Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. As I understand the Dreier amendment, he would say it is all right to put a tax on a business if we give a tax break to another business.

Mr. WAXMAN. Now, that mandate can be a new regulatory requirement or it can be a tax. That is a mandate that they have to pay.

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to see if I understand the amendment, Mr. Chairman. The underlying bill requires that the House pay special attention if there is a mandate on private enterprise.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Boehner Resolution. I completely agree that the four witnesses should be given immunity. I believe every Democrat on the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee also supports immunity for the witnesses. In fact, our only reservation on the merits has been that the witnesses still haven't provided proffers of their testimony, which is a standard and essential procedure in immunity cases. That is what we said when the Committee first voted on immunity on April 23. It's what I said in a letter to the Speaker on May 10. And it's what we said again when the Committee voted on immunity on May 13. In my May 10 letter to the Speaker, I wrote: I am writing in the spirit of bipartisanship to work with you to find a constructive solution to the difficult problems facing the Committee on Government Reform an Oversight. During the past several weeks, you have personally attacked me and questioned my integrity without justification. I believe, however, that the American people expect more from us than name-calling and partisan battles. Instead of escalating this fight, I want to make a genuine attempt to work with you to meet their expectations. I am prepared to recommend to my Democratic colleagues that they support the pending immunity requests. But before I do, I believe the rules and procedures guiding the Committee's campaign finance investigation must be changed so that the Committee can conduct a fair and thorough investigation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be inserted in the Record. Two weeks have passed, and the Speaker still has not responded to my letter and my request that we work together. We have tried to make it as clear as possible that our problem isn't with immunity; our problem is with Dan Burton and his handling of the investigation. That's a problem the Speaker, Mr. Boehner, and the other members of the Republican leadership insist on ignoring. Singe we last voted in committee, new information has come to light in the New York Times about the possibility that Johnny Chung may have been a conduit for political contributions from China. The new allegations are serious and deserve thorough congressional investigation. Although there is no indication that the four witnesses seeking immunity have information relevant to these new allegations, the new evidence reinforces my belief that the witnesses should be given immunity. The new evidence also reinforces my belief that Dan Burton is the wrong person to be leading the investigation. We are dealing with extremely serious allegations. We owe the American people a serious, credible investigation. The Committee's Democrats have said we would vote for immunity if the Dan Burton problem were fixed. We have said we would encourage the Democrats on either the House Oversight Committee or the House International Relations Committee to vote for immunity if this issue were sent to those committees. We have said we would support immunity on the floor. But we have been as clear as we can that we will not support immunity without first addressing the Dan Burton problem. So here we are today and the Republican leadership has made no attempt to work with us in a bipartisan way. The Republican leadership is not sending this issue to another committee, it's not bringing the issue up for a floor vote, it's not proposing to fix the Burton problem. The leadership is here telling us immunity is essential and then insisting on the one immunity option they know we will oppose. It's rare that partisanship and cynicism are this transparent. Two weeks ago, the New York Times, which has been leading the call for a thorough and aggressive investigation into the President's 1996 campaign, printed an editorial entitled ``The Dan Burton Problem.'' I want to take a moment and read it. [From the New York Times, 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. He has dismissed David Bossie, the mischievous aide who helped issue inaccurate transcripts of Webster Hubbell's jailhouse conversation's, and has apologized to his fellow Republicans. But: that cannot compensate for inept behavior that has hobbled the inquiry and complicated Independent: Counsel Kenneth Starr's criminal investigation of intriguing comments on the tapes. If the House inquiry is to be responsible, someone else on Mr. Burton's committee should run it. Coming on the heels of an impolitic remark by Mr. Burton about the President two weeks ago, the tapes fiasco is forcing House Republicans to confront two blunders. The first was to entrust the investigation of campaign finance abuses to Mr. Burton, the chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. The second was to give him unilateral power to release confidential information. Mr. Burton, a fierce partisan not known for balanced judgment, was plainly the wrong man for a sensitive job. When the committee convenes next Wednesday, Democrats plan to offer motions to transfer leadership of the inquiry to another Republican on the committee. They will also ask the committee to adopt the same bipartisan rules for issuing subpoenas and releasing documents that have been followed by all previous Congressional investigations. But it should not come to that. If Mr. Burton will not step aside, Speaker Newt Gingrich should convene the Republican caucus and ask it to name a replacement. Mr. Gingrich should also agree to rules both to provide a check on the new chairman's power and to enhance bipartisanship. At the same meeting, the committee will wrestle with whether to grant immunity from prosecution to four witnesses who are expected to testify about questionable donations to Democrats in the 1996 campaign. House Democrats have threatened to block immunity as leverage to win a rules change