we not used that office, at least that chairman did, to release tapes of private conversations? Maybe not in violation of the Privacy Act because he was a Member of Congress, but certainly in violation of the spirit and intent of the law. That is what we are doing here with these investigations certainly. Then when the tapes were given to the oversight committee, they were warned in a letter not to release the tapes. There was sensitive private information. Yet, we still do that, and we hide behind the office of which we hold, a great honor given to us by the American people but, yet, we use it for our benefit. I would hope that any investigations proceed in a professional manner and stick to the facts.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order with my 5-minute Special Order.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And whether we are a Democrat or Republican, again it is the basic principles and beliefs that all Americans hold near and dear to them. And if we are going to do an investigation, let us do it based upon the law of this land and not upon the position we may hold in the government or elsewhere, and respect those laws. I thank the gentleman and thank him for coming down. He probably did not realize that I was going to do this today, and neither did I until I woke up this morning and read the paper. It got me going. Mr. Speaker, I did say I was going to spend a few minutes on leaking underground storage tanks and if there is time, I would still like to do that. Being Earth Day, one of the bills that I have worked on in the 104th and 105th Congresses is the leaking underground storage tanks. Today being Earth Day, it is a bill that both myself and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Dan Schaefer), a Republican and member of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment with me on the Committee on Commerce, we have been pushing this bill for the last two years. The last Congress, the 104th Congress, it passed this House by near unanimous agreement and went to the other body, and unfortunately it died over there. In the 105th Congress, I believe it was July of last year we once again passed the bill. The bill is supported by the administration and supported by the Environmental Protection Agency. And the reason why it is, the greatest pollutant of our groundwater is leaking underground storage tanks which contain gasoline and other petroleum products, oil, gas, kerosene, whatever it may be. That bill once again sits before the other side of this House, over in the Senate side, and we would hope that they would see to it that they would bring that bill up very, very soon. What the bill does is reorganize the program. There is a trust fund which petroleum companies and others pay into to help clean up leaking underground storage tanks. Again, the greatest pollutant of our groundwater is leaking underground tanks. On this Earth Day one of the best things we could do is pass this bill to get that leaking underground storage tanks program up and running in this country. In my home State of Michigan we did have a Michigan Underground Storage Tank Act. Unfortunately, that fund has gone bankrupt and we need to pump some new life and some new money into it, and the bill we have would certainly do that. Mr. Speaker, one other issue that I said I would speak on is food safety. In my work on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment we have been watching closely food safety and food safety agreements and how they are affected by trade agreements. In this country we have the world's highest standards when it comes to food and food safety. Unfortunately, from statistics from the Centers on Disease Control, we have found that every second of every day an American is stricken with food poisoning. We know that 33 million Americans this year will suffer from food poisoning. Of those 33 million Americans, 9,000 deaths will occur due to food poisoning. Why do we have so many deaths when we have the highest standards in the world? Why are so many Americans getting sick based on food poisoning? If we take a look at statistics put forth by those who are in charge of food inspection, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture and others, back in 1981 we used to make 25,000 inspections of food. In 1996, we made 5,000 inspections of food in this country. During that same period of time, especially since the passage of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, food imports in this country have gone up some 40 percent. In fact, in my home State of Michigan during the winter months 70 percent of the food, the fruits and vegetables, 70 percent of the fruits and vegetables that come into Michigan come from foreign countries. And we know that a food item from a foreign country is likely to have three times greater amount of pesticides on it than those grown domestically in the United States. So as we were doing food safety issues relating to trade agreements, we asked the President as we are negotiating these trade agreements if three things could happen: Number one, certainly increase our inspections at the border so that we prevent contaminated foods or foods laced with pesticides, prevent them from coming into this country, and to make sure that those foods, fruits, vegetables, meats, fish or poultry, meet United States standards. Secondly, to renegotiate some of the provisions of the trade agreements that allow us time to inspect food shipments coming into this country. Right now we inspect about 1 percent. We have 9,000 trucks a day coming in from the southern border bringing in food products, but we are only inspecting 1 percent. Is it any wonder why more and more food is getting into this country not being inspected? And finally, the last but not least, we asked