[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7823-S7824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE HEARINGS

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, with the first phase of the hearings 
of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee into the abuses of the 
electoral process through campaign fundraising having just concluded, 
and the second phase about to begin, it is perhaps an appropriate time 
to reflect on those things that we have learned in these first few 
weeks and those questions that remain.
  It is, I think, important to note that despite some incentive for 
partisanship, a tendency by the media to sometimes reach conclusions 
before the facts, and a persistent failure of some witnesses to 
cooperate, the committee has begun its work, I think, in the best 
traditions of the Senate. Democrats and Republicans are working 
together. We do have a common objective, and I think we are doing 
service to the institution.
  These things, however, have already been learned. First, it is a 
result of insufficient management and poor decisionmaking and the 
continuing upward spiral of pressure to raise campaign funds, the 
Democratic National Committee made a series of bad decisions during the 
last election that clearly resulted in some violations of Federal law 
and were a disservice both to the President and the Democratic Party. 
Among these were the inadequacy of any process of checking the names or 
backgrounds of contributors or the sources of their funds. The good 
work of some members of the Democratic National Committee and its staff 
was compromised, unfortunately, by the addition of some inexperienced 
people who were not properly supervised or trained for their 
positions. John Huang was clearly among them, and it is now clear from 
testimony before the committee that there is a substantial chance that 
the result was a violation of Federal law.

  Second, it is also becoming clear that the Chinese Government, the 
People's Republic of China, as a result or in reaction to the visit of 
President Li of Taiwan to the United States, planned and potentially 
embarked upon a plan to influence the 1996 Federal election. It is 
clear from the evidence provided to date that this plan targeted 
neither political party in particular, but probably both in general. It 
seems to have been primarily designed to influence the U.S. Congress. 
It is unclear to date the extent of those designs on the Presidential 
election. It is also clear that that plan involved both legal and 
potentially illegal means to accomplish its goal. The extent of its 
success, to what extent it was achieved, is not at this point known. 
The fact that it existed and there were any intentions implemented is 
disturbing enough to warrant the committee's investigation.
  Third, it is established, I believe, at this point, to at least some 
degree of satisfaction, that the illegal activities that may have been 
embarked upon by John Huang or others to seek and receive foreign 
contributions or otherwise violate Federal Election Commission 
regulations and the laws of the United States with regard to 
fundraising were not either known or encouraged by senior personnel at 
the Democratic National Committee. Richard Sullivan, who was the direct 
superior of Mr. Huang, denied under oath that there was any plan by the 
Democratic National Committee to solicit Chinese or other foreign 
contributions. It is, however, clear Mr. Huang's activities were not 
sufficiently monitored or known as should have been the case in an 
organization of the importance of the Democratic National Committee.
  Fourth, John Huang's own activities raise substantial suspicion. It 
is not enough for the committee to conclude that it was not properly 
supervised or to take any comfort in the fact that his superiors or 
other people in either

[[Page S7824]]