granting them more say. By agreeing to improvements in the rules, Republicans would remove a major criticism of the committee's process as well as the Democrats' excuse for denying immunity. For now, Mr. Gingrich seems determined to back Mr. Burton. That will only delay getting a truthful account of fund- raising in the 1996 election. There is a Dan Burton problem. It's very real. When the Chairman leading the investigation calls the President a scumbag, when he admits he's ``after'' the President, when he doctors transcripts that purport to represent evidence the committee obtained, when he issues over 600 unilateral subpoenas and targets 99% of his 1000 subpoena and other information request to Democrats, we--Republicans and Democrats--have a very real problem. When the committee's Republican Chief Counsel quits because he's not allowed to conduct a professional investigation, when the Republican Chief Investigator is fired, we have a very real problem and a committee out of control. But because Republicans have a majority in the House, it's a problem only they can solve. All the Democrats ask in what the New York Times proposed. Act responsibly. Solve the problem. We are prepared to vote for immunity if you are willing to work with us in even the most minimal way. I'm voting for this resolution today because it's a meaningless gimmick. It's an empty exercise in political posturing. I also should point out for the record that the Resolution contains a number of basic factual errors, and I ask unanimous consent that information correcting these mistakes be inserted after my statement. A meaningful act would be to reform the procedures we have in the Government Reform Committee, or to send this matter to another committee so that we can get on with the investigation. Mr. Speaker, if this matter is as important to you as you say it is--and as it should be--work with us for a constructive investigation. Don't posture on such an important issue. Democrats are ready--have been ready--to vote for immunity. All we ask is that the investigation be fair, bipartisan, and competent. Instead of bringing us together and acting rationally, the Republican leadership is bringing a gimmick to the floor and continuing to allow what should have been a serious investigation to degenerate into a circus. Instead of dealing with the Dan Burton problem, which is unpleasant for them to confront, they pretend it doesn't exist. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this gimmick. But I ask the Republican leadership to show some genuine leadership. Make some tough decisions. Give true bipartisanship a try. And work with us so that we can have a meaningful investigation. If you are going to send this to the committee for another vote, take some time first to meet with the minority members and try to find common ground. If you don't, it will be absolutely clear that this is all about cynical politics, not genuine concern. And the American people will have yet another reason to tune us all out. Factual Inaccuracies in H. Res. 440 Claim: ``[M]ore than 90 witnesses in the investigation have either asserted the fifth amendment or fled the United States to avoid testifying.'' Fact: This number is misleading because it includes: 12 individuals who have been given immunity and already testified; 8 Buddhist nuns who were never immunized because their testimony would have duplicated other testimony; 21 individuals who are listed as having fled the country who in fact live in foreign countries; 11 individuals who, while not cooperating with Congress, have been convicted by or are cooperating with the Department of Justice. Claim: ``[S]ubsequent to the receipt of the illegal campaign contributions from Communist Chinese officials the Clinton Administration relaxed export controls . . . on the sale and export of sophisticated satellite technology to China.'' Fact: This statement is inaccurate. The Clinton administration relaxed export controls before, not after, June 1996, when Johnny Chung reportedly first met Liu Chaoying. The Clinton administration announced its decision to move commercial communications satellites from the Munitions List to the Commerce Control List of dual-use items, moving export licensing jurisdiction from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce, in March 1996--three months before Mr. Chung allegedly met Ms. Liu. Moreover, the practice of issuing waivers was not begun by the Clinton Administration. According to the New York Times (May 17, 1998), it was first used by the Bush Administration. Claim: ``[T]he Department of Justice does not object to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's desire to confer immunity on . . . Kent La.'' Fact: The Department of Justice does have serious reservations about immunizing Kent La. In a letter dated April 22, 1998, the Department of Justice expressed its view that ``if Mr. La were to testify publicly at this time, the Department's criminal investigation could in fact be compromised. Even if Mr. La were to testify in a closed session, any disclosure or leak of that testimony, whether intentional or inadvertent, could seriously compromise the investigation and any subsequent prosecutions.'' The numerous leaks of information during the course of Committee's investigation suggests that the confidentiality that the Department of Justice has requested could not be maintained. Claim: The four witnesses have ``direct knowledge'' concerning ``Communist Chinese attempts to influence United States policy and make illegal campaign contributions,'' ``illegal foreign money contributions made to the Democratic National Committee by Ted Sioeng,'' or ``convicted felon Gene Lum['s] . . . method of making illegal foreign money contributions to Clinton-Gore '96.'' Fact: The four witnesses have had employment or business relationships with Johnny Chung, Ted Sioeng, and Gene Lum. It is not yet clear, however, that any of the four witnesses have significant information about the alleged illegal activities involving foreign contributions. Based on what is currently known about the witnesses, they would appear to be relatively minor witnesses with little new information to provide investigators.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair whether an accusation of obstruction of justice is permitted on the House floor.