[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 135 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8302-H8309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              FRUSTRATIONS OF DOING THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today, I have to 
say, a bit saddened by some of the events that have occurred this past 
week. I came to Congress in 1994, and like many of us who came here, we 
had never been in government before, certainly had not been in Federal 
Government service before, and I have to say over the past 3 years I 
have had a wonderful opportunity to see the way that Government works, 
to see the way that Congress works, to see the way Washington, DC, 
works, and there have been a lot of highlights.
  I have seen a lot of good, decent people on both sides of the aisle 
who care about this country, who care about their children's future, 
and who believe that America can do better, and I have been very proud 
to serve here. I think most Americans who, like me, had really just 
gotten their news from sitting on the couch watching TV their whole 
lives would be pleased if they came up here and saw a lot of things 
that happened. But regrettably, as is in

[[Page H8303]]

any profession, there are some who do not really carry themselves with 
as much dignity as others.
  I have to say, this past week I was deeply saddened by some of the 
events that occurred on this floor during debates regarding a seat in 
California, and it was Ms. Sanchez's seat, and it had to deal with the 
challenge that Bob Dornan was placing on Ms. Sanchez.
  Just putting aside the facts of this case, what bothered me the most 
was that there were several Members on the Democratic side that came up 
and chose to use race as an issue, and they have been using race as an 
issue over and over again. In fact, I think it would be safe to say, 
and I saw some journalists report that their activities could be 
described as race-baiting, basically calling anybody who followed the 
Los Angeles Times observations and who followed the observations by the 
House panel on this election, suggesting that anybody that raised tough 
questions about this election somehow was racist against Hispanics. I 
have to say, all we have to do is wave the race flag and one does cause 
a lot of people to retreat.
  The reason I come to the floor today not retreating is because, 
regrettably, I think this is just another tactic by a very scared 
minority, the Democrats, political minority, who are trying to do their 
best to change the subject instead of changing America for the better 
or instead of changing the law for the better.
  The Los Angeles Times reported early on about this election that the 
corruption and the vote-buying and the number of illegal aliens voting 
was so widespread that one of Mr. Dornan's opponents, not Ms. Sanchez, 
but one of Mr. Dornan's opponents, actually held a raffle for a car for 
illegal immigrants and told illegal immigrants that if they signed up 
for this raffle, all they had to do was vote, and the winner of this 
raffle would win a new car. And so the gentleman, the illegal immigrant 
that joined this, actually entered a raffle, voted illegally in the 
election, and then won a car because of it, according to Los Angeles 
Times reports.
  There have also been documented up to 350 to 400 illegal immigrants 
voting in this election, with the possibility of many more voting, but 
regrettably, because the Justice Department has not moved swiftly 
enough, this matter continues to drag out.
  But I guess what it highlighted to me was a continuing trend, and it 
was a trend to obstruct justice, politically obstruct justice, instead 
to seeing to it that the American people found out what was going on, 
and of course this is happening in campaign finance debates across 
Washington and across America. Every time somebody is charged with a 
new crime or a possible crime, or every time the news media comes out 
and attacks somebody for questionable behavior, they immediately turn 
around and try to change the subject.
  This morning's New York Times writes, on the front page, top 
headline: ``Democrats Used State Parties To Bypass Limits.'' Over $32 
million was sent to local and State officials for the Democratic party 
to illegally, possibly, counteract FEC laws. This is a violation. So 
what happens? What do they do? They immediately change the subject and 
say, let us talk about campaign finance reform. This has been happening 
for some time.
  On September 10 of this year, the headline for The New York Times 
said, ``Democrats Give $2 Million to Candidates, Records Show.'' Down 
below, a Democratic party contributor said, whoever did this should go 
to jail. This is illegal, and they knew it.
  Yet, all we have heard are member after member of this party come to 
the microphone and do procedural motions to adjourn and all of these 
other things that are supposed to delay us from doing the business of 
the people's House, which is costing American taxpayers tens of 
thousands of dollars, if not more, and none of them will step up to the 
microphone and say, I am very concerned about the abuses and the laws 
broken that have been reported in The New York Times or The Washington 
Post; I am very concerned that American democracy may have been 
influenced by illegal foreign money; I am very concerned that the 
Chinese Communists have their top leaders sketch out a plan on how to 
influence elections in America. We do not hear that. Instead, we just 
hear people changing the subject.
  The chairman of the Democratic National Committee last year, it was 
reported a week ago, admitted arranging access for donors, and what he 
did in one case, one particularly offensive case, is he used his power 
as chairman of the Democratic National Committee to get an 
international fugitive an audience with the White House because this 
international fugitive said that he was going to give the White House 
$300,000.
  Now, how did he do it? The first thing he did was, he called the 
international fugitive and they set up a dinner. Then the international 
fugitive said, I am having trouble getting into the White House because 
the National Security Council will not let me in the White House 
because I am an international fugitive. That seems to make sense to me.
  Well, the Democratic National Committee chairman then, according to 
his own notes and records, then called the CIA, this is unbelievable, 
using our Central Intelligence Agency for political purposes to get an 
international fugitive into the White House to meet the President of 
the United States. They called the Central Intelligence Agency, the 
chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and told the CIA to call 
the Committee on National Security to get them into the White House.
  Now, of course what happened? The international fugitive did get to 
the White House. His name is Mr. Tamraz. He gave the White House 
$300,000, because he wanted to get a pipeline overseas.

