Text of Waxman response to Burton remarks

Statement of Representative Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., on Wednesday, May 13, in response to Rep. Dan Burton's remarks Tuesday:
This morning I will attempt again to explain why the Democratic minority is deeply frustrated with this investigation and why we believe changes must be adopted. Our view is that the chairman is too partisan, has been given too much power, and has abused his authority. He alone controls the investigation, not the committee, and he is accountable to no one. That's why every member on our side voted against immunity three weeks ago, and that's why we're prepared to vote against it today. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the chairman -- it has everything to do with accountability. No investigation in the last forty years has operated like this one. In every major investigation -- the House Watergate investigation, Iran-Contra, October Surprise, and even Senator Thompson's campaign-finance inquiry -- the practice was for subpoenas to be issued and information released only if the minority agreed or if the question was put to a vote of the committee. That is a matter of public record, not opinion, and those rules enhanced the prospects of bipartisanship. Those rules gave the minority a voice -- not a veto -- and created a cooperative environment that allowed a Howard Baker to emerge. With those rules in place, all subpoenas were subjected to scrutiny and needed to be explained. None were ever issued unilaterally and has never had to explain to any of us --Republicans or Democrats -- why any of those subpoenas are needed. Issuing a subpoena is an awesome power. It is one the most invasive tools government possesses and it must be used carefully. There has never been an investigation where the chairman asserted as much power as Chairman Burton has. And there has never been an investigation that has been so plagued by mistakes, raw partisanship, and wrong judgments. Chairman Burton blames Democrats for this unfortunate mess. But that's not what the record says. Until three weeks ago, the Democrats on this committee did not prevent the chairman from issuing a single subpoena, taking a single deposition, or holding a single hearing. In fact, there was only one instance in 1997 when our votes did matter and where we could have blocked the chairman from acting. And notwithstanding our feelings that the chairman was conducting an unnecessarily partisan investigation, we supported him when we were asked to vote for immunity for three witnesses last October. We hoped that gesture of bipartisanship might inspire the chairman to try to work with us. It didn't. As soon as our votes had been counted, the chairman and Republican majority defeated our motion to release all deposition transcripts and then adopted a rule -- over our objections -- that made it more difficult for the members to participate in the investigation. The chairman's insistence that he alone run this investigation has discredited the entire effort. The release of the Hubbell tapes was a debacle. The chairman's inappropriate comment about the president and his admission that he was "after" him brought ridicule to the committee. And the fact that we have had only three days of investigation hearings of foreign money in the 1996 campaign -- despite the chairman's unlimited budget and powers -- is the ultimate verdict on the investigation's failure. This is not just the assessment of the Democrat's here. In the last week, newspapers around the country have editorialized on the chairman's investigation. Here's just a sample of their headlines: The New York Times: "The Dan Burton Problem" Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Rep. Dan Burton Brings A Serious Inquiry Into Disrepute" Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "Remove Burton From Money Probe" The Chicago Tribune: "Give Dan Burton the Gate" San Antonio Express-News: "Burton Bumbles in Bad Faith" Fayetteville Observer-Times: "Chairman's Rampage Demeans Entire House" The Hill: "A Chairman Out of Control" Roll Call: "Out of Control" Republicans are saying the same thing. Just read today's Washington Post and The Hill. They quote Republican staff on the committee as saying that they are "ashamed to be part of something so unprofessional" and that "ninety percent of the staff doesn't have a clue as to how to conduct an investigation." What we have is an investigation out of control and without credibility. Voting for immunity today -- without adopting any changes in how the committee operates -- would just worsen the problem. It doesn't have to be this way. I know this investigation is genuinely important to the chairman and to the members of this committee on both sides. Before voting on immunity, let's take a moment to at least try to move the investigation on track. I ask my Republican colleagues to consider one last time what we are proposing. I am prepare to recommend to my Democratic colleagues that they support the pending immunity request. But two steps must first be taken. The practices guiding the investigation must be modified to reflect the ones that Senator Thompson followed. Using those rules, he was able to hold twenty more hearings than our committee has and uncovered significantly more information than we have. It's not too late to keep this investigation in our committee. By taking these steps now, we can set a new course for the coming months of cooperation and responsible investigation and oversight. And if we don't, the investigation will wither and most of our jurisdiction will be transferred to another committee. Mr. Chairman, I ask that at least my amendment to the rules be considered before we proceed to the question of immunity. You can ignore this request and unilaterally dictate the agenda today, Mr. Chairman. But I urge you not to do that. All I am asking is that the rules you adopted last year be put to a vote. Let the members decide if they want the investigation to continue without change. The Democratic members stand ready to work with you to keep the investigation in our committee and to consider your immunity requests on their merits. All we ask is that you be willing to work with us.

This article was published on Thursday, May 14, 1998

RETURN to Clinton Crisis