[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 27 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1976-S1978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF MR. ANTHONY LAKE

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to give to the Senate the 
status on the confirmation process in the Intelligence Committee of 
Anthony Lake, who has been nominated by President Clinton to be the 
next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
  As I have said on many occasions, I intend to treat the confirmation 
of Anthony Lake, President Clinton's nominee to be Director of Central 
Intelligence in a serious, thorough and fair manner.
  The Central Intelligence Agency and the intelligence community 
deserve a strong and independent leader to carry them into the 21st 
century. I believe that everyone in the Senate recognizes that.
  This leader must be able to guide the fine men and women that serve 
our country and keep watch on our adversaries, sometimes under the most 
trying and dangerous of circumstances.
  And, this leader must be deserving of the confidence of the 
President, the Congress, and the American people.
  This is a controversial nomination, we have known this from the 
beginning. And it is essential that we address all of the issues 
associated with Mr. Lake's fitness to lead the intelligence community, 
and his ability to make the transition from White House insider to 
apolitical provider of intelligence information.
  I'd like to comment on the six areas in which the committee has 
considerable work to complete as we proceed with Mr. Lake's 
confirmation hearings which will begin on Tuesday. We want to get the 
process moving, but it is important that we have the fullest 
cooperation from the White House.
  These six areas are, among others: First, investigation of the role 
the National Security Council, under Mr. Lake's leadership, had in 
questionable DNC fund-raising practices, as well as any knowledge Mr. 
Lake may have had, if any.
  Second, Mr. Lake's use and interpretation of intelligence provided to 
him as National Security Advisor, including how he helped translate 
this intelligence into administration policy.
  Third, the Justice Department's settlement of Mr. Lake's ethics 
violations and the potential irregularities in this settlement.
  Fourth, the way in which Mr. Lake handled the ``no instructions'' 
policy toward Iranian arms shipments through Croatia to Bosnia.
  Fifth, review of Mr. Lake's FBI background investigation.
  Sixth, review of written answers Mr. Lake provided to the committee's 
questions for the record, many of which require further explanation 
than was provided.


                   NSC Interactions with DNC Contacts

  We will continue our investigation into the role of the NSC staff, 
under Mr. Lake's direction, in the expanding controversy over foreign 
campaign contributions.
  At issue is the extent to which Mr. Lake knew of the ties the White 
House was building with questionable fund-raisers and foreign 
contributors and what effect this might have had on administration 
foreign policy.
  It is apparent that his staff had knowledge of the involvement, and 
although on many occasions advised against it for either political or 
foreign policy reasons, never seemed to raise the flag of illegality.
  And if Mr. Lake was fully informed, did he participate in decisions 
to continue this involvement or were any admonitions he might have 
given regarding the nature of these meetings completely ignored?
  This question goes to the heart of Mr. Lake's ability to be an 
effective Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
  The committee must consider this issue in great detail and determine 
if Mr. Lake could become embroiled in a potential independent counsel 
investigation into these matters, as we read in the press.
  The intelligence community deserves a leader that will not be 
distracted by such an investigation, if it occurs.
  The information supplied by Mr. Lake could be the tip of an iceberg, 
and more inquiry is required. For example, Mr. Lake does not appear to 
shed any light as to why his staff met with Pauline Kanchanalak, the 
Thai businesswoman and lobbyist whose contributions to the DNC were 
eventually returned.
  New allegations about Ms. Kanchanalak appear in the press every day 
all over America, and perhaps the world.
  For example, last Tuesday, the New York Times reported, and I quote: 
``One Justice Department official said subpoenas also were served on 
the United States-Thai Business Council, a trade-promotion group formed 
in part by Pauline Kanchanalak, a lobbyist who helped raise $250,000 in 
political donations that have since been returned by the Democratic 
National Committee.''
  The article goes on to say: ``Government officials said the Justice 
Department two weeks ago subpoenaed records from the Export-Import Bank 
concerning Ms. Kanchanalak's efforts to help Thai investors * * *''
  I ask for unanimous consent that this and other articles about Ms. 
Kanchanalak be entered into the Record at this point in their entirety.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 25, 1997]

                 Inquiry Into Gifts to Democrats Widens

                         (By Christopher Drew)

       The Justice Department today subpoenaed the records of 
     Johnny Chung, a California businessman who gave $391,000 to 
     the Democratic Party, and others who made large donations 
     while seeking access to the White House, Government officials 
     said.
       One Justice Department official said subpoenas also were 
     served on the United States-Thai Business Council, a trade-
     promotion group formed in part by Pauline Kanchanalak, a 
     lobbyist who helped raise $250,000 in political donations 
     that have since been returned by the Democratic National 
     Committee.