the President if we could put forth and if he would endorse the idea of a country of origin food labeling, so if we go to the supermarket and take a look at the tomatoes and decide whether or not to purchase those tomatoes, we would know if they were grown in Florida, which at one time had the world's tomato market and now they are second to Mexico, or whether or not they were grown in Mexico. And those are the issues that the American consumers, who will have the ultimate choice here, consumers really should make. In my home State of Michigan we had, in the spring of 1997, 179 schoolchildren stricken by tainted strawberries in the school lunch program. Now it is up to 324 case of hepatitis A. Those strawberries came from Mexico. When they were shipped into the United States, they were packaged in the hot lunch program and distributed throughout this country. Our concern and our problem, and I said earlier that are there is a greater likelihood that foods and fruits and vegetables from other countries have three times more pesticides than what we use here in the United States, our concern is simply this: While we have these young children ages 10 to 11 in Michigan being very ill with hepatitis A, they got over hepatitis A but now they are suffering from secondary symptoms. The secondary symptoms are atypical of hepatitis A. By that I mean they have hair loss and skin rashes and sores in their mouth and shingles at 10 years old, and a number of secondary symptoms and illnesses, certainly not due to hepatitis A but other things that were in those strawberries. Recently we were down in Mexico doing some work on trade agreements and we saw the sanitation, or I should say the lack of sanitation, the lack of clean water, the use of pesticides on agricultural crops. So it is no wonder that they are having secondary symptoms when we do not know what is the cause of those secondary symptoms. Could it be lead? Could it be mercury? Could it be pesticide use? Those are some of the suspected agents that we have. We then went to the Central Valley of California and we saw their conditions and standards that they use to grow, package and bring forth produce in this country. A vast world of difference. But yet the farmers there were telling us that many of the products that we may see in our store and canned under U.S. label are actually grown in other countries, and they do not have to put where it was grown, just where it was canned or packaged. In particular, olives, black olives, the market used to be in California. It is now in Mexico. It comes over, they cut off the top and the bottom, take the pit out and put it in the can and it says ``canned in the United States.'' It does not say that the produce, or in this case the olives, were canned in the United States but in fact they were grown in Mexico. So we can see how the problems of food safety enter into our food supply each and every day. So having the world's highest standards concerning fruits vegetables, meat, poultry, there are some things we can do as American consumers. We have been pushing legislation to get proper labeling with country of origin, so that we as the American consumer can decide whether or not we want to serve these strawberries from Mexico or from southern California to our family; or Guatemalan raspberries, where we had 15,000 people stricken last year with those; or whatever other fruit or vegetable or meat or poultry it may be. So as we continue this debate, Mr. Speaker, on trade issues, I would hope that we stop and not lower our standards to allow trade and items to come into the United States, but maintain the rigid standards that we have in the United States, not just for fruits and vegetables and meats and fish and poultry but for all products. I find it amazing that in this country we can insist upon standards for CDs and intellectual property and movie rights, but yet we cannot insist on the same standards that would apply to our food and our food sources in this great country. While we have the world's highest standards, we must maintain them. We are not opposed to trade policies; we are opposed to trade policies which reduce or lessen our standards that we have accepted here in the United States. So, Mr. Speaker, with that I would close. The next big fight on trade may be the Multinational Agreement on Investment, which once again would attack our health, our environmental and our food and safety standards in this country. So I would ask all Members to be alert for the MAI, the Multinational Agreement on Investment, which once again is a way of lowering our standards that we are used to here in this country and attacks our sovereignty as a Nation.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for adding to this discussion here today. The issue is not whether the conversation was about food or how mundane the discussion may have been, and what was or what was not the discussion that was recorded and then later released. It is the principle here. It is the constitutional right. It is the invasion of privacy. We are not here defending Mr. Hubbell or even the President of the United States. They can defend themselves. If someone does not appreciate the job they are doing or did, that is their right. But there are some rights where you are restricted from going, whether you are a private citizen or a member of the United States Congress or a law enforcement officer. The principle of privacy is something we as Americans have always held near and dear to us, so when they say you have no shame, or you have no respect or no decency, I guess those who would release this information have no shame and have no respect for the Constitution and the laws of this country. When we start putting ourselves above the law, or using documents that are obtained, and the only way