[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 106 (Thursday, July 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8087-S8089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CNN'S COVERAGE OF THE SENATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE HEARINGS

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Cable News Network announced this week that 
it would provide live television coverage of the Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee hearings on campaign finance activities. But, Mr. 
President, their decision was based only on the fact that former 
Republican National Committee chairman, Haley Barbour, is scheduled to 
testify.
  CNN has been suspiciously absent in its live coverage of the 
hearings, only allowing its viewers to see the opening statements of 
the chairman and the ranking member during the past 2 weeks of the 
hearings.
  As I understand it, CNN based its decision to provide live coverage 
of Mr. Barbour's testimony on the judgment that he has celebrity 
status. Or, as CNN's own Washington Bureau chief, Frank Sesno, called 
them yesterday, ``major players''.
  That is a decision more fitting of the program ``Entertainment 
Tonight'', instead of a network which prides itself on being the 
world's leader of news.
  I am certain that I am not the only one disappointed by CNN's 
decision to forgo live coverage of the hearings. In fact, on CNN's own 
Internet web page, an overwhelming number of CNN's viewers are 
distressed over the network's failure to provide live coverage.
  One viewer wrote, and I quote:

       Although I am very pleased that you are carrying the 
     campaign finance hearings through your Web site, I must say 
     after all of the interminable O.J. hearings you carried live 
     on CNN, why on God's earth aren't you carrying the hearings 
     as well? I am very disappointed.

  It was signed by Jim Merrick on July 16.
  Mr. President, there has been such sufficient controversy over the 
CNN's lack of live coverage of the hearings--and even the lack of 
regular coverage of the hearings by the other television networks--that 
CNN devoted a substantial portion of its program ``Inside Politics'' on 
Tuesday, to discuss the uproar.
  In a roundtable discussion, where journalists interview each other 
about what a great job they're doing, CNN's Judy Woodruff asked ABC's 
Hal Bruno about the difference of these hearings as compared to the 
Watergate and Iran-Contra hearings. Hal Bruno replied, and I quote:

       Government was at a standstill in Washington as a result of 
     Watergate and the whole country was immersed in it. And the 
     same was true to a lesser degree with Iran-Contra. These were 
     major stories of revelations of criminal wrongdoing.

  Mr. President, Hal Bruno's comment is an outrage.

[[Page S8088]]

  For one, the country was immersed in these events because the 
television networks were carrying the hearings live.
  And furthermore, the campaign finance hearings have uncovered much 
more serious charges and allegations. They include: Espionage, foreign 
influence peddling, campaign corruption and even money laundering. Just 
look at this summary by the staff of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
on what has been revealed so far during 2 weeks of hearings.
  Hal Bruno's statement is ludicrous, and CNN's lack of live coverage 
of the hearings proves that they are ignoring a major news story.
  Mr. President, I have written a letter to CNN president, Tom Johnson, 
and CNN Washington Bureau chief, Frank Sesno, expressing my 
disappointment and anger over their decision. This is the same network 
that covered endless hours of the O.J. Simpson murder trial--a news 
event that affected relatively few Americans. I have not yet received a 
reply from my letter, and I doubt I will.
  Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the summary of highlights of the first 2 weeks of hearings by 
the Governmental Affairs hearings, and my letter to CNN's president and 
Washington Bureau chief.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Republican Policy Committee,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1997.
     Mr. Tom Johnson,
     President, CNN, Atlanta, GA.
       Dear Mr. Johnson: I am disappointed over CNN's 
     unwillingness to provide live, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the 
     Senate Governmental Affairs hearings on campaign finance 
     activities. If you had been carrying the hearings, your 
     viewers would have been able to watch the testimony of 
     witnesses who gave compelling evidence of criminal wrongdoing 
     by foreign donors to the Democratic party during the 1996 
     elections. The result of such testimony even prompted a key 
     Democrat on the committee, Senator Joseph Lieberman of 
     Connecticut, to publicly acknowledge that there was a Chinese 
     government plan to influence the elections. Unfortunately, 
     CNN viewers were not given the opportunity to draw their own 
     conclusions.
       Now, I have come to learn that your network is planning to 
     provide live coverage of this week's scheduled testimony of 
     former Republican National Committee chairman, Haley Barbour. 
     Unlike previous witnesses, who linked one Democratic 
     fundraiser to possible charges of espionage and illegal 
     influence buying and peddling, Mr. Barbour has not been 
     charged with any crime nor has he broken any laws. Why does 
     CNN deem Mr. Barbour's testimony so important as to merit 
     live coverage? Is your network ``celebrity watching''--like 
     ``Entertainment Tonight''?
       What can be said about CNN's decision to only provide live 
     coverage of Mr. Barbour's testimony is media bias at best, 
     and tabloid journalism at worst. Your intensive coverage of 
     the O.J. Simpson trial suggests that the later is more 
     accurate. It's apparent that CNN has already decided what the 
     public is interested in watching instead of the public making 
     that decision for themselves.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry E. Craig,
     Chairman.
                                  ____