                              {time}  1015

  Now when the DNC chairman was asked by the Senate panel on whether he 
did try to get an international fugitive into the White House by using 
the CIA, by calling ``CIA Bob,'' as he called him, he said, and this is 
no surprise, he said, ``I have no memory of any conversations with the 
CIA.''
  It seems this amnesia trend is sweeping Washington, and I think if we 
mix a subpoena with Washington tap water and media requests for 
interviews, all of the sudden people's memory starts to go. I could 
sort of refresh his recollection by simply using his own words. When he 
was meeting with an international fugitive, in the notes of the meeting 
with the international fugitive he wrote, ``Go to CIA.'' And that is 
the Democratic National Committee chairman Donald Fowler's handwritten 
note reminding himself to go to CIA to intervene on behalf of an 
international fugitive for Democratic National Committee fundraising. 
``Go to CIA.''
  And, Mr. Speaker, this guy says ``I don't remember.'' Now, I believe, 
and call me crazy, but I believe if I am chairman of the Democratic 
National Committee and an international fugitive comes to me and says, 
``I want to go to the White House and give the President $300,000,'' 
and then I picked up the phone and probably called the Central 
Intelligence Agency and spoke to Bob. He is on a first-name basis with 
CIA Bob. And then said, ``Bob can you help the National Security 
Council understand the need to give this international fugitive an 
audience with the President of the United States?'' And I broke arms at 
the National Security Council and it eventually happened, I think I 
would remember.
  I do not know how many laws were broken here, I think probably an 
awful lot, but I would remember. And yet we hear time and time again, 
``I have no recollection.'' ``I have no memory.'' And I think I really 
do need to introduce a bill called the National Amnesia Relief Act that 
would somehow study the effect of water and subpoenas on Washington, 
DC, officials, because I have got to tell my colleagues, amnesia is 
sweeping the Capital this year like never before.
  Mr. SALMON. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. One gentleman who never has a problem remembering is 
the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], a good friend of mine, and I 
yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a more worthy project to 
pursue than a national study on the effects of the Potomac water on the 
brain, because apparently amnesia is running rampantly through this 
place.
  Let me just make a couple of comments. First of all, the gentleman 
talked about this last week and the

[[Page H8304]]