[[Page S1977]]

       The subpoenas show that a Justice Department task force is 
     continuing to widen its investigation into alleged 
     improprieties in the Democrats' drive to raise huge sums for 
     last year's elections.
       The committee also is reviewing the donations made by Mr. 
     Chung and others. It has already returned nearly $1.5 million 
     in questionable donations. And one Democrat familiar with 
     that review said today that the party is likely to return an 
     additional $1 million, either because it could not verify the 
     sources of the money or because the donations seemed 
     improper.
       Mr. Chung and Ms. Kanchanalak have declined to speak to 
     reporters, and their lawyers could not be reached for comment 
     last night.
       Mr. Chung, an engineer who was born in Taiwan and is now an 
     American citizen, has captured attention for his intense 
     efforts to exploit his donations for commercial gains. Since 
     mid-1994, he has visited the White House at least 50 times, 
     sometimes bringing business associates from China and other 
     Far East places that he wanted to impress.
       Mr. Chung took two Chinese beer executives to a White House 
     Christmas party in 1994, where they were photographed with 
     President and Mrs. Clinton. The beer company later placed the 
     photo in a glass display case promoting its product in one of 
     Beijing's main shopping districts.
       It could not be learned exactly what records were sought in 
     the subpoenas issued today. But Justice Department officials 
     have said they were examining whether any foreign money might 
     have been improperly funneled into Democratic Party coffers.
       Mr. Chung's lawyer, Brian A. Sun, told The New York Times 
     last week that his client, who runs a fax-services business 
     in Torrance, Calif., had received more than $3 million from 
     investors over the last three years. Mr. Sun estimated that 
     nearly $1.5 million of that total had come from foreigners as 
     Mr. Chung expanded into consulting for foreign businessmen 
     who wanted to make deals in the United States.
       Mr. Sun said that Mr. Chung had done nothing wrong, and 
     that Mr. Chung's foreign partners were not involved in his 
     decisions to make the contributions. But it also is likely 
     that the Justice Department investigators would want to trace 
     the flow of money into Mr. Chung's accounts.
       California records show that Mr. Chung incorporated seven 
     companies with investors from China and Hong Kong over the 
     last two years, and Federal election records show that 
     several of his largest political donations were made at about 
     the same time as the incorporations.
       Mr. Chung also donated $50,000 to the Democratic Party in 
     March 1995, shortly after he took high-level Chinese 
     businessmen to watch Mr. Clinton give a radio address. Aides 
     to Donald L. Fowler, then the national chairman of the 
     Democratic Party, have said they arranged that White House 
     visit at Mr. Chung's request. Mr. Fowler has said he was not 
     personally involved and did not solicit a donation from Mr. 
     Chung in return for the favor.
       Ms. Kanchanalak, a Thai citizen who lives in Virginia, got 
     help from John Huang, the former Democratic fund-raiser who 
     is at the center of the Federal inquiry, in setting up the 
     United States Thai-Business Council.
       Government officials said the Justice Department two weeks 
     ago subpoenaed records from the Export-Import Bank concerning 
     Ms. Kanchanalak's efforts to help Thai investors win 
     financing to build 105 Blockbuster video stores in Thailand. 
     Ms. Kanchanalak has denied doing anything wrong.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 27, 1997]

                   FBI Inquiry on Funding Is Widening

                (By David Rogers and Edward Felsenthal)