 Summary of Highlights of Testimony of First Two Weeks of Hearings by 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs Into 1996 Campaign Finance Abuses

       DNC Finance Director Richard Sullivan acknowledged that the 
     DNC's process for vetting contributions had ``atrophied,'' 
     and that the Republican Party's system for vetting 
     contributions was ``much more systematic, complex and 
     thorough'' than the Democratic Party's system.
       The Committee learned that John Huang was pushed for his 
     job at the DNC by a foreign corporation and its head, James 
     Riady, a close friend of President Clinton.
       The Committee learned that Huang was also pushed for his 
     fund-raising position by senior White House officials, like 
     Harold Ickes, but he was not hired by the DNC until President 
     Clinton himself pushed for Huang's hiring.
       The Committee revealed several instances of foreign 
     contributions being laundered into the DNC:
       (1) Yogesh Gandhi made a $325,000 contribution to the DNC 
     at an event at the Sheraton-Carlton Hotel in Washington in 
     1996 and shortly thereafter received two $250,000 wire 
     transfers from a Japanese businessman named Tanaka to cover 
     the contribution. This was Gandhi's first US political 
     contribution and the $325,000 represented more than half the 
     funds raised by the DNC at the Sheraton-Carlton event.
       (2) Johnny Chung contributed $50,000 to the DNC in March 
     1996, at a time when he had less than $10,000 in his account. 
     A few days after making the contribution Chung received a 
     $50,000 wire transfer from the Bank of China. Soon after 
     making the $50,000 contribution from these funds, Chung 
     attended the President's weekly radio address with 5 visiting 
     Chinese officials and guests.
       (3) In 1992 John Huang contributed $50,000 on behalf of Hip 
     Hing Holdings, a Riady-owned company in Los Angeles, and 
     sought reimbursement for the contribution from Lippo Group in 
     Indonesia.
       The Committee also revealed that Chinese arms merchant Wang 
     Jun, son of a prominent Communist official whose arms company 
     has been accused of selling cruise missiles to Iran, attended 
     an event with the President after he contributed $50,000 to 
     the DNC through Ernest Green of Lehman Brothers.
       The Committee learned that Gregory Loutschansky, a former 
     Soviet citizen living in Tel Aviv who is reputed to be an 
     international gun-runner and drug-smuggler, was invited by 
     the DNC to an October 1995 dinner with the President, but was 
     denied a visa by the State Department to enter the US.
       The Committee learned that Roger Tamraz, a US citizen and 
     major DNC donor, was invited by the DNC to meet with the Vice 
     President, but the invitation was withdrawn after the Vice 
     President's staff objected because Tamraz had ``a shady 
     reputation.'' Despite the fact that Tamraz was deemed 
     unacceptable to meet the Vice President, the DNC invited 
     Tamraz to four subsequent events with the President.
       The Committee learned that President Clinton's friend 
     Charlie Trie made a $50,000 contribution to the DNC in June 
     1995 and raised large amounts for the Presidential Legal 
     Expense Trust, even though a financial disclosure form he 
     filled out after securing a presidential appointment showed 
     he earned only $60,000 that year.
       The Committee learned that John Huang had worked for Lippo 
     Bank in Los Angeles, but the CEO of the Bank did not know 
     what Huang did in his office.
       The Committee learned that Lippo Group, run by the Riady 
     family, which employed Huang, had over the past few years 
     become a major business partner with China Resources, a 
     trading company wholly owned by the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China, which has reportedly served as an 
     intelligence-collection front for China.
       The Committee learned that Huang was given a political 
     appointment in the Commerce Department, but his boss, 
     Commerce Under secretary Jeffrey Garten found Huang totally 
     unqualified for the position and limited his activities to 
     administrative duties.
       The Committee learned that Huang was ``walled off'' from 
     handling China trade policy and was allowed to handle only 
     some matters related to Taiwan.
       The Committee learned that despite being ``walled off'' 
     from China policy, Huang was given intelligence briefings on 
     China.
       The Committee learned that while he was at the Commerce 
     Department, Huang had a Top Secret security clearance and 
     received 37 intelligence briefings, at which he was shown 10 
     to 15 intelligence reports, meaning that he saw between 370 
     and 550 pieces of intelligence.
       The Committee learned that of the pieces of intelligence 
     shown to Huang, he kept possession of 12 classified documents 
     until the end of his tenure at the Commerce Department.
       The Committee learned that while he served as a relatively 
     low-level political functionary at the Commerce Department, 
     Huang made at least 67 visits to the White House, often 
     meeting with senior officials on US trade policy.
       The Committee learned that while he worked at the Commerce 
     Department, Huang routinely and regularly used the office of 
     Stephens Inc., a Little rock-based company with an office 
     across the street from the Commerce Department, to send and 
     receive phone calls, faxes, and packages, which a Stephens 
     employee testified no other non-Stephens employee did.
       The Committee learned that Huang had over 400 contacts with 
     Lippo bank and Lippo group employees and associates while he 
     worked at the Commerce Department, was receiving classified 
     information, attending White House briefings, and using the 
     Stephens Inc. office to send and receive messages and faxes.
       The Committee learned that Huang did make personal calls 
     from his Commerce Department phone, indicating that he was 
     not using the Stephens office to avoid using his official 
     phone for personal matters.
       The Committee learned that while he served at the Commerce 
     Department, Huang made six visits to the Chinese Embassy and 
     had three other contacts with Chinese Embassy officials, even 
     though he had been ``walled off'' from anything having to do 
     with China.
       The Committee learned that while he served at the Commerce 
     Department, Huang may have illegally solicited several large 
     contributions for the DNC, for which his wife Jane was listed 
     as the solicitor by the DNC, from several individuals.
                                  ____