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want a serious investigation. I want us to be able to conduct this investigation responsibly, competently and fairly. We have a resolution on the floor like this. After all the months we have asked for bipartisanship, it still seems to me like we are in the process of kids' play. Let us work together. This matter must be investigated in a way that speaks well of the House. I ask the Speaker to work with us. This is not the time to fire up your base; this is the time for you to be a leader of the House for the people of this country.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Boehner resolution. I completely agree that the four witnesses should be given immunity. I believe every Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight also supports immunity for the witnesses. In fact, our only reservation on the merits has been that the witnesses still have not provided proffers of their testimony, which is a standard and essential procedure in an immunity case. That is what we said when the committee first voted on immunity on April 3, it is what I said in a letter to the Speaker on May 10, and it is what we said again when the committee voted on immunity on May 13. On May 10, I sent a letter to the Speaker, and I want to quote from that letter. I wrote to the Speaker and I said: I am writing in the spirit of bipartisanship to work with you to find a constructive solution to the difficult problems facing the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. During the past several weeks, you have personally attacked me and questioned my integrity without justification. I believe, however, that the American people expect more from us than name calling and partisan battles. Instead of escalating this fight, I want to make a genuine attempt to work with you to meet these expectations. I said to the Speaker, and I further quote, I am prepared to recommend to my Democratic colleagues that they support the pending immunity requests, but before I do, I believe the rules and procedures guiding the committee's campaign finance investigation must be changed so that the committee can conduct a fair and thorough investigation. Well, 2 weeks have passed, and the Speaker still has not responded to my letter and my request that we work together. We have tried to make it as clear as possible that our problem is not with immunity, our problem is with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan Burton) and his handling of this investigation. That is a problem the Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the other Members of the Republican leadership insist on ignoring. Since we last voted in committee, new information has come to light, originally in The New York Times, about the possibility that Johnny Chung may have been a conduit for political contributions from China. The new allegations are serious and deserve thorough congressional investigation. Although there is no indication that the four witnesses seeking immunity have information relevant to these new allegations, the new evidence reinforces my belief that the witnesses should be given immunity. The new evidence also reinforces my belief that the gentleman from Indiana is the wrong person to be leading this investigation. We are dealing with extremely serious allegations. We owe the American people a serious, credible investigation. So here we are today, and the Republican leadership has made no attempt to work with us in a bipartisan way. The Republican leadership is not sending this issue to another committee, it is not bringing the issue up on the House floor, it is not proposing to fix the Burton problem. The leadership is here telling us immunity is essential and then insisting on the one immunity option they know we will oppose. It is rare that partisanship and cynicism are this transparent. Two weeks ago The New York Times, which has been leading the call for a thorough and aggressive investigation into the President's 1996 campaign, printed an editorial called ``The Dan Burton Problem,'' and I want to take a moment and read in part from that editorial. 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. If the House inquiry is to be responsible, someone else on Mr. Burton's committee should run it. Coming on the heels of an impolitic remark by Mr. Burton about the President 2 weeks ago, the tapes fiasco is forcing the House Republicans to confront two blunders: The first was to entrust the investigation of campaign finance abuses to Mr. Burton, the chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. The second was to give him unilateral power to release confidential information. Mr. Burton, a fierce partisan, not known for balanced judgment, was plainly the wrong man for a sensitive job. If Mr. Burton will not step aside, Speaker Newt Gingrich should convene the Republican Caucus and ask it to name a replacement. Mr. Gingrich should also agree to rules both to provide a check on the new Chairman's power and to enhance bipartisanship. By agreeing to improvements in the rules, Republicans would remove a major criticism of the committee's process as well as the Democrats' excuse for denying immunity. For now, Mr. Gingrich seems determined to back Mr. Burton. That will only delay getting a truthful account of fund-raising in the 1996 election. My colleagues, this is a serious matter, and that is why we have asked that the Speaker give us leadership on this issue to work with us in a bipartisan manner. It sometimes seems that the Speaker acts as if he thinks he is still in the minority; that he is an insurgent. But the Speaker is the Speaker of the House. He is the Speaker of the whole House, and he should be working to bring all of us together for a fair and credible investigation, not trying to drive partisan wedges between us and trying to impede a serious investigation. Now, the Republicans have a majority in this House. When the chairman of the investigation calls the President of the United States a scum bag, when he admits he is after the President, when he doctors transcripts that purport to represent evidence the committee obtained, when he issues over 600 unilateral subpoenas and targets 99 percent of his 1,000 subpoena and other information requests to Democrats, we Republicans and