Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. To sign your order, Mr. Salesman, the answer would be, yes, I would grant him immunity if I was on the committee. Based upon those facts, if they were correct, I would grant him immunity. That is your original question. I would agree with you.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Salesman, I am trying to sign my name to your order form.

Mr. STUPAK. I am trying to sign my name.

Mr. STUPAK. Let me answer your question.

Mr. STUPAK. You have got to let me answer.

Mr. STUPAK. If the gentleman would yield, to the original question on the technicalities----

Mr. STUPAK. If you would let me.

Mr. STUPAK. To answer the gentleman's question, if your three points were correct, that Justice gave them immunity, that every witness said that it is true----

Mr. STUPAK. I agree with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) that this is a very serious matter and should be taken very seriously. And the part that upsets maybe us and the reason why I have been taking to the floor is, let us go back to the original question that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) asked about this individual and the Justice Department granting him immunity and that every witness before the committee, and the only one here who is on that committee is the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), said they should interview this guy. There were about three things wrong with that. See, the problem is this, we are throwing out these accusations which, when corrected, we call a technicality. But when we hurl an accusation in the position we are in as elected Members of the Congress of the United States, it is very important, before we impugn people's reputations, before we make accusations that the facts be crystal clear.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STUPAK. If your question, and my colleague should have stayed at Michigan State longer because he would have learned this, if his question was and if the truth was that every witness said to have this guy testify, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) said that is not the truth, based upon his hypothetical, if this was true, I am sure, I cannot speak for committee members, I would vote for it if his statement was true.

Mr. STUPAK. Technical point. That is not a technicality when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) tells my colleague, and he sits on the committee, that no witness has ever mentioned that the committee should interview this guy. That is not a technical point; that is the truth of the matter.

Mr. STUPAK. That just defeats his question, then, if my colleague just agreed with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my original time, let me answer that quickly if I may. My problem with this is, the way my colleague phrased his question is, because this person was an associate and there was a business operative and there is a Communist cigarette, he just made three assumptions there. My answer would be, send the FBI agents out. Check with this individual. If there is a need to bring him before a committee and need to subpoena him, then do their investigation before they subpoena.

Mr. STUPAK. And the same for me.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming out and joining us tonight, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), and we will continue this, but the point the gentleman is making, whether it is this democracy, this House of Representatives, this government, we cannot pick and choose when we are going to follow the law. The laws are there. The laws of this Nation mean everyone must follow this law. ``Everyone'' includes especially us. We are sworn to uphold the law when we take the oath of office, especially Members of Congress. So when those of us who are elected officials, if we just sit by and allow the chairman of this committee, or any other member, to openly ignore the law and we do not speak out, then we certainly are not doing our job as elected representatives in trying to uphold the principles of this democracy. As the gentleman from Maine said, there are problems on both sides, but it does not give one side the right to violate the rights of individuals. Whether we like that individual, agree with that individual, or not, no one has that right. And I am pleased that my colleagues here tonight have spoken out with me. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), who has been patiently waiting.

Mr. STUPAK. Many times in my town hall meetings and in correspondence from constituents, we talk about these investigations. I have always felt and one of my answers is, when you start having, those of us who are elected officials, politicians, if you will, investigating other politicians, what do you get? More politics. That is exactly what USA Today is saying, Republican leaders will only compound the impression of partisanship if they fail to turn the fund-raising over to a committee with a less biased leader. That is May 6, 1998. New York Times, right over here, Friday, May 8, 1998, the Dan Burton Problem, by now even Representative Dan Burton ought to recognize that he has become an impediment to a serious investigation of the 1996 campaign finance scandals. Or take the editorial page by the the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), Our Opinion, Burton unfit to lead Clinton probe. It is no wonder that even some Republicans want Burton replaced. You start these things and they are driven by politics. Then you have the heavy-handedness of government. Where do we stop this? I think we have to step back. Government has just gone too far here. I am not here defending the guilt or innocence of anyone. This has just gone crazy when we subpoena people before we even know what the investigation is about. I was always taught you are supposed to think before you speak. I wish we would not investigate before we subpoena. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. STUPAK. So we are having a repeat of the same thing with a different twist with a chairman who has unilateral subpoena power who is just all over the place.