                                                    July 22, 1997.
     Mr. Tom Johnson,
     President, CNN, Atlanta, GA.
       Dear Mr. Johnson: I am disappointed over CNN's 
     unwillingness to provide live, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the 
     Senate Governmental Affairs hearings on campaign finance 
     activities. If you had been carrying the hearings, your 
     viewers would have been able to

[[Page S8089]]

     watch the testimony of witnesses who gave compelling evidence 
     of criminal wrongdoing by foreign donors to the Democratic 
     party during the 1996 elections. The result of such testimony 
     even prompted a key Democrat on the committee, Senator Joseph 
     Lieberman of Connecticut, to publicly acknowledge that there 
     was a Chinese government plan to influence the elections. 
     Unfortunately, CNN viewers were not given the opportunity to 
     draw their own conclusions.
       Now, I have come to learn that your network is planning to 
     provide live coverage of this week's scheduled testimony of 
     former Republican National Committee chairman, Haley Barbour. 
     Unlike previous witnesses, who linked one Democratic 
     fundraiser to possible charges of espionage and illegal 
     influence buying and peddling, Mr. Barbour has not been 
     charged with any crime nor has he broken any laws. Why does 
     CNN deem Mr. Barbour's testimony so important as to merit 
     live coverage? Is your network ``celebrity watching''--like 
     ``Entertainment Tonight''?
       What can be said about CNN's decision to only provide live 
     coverage of Mr. Barbour's testimony is media bias at best, 
     and tabloid journalism at worst. Your intensive coverage of 
     the O.J. Simpson trial suggests that the later is more 
     accurate. It's apparent that CNN has already decided what the 
     public is interested in watching instead of the public making 
     that decision for themselves.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry E. Craig,
     Chairman.

                          ____________________