Democrats have a very real problem. When the committee's Republican chief counsel quits because he is not allowed to conduct a professional investigation, when the Republican chief investigator is fired, we have a very real problem. We have a committee out of control. But because Republicans have the majority in this House, it is a problem that they alone can solve. All the Democrats ask is what The New York Times proposed: Act responsibly, solve the problem. We are prepared to vote for immunity if the majority is willing to work with us in even the most minimal way. I am going to vote for this resolution because it really is tantamount to a meaningless gimmick. It is an empty exercise in political posturing. I should also point out for the record that the resolution contains a number of basic factual errors, and I will submit information correcting these mistakes. A meaningful act would be to reform the procedures we have in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, or send this matter to another committee, so that we can get on with the investigation. If this matter is as important to the Speaker as he says it is, and it should be, we only ask that he work with us for a constructive investigation. Please do not posture on such an important issue. Democrats are ready and have been ready to vote for immunity. All we ask is that the investigation be fair, bipartisan and competent. And that means, by the way, that we get the facts, and then see what conclusions those facts lead us to, not reach the conclusions first and then try to see what facts will fit into those conclusions. I have heard incredible statements by some of my Republican colleagues when they talk about money from the Chinese government going to the President of the United States and he knowingly then gives weapons technology to the Chinese that may jeopardize our national security. If that is the allegation, we better have facts to back it up because, quite frankly, that is not just accusing the President of the United States of a crime, that is accusing the President of the United States of the crime of treason. We ask the Speaker, bring us together to act rationally. We ask the Speaker to work with us. Give us bipartisanship. Make some tough decisions. If the Speaker is going to send this to the committee for another vote, take some time first to meet with the minority Members and try to find common ground. If that does not occur, it will be absolutely clear that this is all about cynical politics not genuine concern, and the American people will have yet another reason to tune us all out. Mr. Speaker, I provide for the Record the letter to the Speaker and information correcting the factual errors contained in the resolution to which I referred to earlier: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Washington, DC, May 10, 1998. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing in the spirit of bipartisanship to work with you to find a constructive solution to the difficult problems facing the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. During the past several weeks, you have personally attacked me and questioned my integrity without justification. I believe, however, that the American people expect more from us than name-calling and partisan battles. Instead of escalating this fight, I want to make a genuine attempt to work with you to meet their expectations. I am prepared to recommend to my Democratic colleagues that they support the pending immunity requests. But before I do, I believe that the rules and procedures guiding the Committee's campaign finance investigation must be changed so that the Committee can conduct a fair and thorough investigation. Of course, such changes also require that the chair of the investigation be fair and credible. Mr. Burton, the current chairman, has disqualified himself by his actions. He has called the President a vulgar name and said that he is out to get the President. And he has ``doctored'' evidence by releasing altered and selectively edited transcripts of the Webster Hubbell tapes. There are several senior Republican members of the Committee who could immediately take his place and continue the investigation. For the investigation to have any legitimacy, this must happen. A fair investigation must have fair procedures. Some have asserted that the Democratic members want a veto over the conduct of the investigation. This is not true. We are not seeking the right to block the issuance of subpoenas or the release of documents. All we want is the opportunity to present our arguments to the Committee if we raise objections that the chair is unwilling to acknowledge. We recognize that we are in the minority and that we can be outvoted. Fairness dictates, however, that we should at least have the right to appeal our case to the Committee members if we are summarily rejected by the chair. I am not asking for unusual procedures. The exact opposite is the case. In the last year, Mr. Burton issued over 600 subpoenas unilaterally, without minority concurrence or a Committee vote. That is more than three unilateral subpoenas for every day the House was in session. To the best of my knowledge, however, no Democratic committee chairman since the McCarthy era forty years ago ever issued a subpoena unilaterally. The congressional subpoena power is an awesome power. It compels an individual to turn over documents to Congress or to testify before Congress against the individual's will. Prior to Mr. Burton, committee chairmen simply did not exercise this power unilaterally. As Lee Hamilton, the chair of the House Iran-Contra investigation, wrote me: As a matter of practice in the Iran-Contra investigation, the four Congressional leaders of the Select Committee-- Senators Inouye and Rudman, Representative Cheney and I--made decisions jointly on all matter or procedural issues, including the issuance of subpoenas. I do not recall a single instance in which the majority acted unilaterally. Likewise, Mr. Burton's unilateral release of subpoenaed documents is the exception, not the rule. I cannot think of a precedent for a committee chairman releasing such personal information--such as Mr. Hubbell's private conversations with his wife and daughters--unilaterally. There are many precedents in congressional history for fair investigative