       Washington.--A Federal Bureau of Investigation inquiry into 
     foreign influence in Democratic fund raising could lead 
     Director Louis Freeh to ask Attorney General Janet Reno to 
     seek appointment of an independent counsel for the case.
       Mr. Freeh briefed senior senators yesterday on the 
     investigation, and officials later described the continuing 
     FBI investigation as larger than previously reported and 
     carried on outside the purview of the White House.
       Serious evidence has been found of China's potential 
     involvement in steering money to Democrats. That involvement 
     appears to have been driven largely by business interests 
     seeking influence and following the model of rival Taiwanese.
       Pauline Kanchanalak, a major Democratic fundraiser who has 
     represented Thai companies with large investments in China, 
     has emerged as a key figure in the probe, officials said. 
     While refusing to comment on details of the briefing, senate 
     Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby said the 
     evidence of foreign influence was ``deep and disturbing.''
       ``We need an independent counsel if we ever needed an 
     independent counsel,'' the Alabama Republican said.
       The Justice Department last night painted a less dire 
     picture of Mr. Freeh's briefing, and Attorney General Reno 
     continued to say that career prosecutors in the department 
     can handle the fund investigation. Neither Sen. Shelby nor 
     other officials familiar with the briefing were prepared to 
     say what Mr. Freeh's final recommendations would be. But 
     lawmakers of both parties said the investigation is regarded 
     very seriously by the director, who has committed substantial 
     resources to it.
       FBI spokesman John Collingwood last night would say only 
     that it is ``a matter that is entirely within the purview of 
     the attorney general.''
       Ms. Kanchanalak's role is important both because of her 
     foreign clients and past access to National Security Council 
     staff at the White House. As such, her prominence could pose 
     additional problems for former NSC adviser Anthony Lake, 
     whose nomination to direct the Central Intelligence Agency 
     already faces opposition in the Senate. Ms. Kanchanalak 
     couldn't be reached for comment.
       Critics of the Clinton administration have recently stepped 
     up their demands for an independent counsel, particularly 
     with the disclosure this week that the president himself 
     played a role in encouraging the use of the White House as a 
     fundraising vehicle. Federal law requires the attorney 
     general to ask the federal appeals court here to appoint an 
     independent counsel when there are ``credible'' and 
     ``specific'' allegations of criminal wrongdoing against an 
     official. The law explicitly applies to the president, 
     cabinet members and some campaign officials; the attorney 
     general has the discretion to apply it to others as well.
       Some say that threshold has clearly been crossed. ``I 
     thought [Ms. Reno] had gotten past the point where she didn't 
     have much choice under the statute some time ago,'' said 
     Theodore Olson, a Washington lawyer who was assistant 
     attorney general during the Reagan administration. Several 
     lawmakers--including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of 
     Mississippi, GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic 
     Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York--have called for an 
     independent counsel.
       Ms. Reno said yesterday in a hearing before a House 
     committee that she still hasn't seen enough evidence to 
     justify such an appointment. She added that she is still open 
     to the idea if sufficient evidence emerges ``as we proceed 
     with the very comprehensive investigation that we now have 
     under way.'' Ms. Reno has appointed a task force of career 
     prosecutors to monitor the matter and to alert her if they 
     conclude an independent counsel is necessary.
       Lawyers agree that the independent-counsel law is fairly 
     straightforward, requiring only a barebones determination by 
     the attorney general of whether further investigation is 
     necessary. But the question of what makes up a ``credible'' 
     allegation is obviously a judgment call. In addition, given 
     the complexities of the campaign-finance laws, it isn't 
     always clear what constitutes a violation.
       Some lawyers believe that the attorney general should err 
     on the side of naming an independent counsel and leave it to 
     the appointee to decipher the law.
       But Justice Department officials maintain that Ms. Reno has 
     very little discretion. People think that ``whenever there's 
     a mess, there's [supposed to be] an independent counsel,'' 
     said a spokesman for Ms. Reno. ``Congress could have written 
     the law that way, but they didn't.''
       At a news conference yesterday, President Clinton 
     reiterated his position that the decision was up to Ms. Reno. 
     ``It's a legal decision the attorney general has to make,'' 
     he said. ``I'm not going to comment.''

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, these allegations about Ms. Kanchanalak, 
coupled with her interactions with the National Security Council, are 
very troubling to me and other members of the Committee. We must fully 
understand what part, if any, Mr. Lake played.
  And while Mr. Lake has said that the NSC involvement with the 
individuals in question was ``from a foreign policy rather than a 
domestic political point of view,'' the material he provided to the 
committee gives some indications otherwise.
  For example, Mr. Lake advised the President against a meeting with 
Chinese nationals set up by Charlie (Tree) Trie, a major DNC 
fundraiser, based on the recommendation of his staff that it not take 
place for political reasons.
  And when asked about providing photos of the President with Chinese 
nationals identified as major DNC contributors, a member of Mr. Lake's 
staff commented on balancing foreign policy considerations against 
domestic politics. He did not seem to be bothered by the fact that 
Chinese nationals were identified as major DNC contributors. Clearly, 
this is an indication of possible illegal activity.
  Before questioning Mr. Lake about his leadership in these areas, we 
intend to question his staff further as to the role the NSC played in 
interactions with and vetting of these DNC contributors and foreign 
nationals.
  Senator Kerrey, vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and I 
have requested that the NSC staff be available for the interviews on 
the record prior to the formal hearings, which will begin, as I have 
said earlier, next Tuesday. We reserve the right to call NSC staff 
members to testify under oath, if we deem that in order.

[[Page S1978]]

  The use of intelligence is another area.
  One of the key responsibilities of the Director of Central 
Intelligence is to provide unbiased intelligence to the President and 
to the Congress. Thus, it is very critical that we examine Mr. Lake's 
record as a consumer of such intelligence.
  How did he translate intelligence into policy at the NSC? Did he 
ignore intelligence estimates, spin them to fit administration policy, 
or raise the standards of evidence?

