[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 26 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1929-S1930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANOTHER CALL FOR AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have addressed the Senate already 
on the need for an independent counsel to investigate the growing 
scandal concerning fundraising. Along those same lines, I recommend to 
all my colleagues a thoughtful editorial from the Washington Post 
entitled ``The Fund-Raising Fiasco: The Democrats' Problem . . .''.
  Mr. President, I ask that this article be printed in the Record.
  The article follows:

         The Fund-Raising Fiasco: The Democrats' Problem . . .

       The Democrats' new chairman, Roy Romer of Colorado, did 
     right on Friday to acknowledge error and pledge a new, 
     reformed style of fund-raising behavior on behalf of his 
     party. But it seemed to us that something much more active, 
     intense and deliberate had gotten the Clinton White House 
     into its present troubles than the alleged mere failure of 
     ``screening'' that the president likes to talk about (and lay 
     off on the Democratic National Committee). The people whose 
     money has had to be returned (to the tune of $3 million, as 
     of today) did not, from all the evidence, simply slip through 
     the net in some random, inexplicable way. They were not a 
     byproduct of any simple breakdown of screening procedures. 
     The more important of them, in the first place (Mr. Trie, Mr. 
     Huang), who brought others into the fold, have connections 
     dating from Arkansas days with Mr. Clinton. The Clinton White 
     House brought them into national Democratic Party politics, 
     not the other way around.
       Again, the nature of many of the favor- and respectability-
     seeking money givers suggests that the word must have gotten 
     around that you could gain marketable, perhaps personally 
     extremely useful photo-op access to the president for a 
     sufficient number of bucks. Is there some other way to 
     account for the fact that, even at a time when the 
     administration had barricaded off a hunk of Pennsylvania 
     Avenue to protect the first family from criminal assault, it 
     was ushering into the president's presence a stream of folks 
     that sometimes seemed to resemble an international ``Ten Most 
     Wanted'' list? Let us remind you of a few of the more 
     memorable visitors.
       Russ Barakat, the south Florida Democratic Party official. 
     Five days after his coffee session at the White House in 
     April 1995, Mr. Barakat was indicted on criminal charges and 
     ultimately convicted for tax evasion. A Florida newspaper was 
     full of stories about Mr. Barakat's problems with the law 
     before the executive mansion get-together, but he was asked 
     in for coffee anyway.
       Wang Jun, the Chinese businessman and head of a military-
     owned arms company. While part of the U.S. government was out 
     investigating Wang Jun for allegedly smuggling arms into this 
     country, he was with Mr. Clinton at a White House coffee, 
     courtesy of Mr. Trie.
       Eric Wynn, whose $100,000 bail was revoked this past week 
     because he failed to tell authorities about his five arrests 
     since being

[[Page S1930]]

     sentenced for theft and tax offenses a while back. He was at 
     the White House for coffee two days after a company partially 
     controlled by him gave $25,000 to the Democratic National 
     Committee. At the time Mr. Wynn hooked up with the president, 
     he bore the distinction of having been a twice-convicted 
     felon. But that was only the beginning. Mr. Wynn-who was 
     seeking a presidential pardon for himself--turned up last 
     year at four other DNC fund-raisers involving the president 
     including one in which he, his attorney (a close presidential 
     friend from Arkansas) and Mr. Clinton reportedly had a brief 
     private chat. Whatever about? The president, said White House 
     press secretary Michael McCurry, ``recalls no substantive 
     private meeting with Mr. Wynn and is certain he never 
     entertained any discussion of Mr. Wynn's legal situation.''
       Jorge Cabrera of Miami, DNC donor who was jailed on drug 
     charges in the 1980s. Mr. Cabrera turned up at a White House 
     Christmas party, only to get caught a short time later with 
     more than 5,000 pounds of cocaine, for which he is now 
     serving 19 years in jail.
       Chong Lo. Convicted of tax evasion in the 1980s under the 
     name of Esther Chu, Chong Lo was another visitor for coffee 
     with Mr. Clinton. She has since been arrested again on 14 
     charges of falsifying mortgage applications--to which she has 
     pled not guilty.
       Roger Tamraz. While Interpol was looking for Mr. Tamraz all 
     over the world under a 1989 international arrest warrant on 
     conspiracy and embezzlement charges, the fugitive from 
     Lebannon was here in Washington at the White House sipping 
     coffee with the president.
       Here in another indicator, in our view, that something 
     beyond a mere screening mishap befell the White House in 
     these fund-raising transactions. It is the sheer number of 
     times that some of the fund-raisers visited the White House. 
     We daresay there are department bigwigs in the administration 
     who haven't been there nearly as often.
       So what was actually going on during these recurrent White 
     House sessions? At this stage, little is known about the 
     purposes of their visits, who the visitors saw each time, 
     what they did when they got there, or who authorized their 
     entry to the White House. More should be known. Ponder just a 
     few of the numbers we find so startling: Mr. Huang visited 
     the White House 78 times in 15 months (most of the money he 
     raised in 1996 was returned, having been deemed inappropriate 
     or from unlawful foreign sources); Thai businesswoman and 
     major Democratic party donor Pauline Kanchanalak has been at 
     the White House at least 26 times since the president took 
     office; businessman and contributor Johnny Chung reportedly 
     visited the White House at least 49 times. This wasn't a 
     question of screening or failing to screen. These were people 
     apparently well known to their White House hosts, people who 
     had business to do at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and went right 
     in.
       Then there are the sleepovers. The White House has 
     disclosed that 900-plus individuals have spent a night at the 
     White House since the Clintons moved in. The acknowledgment 
     of this fact and the publication of the list rather sharply 
     change the impression the White House earlier gave a more 
     casual, friends and family kind of hospitality. More than a 
     third of the sleepovers were financial benefactors of Mr. 
     Clinton or the DNC. ``They were my friends and I was proud to 
     have them here,'' the president explained, but as the White 
     House deputy communications director delicately corrected 
     him, some weren't friends yet'' but ``were people the 
     president and the first lady wanted to spend more time 
     with.'' As Charles Krauthammer observed on the opposite page 
     the other day, the word for people who aren't friends yet is 
     usually ``strangers.''
       Much more needs to be known about these sojourns--
     especially the number of visits and their dates in relation 
     to events that preceded and followed. This is especially 
     relevant where the visitors weren't strangers at all, as a 
     matter of fact, but persons involved in the other, related 
     legal matters concerning the Clinton administration.
       Our conclusion about all this is threefold. It is that 
     first, a great deal more needs to be disclosed about all 
     these transactions; second, it will be disclosed, as it has 
     been to date, reluctantly and in response to various events 
     and pressures; and third, (see below) the odds are not great 
     for a good and fairminded congressional inquiry into the 
     subject. For the moment that leaves Janet Reno in 
     charge.

                          ____________________