[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 96 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7038-S7040]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            INVESTIGATION BY GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

  Mr. SESSIONS. I rise at this time, Mr. President, to make some 
remarks about the hearings going on in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. I think they are most important hearings. I think it is 
important we remember that the committee, headed by the excellent and 
fine Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Fred Thompson, was commissioned by 
this body. They were mandated by this body to go out and discover the 
facts and to conduct an investigation of illegal and improper 
activities in connection with the 1996 political campaigns. So they 
have a responsibility and a duty that falls to them at this point 
whether they want it or not, whether they wish they did not have it, 
and they have to see it through and do it in a formal and proper way. I 
think the committee is at a point where it is not dealing with exact 
science, but with a process by which that committee needs to go out and 
find the facts, apply those facts to the law, to decide what actions 
ought to be taken and to evaluate it that way.
  It was by a 99-to-nothing vote that this Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans, directed that committee to do its work. And so we ought to 
let them do their work and let them follow the evidence where it leads, 
to let them apply that evidence to the law and to analyze the results 
and make recommendations for the future.
  A key part of that investigation is gathering the facts. I served for 
12 years as a U.S. attorney. That was the Federal prosecutor for the 
southern district of Alabama. And, as such, I had the duty for many 
years--to handle major corruption-type cases involving complex white-
collar crime, and so I have had a lot of experience in that field.
  I have not been commenting on this case and the evidence because I 
think we ought to let the committee do its work. I made one previous 
statement about this investigation a few weeks ago addressing my 
concerns to the grant of immunity, and I think we ought to talk about 
that and a few other things today.
  This investigation is dealing with a serious question, and that 
question is whether or not a foreign nation, not really considered a 
friendly nation, Communist China, may have systematically and 
intentionally set about to influence the American election in 1996 and, 
in fact, to influence American policy.
  We know that the President of this United States was a great critic 
of President Bush because he said President Bush was too accommodating 
to China and needed to be more tough in dealing with China. And then, 
after he becomes President, we know that he now is a leading spokesman 
in this country for accommodation with China.
  So whatever that is about, the facts in this case will have to tell 
us. But I do think it is clear that we are dealing with unusual types 
of problems with campaign financing. This may not be only a technical 
violation of the law, but it is a situation in which we may have a 
foreign power, an adversary, a Communist nation, with the largest 
standing army in the world, attempting to influence elections.
  We need a bipartisan effort, similar to those conducted in the past. 
We need the spirit of Howard Baker in the Watergate hearings who, as a 
Republican, made sure that he cooperated in that investigation and 
sought the truth. We need the spirit of Warren Rudman, Republican, who 
participated in the Irangate matters that were investigated here. He 
always sought to get to the truth regardless of politics. I have not 
seen that, frankly, by some in the leadership in the other party on 
this committee. It seems to me there has been too much partisanship.
  Now that those committee hearings are proceeding, they need to 
proceed professionally and objectively and all members need to pull 
together to find out the facts and get the truth out.
  I did want to talk, Mr. President, about the question of immunity. We 
had the not unusual, if you are familiar with complex prosecutions, 
situation yesterday when the committee hearings commenced that the 
ranking member from the Democratic Party announced that Mr. John Huang, 
who had been the main focus in the investigation, was prepared to 
testify if he were granted immunity.
  I think we have to be very careful about that. In fact, at this 
point, I would advise the members to say no to immunity at this point 
in the process. There may come a time when immunity is necessary, but 
at this point I do not think it is. That is my experience after many 
years of prosecuting. You use immunity, first and foremost, to get the 
testimony of the little fish, to find the people who may know something 
about the case, and then that helps you develop the real facts of the 
case and go on to the higher-ups.
  I was very concerned a few weeks ago--and it is the only comment I 
have made about this matter since I have been in the body--when members 
of the Democratic Party were refusing to grant immunity to little fish 
in this case. Now that they are talking about one of the top ones, they 
are suggesting that maybe we ought to grant immunity to him, but they 
were objecting to and questioning the wisdom of granting immunity to 
what they called