  We have concluded our investigation surrounding the administration's 
use of intelligence in shaping policy toward China, and there are some 
serious inconsistencies. We are prepared to discuss these with Mr. Lake 
in the closed session of the committee.
  Mr. President, given the allegations mentioned in every newspaper 
about Chinese involvement in DNC fundraising, this is an area for some 
serious questioning about potential influences on policy, and it should 
be.
  For example, there are still documents we wish to review as to the 
role intelligence played in our policy toward the Government of Haiti. 
The administration has consistently refused to transmit this 
information to Congress. Senator Kerrey and I have requested these 
documents, and we are still awaiting the National Security Council's 
response.
  We are also reviewing United States knowledge and assessment of 
recent events in Iraq and their impact on our policy there and how Mr. 
Lake used this knowledge in formulating that policy. We are pursuing 
similar questions in areas relating to Cuba, Somalia, Bosnia, and 
Pakistan.
  Ethics violations is another area we are pursuing.
  While the Justice Department has reached a settlement with Mr. Lake 
regarding his failure to sell energy stocks that were deemed to create 
a conflict of interest for him, resulting in a payment of a $5,000 fine 
by Mr. Lake, the Committee on Intelligence has been investigating this 
matter further.
  Although Mr. Lake claims that the failure to sell stocks was a simple 
oversight, Justice Department investigators interviewed by the 
committee documented 14 occasions over a 2-year period on which Mr. 
Lake was reminded that he still owned the stocks. It was only after a 
White House ethics officer discovered the stocks on his financial 
disclosure form for a third time that Mr. Lake did divest himself of 
the investments. Thus, a key question is whether this violation 
represents financial mismanagement on the part of Mr. Lake or a 
complete disregard for the seriousness of the ethics standards applied 
to all Federal employees.
  Additionally, what example does this set for the intelligence 
community professionals who must be held to the highest standards of 
personal conduct?
  The Intelligence Committee is also investigating the thoroughness of 
the Justice Department's investigation into Mr. Lake's stocks, 
particularly those energy-related stocks which created a conflict of 
interest and subsequent fine. Given that Mr. Lake garnered a profit of 
over $25,000 on these investments, I have trouble, as other members of 
the committee do, understanding the Justice Department's arbitrary fine 
of $5,000, which is the maximum allowed, I understand, for a potential 
misdemeanor offense.
  If the case, on the other hand, had been referred to the Justice 
Department's civil division, a much greater fine of up to $50,000 per 
offense could have been imposed. Why wasn't this course taken? We do 
not know, but we will pursue it.
  Iran-Bosnia and the ``no instructions'' policy.
  A key criterion for a Director of Central Intelligence is the extent 
to which he or she can gain the confidence of the Congress in keeping 
Members fully and currently informed of intelligence community actions. 
Mr. Lake's role in the execution of the secret ``no instructions'' 
policy toward Croatia allowing Iranian arms to flow into Bosnia and the 
decision, Mr. President, not to inform Congress of this action has 
called into question Mr. Lake's ability to be forthright with the 
Congress.
  The distinguished former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, my 
colleague and an expert in the area, Senator Specter, has raised 
serious questions regarding this matter which we intend to explore 
fully during our hearings.
  While Mr. Lake has admitted that it was wrong not to inform Congress 
of the ``no instructions'' policy, there remains a number of 
inconsistencies in testimony before both Houses of Congress as to the 
extent of the policy decision and its implementation. The Intelligence 
Committee is working with other congressional committees to review 
pertinent testimony and decide on an appropriate panel of witnesses to 
pursue this matter during Mr. Lake's confirmation hearings. The Senate 
confirmation hearings will represent the first time that Mr. Lake will 
testify under oath on his role in the development and execution of this 
policy.
  As to the FBI background investigation, there has been no resolution 
regarding requests made by me and a large number of my colleagues to 
review Mr. Lake's complete FBI background file. Negotiations between 
White House Counsel Charles Ruff, Senator Kerrey, and I are continuing.
  A significant number of my colleagues have written the distinguished 
majority leader stating that they need to review the complete 
background investigation before they would be prepared to vote on this 
nomination. Our thorough review of Mr. Lake's background investigation, 
I believe, is key to a fundamental understanding of Mr. Lake's 
character and integrity, as it would be for anyone else.

  Finally, the committee is reviewing information provided by Mr. Lake 
in response to questions propounded by the committee earlier. We 
require some clarifications to Mr. Lake's answers, and therefore 
additional questions have been put forward that must be addressed.
  There are some areas where we are requesting additional supporting 
documentation to Mr. Lake's answers, such as his financial disclosures 
and issues associated with a potential conflict of interest, and we 
will request for the committee a review of material that was redacted 
for various reasons.
  I thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to provide the 
Senate with a status of the Lake confirmation process and an 
opportunity for me to lay out some of the concerns that I and some of 
my colleagues have about this nomination. We intend to work through 
each of these issues in a fair and a thorough manner and look forward 
to questioning Mr. Lake and others beginning next Tuesday, March 11.

                          ____________________