procedures. You have referred repeatedly to the Watergate investigation as a model of bipartisanship. The House Watergate investigation had fair procedures that provided the minority the right to seek a committee vote if they objected to a proposed subpoena or document release. These Watergate procedures would provide an excellent model for this investigation. Fair procedures do not lead to gridlock. To the contrary, they lead to bipartisan cooperation and a more successful investigation. They also are a safeguard against the kind of abuses that have characterized Mr. Burton's investigation. Under the rules followed in other congressional investigations, the entire committee is accountable for the investigation. Under Mr. Burton's rules, the Committee has transferred virtually all its power to him alone and he is accountable to no one. The events of the past weeks make it clear why this model should never be used again. Senator Thompson followed fair procedures in his campaign finance investigation, and he was able to accomplish far more than Mr. Burton. In fact, he held 33 days of hearings and filed a 1,100-page report before Mr. Burton held his twelfth day of hearings. The Thompson procedures would be another excellent model for this investigation. You have accused me and other Democrats of ``stonewalling'' the investigation. That is not accurate. Mr. Burton has had virtually limitless powers. Democrats have blocked none of the 602 unilateral subpoenas he has issued, nor have we blocked any of the 148 depositions that his staff has conducted. In fact, we even supported the only other three immunity requests made by Mr. Burton. I want to be part of a thorough investigation of campaign finance abuses. I don't want to be in a position I am in now, where I must oppose immunity requests as a matter of principle. Mr. Speaker, I am willing to put partisanship aside in addressing the problems on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. I hope you will join with me in this effort. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen from California Mr. Berman and Mr. Sherman and I ask our colleagues to join us in saluting our good friend Shelly Rosenberg, who was honored on Friday, May 8, 1998 for her tremendous contributions to Kehillat Israel and our entire community. Shelly is deeply committed to the Jewish people, Jewish education, and the centrality of religious worship in Jewish life. She has been actively involved in virtually every aspect of Kehillat Israel's activities, and for the last eight years has ably served as Executive Director. She previously served on the Board of Directors as Nursery School Chair, Religious Education and Youth Chair, and for two years as President of the Board of Directors. In addition, Shelly has been the driving force to make the dream of constructing a new synagogue a reality. Without her unparalleled energy, her incredible talent, and her resolute determination, this great undertaking simply could not have been achieved. At the center of Shelly's life is her devoted husband, Ken, and their wonderful daughters, Carin and Cindy--and at the center of their lives together has been Kehillat Israel. They have been active members since 1971 and their now-adult children who give Shelly and Ken such pride, began their nursery school learning, attended religious school, and celebrated their B'nai Mitzva and Confirmations at the synagogue. In addition to her devoted service to Kehillat Israel, Shelly has served the larger community in numerous ways. She was President of the Pacific Palisades Junior Women's Club; on the board of B'nai B'rith Women, Palisades Coordination Council, New Start, and Las Doradas; and an active member of the PTAs of Webster, Malibu Park Junior High School, and Santa Monica High School. We all owe Shelly a debt of gratitude for her tireless and selfless work on behalf of our community. We extend our heartfelt thanks to her for her generous commitment and we wish her, Ken, Carin, and Cindy every happiness and success in the future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, nothing alarms the American people more than an abuse of power and an invasion of people's privacy. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan Burton) has grossly abused the most unprecedented power that any Congressman has ever had in the history of this institution in violating the privacy of an American citizen. These complaints are not just the complaints of Democrats. I want to read from the Hartford Courant: Who could have anticipated that a renegade congressional committee chairman would subpoena the tapes and release them to the public, disregarding Federal prison policy and provisions of the Privacy Act? People have much to fear from an elected official who takes such liberties and abuses his power. And the USA Today said: 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. Mr. Speaker, we must ask the Republican leadership to fix this problem, not just to apologize to their own Members.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the debate, I wondered why do we have this bill up at this moment? There is no urgency, except for the fact that we read last week that the number of HIV infections is going up, even as more people with AIDS are living longer because of drug therapy. Today, we are not spending Federal dollars for needle exchange programs, although some people think it might be a good public health strategy to reduce the spread of AIDS. Ordinarily, when we get people saying a policy is worthwhile and others saying it is not, we would hold hearings and we try to find out the truth. But this bill is being brought up without the committee that has jurisdiction holding any hearings, without hearing from the Surgeon General, the American Medical Association, and the public health community to learn the truth. This bill is being brought up now, it seems to me, for political reasons. What would be the political reasons involved? Well, it is always great politics for someone to say they are against drug addiction. We can all say that. We are all against drug addiction. But there is another political reason. It seems to me that if I were part of the Republican leadership and my party had received millions of dollars from the tobacco companies, I would want to change the