idea that there was a lot of race-baiting going on; that whenever the 
other side, the Democrats, seem to be losing an argument, they always 
throw out this trump card that purportedly gives them the upper hand, 
and that is to call us racist when they are losing on the merits of the 
argument.
  I found that same thing to happen just the other night when we were 
about to adjourn and we were trying to get through the work, and that 
we had scheduled to do yesterday, and they got up and raised the issue 
several times that we were not concerned about the Jewish Members of 
this body. It was a very, very special Jewish holiday and it was fast 
approaching, and they wanted to know why we terrible racists over on 
the other side, or anti-Semites, would not be more sensitive to the 
needs of these Members of Congress, when they themselves were moving 
every time they got a chance to adjourn, knowing full well that it 
would take up extra time, knowing full well that it would cause those 
Jewish members of this body to miss or to be late for this holiday.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is despicable. We were doing everything that 
we could to try to get through, and they were pursuing these dilatory 
tactics time and time and time again, and yet the American public lets 
them get away with this.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time just for one moment, 
I thought what was so telling about yesterday's episode, and I didn't 
bring that up. I thought the race-baiting a few nights ago was bad, but 
yesterday they raised the ugly specter of anti-Semitism and that 
somehow we were unfeeling toward the Jews to observe this very, very 
holy holiday, which of course we were not, and they knew it. But it 
was, again, win at all costs, which concerns me.
  I thought it was very telling at the end of that debate that we had a 
very honorable Jewish gentleman from New York, a Democrat, stand up and 
plead. He pleaded.
  Mr. SALMON. With his own people.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. He pleaded with his own Members of his own party, 
``Please, let us enter into an agreement with the majority leader.'' It 
was a good agreement. He said it was a fair agreement and it was the 
best way for us to move forward to do the people's business, but at the 
same time respect one of the holiest of all holidays for the Jewish 
people.
  Unfortunately, the goodness and decency of the Jewish Member from New 
York was ignored by other Democrats who, I guess, regretfully saw this 
as an opportunity to gain political advantage.
  Again, it was a very sad moment. But I thought the gentleman showed a 
lot of courage, and I must say that an overwhelming majority of the 
Democrats agreed with him and agreed with us, agreed with the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Engel] and agreed with us that this was a good idea.
  Regretfully, we had Democrats, and I have not seen it in 3 years 
since I have been here, we had Democrats screaming at each other, 
yelling and fighting. Obviously, we had Jewish Members who were 
concerned that other Members may not have been as sensitive as they 
should have been. I saw it going on and I was saddened by it.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
think it was interesting to note that yesterday, and one does not have 
to be a math teacher to figure this out. I think my son who is in 
remedial math in the third grade could figure this one out. If we would 
have not had all of the dilatory tactics pursued by the Democrats 
yesterday, the motions to adjourn every time they got a chance to stand 
up, we would have been done by 12 o'clock. As it stood, because of all 
of the dilatory tactics that they employed yesterday, we did not finish 
until, what was it, 3:00 or 3:30?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time again, we actually 
finished at about 3 o'clock. We started to calculate the dilatory 
tactics that they have taken over the past month and how much it would 
cost the American taxpayers, and it is a remarkable number.
  Now, they have that right. And let me just say right here, right now, 
the rules of this House allow Members to do that. And if they do that, 
that is their business. That is fine. If they want to delay for their 
own political agenda, that is their constitutional right and it is 
their right under the rules of this House.
  But do not tell me when delaying from allowing Members to get home, 
delaying us to do the people's business, do not tell me that I am being 
insensitive in keeping people here when it is their dilatory tactics 
that are more responsible.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, it 
reminded me painfully of a time in my young life when I had a very, 
very traumatic experience. I remember when I was a little boy and my 
brother and his friends were playing in the living room and they broke 
a very, very special vase that was very, very important to my mother. 
And, frankly, they framed me for it.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. That has happened.
  Mr. SALMON. I was the one who got blamed for breaking this vase, and 
my father came home, and I said, ``Daddy, I didn't do it. I didn't do 
it.'' Well, he did not believe me because all the evidence seemed to 
suggest that I was the one that did it, and so I got a spanking. 
Finally my brother came clean on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am just hoping that they come clean some day. Frankly, 
for them to be doing all of these dilatory tactics and being the reason 
that all of these Jewish Members were threatened at not being able to 
participate in their very, very special holiday, which all of us wanted 
them to do it, and then trying to blame us for it when they are the 
ones extending the time and playing gamesmanship on the floor, it 
brought back those painful memories all over again.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it would be very 
interesting to see what would happen if some of these people broke 
their parents' vase at home. They probably would have changed the 
subject and said, ``Yes, what this tells me is that we need to sue the 
vase makers to make sure they make the vases stronger.'' We have seen 
the changing of the subject.
  Let me go back to what we were talking about. We were talking about 
how amnesia is sweeping Washington, DC, on not trivial matters, but 
very important matters of substance.
  This is a headline, again talking about the international fugitive, 
that the chairman of the Democratic National Committee used his power 
to influence the CIA to influence the National Security Council to 
allow this international fugitive to get into the White House and give 
the President $300,000. The New York Times wrote a story on September 
18, and it says, ``Ex-White House Aide Tells of Pressure Over Donor,'' 
and her name is Sheila Heslin, testified under oath before the Senate 
investigating committee that the Energy Department officials and the 
CIA, as well as the Democratic National Committee, pressured her as a 
National Security Council member to let an international fugitive into 
the White House.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that is so shocking, not just to me but to 
most reasonable people, that the American people have set up a National 
Security Council to protect the White House from international 
fugitives like this gentleman, and then the chairman of the largest 
party of the United States of America, and the Department of Energy 
that was formed to help Americans with energy crises, and then we have 
the Central Intelligence Agency which is supposed to protect our 
national security, being used to actually break down this wall of 
security that the American people placed between the White House and 
international fugitives.
  This is what Sheila Heslin, who was a National Security Council aide 
who gave a very valiant effort to keep these people from the White 
House, said under oath. ``I was shocked. I said what the hell is going 
on? Why are you guys working with Fowler?''
  And that was National Security Council aide Sheila Heslin in 
testimony before the Senate on her reaction to the CIA's intervention 
on behalf of an international fugitive. This is what the New York Times 
says.
  I will yield to the gentleman in one moment, but I wanted to tell 
what they said the next day in their editorial about this shameful 
episode in American history. The New York Times wrote of the 
international fugitive's testimony before the Senate