they were obtained is because a Member of Congress, a chairman of a committee, subpoenaed them, otherwise, no other citizen could get them; and then to be used to release or to try to intimidate a person to come in and testify, where have we gone as a country? We talk about morals and ethics and values in this country, but when we use those kinds of tactics to try to force people to testify, if you will, against themselves, then have we really gone way too far? I really do hope that the Attorney General does investigate this and puts some restriction on, or calls back these tapes. I would hope that the media would use their good judgment and not release these documents that are sensitive and private conversations between a husband and his wife. Whether we agree with the parties or not, they still have an expectation of privacy. We know that expectation of privacy has been invaded, has been violated, but I do not think that then gives the media justification to print it. So I would hope that by bringing forth this discussion today, that all Members of Congress and our friends in the media would use some good common sense as these investigations go on and as questionable tactics come to light. Again, it is not just the Burton investigation, if you will, but also what is happening with Ken Starr, with people going into bookstores to see what you may or may not have read or purchased recently, on tape recordings, on answering machines, and people then get subpoenaed. I would hope, I would certainly hope, that we would respect and bring some decency to these investigations and what is going on. Whether people are guilty of this or that will be determined by another body. We would need a judge or jury, and we should at least respect the Constitution and laws which we all live under. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming down. I am not sure if he is aware, I was reading some articles, and I was so outraged over what I read. When I think back over what has happened in the last few months, I think every American should be outraged over what is going on. I often tell my folks back home that when you have politicians investigating other politicians, what do you get? More politics. I really wish we would leave these to professional law enforcement, who certainly do respect the rights of individuals. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, my concern with this whole mentality we have going right now in Washington, D.C. with all of these investigations, as we see in the Ken Starr case, going in the bookstores to find out what people read or what they may have purchased, someone leaving a message on a telephone answering machine, and then being subpoenaed before a grand jury to explain it because they expressed an opinion contrary to what, contrary to what the special prosecutor thought in this case; or a mother being forced to testify under subpoena about her daughter's activities. As American citizens, again, whether you are a liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, or Independent, I think we should be concerned about where these investigations are going. Whether it is Web Hubbell, whether it is the Ken Starr investigation, we have certain rights and certain liberties that must be respected by law enforcement, by prosecutors. Certain things are guaranteed in the Constitution, and I am afraid that in the last few months these things are getting so out of focus that we are using every possible means to force people to testify, whether it is against their will or not. Certainly in the Hubbell matter, he chose not to testify before the committee, so tapes are being released to try to coerce him into testifying. We always hear that people are concerned about government is always in their face and is all-intrusive, and you cannot get away from the government. What are we getting, here? We are getting more and more of this, not less. As we try to get government out of our lives, when it comes to an investigation, government not only is in our life, it is in the bookstore, it is on our answering machine, and it is in our personal conversations, and we have no control over it. And if we object, they find a way to come through the back door and violate our rights on what they cannot get through the front door. As a former law enforcement officer and an attorney, I just really resent what is going on here. It reflects terribly upon every Member of Congress, because it is the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and everyone who sits on that committee. I no longer sit on it. I did at one time, and we did some work in my first term here. Where have we gone with this whole thing? This is totally out of control. Every Member of Congress should be outraged, and every American citizen should be outraged. These are rights and personal liberties guaranteed to us which are being trampled in the name of an investigation. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. STUPAK. A committee hearing.

Mr. STUPAK. If the gentleman would remain, we still have some time left. Before I get to other issues, you said a couple of things I would just like to ask about. You said there has been 1,049 different documents subpoenaed and depositions taken by this committee. If the chairman of the committee, Mr. Burton, is going to release information protected underneath the Privacy Act, obviously contrary to the intent and spirit in the written law, then what is there to prevent him from releasing these documents or the depositions or interviews of other people? Have we gone so far that whatever government wants to do, despite personal liberties that we as Americans possess, government, at least this committee, can release whatever they want with impunity towards the law? Is there any recourse for action like this?