subject. I would want to talk about drugs. It is an important issue, but it is not being handled in a responsible way that an important issue should be handled. I would want to talk about how the Administration is trying to go after kids and tobacco and also want to talk about drug abuse. Of course, today's debate is not about drug abuse and kids. This is about HIV and drug abuse prevention programs that work, not with Federal funds but at the local level. So I think that the American people ought to understand what is going on here today. If I were going to try to take people's minds off the fact that over 450,000 people die each year in this country from smoking-related diseases, while only a fraction of that number of people die from illicit drug use. Tobacco is such an enormous problem, that I would try to minimize that problem by trying to change the subject. If we are going to do a scientific evaluation of needle exchange, we ought to ask the people who know about it to give us some guidance. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has done that, and she concluded that needle exchange programs lead IV drug users into drug treatment programs to rid themselves of drug addiction. This is a very worthwhile result. But she also said that the National Institutes of Health that have looked at needle exchange and determined that it has reduced not only the incidence of illicit drug use, but reduced the spread of HIV infection. Congress wrote a law that was responsible for this evaluation. We said we do not want any Federal funds to be used for needle exchange programs unless we can be clear that it is not only a good strategy to stop the spread of HIV, but it is also going to discourage, or at least not encourage, the use of illegal drugs. And if there were a positive finding on both of those areas, Federal funds could be then available. The Secretary made a finding that both circumstances apply to these needle exchange programs; yet the administration's position is no Federal funds still would be permitted. So why do we have this bill up today? This bill says no matter what we learn from experiments, we will never allow federal funding of needle exchange programs. Why should we take that kind of position? Why should we determine forever what the policy will be, especially in the face of so much evidence that is extremely effective in stopping the spread of HIV and also in discouraging people from using illegal drugs? The regular order of Congress should be to permit the committees that have jurisdiction and Members that have knowledge, to hold hearings and evaluate these issues. What we are being told today is to pass a rule, to take it away from the committee, to have no hearings, to not think about the issue beyond a few slogans and cliches, and to immediately pass a bill so we can go home and claim we have done something, when in fact no real-world result will come from our efforts.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for yielding time to me. I want to give a reality check for this institution. There is no Federal funding of the needle exchange program anywhere in this country. There is no mandate or requirement that a State, city or community use needle exchange. This bill is simply unnecessary. Today States and localities are free to determine with their best scientific judgment whether needle exchange makes sense for their own citizens. They can fund them themselves. But this bill would slam the door now and forever on any possibility of getting Federal funding provided in the future. Even if the State of California wanted to do it, a city like Boston or New York thought it was appropriate, they would, even in the best interest of their citizens, be blocked from using Federal funds. The cold, hard reality is that all of the science shows that needle exchange programs prevent AIDS and save lives. This is a fact. This is the conclusion of the Surgeon General. That is the conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences. That is the conclusion of the National Institutes of Health. If that is not enough for you, it is also the conclusion of the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is not, however, the conclusion of the Republican leadership. Needle exchange programs prevent AIDS and save lives. Period. The proof is overwhelming. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the real purpose of this legislation. Earlier this morning I pointed out that the Committee on Rules had caved in to orders from the leadership to bypass the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Commerce. The only reason this bill is on the floor today without any committee deliberation whatsoever is because the Republican leadership wanted to avoid any critical scrutiny of the bill. They wanted to turn this public health issue into a political football. There have been some pretty ludicrous claims made about needle exchange programs. One would think that we were about to install them in vending machines next to Coke machines around the country. Here is another reality check. Needle exchange programs not only save lives by stopping the spread of AIDS but they can reduce drug use and bring IV drug users into the health care system. People who normally shun contact with the public and authorities get referrals to health care, drug rehabilitation and treatment. In fact, the NIH found that IV drug users in needle exchange programs are more likely to get drug treatment because they are already in the program. Needle exchange programs send a simple message. If you use IV drugs, you can get AIDS and you can spread it. If you need treatment, there is a place where you can get it. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record: [From the Washington Post, April 23, 1998] Clean Needles, No Money President Clinton's latest policy response to a national epidemic--the spread of AIDS among intravenous drug users--is little more than a political fix. In one breath, the administration is declaring that needle-exchange programs do help curb the spread of AIDS--but that no federal funds should be spent on this approach. This half-and-half solution, intended to resolve internal policy disagreements among the president's advisers, puts politics ahead of public health. The administration says the announcement does send out an important message: that even without federal subsidies, the decision that needle exchanges have scientific merit should assist state and local programs in securing financial backing. Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna E. Shalala reportedly would have preferred to begin allowing certain programs to qualify for federal aid--a reasonable introduction. But those in the administration who argued that lifting the ban on federal funding would send a bad message found reinforcements among congressional leaders who said the votes to uphold needle-exchange funding weren't there--that pressing a fight could result in legislation taking other federal money away from groups or governments that provide free needles. Secretary Shalala has argued since the announcement that the administration's endorsement of the approach will include educational efforts to underscore the findings of all major leading research groups, public as well as private, that needle exchanges are scientifically sound. The federal government should have a clear and important role in this attack on AIDS. Needle exchanges are but part of a broader effort, including improved drug-abuse prevention and treatment. But study after study shows that the exchanges do not promote greater use of illegal drugs. In any event, drug addicts who are not under treatment don't stop their drug use just because clean needles are unavailable. They will go to infected needles. The National institutes of Health reports that needle exchange has brought about an estimated 30 percent or greater reduction of HIV in injection users of illegal drugs. In terms of money, these programs are a fraction of the lifetime cost of treating a person with HIV/ AIDS. Full support, not White House lip service, should be a priority.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting intersection today very visible in the comments on the Republican side of the aisle. They are talking about two issues. They are either defending the tobacco industry or they are trying to attack Democrats on the campaign finance investigation. Mr. Speaker, they want to speak for the tobacco industry because they have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions from that industry and refuse to investigate the corrupting influence of that industry on some of the official actions of their own leadership. They are criticizing Democrats for not participating in what has clearly been a reckless, partisan investigation in which the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the committee, has abused his powers. These are not just my words. These are the words of The Hill newspaper today which declares we have ``A Chairman Out of Control.'' I am pleased Speaker Gingrich is now focusing attention on the Burton committee. He did not respond to our letters asking for a joint investigation. He ought to now debate these issues, and I challenge him to come forward and debate whether this investigation and his role in tobacco deserves further scrutiny.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for one additional minute.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. I raced over to the House floor. I did not know the Speaker was going to raise the issue of the Government Reform and Oversight campaign finance investigation. But I did want to come to the House floor to inform him and my colleagues what has happened with this investigation. First of all, in February of last year I went to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and said, ``Let's do a bipartisan investigation on campaign finance abuses.'' I wrote to the Speaker and asked that we have a House and Senate joint investigation so that we in the House would not duplicate the work being done by the Thompson Committee over in the Senate. I never received a reply from the Speaker, but the response that I did get from the gentleman from Indiana was that he was going to do his own investigation, thank you very much. Now, after a year and a half, we have spent over $6 million of the taxpayers' money, we have duplicated a great deal of what went on in the Senate committee, and we have nothing to show for it. We have turned up nothing that was not already in the Senate investigation or quite frankly that has already appeared in the press. The chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Indiana, has had delegated to him unprecedented authority. He had delegated to him powers that no chairman has ever had before. He has the power to unilaterally issue subpoenas. The gentleman from Indiana has this authority to issue subpoenas unilaterally. He does not have to come to the committee for a vote. He does not have to seek even authorization from his Republican majority. He can just go ahead and issue subpoenas. Prior to 1997, how many subpoenas were ever issued unilaterally by a chairman of a House committee? Zero. Now, after a year and a half, we have had the gentleman from Indiana issuing 600 subpoenas, all on his own. No one had a review of them. Those subpoenas are part of a thousand subpoenas and information requests issued to Democrats, or Democratic sources, related to Democratic campaign funding issues. How many has he issued with regard to Republican abuses in the 1996 election? Fourteen. We have not had a single subpoena authorized by the chairman at our request, even though there are important issues to investigate. The Haley Barbour national review, national committee, whatever it was, that was a source of foreign funding has never been reviewed by our committee. Fund-raising abuses on public property by Republicans, we cannot get the chairman to pay any attention to that. The strange $50 billion tax break for the tobacco companies, the Speaker knows may know something about that because he and Mr. Lott were the ones who put that through in the middle of the night. We thought that ought to be investigated. None of these things have been investigated. The Democrats have been closed out by an effort by the Republicans to do a partisan, reckless investigation. Notwithstanding that, we went along on the only vote where our votes count, and that is on the issue of immunity for witnesses at the request of the chairman once before, and we were all embarrassed by that. The Democrats gave our votes for immunity for a witness who