[[Page S7039]]

the nuns and the priests in the Buddhist temple, those who have taken 
vows of poverty, and they have yet given large contributions to the 
Democratic campaigns, and the investigators want to ask them questions 
about where that money came from because there was a clear suggestion 
it was not their money, that somebody had given them that money and 
then they had taken it and made the contribution, and that would be 
technically a crime. And their lawyers were saying, as good lawyers 
would, ``we will tell you about it but my people didn't understand 
this; they are not political sophisticates; we will tell you who told 
us; we will tell you who gave us the money; we will tell you who did 
it; but we don't want you to turn around and prosecute us.''
  So that is the type of circumstance the committee must decide. You 
may not want to prosecute those people anyway. They may not have 
understood what they were doing was against the law. So that is an 
appropriate circumstance for the committee to consider immunity.
  I thought it was critical and a matter of stonewalling of that 
investigation to, across the board, just deny consideration of immunity 
for those people, and now we are dealing with a situation in which on 
the first day of the hearings comes the announcement that Mr. Huang, 
under some complicated theory, would be prepared to testify if he is 
given immunity for everything he did except being a spy.

  Well, my observation is that that is not a good way to proceed, and 
there are several reasons why that is true. First of all, Mr. Huang 
wants to come in and get immunity from the things that it appears there 
may be such evidence right now to convict him of.
  That is not a bad deal, if they have evidence to convict you of a 
number of crimes. Let us say maybe it is money-laundering or maybe it 
is a violation of the Hatch Act or maybe it is the Ethics in Government 
Act or Illegal Foreign Contributions Act or campaign finance laws, in 
which you deliberately run money through someone else's name so that it 
would appear to come from them and not from someone else. Those kinds 
of things can be violations of the law.
  The investigators have done a lot of work on this. Perhaps they 
already know the basic facts, and probably Mr. Huang knows what they 
know also. So it would not be unusual for a good lawyer representing 
Mr. Huang to see if he could not pull a little gambit, if he could come 
in on the first day of the hearings when everybody's attention is 
focused on other things and announce, if you give me immunity, I will 
tell you what I know, but just remember, I don't need immunity for 
being a spy because you don't have the evidence about that perhaps. 
Maybe that is what he is thinking.
  The context of this thing is very troubling to me. My advice to the 
members of that committee would be to be very, very careful about it.
  There are a number of other things that are troubling to me. You have 
to remember that the grant of immunity can in fact undermine 
prosecutions later. We have to know that the Department of Justice, 
even though those of us on the Senate Judiciary Committee and others 
have called on the Department of Justice to appoint an independent 
prosecutor and Attorney General Janet Reno has declined to do so, the 
Department of Justice is conducting an investigation of Mr. Huang. They 
may already have evidence which indicates that he has committed crimes 
against the United States. And if that is true, then it is a real 
serious thing for the Senate to go through the process of granting him 
immunity. In fact, I would think it would be very bad at this point; of 
all the people who are most prominently involved in this, who played a 
high role--and he was a high Department of Commerce official. These 
problems are serious. Huang is a major player in the campaign finance 
scandal that we are seeing unfold, and I think he ought not readily be 
given any grant of immunity. I think it would undermine the legitimate 
prosecution that could go on later.
  As a prosecutor, one thing I always tried to avoid was to be in a 
situation in which I granted immunity to the main crook in the case. If 
you have five people involved and you need the testimony of some others 