Mr. STUPAK. Did not the Senate basically go over the same ground during their investigation?

Mr. STUPAK. It is my understanding that, I am not on that committee, it is my understanding that there have been 1,049 subpoenas issued in this case, and of those 1,049 subpoenas, 1,037 were unilaterally issued by Chairman Burton without permission or consulting the committee. So that leaves only 12 subpoenas that have been issued by the committee in a bipartisan manner. The other 1,037 have been unilaterally thrown out there to see who can get in this big dragnet. I was always taught, you investigate before you subpoena; you do not subpoena, then begin the investigation. One Member was telling me from California that one of these subpoenas landed on one of his friends. He has spent $100,000 trying to collect information, trying to consult with attorneys. And he is just distressed. He has spent $100,000 trying to comply with this all-encompassing subpoena, and they do not even know if they have good reason to be subject to this subpoena, but if you do not, you get dragged in in front of these hearings, government reform, or the Ken Starr investigation, and there you go. Your reputation, your business, your humility, everything is just stripped away from you, not to mention the financial impact. I appreciate the gentleman coming down and sharing some input on this government reform.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Burton, is he not the first chairman in congressional history to have the power to unilaterally issue subpoenas and release confidential information?

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I came to the floor and I was talking about these investigations going on, and it was quite interesting, hearing my colleague from Oklahoma tonight talking about the First Amendment and morality and prayer and things like that, and he made some very good points. But I hope we apply that same standard, first amendment freedoms and rights and morality, into the investigations, into what is going on here in Washington, D.C. I could not help but notice last Sunday's ``60 Minutes'' program, Mr. Speaker, in which they had an individual on that program, Sara Hawkins, who was an employee of the Madison Savings & Loan, who was accused of illegally backdating appraisals by coworkers that had entered into a plea bargain with Mr. Starr's office. They came to Mrs. Hawkins, they wanted her to plead guilty to a felony, and she found that she did not do anything wrong, so she refused to do so. In fact, the independent counsel had threatened her. My concern is that as we are doing these investigations, we are violating individual's first amendment rights, fifth amendment rights, eighth amendment rights, sixth amendment rights, trying to threaten them in doing investigations. If we take a look at what went on and what has been taking place here in these investigations, they go, if you do not plead to the felony, we could bring charges, as they threatened Ms. Hawkins with, for all 80 counts, which would mean 400 years in jail. Ms. Hawkins said that they told her, you know, you have kids, you do not want them to have to go through a jury trial, you do not want them to go through this. They are making all of these threats. At the time Ms. Hawkins was the sole supporter of her two daughters and her grandchildren. She had her own business. She earned approximately $100,000 a year. Word got around. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal and in other publications that she was the target of an investigation in this whole savings and loan situation, but when word got around she was a consultant, that was her business, her business just dried right up. She lost everything, under the threat of an investigation. In fact, she was working, she is now working part-time. Things were so tight, money was so tight she ended up having to go on food stamps, public assistance, if you will, to support herself. Her daughter that she was supporting, her daughter was going to college and had to drop out because her mother could no longer help her. So after months and months of threats from the Special Prosecutor's office, they then write her a letter and tell her, we do not have enough evidence to charge you on anything, not the 80 counts, but on anything; and therefore, she thought, she was relieved that her nightmare would be over. Well, a month later, a month later, they come back, and again, according to Mrs. Hawkins, they said that since she would not cooperate with them, they really wondered then what did she have to hide, and so they started to do some more digging, and they told her that we have come up with some new activity that we think that you may be involved in, criminal activity. We are not going to tell you what it is, but we are going to start the process all over again. The whole idea of, now we are going to investigate you on something else since you will not cooperate with us, is probably government at its worst. That is what I am concerned about here tonight and that is why I have taken the floor in the past, and I am here once again this evening. Where have we gone as a Nation that the government, the United States Government is beginning to do investigative tactics that are less than legal, less than moral, less than ethically correct? In that same program, another one of the tactics used by the Special Prosecutor, Mr. Starr, was that FBI agents showed