[[Page H8305]]

committee, and he by the way was very proud that he was able to buy 
influence.
  Mr. SALMON. Buy influence.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Buy influence and muscle his way into the White 
House. The New York Times wrote, ``He,'' the international fugitive 
``was affirming that in the shadowy reaches of the international 
business world it was believed accurately that during the 1996 
election, dubious entrepreneurs could buy White House audiences, 
particularly if they did not quibble about the cost of the ticket.''
  Again, the New York Times is saying that in the shadowy reaches of 
the international business world, the White House was for sale. The 
Times editorial concluded, ``That so many high level people even took 
the party's role into consideration is one of the most shocking lapses 
of judgment.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of people on the other 
side, and even some who have written letters to the editor, say we are 
wasting time and we should get on with the business of the people, we 
should stop this investigation of the White House.
  My response to them is, do those same people believe that all of the 
investigation of Watergate was not time well spent? In fact, as 
despicable and as sad of a time as Watergate was in the history of 
America, and I believe justice was served there, I do, there were never 
any allegations at that time of espionage, of treason, of bringing 
people in and possibly selling secrets to the enemy.
  If Watergate was bad, then what potentially could these 
investigations yield? We are talking about very, very important matters 
and the White House has established a very, very disturbing pattern. 
Here is how it goes: It is a three-part, three-step pattern. No. 1: ``I 
unequivocally was not there, did not do it. I did not do it.''