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues I would like to address today in my time here as a special order: leaking underground storage tanks, on this, today being Earth Day; and also on food safety; but first, Mr. Speaker, I have something I would like to say. I think I, as all Americans, we should be outraged by the actions of the so- called investigations that are going on here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately these are not investigations but violations of everything that we hold as dear as American citizens. Every basic right, every fundamental belief on which this great country was founded upon is being trampled by a select few. But it is this few, those who think they are above the law, that give Congress and government a bad name. But this is more than just giving Congress or government a real bad name. This is about privacy, it is about the Constitution, it is about the laws of this Nation, it is about the oath of office, and it is about our word. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), has released private recorded conversations covered by the Privacy Act to the news media. The conversations released were those of Mr. Hubbell, and those conversations were amongst himself to his wife and his family, and they were subpoenaed by the committee from the Justice Department. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was allowed access to these recordings because of his position as a Member of Congress and as chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was warned by the Justice Department that Mr. Hubbell had a right to privacy, and that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and his committee should safeguard these tapes against improper disclosure. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), a Member of Congress, put himself above the law and has purposefully released these tapes. Does not a Member's oath of office, the Constitution of the United States, in which we are sworn to uphold the Bill of Rights, the Privacy Act, human decency mean anything any more? Since when is it okay for a Member of Congress to trample the rights of individual citizens, no matter who that Member of Congress is? It is never okay for anyone, let alone a Member of Congress, to trample the individual rights of individuals. Mr. Speaker, the rule of law applies to everyone on every occasion. This government cannot pick and choose when to follow the law. The laws of this Nation mean everyone must follow the law. Everyone includes, and especially it includes, Members of Congress, those of us who are sworn to uphold the law. When Members or individuals who are elected officials sit by and allow a chairman or any Member of this Congress to openly ignore the law, then we are not worthy of holding elected office. That is why I can no longer sit by while the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) continues to place himself above and beyond the rule of law. And then I must ask who is going to be the next target? Who is the next target of invasion of privacy, of violation of our constitutional rights? I often have to ask myself, in the last few days, why do the American people sit idly by and tolerate such an invasion of rights of privacy? Mr. Speaker, in this case let us be very, very clear what is going on here. In this case the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is the first chairman in congressional history, in the 200-and-some years that we have had Congresses, to have the power to unilaterally, unilaterally issue subpoenas and release confidential information. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight set up a so-called document working group, and it is comprised of three Republicans, including the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and two Democrats. The working group is supposed to issue nonbinding recommendations on whether the chairman should release particular documents. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) subpoenaed the Hubbell tapes from the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is prohibited from publicly releasing these tapes because of the Privacy Act. But the Privacy Act has an exemption, and that exemption is for releasing information to Congress. So DOJ under the Privacy Act releases it to the Burton committee because they can, under an exception to the Privacy Act. At the time of the release the Department of Justice informed the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) of his responsibility to treat the tapes in a very sensitive manner. After all, the privacy law does apply to the Department of Justice, the custodian of these tapes. Well, what happens? Then on March 19 the Wall Street Journal ran an article that excerpted pieces of tapes, of conversations contained on these tapes. So they put in their paper, they print parts of recorded private conversations. This is on March 19. At the time the Chairman was trying to force Mr. Hubbell to testify before the committee, so the way he was trying to force it was by leaking information. He was trying to intimidate the witness to testify. And then in the May edition of the American Spectator, if anyone reads it, if you read the American Spectator, they ran an article on information from the tapes that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) received from the Department of Justice. As Democrats learned of this, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) in particular, he wrote to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and asked him stop leaking the tapes: These are highly sensitive, you have been warned, do not do it. That was back on March 20, 1998. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) wrote back and said, ``Look, I didn't leak the tapes. Since I had a unanimous consent, inserted it in the record, then the tapes could be released.'' That was on March 27, 1998. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) went back through the tapes and went back through the record, and he found by going through the record of the committee that there was no unanimous consent to release these tapes. And that was on April 2 when the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) wrote back and said there is no authority or unanimous consent to release this information. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) did inform the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) on April 14 of his decision to make the tapes public. Private recorded conversations now going to be made public. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) requested that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) should immediately convene the working group, convene the working group to meet to determine whether the documents could even be released. That was on April 15, 1998. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) answered that he would not convene the working group and he was going to release the tapes immediately on April 15, 1998. At this point it is unclear how much of the tapes were released. Mr. Speaker, the problem is here we have the Privacy Act that governs the release of information, a Member of Congress uses his office to obtain the information, and despite warnings that they not be released because they are subject to the Privacy Act, they are released anyway to intimidate a person to come and testify before a committee. I do not know Mr. Hubbell and I do not know all the players involved here, but when do we allow Members of Congress to place themselves above the letter, the intent and the spirit of the law? Since when do we as Members of Congress sit by and watch other Members openly violate the law? And such an abuse of power, if we cannot do it through a front door, we try to slip it in through the back door. Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress I was a police officer up in the upper peninsula of Michigan, in Escanaba, and also with the Michigan State Police. I was injured in the line of duty and I was medically retired. But one of the last cases I worked on when I was in the State Police and actually was finalized was a criminal investigation involving a State legislator. I did not leak information to the news media about the case. I did not violate her rights. I did not treat her unjustly, but only with humaneness and respect. I did not invade her right to privacy. I did not violate her constitutional rights. I did my job in a professional manner, and we got the conviction. I did my job within the bounds of the law, and we were still able to get our conviction. The case went to the Michigan Supreme Court and they upheld the conviction. The point I am trying to make: There is a proper way and a way as Americans that we expect to conduct ourselves, not only as individuals but as law enforcement officers, as prosecutors, as chairmen of committees. You can do an investigation, an investigation which honors the law, and not violate the privacy rights. We did our investigation within the bounds of the law and not out of bounds. Mr. Burton's treatment of Mr. Hubbell is wrong, it is outside the law and is outside common decency, and it is contrary to what people and what we in government should and do stand for. I would hope that no future tapes would be released by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). I would hope that the Justice Department would intervene to protect the rights of citizens to their privacy, to their right of privacy and to the rights afforded all citizens of this great country. Mr. Speaker, my theory is with the majority party, with all these investigations going on in Washington, D.C., from Mr. Burton's committee to special prosecutor Ken Starr, each and every day Americans are having their rights violated under the guise of criminal investigations or grand jury investigations. Mr. Speaker, the joke around here is, have you received your subpoena today? But it really is no joking matter when the prosecutor uses the grand jury and the subpoena power of the grand jury to conduct even the most basic initial inquiry of a witness; that is no substitute for professional investigation. It is my understanding from reading news accounts that the special prosecutor has some 70 to 75 FBI agents. People are being subpoenaed without ever being interviewed by law enforcement. Why have a subpoena power or law enforcement working on a case when you are just going to subpoena people in. Every time you subpoena people in before a grand jury there is a cost involved of getting legal counsel; there is humiliation and probably the damage to the reputation. Instead of doing our work and doing our job the old- fashioned way, actually going out and pounding the pavement and interviewing witnesses to see if you have anything worthy to tell a grand jury, we are now dragging people underneath subpoena power. When and under what right and authority does the special prosecutor have to go into book stores to get a list of the latest books you may have read or purchased? Is there not a privacy right there protecting individuals on the books they read? Or have we sunk so far as a country that we now start making lists of books that people read? When is a mother forced to testify under subpoena about her own daughter? Once again, isn't there some privileged conversations here between a parent and their child? When is it allowable for someone to leave a message on a telephone answering machine and then only to have the caller be subpoenaed for expressing an opinion about the special prosecutor investigation? Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to ask ourselves what is going on here? How far have we gone? Why are we allowing this to go on? Where is the privacy? Where is the authority? Under what authority, what right, does the government have to do these things? Why are FBI agents, special prosecutors, chairmen of committees, Members of Congress, why do they believe they do not have to follow the law? In the 5 years that I have been here, we have been working so hard to get government out of our lives, but now government has not only taken over our lives, they are taking over every aspect, even the most private of conversations. Even conversations in which we have been warned that there is a Privacy Act here and these are sensitive matters, but we still release them in the name of some investigation. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, a Liberal, a Conservative, or an Independent, you are an American, and if you are an American, you should be outraged by the actions and the abuses of power recently displayed in committees and by special prosecutors in these past few months. I do not personally know the individuals involved, who may or may not have been subpoenaed. I only know what I read and have heard about in the newspapers. I do not know the guilt or innocence of people, and I am not here passing judgment on guilt or innocence. But I do know that as you do an investigation, there is a right way and there is a wrong way. There are certain rights and liberties as Americans that we hold dear to us. And if there is going to be agility or innocence determination, then the evidence must be fairly obtained, without violating the law, without the abuse of power. And then the guilt or innocence of an individual is brought before a judge and a jury. It is not obtained by one government agency, subpoenaed by another government agency, and then released under the guise of some cloak of exception to the privacy rule because we are a Member of Congress. Whoever would do that has put themselves and this great body, the Congress of the United States, above the law, and we are not above the law. We are equal underneath the eyes of the law. I know, and I believe, that as an American citizen, I have certain rights. As an American citizen, not even the Congress of the United States can take away those rights, and the Congress does not have the legal authority to violate or take away any of these rights. As a human being, there is a certain decency and kindness, a dignity and respect, that all Americans and every individual should be afforded. Some would call those inalienable rights. They are to be upheld and honored. And that requirement goes to the chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. It goes to the special prosecutors in this town, and I wish they would begin to conduct themselves in professional, courteous manners, as law enforcement does in this country. Having been there and having been in law enforcement and done these investigations, just coming back from break, I can't tell you how many of my friends in law enforcement have said what is going on out there? If we tried to do any of those things when we were doing criminal investigations or working the street, we would have certainly been in great difficulty. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the Government Oversight Investigation Committee. I certainly appreciate his efforts in trying to bring these violations of rights forward that he sees happening on that committee. I am, quite frankly, ashamed of the way Congress has been conducting these hearings. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, as a number of individuals have mentioned this morning, today is Earth Day. I have some very important legislation, the leaking underground storage tank bill, that I would like to address. But as I was sitting there waiting for my turn, I could not help but notice that two of our Democratic colleagues got up and signed the discharge petition for campaign finance reform. The Democratic Party is leading a fight for campaign finance reform, true campaign finance reform. What the discharge petition says, if we can get 218 signatures on it, is to bring forth our petition, which says let us have a full, fair, open debate on campaign finance. It does not endorse any proposal but lets us have a true, fair, open debate on campaign finance. Unfortunately, the Republican Party leadership will not allow this to happen, so we have to use the discharge petition. So with two more Members signing today, we are now up to 204. We need 14 more Members to come down, have the courage to come down to the well of this floor and sign our discharge petition. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party is leading the fight to have campaign finance reform, without endorsing any proposal. Let us do campaign finance reform. Sign the discharge petition.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I thank him for his leadership on this bill along with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) for their leadership on this Forest Recovery and Protection Act, which really is a good bill that is used to address the problems of forest health in an environmentally sensitive and scientifically sound manner. Many opponents here have argued that the bill is not needed because the problem with our forest health is just a myth. Does that mean that millions of acres are being destroyed by mythical forest fires and outbreaks of disease? I wish someone could tell me. Know that in northern Michigan our forests are not dying from disease, and, no, our homes were not destroyed in the wildfire. It was all just a dream conjured up by the politicians in Washington. It is not. It is a reality. The fact is that our forests are in trouble, and it is not just a problem with the forests out west. In the Great Lakes, in my district, about half of the 90 million acres of jack pine in the Hiawatha National Forest alone are highly susceptible and are being destroyed by jack pine budworm infestation. Furthermore, a letter from the Forest Service to my office dated April 23, 1997, states gypsy moth infestations continue to be a problem for the people of the State of Michigan. In fact as we are debating here today, the gypsy moths are destroying our forests in northern Michigan. Severe infestations can and are causing extensive damage and creating catastrophic fire conditions. In Michigan approximately 600 wild forest fires are reported each year. Michigan's Stephan Bridge fire in 1990, just 1990, destroyed 76 homes and 125 buildings in just one afternoon. Mr. Chairman, these are real problems facing our forests, not myth. The Forest Recovery and Protection Act is a sensible approach to improving forest health. The bill adheres to sound scientific principles, is subject to all current environmental laws and land management plans, and leaves the decision with local communities by involving Federal and State foresters and local citizens in a process of identifying the risk forest areas. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) for bringing forth this legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to support this very important bill.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for yielding, and thank him for organizing this special order and actually being the leader on the fair trade campaign. This bus trip that the gentleman talked about, where we went around Georgia and Florida and listened to people, was put on by the Citizens' Trade Campaign. That is a group of religious leaders, labor leaders, consumer groups, consumer advocacy groups, and they invited us to go out and get out of our safe districts, we are comfortable there, and go talk to folks like we have in our photograph there, I didn't know any of them there other than the Members of Congress, and to listen to their stories. Mr. Speaker, I found throughout this whole trip, no matter what aspect it was, whether it was manufacturing or farming, Americans are eager to compete. They want to compete. They want trade agreements. But at the same time they know that this country has some standards that we must adhere to, whether environmental standards, labor standards, agricultural standards, and especially food safety standards. They are saying, we are happy to compete. We can compete with anyone at any level. Just let us all play by the same rules. Let us have a fair trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, it was interesting at the Ford plant that the gentleman spoke of where they made the Tauruses and the Sables, the number one efficient auto plant in the world according to J.D. Power and Associates, year after year. They are the number one plant. They have a great working relationship between labor and management. We asked the question: How many cars do you sell to Japan? Obviously, they must sell a lot of this number one popular car. They said, ``This year we are doing pretty well. We are going to get 670 units.'' We asked how many units do they make in an hour, and they can make 67 units in an hour. So what Japan orders from us as far as this very popular car is one 10-hour shift worth of cars, is all they are going to have, and they think that is a breakthrough for this year. The point they stressed is that while they are the most efficient plant in the world according to J.D. Power, yet they can only sell 670 cars. What is going on here? And they do put the steering wheel on the right-hand side. And Japanese consumers love American cars, especially the cars that come off this line in Georgia. All they ask is, let us compete. If they are going to bring a car in, let us bring a car into Japan. And they were serious and sincere and it was neat to listen to these guys. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. STUPAK. It started out 179 Michigan schoolchildren contracted hepatitis A by eating tainted strawberries. It is now up to 324, and this is in Calhoun County, the public health officials have told us 324 have contracted hepatitis A from school lunch.

Mr. STUPAK. These workers we spoke to, especially ones outside this plant, and even the textile workers down in Columbus, Georgia, if we look at that photograph, and I know it is hard to see for the folks, but those workers there are not young people just out of high school. They had 25 to 30 years. This was the last plant they had of making these telephones. So they moved, some of them, five and six times trying to keep their jobs. And the gentleman is right, they were making about $13 or $15 an hour and, now, working at Target, for like $7 an hour. But look at these workers. They were mid- to late 50s. They have 25 to 30 years in with this company. And they said we have been gone now for over a year and we are struggling to find work. And their big concern, what was their big concern? While they were retirees and had vested benefits, they were now taking their health benefits away.

Mr. STUPAK. Now they are going for their health and pension benefits.

Mr. STUPAK. Whether it is banking or whatever, and I hope the folks listening do not just think it is Georgia or Florida we are talking about but it is everywhere, whether it is Massachusetts or Michigan. My home area, northern Michigan, I represent the northern half of the State but even my little community of Menominee, which is 10,000 people, and Marinette, Wisconsin right across the border, 12,000 people, we had 4 paper mills in the area. Recently we have been devastated by layoffs. 896 workers have been laid off since September of 1996. Our paper industry up there in northern Michigan, each of our mills found their own little niche in the market. What happened? The big corporate multinational company from Australia, Visi, comes in. They like this nice little plant in Menomonee, so they buy it. They buy it for two reasons, the niche or the product line we produce and our customer base. So they buy this plant, they buy our product line, they buy our customer base. Then suddenly, even though that mill makes money and machine number one, paper machine number one still made money, it was not as efficient as they wanted it. So without any responsibility to the community, machine number one is gone, that is 220 workers, and all the support in that factory needs it. Kimberly-Clark takes over, Scott paper, Scott tissue, we all know that. Kimberly-Clark came in, bought the product line, bought the customer base, basically shut the place down. Badger was a very small little paper mill in Peshtigo, Wisconsin. Again, imports made it cheaper to buy the pulp elsewhere, and Badger is really struggling to make ends meet. As we globalize, not only is there economic and social justice you have to argue, but there is also a corporate responsibility to these communities and to these individuals. Where do these people, whether in Georgia, Florida or Michigan, who have 30 years in, go for a job?