up at a high school to issue a subpoena to a 16-year-old, a 16-year-old, the son of an individual who was subject to an investigation. Another individual linked to Mr. Starr's office tried to pressure him into making false statements regarding the President. In fact, one individual, Professor Smith, who was a professor at the University of Arkansas and the former president of an Arkansas bank and a business partner of Jim McDougal over 20 years ago he was an aide to then-Governor Bill Clinton, levels an even more serious charge about the operation of the Special Prosecutor, Kenneth Starr. Mr. Smith said, ``They asked me to lie about other people, and they have lied about what they have done.'' In 1985, Mr. Smith pled guilty to a misdemeanor for misusing a loan. He took out a loan and he ended up using it for something other than what it said in there. Mr. Smith pled guilty to the incident and included an agreement to testify against others. That was part of the plea bargain. He was supposed to testify against others in the grand jury. Well, Mr. Smith has pledged his cooperation with the investigation and the cooperation has begun. But did Starr make it very clear, Starr and his investigators make it clear what they wanted Mr. Smith to say? Instead, Mr. Smith said, again on the program the other night, ``60 Minutes'', he said that ``Oh, they made it very clear what they wanted me to say. They had typed up a script what was purportedly my testimony, and they wanted me to go in and read it to the grand jury,'' and that ``There were things that they were asking me to say that were untrue, things that I had repeatedly told them were not true, things that I told them I had no knowledge about, but yet they typed it up, and that was to be my testimony, and I was to enter it before the grand jury.'' Fortunately, he refused to do it. But if we take a look at what is going on here, Mr. Speaker, if the government can do this, bring the weight and pressure of the Federal Government, go back and comb 20 years of one's history and find a misdemeanor charge where one might have said something a little wrong; and then one says, okay, I will plead guilty and cooperate, and then they put before someone testimony that they type up and they make up the facts, and the person has to then go before a grand jury and say it is true, not only about yourself, but also about other people, have we crossed that line? If government, through these investigations, can do this to friends and associates of the President, then can they not do it to me? Can they not do it to the people sitting at home? Can they do it to any American citizen? My concern is that, as all Americans, we should be outraged by the actions of the so-called investigations going on here in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, these are not investigations, but violations of everything we hold dear as American citizens. Every basic, every fundamental belief and right on which this great country was founded is being trampled by a select few. But it is these few, those who think they are above the law, that are giving Congress and the government a very, very bad name. This is more than just giving Congress or government a very bad name. This is about privacy, it is about our Constitution, it is about the laws of this Nation. It is about the oath of office. It is about our own word that we as elected officials take every year, every 2 years, when we are sworn in. If we take the case of the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who has released private, recorded conversations, and these conversations were covered by the Privacy Act, but yet they are released to the news media, the conversations of Mr. Hubbell, his wife, his attorney, and his family, when these tapes were subpoenaed by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight from the Justice Department, who had access to them, the committee and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) were warned. He was allowed access to them, but he was warned not to release them, because they had very sensitive information. But because of his position as a Member of Congress, as the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and because Congress is not subject to the Privacy Act, he had the right to release these tapes? The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was warned by the Justice Department that Mr. Hubbell had a right to privacy that was protected, and that the gentleman from Indiana and his committee should safeguard these tapes against any improper disclosure. Still, as a Member of Congress, they put themselves above the law. They have purposely released these tapes. Now we have learned in the past week or so that to make them sound even more incriminating, a word or two may have been altered or changed to make them sound more incriminating. Does not one's oath of office, does not the Constitution of the United States, does not the Bill of Rights, does not the Privacy Act, does not human decency mean anything anymore in this country? Since when is it okay for a Member of Congress to trample on the rights of an individual? I submit, Mr. Speaker, whether we agree or disagree with that individual, no one has the right to violate another individual's rights in such a purposeful manner. Mr. Speaker, the rule of law applies to everyone. No one should be held above the law. No one should be held beneath or below