to maybe bring out the details, you do not give that immunity to the 
main crook. You do not give immunity to the person you have the most 
evidence against already.
  That does not make sense. I think that this is a gambit, this is an 
attempt to rush in here while this committee has a well-planned 
schedule to bring in the evidence that is in existence about this 
scandal and to bring it all to the fore, to disrupt that process.
  The committee ought to stay the course. They ought to bring in the 
evidence from every source, and when they have all the evidence brought 
in, they then ought to objectively, coolly and professionally consider 
whether or not Mr. Huang deserves immunity, but until then I say no. I 
think we ought to be very careful about this process. It is a very 
serious thing.
  Finally, let me just say that this process is important. The people 
of this country are entitled to know that there has been an objective 
and thorough evaluation of the allegations that have been so 
prominently talked about here. I think that is important. I think 
Americans expect that. They would be concerned, rightly, if one of the 
primary persons alleged to be involved in wrongdoing who could have 
been involved in maybe a half a dozen different criminal activities, 
were to be given immunity at the very beginning of these hearings, and 
therefore perhaps end up with a situation in which you have 
prosecutions against lesser offenders and the main culprit goes free. 
That is a very serious matter. And sometimes in America, as one writer 
said a number of years ago, we suffer from a colossal inability to 
discriminate among levels of wrongdoing.
  I would say to you that if some of the facts here turn out to be 
true, we are dealing with a very serious violation of American law and 
campaign procedures involving millions of dollars, involving a 
Communist nation, a Communist power attempting to influence this 
Nation. I think that committee has to see it through. They have to get 
the facts and call the shots, no matter what the consequences.
  Mr. President, I salute the leadership of Senator Thompson and others 
on that committee. I believe they are doing a good job and I am 
confident that the truth will come out. I believe in this process.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak not to 
exceed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time set aside for Senator Mack has 
expired. This is morning business. Without objection, the Senator may 
proceed.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the entire legitimacy of this body and the 
House of Representatives, of the Presidency and of the administration, 
depends upon its members, in the case of the Presidency the President 
himself, having been freely chosen by the American people in an 
election campaign conducted under certain rules consistent with the 
statutes and the Constitution of the United States. It is a set of 
serious allegations about violations of those existing rules that is at 
the heart of the investigation now being conducted by the Governmental 
Affairs Committee.
  There are many who say the rules ought to be changed, and there can 
be legitimate debate over how much and in what direction those election 
campaign rules ought to be changed. The issue here and now, however, 
arises under the current rules, arises under serious allegations about 
violations of those current rules: The Hatch Act, the misuse of the 
White House, the use of covert foreign contributions to affect the 
outcome of the elections, money laundering, and a number of other 
violations of what the laws relating to the election of the President 
of the United States are right now. In this connection we have the 
unfortunate spectacle that many--most of the key witnesses, of those 
who know the facts, of those who participated in the alleged 
violations, have either hidden themselves overseas beyond the reach of 
any subpoena or have stated that they will exercise their fifth 
amendment rights and will refuse to testify unless they are immunized 
against the very offenses which so clouded last year's Presidential 
election. In that connection, we have the regrettable response, a 
response almost without precedent, on