                              {time}  1030

  I did not do it. That is in regard to raising money from Buddhist 
temples or making fundraising phone calls from the White House, which 
is in strict violation of U.S. law. OK. Then when the facts come out 
and the Washington Post and other media outlets find out through their 
investigative techniques that that is not accurate, that you in fact 
were there, that you in fact did do what you said you did not do, then 
the next response is, well, I cannot recall. I cannot recall whether I 
did that or whether I did not do that.
  Then when the proof is in the pudding and you know exactly that they 
did what they said they did not do or they cannot recall whether they 
were there or not, the third response is, well, if I did it, it must 
have been legal. And there might even have been a fourth response now 
that Janet Reno is helping them. Well, the law is really kind of a 
stupid law in the first place. It really should not be on the books. Is 
that really the kind of people that we want leading our country? People 
that go through that kind of self-denial?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. That is what the Washington Post has editorialized 
about time and time again. What they call it is telling the truth in 
dribs and drabs. They said, you paraphrased what they said, how the 
White House starts with a denial, then they say they cannot recall. 
Then they deny it. Then a little bit of information comes and they 
limit it to that, and then more information comes out later on and then 
they say, big deal. It happened time and again. It happened with Web 
Hubbell. It happened in a lot of the China investigation. Craig 
Livingstone. You were talking about how there is possible espionage. 
Newsweek reported that John Huang, when working at the Commerce 
Department and at the DNC, he would regularly get briefings from the 
CIA and then talked about times that he would get in a taxicab and go 
immediately over to the Chinese Embassy and talked.
  It is, again, very, very disturbing. You brought up the name of Janet 
Reno. The New York Times has been very critical of Ms. Reno. I have 
been very critical. I know a lot of others have. I think in a way she 
has acted as shamefully as John Mitchell has in not moving forward as 
quickly as she should have when every reasonable person across the 
country knows of the abuses. Like you said, there are denials from the 
President that he raised money from the White House and then he says, 
if I did raise money, I did not break the law, when records show that 
he did, through the Post report, raise at least half a million from the 
White House.
  You have a Vice President, Al Gore, who said that he had never done 
it before. Then we find out later that he placed at least 47 calls. Now 
we are over 100 calls. We were told that the coffees were not 
fundraisers. They were admitted to be fundraisers. Democratic Senator 
Lieberman, in the hearings, stated as much, said we have to say that at 
least conclusively 103 of these coffees were fundraisers. So they have 
retreated.
  Now the position they retreat to, and I have to tell you, the 
position that Janet Reno is supposedly debating this week is, it is 
insulting to the intelligence of me, you, the American people, that is, 
that, OK, there was a law that said do not raise money on Federal 
property, but it was an old law. And it was even before telephones were 
invented, and it had nothing to do with phone calls or anything like 
that. I wish I had the exact quote from the L.A. Times, but I can tell 
you what it said. It talked about how Judge Abner Mikva, who was the 
President's attorney, White House counsel in 1993, wrote a memo and 
said specifically, it is against the law to raise money in the White 
House. It is against the law to use White House phones to raise money. 
Avoid raising money at the White House at all costs. It is illegal. 
That is what he wrote in 1993.
  Why have we not heard that from the Attorney General? Why have we not 
heard that from news reports? I have to tell you, the news media, not 
print media, but the media, ABC, CBS, NBC, the evening news have been 
circling their wagons, as Brent Bozell has reported very well in his 
daily updates, and been avoiding the story. They talk about it is an 
old law, they talk about how it may not apply. They never talk about 
how the President's own attorney in 1993 told the White House, do not 
raise money at the White House. It is illegal. You never hear that, do 
you?
  Mr. SALMON. No, you do not hear that. In fact, we all have copies of 
the memo that he sent to the President wherein he told the President 
that fundraising from Federal property, it was illegal. It is the same 
for you and I. As freshman Congressmen when we came in 3 years ago, one 
of the very first things that we were told was do not make fundraising 
phone calls from your office. It is illegal. How long did the Vice 
President serve in the Senate before he went into the White House?
  It gets down to this. I believe that pretty much what I am about to 
say has been editorialized over and over again, and I will paraphrase, 
you are down to either one, if indeed as all the evidence shows there 
were fundraising phone calls from the White House, and that is illegal, 
you are left with two very painful answers or a choice between two very 
painful answers. No. 1, there is some crooked behavior going on; No. 2, 
they are not very intelligent. And it might be a combination of both. I 
am not sure. But either one is very disturbing.
  Let me comment, or ask you a question. As to saying I cannot recall, 
I cannot recall, I cannot recall, have you ever had a speeding ticket 
or a parking ticket?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Since I do not have a subpoena and have not been 
drinking Washington, DC, tap water, I can remember. Yes, I will admit 
here that I have had a speeding ticket.
  Mr. SALMON. I remember I had a speeding ticket. I was going about 10 
miles over the speed limit. I remember this was over 12 years ago. It 
was the last speeding ticket that I got. I remember exactly what day it 
was. I remember, I am not saying I remember exactly the date but I 
remember the time of year. I remember my nephews were in the car with 
me. And I remember being very chagrined because I was trying to set a 
better example for my nephews and being pulled over. It was a very 
embarrassing thing. This was 12 years ago that I got this speeding 
ticket, yet I remember all of the circumstances surrounding that 
speeding ticket. We are talking about a violation of Federal law, far 
more important than a speeding ticket or a parking ticket. I think most 
Americans out there can remember if they have gotten a speeding ticket 
or parking ticket.