turned out not to have given us honest and credible testimony and a witness who used the immunity granted to him to avoid possible immigration and tax crimes for which he now will never be prosecuted. Now we are being asked to give immunity to four more people, fairly low-level people. I do not think they have all that much to add to the investigation, but why should we give immunity to these witnesses? We have not received a proffer from them which would tell us what they know and what they have to say, what to add to the information already available. We have no written proffer from these four people. We have no guarantee that the chairman will conduct the investigation any other way than what he has done up to now. We wrote to the chairman after that last immunity vote and we said to him, ``We gave you the votes for immunity, and we regret it. We've been embarrassed, as should you be, having given a man immunity for possible offenses that none of us ever knew about. The investigation wasn't done adequately by the majority party staff; and, in the future, if we're going to give immunity to witnesses, we want certain assurances. We want, first of all, the assurances we are going to know what these witnesses are going to say, that work will be done in advance so we don't find giving immunity when it's improper. And, secondly, we want this committee to be conducted the way every other congressional investigation has been conducted.'' Madam Speaker, in the Watergate investigation, in the Iran-Contra and any other investigations, there have always been traditional procedures which are not being followed in this investigation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be given 5 additional minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am sorry the Speaker would not yield to me because I wanted to tell the Speaker that in the Watergate investigation the Chairman, Sam Ervin, did not accuse the President of the United States of being a scum bag. He did not say that he was out to get him. Those were the very words of the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in remarks in his district when he talked about what he was doing in this investigation. Are we stonewalling an investigation that is proper and legitimate and is trying to get to the truth under a chairman who is interested in objectivity and facts? The chairman of our committee has acted from the very beginning in the most partisan of manners. He has refused to give us the basic rights to request subpoenas to look at Republican abuses. He has refused to allow the Democrats to play a role. In fact, he does not even let his own members play a role. They delegated authority to him, and he, in turn, has delegated it to his staff. I might not be a Howard Baker, but the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan Burton) is no Sam Ervin. If we would have followed from the very beginning the requests that I made that we do a bipartisan, nonpartisan, fair investigation on campaign finance abuses, we would not be here a year and a half later having spent $6 million with a likelihood that at the end of this year we will have spent $10 million harassing witnesses. And I have a long list of people who have been abused of people who have been hounded either the Republican staff did not know the right people they were going after or people they have gone after to the point of just plain harassment. We would not have that sort of thing. We have had witnesses in our committee who have been called in for depositions over five times to be asked the same questions over and over again. Today, we have a woman coming in for the fifth or sixth time; and she already was in depositions in the Senate three separate days and asked the same questions over and over again; and she had never been accused of any wrongdoing. Does anybody know what that means when a witness is brought in day after day after day to answer the same questions over and over again, sitting there with her, as she must, with her attorney to whom she is paying out of her own pocket on a government salary? Now witnesses have been brought into depositions by the unilateral action of our chairman, and those witnesses have been asked questions that no one ought to be asked about their personal lives. But, as a practical matter, do you know what it means? It means that they can object and then the ruling would go to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan Burton) as to whether they would be required to answer questions about their personal lives, their drug use or whatever, which has nothing to do with campaign finance abuse. And then the gentleman from Indiana would rule they have to answer, and they could still refuse, and then they face a contempt of Congress. Do you know what it is like for somebody to have the full force of the Federal Government, the Congress of the United States, staring at them and telling them they will be in contempt and may go to jail if they do not answer questions about their personal lives? So they answer it. That is one area where people have been abused, but there is another area that I want to raise with my colleagues, and that is the action of the chairman to unilaterally release the tapes made of conversations that Web Hubbell had with his wife, with his children, with his friends when he was in this prison. He knew that the prison authorities were taping all conversations for security purposes, but he did not care about that because he was not talking about anything that breached security. Ninety-nine percent of the tapes are conversations with his wife about the children, about their finances, about their sex life, about friends who may be in trouble whom they name, friends who may be having difficulties, the kinds of things that every person talks to a spouse about. And the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has moved to release those tapes to the public. It was bad enough that his staff was able to sit there in a very prurient manner and listen to those intimate conversations. I had asked my staff to do the same just so we knew what was on those tapes, and they were embarrassed having to listen to such personal conversations. We have not had the conduct of a chairman who has acted properly, and we should not give him this authority to go any further.