[[Page S7040]]

the part of one of the parties, that finding these witnesses is a 
Republican problem, that grants of immunity to minor participants will 
not be approved. How markedly, how strikingly this contrasts with the 
investigation of Watergate, with Iran-Contra, in which the party whose 
actions were being investigated cooperated fully in attempting to 
determine the truth of these allegations.

  As we all recognize the vital importance of free and open and fair 
elections conducted in accordance with the rules, so, it seems to me, 
we must all recognize the importance of determining whether or not 
there were serious violations of those existing laws, because if we 
cannot enforce the law as it exists today, what point is there in 
debating whether or not we ought to change and tighten those laws? We 
need the investigations that are being conducted, both here in the 
Senate of the United States and in the House of Representatives today, 
to cast light on what actually took place during the course of last 
year.
  We asked for a special prosecutor. We needed the Department of 
Justice in order to determine whether or not there were criminal 
violations that should be prosecuted in the criminal courts of the 
United States. But the classic justification, the rationale for this 
Senate investigation is the determination of facts: The breadth and 
extent of the violations of law that took place last year, who the 
violators were, what consequences the committee of the Senate feels 
should stem from those violations, and then and only then whether or 
not there should be additional laws applicable to the next set of 
elections. This inquiry and this investigation is of vital importance 
to the American people. The American people deserve to know precisely 
what took place during the course of the 1996 Presidential election 
campaign, on both sides; the breadth and the extent of violations of 
law, who violated the law, and who knew about and benefited from those 
violations.
  I call on all of the Members of the Senate to cooperate to the 
fullest possible extent in the determination of those facts and express 
my hope that the results of this investigation will be enlightenment 
and far better practices in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, yesterday the chairman of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee began his hearings on the alleged political campaign 
finance irregularities of 1996. After all that has been written and 
reported in the press and elsewhere, it is time. Even before these 
hearings, a lot of facts are already known and how much more these 
hearings will reveal yet has to be seen. Knowing all the roadblocks 
that could be posed in these hearings and these investigations, they 
may reveal very little, or we may be surprised at some of the findings. 
Nonetheless, the hearings must move forward. This body and the other 
body, the House of Representatives, has the unsavory duty to 
investigate, reveal and inform the American people. I know no one in 
either Chamber relishes this assignment. To some it tends to polarize, 
and to some it confirms what they have already known.
  John Quincy Adams, who returned to the House of Representatives after 
serving as President of the United States, in a heated debate over 
slavery, of which he was an ardent opponent, said, ``Duty is ours; 
results are God's.''
  The nature of these hearings is different, especially when we talk 
about campaign financing. This one involves foreign entities attempting 
to politically infiltrate the American system. That is the concern of 
all Americans and in particular those of us who have taken the oath to 
uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States in face of 
foreign and domestic assault. To do otherwise is just not accepting our 
sworn duty and our obligation to the American people.
  Alexis de Tocqueville, author of ``Democracy in America,'' way back 
in the early 1800's, wrote that America is great because America is 
good. When America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great. That 
is as true today as it was then.
  The alleged violations of the 1996 campaign did not start just in 
1997. One must remember, back in the fall of 1996, about mid-October, 
when the Democratic National Committee failed to file its campaign 
report with the Federal Election Commission--some excuse that the 
accountants did not have it ready or it was not ready to go. In fact, I 
don't recall whether it was filed at all until the elections were over 
in 1996. The point is, could full disclosure be working if there were 
obvious irregularities? If there were, did they take the attitude, 
``Why should we file?'' Were there campaign activities that could prove 
embarrassing right before the election? And I would ask, is that not 
the main purpose of the present laws, full disclosure--full and timely 
disclosure of campaign activities? Maybe the present law is working. 
Maybe, under the present law, we know what we know today. We must 
ponder that.

  The China connection has lots of us concerned. In fact, Americans 
should be outraged at such an allegation, let alone proof. What was 
going on when John Huang received top security clearance without even a 
background check, 5 months before he began working at the Commerce 
Department? Why did this person still have a security clearance when he 
began working at the DNC? Why did John Huang attend over 100 classified 
briefings, hold 95 meetings at the White House, have frequent access to 
the President of the United States? I want to know that. I want to know 
why it was allowed to happen. The American people deserve to know. And 
we have the duty to inform them.
  It is apparent that inquiry is necessary because it seems to me that 
this administration was willing to do whatever it took to win an 
election. The facts that we know now--not allegations but facts--tell 
us that they broke current and existing laws. Are they above the law? I 
don't believe so--as none of us are. They inadvertently allowed our 
national security to be compromised? One has to question that.
  So, the Governmental Affairs Committee is fulfilling a constitutional 
responsibility by conducting oversight to find out whether the current 
laws have been adhered to, of which we know some of them were not.
  It is their duty to discover what laws were broken, and then we can 
decide what can be done to improve enforcement of those laws.
  This is about money laundering, illegal foreign contributions and 
unlawful receipts of campaign funds within Federal buildings. There is 
credible evidence out there that indicates this administration was 
engaged in all of these violations.
  It is my hope, Mr. President, that these hearings will get all the 
facts out in the open for the American people. I commend Senator 
Thompson and committee members for assuming that responsibility. It is 
an awesome responsibility and one that is not taken lightly by any 
Member of the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives. It is 
time that we proceed to get this out in the open and let the American 
people judge what is right and what is wrong.

                          ____________________