[[Page H8306]]

 They can remember the circumstances, the emotions that they felt. They 
can remember what they were doing at the time that they received that 
speeding ticket.
  Do you think that we should really believe that with the commission 
of this serious a violation of Federal law that these people cannot 
recall?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Again, it goes back to what the gentleman who 
chaired the Democratic National Committee said when he said he could 
not recall whether he helped get an international fugitive into the 
White House by using influence over the CIA, the Energy Department, the 
National Security Council, the White House itself. It absolutely 
strains credibility. I have to say that I am personally offended that 
the Justice Department has taken as long as it has in making its 
decision. I have to also say that I am offended that they continue to 
walk this fine legal line saying, we need to check and make sure that 
this one law about fundraising applies. This scandal is so huge, this 
is the largest fundraising scandal in American history, even if the 
media, even if TV media does not want to report it. It is the largest 
fund-raising scandal in American history. If the media decides to 
pursue it aggressively and if the American people tune into it, I think 
they will see that it is every bit as damaging to the structure of 
American democracy and the structure of this constitutional Republic as 
what happened during Watergate, which was, I have to tell you, 
Watergate was an absolutely shameful period in this Nation's history 
and one of the heroes out of Watergate was a Senator from Tennessee 
named Howard Baker, who during the hearing had the guts to put aside 
partisanship in a way that Joe Lieberman has done for the Democrats and 
asked the question, what did the President know and when did the 
President know it. I wish there were more Howard Bakers. I wish there 
were more Joe Liebermans on both sides of the party, both sides of the 
aisle, who would ask tough questions and put the interests of America 
over the interests of the party.

  I have to tell you, I did not come to Washington, DC, as a 
Republican. I think I prove that every day. I came to Washington, DC, 
as an American to be part of, be a positive part of a process to get 
money, power, and influence back to the States, back to the local 
governments, to balance the budget, to cut taxes, to do the type of 
education reforms we need to do to empower parents, teachers, students, 
local school boards, and take the power and authority and money out of 
the bureaucracies in Washington, DC.
  I did not come here as a Republican, as a partisan Republican. Joe 
Lieberman from Connecticut did not come to Washington, DC, solely as a 
cheerleader for the Democratic Party. Howard Baker did not come to 
Washington, DC, as a cheerleader for the Republican Party back in the 
1970's. I have yet to hear one Democrat in this Chamber go before that 
microphone and say, yes, I am concerned that we were allowing 
international fugitives to abuse power, that the Democratic Party 
skimmed $2 million, as reported by the New York Times, that China may 
have bought influence in the White House and that there may have been 
espionage going on, that so many people that were contributors to the 
White House and now have fled this country and will not be recalled. It 
is a frightening spectacle.
  Mr. SALMON. I think you make a really good point. I have been really 
proud that at least there is one Senator over on the other side, on the 
Democrat side that seems to be interested. I have been very impressed 
with Senator Bob Kerrey and his willingness to try to pursue at least 
truth and justice. I do not believe anybody could accuse us of being 
partisan hacks or flunkies for the Republican leadership. There 
probably has not been two more vocal people on the floor in challenging 
our own leadership and in bucking the tide with our own leadership when 
we feel that they have gone astray.
  I think we have earned the right to question whether or not this 
administration is engaged in an illegal activity. I think you make a 
really good point. Not one Democrat has stood up and asked for justice 
to be sought or found in relationship to the alleged illegal 