the White House or Democratic National Committee did not have knowledge 
of his efforts to raise foreign contributions. Nor is it enough to 
simply dismiss his activities as a poor judgment to hire him because he 
was inexperienced or unqualified to be vice chairman of finance of the 
Democratic National Committee.
  His activities while at the Commerce Department in operating out of 
the Stevens Corp., where he both received and made telephone calls, 
received and sent faxes and perhaps, most suspiciously, received 
packages, raised continued questions. In the coming weeks, the 
committee will want to explore as to the nature of his activities, not 
simply while at the Democratic National Committee, but in the months 
preceding it while a Federal employee. The committee is also left with 
the unanswered question as to why he continued to receive briefings by 
the intelligence community and of what use he made of that information.
  The committee is also left with questions regarding the alleged 
Chinese plan. While it is comforting that there is no evidence to date 
that policy was impacted, it is also not enough for us to rest in a 
comfort that it was bipartisan and not apparently solicited by either 
political party, based on information known to date. The question 
remains of whether policy was ever changed as a result of these 
contributions, whether the plan was actually fully implemented, and 
whether or not it continues. This naturally is a first priority of the 
committee and remains of overwhelming importance.
  And questions, finally, remain with regard to John Huang. Of what use 
did he make of this information for corporate purposes of the Lippo 
Group or any other foreign interest? Were these questions both 
continuing before the committee and some of these preliminary issues 
answered?
  The committee next turns its work to the National Policy Forum, its 
relationship with the Republican National Committee and its chairman, 
Haley Barbour. The committee in the coming days will receive testimony, 
I believe, that will indicate that Mr. Barbour, while chairman of the 
Republican National Committee, designed a plan, which was implemented 
with his participation, to solicit and eventually did receive foreign 
contributions in excess of $2 million, which helped, through a series 
of transactions, to fund the 1994 Republican campaign to take control 
of the U.S. Congress. Evidence will be presented that this was an 
active plan, fully implemented.
  After a week of testimony, therefore, we will know the extent of 
involvement of the Democratic and Republican National Committees in 
these efforts to receive foreign contributions and their impact on the 
1994 and 1996 elections.
  With those two phases of the committee's work completed, what we will 
not have done is get any closer to the question of genuine and complete 
campaign finance reform. Several weeks have now passed since President 
Clinton's deadline was passed for the July 4, 1996, consideration of 
campaign finance reform. No campaign finance reform bill has been 
considered or released by any subcommittee of this Senate. No date has 
been set for the Senate to even begin discussion of any such genuine 
reform.
  Indeed, there are some who would argue that the Governmental Affairs 
Committee deliberations are an excuse to wait until next year to even 
begin consideration of any campaign finance reform legislation. Using 
the deadline of the end of 1996 to begin consideration will assure that 
the 1998 Federal elections are conducted under the same campaign 
finance laws that bred the very problems now being discussed by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. And it begs the question that, for all 
the important things that this Senate can learn from these hearings, 
all the unfortunate revelations the Senate is now experiencing, the 
tragic lessons the American people are now learning about this system, 
which Senator does not already know enough that we are raising too much 
money, spending too much money, and inviting both these abuses and 
violations of the law every day that we do not reform this system?
  I know that there is a perception in our country that this failure to 
initiate campaign finance reform is a genuinely bipartisan problem. The 
American people can be forgiven for believing this because both parties 
have abused the system, and our hearings are resulting in learning that 
both the Democratic and Republican National Committees have not only 
violated the vested policy but clearly violated the law in this 
downward spiral of campaign fundraising.
  It is, however, becoming less and less of a bipartisan issue when it 
comes to the question of reaching solutions. Last weekend, Jim 
Nicholson, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, 
announced his opposition to banning soft money, his opposition to any 
limit on campaign expenditures, his opposition to controlling the costs 
of television. In essence, the Republican chairman of their national 
committee announced his opposition to any campaign finance reform.
  Indeed, that mirrors our experience in the House and in the Senate. 
The overwhelming majority of the caucus of the Democratic Party in this 
Senate is prepared to vote for campaign finance reform now. It has been 
endorsed by our leadership. President Clinton has indicated that he 
would sign such legislation. Yet, only three members of the Republican 
caucus are prepared to even vote for campaign finance reform, and no 
committee chairman has been willing to bring it to consideration.
  Mr. President, as our committee continues its work, we will continue 
to be saddened by revelations that both political parties have not 
challenged the best within us in raising funds for conducting these 
campaigns. Our only comfort is that the political leadership of this 
institution will at some point see the need to wait no longer and begin 
initiating real change. There is no room in this debate for anyone to 
take comfort in their actions to date.
  Not only have the political committees of both parties not conducted 
themselves in our best traditions, not only have both possibly violated 
the laws, but other institutions have equal fault. While the media each 
day reminds us of the problems of campaign financing, the cost of 
television advertising continues to spiral upward. The overwhelming 
costs of these campaigns is a result of the rising cost of television. 
While every night the media rails against the system, complains against 
the abuses, their lobbyists roam the Halls of Congress fighting efforts 
to control the cost of television advertising.
  So, in neither party, nor in the private institutions of the media, 
nor in the institutions of the political parties is there any reason 
for pride. Only this, that there are still people in this institution 
in both parties who continue the investigations, Members of the Senate 
who are prepared to vote to change the system, people not simply who 
have not succeeded in the system, but Members who have succeeded, who 
have raised the funds, conducted successful campaigns, but still 
recognize that even though individuals can succeed, it does not serve 
the national interests.
  Mr. President, the first phase of our investigation by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee has now concluded. We begin two more 
important weeks of our work. I believe we are conducting ourselves, 
pursuing our objective as this Senate has commanded us to do. Much has 
been learned. There remains much to be done. I hope every Senator will 
continue to follow our work, but, mostly, join us in the commitment to 
change this system, find those who have abused it in the past, ensure 
that the law is enforced, and then give the American people a political 
system financed by means in which they can take real pride.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________