[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.
____________________