fundraising and selling of secrets and possible espionage going on in 
this White House, not one Democrat has stood up. I challenge them. I 
will buy whichever one does a steak dinner if they will have the moral 
courage to stand up and ask that we at least get to the bottom of the 
truth.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I think the gentleman is now starting to strike a 
nerve because maybe if you go to cash instead of money and maybe if you 
can get cash from a foreign friend and offer them some foreign cash, 
maybe that would be the type of thing they understand because they 
certainly understood it during the 1996 election. Tamraz understood 
that they understood that because this international fugitive, when 
questioned what mistakes were made and what laws were broken, his only 
response was, I think next time I will give $600. That is international 
fugitive Roger Tamraz commenting on his ability to buy White House 
access.
  You are exactly right. We have not been partisan Republicans. We have 
questioned our leadership, I would say tougher this year than we 
certainly have questioned the Democrats. We have held them to a higher 
standard. We have the gentleman on the floor with us today that 
questioned them on the pay raise. We had some tough questions on how we 
thought they were trying to slip the pay raise through with the help of 
the Democratic leadership. We have questioned them on a lot of other 
things. I am very concerned about the $600 million that the IRS was 
given this week. I do not think they should be given anything. But 
these concerns continue to grow.
  We asked tough questions of both sides. Again, it seems to me we have 
the right to ask the President and the Attorney General what they are 
doing. I have got to say, the Attorney General is going to be making a 
decision this week. She will be making the decision on whether to 
appoint a special, an independent counsel to look into it, and the New 
York Times editorialized a week or two ago that they did not believe 
that the President nor the Attorney General could be trusted to look 
fairly into this matter. The New York Times, who usually sides with 
more liberal Members of Congress, they did not this time. They said we 
cannot trust Janet Reno and we cannot trust the President to look into 
this, an independent third party needs to be sought.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. SALMON. If the gentleman will continue to yield just a few 
seconds, this situation with Janet Reno is so disturbing: That she 
cannot get by the fact that she feels she has to protect her boss more 
than she has to represent Justice or the needs of the American people 
to get to the truth and to find justice in this matter. I think we 
should pass a bill on the floor, if she does not appoint a special 
counsel, to call her the Enabler General instead of the Attorney 
General.
  And frankly, just finally, the phrase, ``A day late and a dollar 
short,'' we are talking about several million dollars here, and, 
frankly, she has a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility, to 
get to the bottom of this and to find truth and to find justice.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman.
  She does have that responsibility, and she needs, again, to review 
the situation.
  As the New York Times wrote in an editorial on September 10, 1997, 
yesterday's testimony yet again punctures the fiction that the abuses 
that occurred were solely the responsibility of the Democrat Party and 
not the White House. That is very important for Janet Reno's decision, 
how much the White House was influenced.
  And, again, the front page of the New York Times today talks about 
how the White House and, I think, Dick Morris had a scheme to funnel 
money to State parties to do it. And the New York Times editorialized 
about Janet Reno's faulty fix and stated, the Attorney General mistakes 
efficiency for integrity. And we hope, like the New York Times and 
others hope, that she will find the integrity that she needs to make 
the decision.
  I would like to yield now to a gentleman that has been very helpful 
in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in investigating 
these things, the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his leadership in