the law. This government cannot pick and choose whether or when it will follow the law. The laws of this Nation mean that everyone must follow the law, everyone, but especially Members of Congress. When those of us who are elected officials sit by and allow a chairman or any Member of this Congress to openly ignore the law, then we are not worthy of holding the high office to which we are elected. That is why I came down to the floor a couple of weeks ago, and I am here again tonight, and have been doing special orders and one-minutes; that we as Members, or the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) as the chairman, cannot place ourselves above the law or beyond the rule of law. I must ask, Mr. Speaker, who is the next target? Where is the morality of the law that the last group spoke of? Where is the law? Why do the American people tolerate such an invasion of their privacy? Mr. Speaker, in this case, and particularly with the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, look at what happened. This is no different from Ms. Hawkins, from the 16-year-old who was subpoenaed. On March 19, if we just go back and look in the last 2 months, on March l9th the Wall Street Journal wrote an article that excerpted pieces of tapes of the conversations between Mr. Hubbell that were rather private and sensitive. The chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), was trying to force Webb Hubbell, once again trying to pressure people to testify before the committee. So to get him to testify, because he refused to, you start leaking information. He was trying to intimidate Mr. Hubbell into testifying; not whether it was the truth, not whether it is appropriate, but to testify. Does it not really sound familiar, like the Hawkins case we saw on ``60 Minutes,'' or Professor Smith, who was threatened with a misdemeanor some 20 years ago? Then they go further. That was March 19. Take the May edition of the American Spectator. We all know the owner of that magazine is not a real big fan of the President, who ran an article with the information from the tapes. Where does he get the information from the tapes if it is protected underneath the Privacy Act? The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of that committee, he wrote to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and asked him to stop leaking the tapes on March 20, 1998. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) writes back and says, I have not leaked any tapes; and plus, even if I did, I had unanimous consent to insert the tapes in the Congressional Record; therefore, they are public record. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and his staff went back and checked, and there was no unanimous consent in the record. He wrote back on April 2. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) informs the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) of his decision that, okay, I got caught on that one, there is no unanimous consent; I am still going to release these tapes, and I am doing it. April 14th. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) requested that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) immediately convene a working group to determine whether the document should be released. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) answered he would not convene the working group, he was going to release the tapes anyway, and he did. Now we know that words have been substituted, things have been changed. We really have to ask, who is next? Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress I was a police officer for some 12 years, a city police officer and a Michigan State Police trooper. I was injured in the line of duty and medically retired. One of the last cases I worked on, finalized, and actually went to court on, was the criminal investigation of someone in the city and State legislature. We did not leak information to do our case. We did not violate her rights. We did not invade her privacy. We did not threaten her unjustly, but only treated her with humaneness and respect. We did our job in a professional, courteous manner. We did not run to the Michigan legislature and ask one party or the other party to release the investigation. We convicted her, and the case went to the Michigan supreme court. The conviction was upheld. I did my investigation. We did honor to the law. We did it without violating people's rights. We did our investigation within the bounds of the law, not outside the bounds of the law. Today, we had three pieces of legislation to honor law enforcement officers, because this is Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Week. We honored those who gave their lives in the line of duty, upholding the law. After all, we are a Nation founded on law, right? This Nation requires us to have faith and confidence in the judicial system and a belief that justice will be served. That is why I am really profoundly troubled and, quite honestly, angered by the way the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has handled this investigation of campaign finance reform. I am disturbed about released, doctored tapes. It has involved name-calling of the President of the United States, and a disregard for procedures, criminal procedures, civil procedures, legal procedures that bind every law enforcement agency and every law enforcement officer. And the Privacy Act binds the Attorney General, it binds Ken Starr, but apparently it does not apply to Members of the House of Representatives, and certainly not the chairman of that committee. It is sad and unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we find ourselves in the way that we are disgracing not only our institution, but we are failing to maintain the high standards that we should be setting. Mr. Speaker, the threat of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) of the Hubbells is wrong; threats to subpoena people, to drag them in, to make them subject to an investigation, to subpoena sons of people who are subject to investigation, that is way outside the law. It is outside common decency. It is contrary to what people, we who are in government, should stand for. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Justice Department will intervene here and protect the rights to privacy afforded all citizens. My fear is that with the majority party, with all these investigations in Washington, D.C., from the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) to Special Prosecutor Ken Starr, each and every day Americans are having their rights violated under the guise of an investigation. The joke around here, quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, is, have you received your subpoena today? And since I have been speaking out, I may very well receive a subpoena about something I should have known or must have known. But when we use a prosecutor, a grand jury, the subpoena power of the grand jury, as a substitute for professional law enforcement investigation, then we have gone overboard, Mr. Speaker. There are over 70 FBI agents working with the Starr investigation. Yet, they do not have contact with witnesses; instead, they are subpoenaed. What is the cost? What is the humiliation? What is the reputation? As Ms. Hawkins said, I had a $100,000-a-year position, was supporting my two kids, my two grandchildren. I am on food stamps today. No one trusts me. They have taken my good name and my integrity. They have humiliated me. When is a mother forced to testify under subpoena about her daughter, or about facts that are untrue, like Professor Smith? When someone leaves a message on a telephone answering machine and then the caller is subpoenaed for expressing an opinion, have we gone too far? Has Big Brother taken over? What are we doing here? Where is the privacy? Under what authority or what right does government have to do these things? Why are agents, special prosecutors, chairmen of committees, Members of Congress, why do they believe they do not have to follow the law? Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal, conservative, Independent, if you are an American you really have to be outraged at the abuses of the power recently displayed in the name of investigations. I do not personally know the parties involved who may or may not have been subpoenaed, who may or may not have told the truth, who may or may not be guilty or innocent. That is for judges and juries. But I do know that I believe, as an American citizen, I have certain rights that not even Congress can take away, not even a Member of Congress can violate. As a human being, there is a certain decency, a kindness, a dignity, a respect that people should afford one another. These are the so- called inalienable rights we all enjoy. That is what we should be honoring here during Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Week. We should be honoring those who uphold rights, not be here on the floor talking about big government affecting the rights of every individual. Who is next, Mr. Speaker? Is it I? Is it my colleagues who may join me here tonight? Is it the folks listening at home? I hope all Americans look at this and not pass judgment, but look at it and say, where have we gone? Where have we led ourselves, in this crazy political world, to try to get the other side? We have trampled the privacy law, we have trampled the Constitution, we have trampled the Bill of Rights. When does all this stop? Who is next? I think it is time for government to step back. If I can use the Speaker's words, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), when we first started this, he asked everybody to step back and let the facts come out. Maybe we ought to step back from this dangerous precipice we are on of violating peoples' rights in the name of investigations. We have gone too far. As a law enforcement officer, I never would have lasted in the department if I conducted investigations like this. Why, because I am a Member of Congress, do I have some special rights that I can violate, knowingly, intentionally violate, peoples' rights? Mr. Speaker, I see my colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) is here, the first one here. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to compliment both sides on the issue being brought up here today, and the scope of the debate that is going on here. It is great to see so many people supporting law enforcement on this issue. I would like to go back, when I was in law enforcement back in 1973, in 1974, when vests started to get really sort of popular. We have heard some comments here that the first thing you should buy is a vest, because it is a good life insurance policy. We often wonder why our departments, why don't they just go ahead and provide the vests? Back in 1974, when we were just getting going with the bulletproof vests, they were quite expensive, and being a young police officer, and I was, you live from paycheck to paycheck. You are trying to support your family and get things going. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the main sponsor here, mentioned about rural areas. While I was in the Michigan State Police then, we were up in Alpena, Michigan, an area that I represent now, we were tracking some safe crackers and it was December of 1974, and I guess I will probably never forget this. While were sitting there working and trying to work these guys and trying to catch them, unfortunately when the squad car stopped them, the individual State trooper that stopped them was gunned down as he stepped from his car. The sad part about the story is that he actually had a bulletproof vest; it was at home. It was a Christmas present from his wife. It still took us another 10 years to get our department to provide bulletproof vests for members of the Michigan State Police. Actually that came about not because management wanted it, but it was because we finally got collective bargaining rights and we then made it part of our negotiations and our contract that we would give up pay and other incentives to have bulletproof vests issued to each and every member. So when we talk about the need for this, there are about 600,000 law enforcement officers right now who do not have access to bulletproof vests for whatever reason. So if we certainly could get these vests, not only would we save a lot of lives but I think we would save a lot of heartache and a lot of other problems throughout this Nation. Since we are here and it is Police Officers Memorial Week and we will be doing a number of things and today, actually, we have three bills on the floor supporting law enforcement, I hope we just do not stop here today and do this one shot. Being the founder and cochairman of the Law Enforcement Caucus for several years, we have been working on several pieces of legislation to benefit law enforcement. I hope with everybody here that they listen well and that we actually take up H.R. 959, the body armor bill, which would prevent mail orders of body armor to unknown individuals so we do not have the criminals armed as well as the police officers are protected. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2829, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act. Since bulletproof materials became available to law enforcement, the lives of more than 2,000 police officers have been saved, and this bill will help make bulletproof vests available to more officers. This bill creates a new Department of Justice grant program which will assist state and local law enforcement agencies in providing their officers with the protection of bulletproof vests. The bill would authorize up to $25 million for this new program, and would require the federal government to split the costs of these vests with state and local governments. As a former law enforcement officer, I know first hand the necessity of bullet proof vests for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day. Unfortunately, 25 percent of the nation's 600,000 state and local law enforcement officers do not have access to bulletproof vests. The Department of Justice has reported that between 1985 and 1994, 709 police officers were killed while on duty, 92 percent of them killed by a firearm. Studies by the ATF show that no officer killed during that time period died because a bullet penetrated a bulletproof vest. It is clear that bulletproof vests play an important role in the safety of law enforcement officers, and saves lives. As founder and the Co-Chairman of the Law Enforcement Caucus, I have worked for several years to inform my colleagues about the value of bulletproof vests and the dangers of body armor when it gets in the hands of armed criminals. This bill will go a long way to help protect the men and women who protect us. With the passage of this bill, police departments will be able to provide vests to more officers, and we will be able to reduce the number of officers that are killed each year. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2829, and support our law enforcement officers.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, this is Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Week. During this week, we honor those officers who gave their lives in the line of duty, upholding the law. This is, after all, a Nation founded on a rule of law. This is a Nation which requires that all citizens have faith and confidence in the judicial system and a belief that justice will be served. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am so profoundly troubled and angered by the way the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has handled its investigation of campaign finance reform. I am disturbed by the releasing of doctored tapes, by vile name- calling of the President of the United States, and by disregard for procedures which bind every law enforcement agency, but apparently not Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The American people know that the truth of matters will come out. What is sad and unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, is that along the way to truth, we disgrace ourselves and our institution by not maintaining a high standard which we all should be setting. Mr. Speaker, remove the chairman from this investigation.