Mr. STUPAK. 50,000 agriculture-related jobs since the implementation of NAFTA. The tomato industry has lost $750 million since 1993. They said our job, our health, our Nation's food standards have gone downhill. But we said, look, can we compete with Mexico to produce food at a competitive price while maintaining the world's highest food safety standards? They unequivocally said yes, we can, as long as the food coming into our country meets the same standards. Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a surcharge or anything to make it meet our standards. We are talking about some very, very basic health standards that this Nation has set forth, has fought for over the years to develop the world's greatest and safest food supply. But look what has happened. Take our own State of Michigan. We had the school hot lunch program in which strawberries had come in from Mexico and they were tainted with hepatitis A. And Michigan is as far as one can get from the Mexico southern border. But we have to understand that our fruit and our food supply, especially our winter vegetables, 50 percent or more comes in from Mexico during these winter months. So we had these strawberries that got in the school lunch program and they came from Mexico. At the initial outbreak we had 179 Michigan students contracted hepatitis A after eating tainted Mexican strawberries.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman makes a very good point. We asked why does it cost so much? From $20,000 to $45,000 to $50,000? And they said: See, when we bring an American car and put it over in Japan, then we must follow their rules. We must now follow the Japanese standard. Every car must go through a processing center where they go through with a very fine-tooth comb, and they reject and continue to reject it until that is the perfect car. And every time there is a rejection and further inspection, the manufacturer here, in this case Ford, would then have to pay to bring it up to their standards. So if I might, I would like to talk a little bit about standards tonight and food safety, because when we went to Florida and we had heard from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) and others, as we were doing the debate about fast track last year, they said we are happy to compete with Mexico on food standards, especially our winter fruits and vegetables and the citrus, but just have the same standards. But since the implementation of NAFTA in 1993, they said look what happened in our State because we do not have the same standards. Florida has lost 50,000 agriculture-related jobs.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the issue here in the United States, we want to maintain our food supply as safe as we can. So while we want to raise the standards for the children south and even north of our border, we also must maintain what we already have. These standards, again, the workers we saw, they can compete with anyone provided we are playing by the same standards. We have had problems with beef coming from Canada, that has been tainted. We have had trouble with Guatemalan raspberries. We have had milk problems up in the Northeast from an airborne pathogen that came over probably from Europe. So that is why it was so important when we had the fast track discussion last fall and we asked the President to sort of do three things for us, to maintain our standards, the United States standards. Number one, renegotiate the provisions of NAFTA that relate to border inspections and food safety to ensure that any fast track authority would include strong food safety provisions. Secondly, we asked to increase the funding for border inspections or, alternatively, limit the increasing rate of food imports to ensure that there is a safe supply of food here in this country. Last but not least, to begin the program to label all foodstuffs including fresh and frozen fruits, vegetables and meats with their country of origin. Unfortunately, that was not put forth by the administration. I guess those were simple standards we asked for, but stop and think about it. About 6 months ago or maybe even a little longer, we were ready to go to a trade war with China over things like CDs, intellectual property rights, copyrights, banking laws. That is all fine. We have these standards for cassette discs. We have it for copyright infringement. We have it for so-called intellectual property, and we have it for copyrights. Why not for food safety, something where we all eat and consume? And yet we have more than 50 percent of our fruits and vegetables. At least give the American consumer the right to determine whether they want that tomato grown in Mexico or in Florida, and you know what standards they are grown under. I learned a lot from these folks on our bus trip. I look forward to future trips for the Citizens for Fair Trade campaign. I think we are all for trade, but when you hear these stories of these people or whose children have been stricken because of improperly imported food, you certainly, your heart goes out to them. But this is an issue that is being repeated too often. As I said, each second of every day someone suffers from food poisoning, 33 million Americans a year suffer from it. There are 9,000 deaths per year. A CD has never killed anybody, but we certainly maintain its standards. Why can we not have that same standard for our food safety in this Nation? I thank Mr. Bonior for organizing this special order and also being a leader on this issue and opening our eyes to some of these very, very serious issues that must be addressed, and it is the proper position of the U.S. Congress to ask these questions as we continue trade agreements around this Nation and around this world.