[[Page H8307]]

pointing out the problems with this administration.
  We have seen them from the days we started, first with the Travel 
Office and as we moved through the FBI files and as we moved through 
Whitewater and Craig Livingstone, and we have watched this in the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight relatively stunned.
  And as we start to get the depositions, as we prepare for the larger 
investigation of campaign finance scams, I was so outraged about a week 
and a half ago to see that the President of the United States was 
proposing to call Congress into a special session on campaign finance 
reform. Talk about gall.
  Rule No. 1 for campaign finance reform should be, follow the current 
law. What good does it do for us to pass a bunch of laws if they do not 
follow the current law? Today I wanted to share a couple of stories to 
illustrate this point.
  Story No. 2: Last month, the Democratic National Committee returned 
$85,000 in funny money, this time to help repay victims of the $38 
million fraud using President Clinton's photo. The pyramid scheme, set 
up by Unique Gems International Corp, has been called one of the 
costliest credit card rip-offs in U.S. history. Here is how it 
happened.
  In October 1996, at a Florida fund-raiser, President Clinton took a 
photo with executives of the Miami-based jewelry-making company who 
coughed up $85,000 to the DNC. So the price tag for this picture was 
$85,000.
  When you start going after money everywhere as fast as you can get 
it, you forget to do some background checks. The pictures were featured 
in company newsletters to gain credibility with investors. The caption 
read, ``The company has been honored by President Clinton for its role 
in helping many people with real opportunities to earn a well above 
average income.''
  Potential marks were told by one company boss, ``We met with the 
President. If it were not a good company, the President would not have 
invited us to dinner.''
  Soon, investors were lining up to buy worthless beads to assemble 
into necklaces, which the company promised to market to retailers. At 
one point, when Unique Gems was using the President's picture most 
extensively, it was raking in $1 million a day.
  By the time the operation was shut down, 15,000 people had been 
bilked, most of whom were new immigrants hoping to turn their $3,000 
investment into a small fortune. The Democratic National Committee 
bilked new immigrants indirectly through this type of scheme.
  Unique Gems apparently used third parties to donate $85,000 to the 
DNC, despite Federal law prohibiting such donations. Four of Unique 
Gems principals, who have, surprise, surprise, left the country, are 
foreign nationals prohibited by law from donating to U.S. campaigns.
  Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of campaign finance reform. 
Rule No. 1, follow the current law.
  Former leader of Common Cause Fred Wertheimer put it best: ``This is 
one example, and it is a classic example, of an attitude that led to 
the Clinton campaign saying, `if you give us money, that is all we care 
about.' ''
  Just so everyone gets this story straight: DNC got the cash, 
swindlers got a photo with the President, and 15,000 people got stuck 
with $38 million of worthless beads.
  The second case is Jorge Cabrera. As we know, the Vice President has 
been a good student of President Clinton's in more ways than one. In 
December 1995, Vice President Gore attended a fund-raiser in Florida 
for 60 wealthy contributors. Among them were several guests more fitted 
to Shawshank than southern Florida. Consider the following attendees:
  Jorge Cabrera, a drug trafficker with links to a Colombian cartel.
  Dr. Joseph Douze, a fugitive who once blew up a bridge.
  Great background checks on these people.
  And the host for the evening, Jerome ``Jerry'' Berlin, was indicted 
in 1990, and later acquitted, on Federal conspiracy charges of bribing 
Federal officials. One of the politicians allegedly targeted was then 
Senator Al Gore, who prosecutors said did not know of the alleged plot.
  One guest, who paid the minimum $10,000 cover charge, said, ``Maybe 
the reason I got to sit with the Vice President is that I was the only 
honest person in the room.''
  To be fair, the Vice President was disappointed to learn that his 
picture had been taken with a long-time drug dealer. ``He never wants 
to be associated with people who break the law.''
  That makes for interesting Cabinet meetings. In fact, sometimes you 
wonder how he looks in the mirror, since he violated the laws in 
campaign fund-raising from the White House.
  Some of the same donors at the Florida fundraiser later received 
personal greetings from the President and the First Lady. Only days 
later, the Cali-connected Cabrera was sipping eggnog at the White House 
Christmas party.
  Cabrera, who gave $20,000 to the DNC, was later sentenced to 19 years 
in prison for helping import 6,000 pounds of Colombian cocaine that was 
killing kids in the streets of Fort Wayne, IN, and western Florida, and 
in Kansas, and he did not get a background check. This man was a drug 
cartel dealer, for crying out loud.
  At the time of the Gore fundraiser and the White House visit, he had 
already been arrested twice on drug charges and pleaded guilty to non-
drug-related charges. Court papers said that by 1995 he was already 
deeply involved with the Cali Colombian drug cartel.
  Ross Perot put it nicely: ``I never thought I would live to see a 
major drug dealer give 20,000 bucks in Florida and then be invited to a 
big Democratic reception by the Vice President of the United States, Al 
Gore, and then be invited to the White House for a Christmas party.''
  An invitation to the White House Christmas party was also sent to Dr. 
Douze, although the Government had confiscated his passport and 
restricted his travel after his arrest on 11 counts of Federal mail 
fraud and conspiracy.

  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time for a second, I have 
to ask a question. Did the gentleman just say that a man who had his 
passport seized because he was a felon was invited to the White House 
even after we seized his passport?
  What I am saying is, is the gentleman saying that basically the 
standard of getting in the White House is below the standard of 
actually being able to stay in the United States of America?
  Mr. SOUDER. I think that is what I am saying. And, furthermore, a 
convicted drug dealer was let in. So it was not as though they did not 
have a record, it was not as though they did not have background checks 
on these people, it was the classic cannot see, cannot hear, and, 
therefore, there is no evil.
  A Federal judge also denied his request to leave the area, Douze' 
request to leave the area, to visit the White House. But Douze, who was 
arrested in 1988 for blowing up a bridge in Haiti, received the judge's 
permission to visit his dying mother in Haiti a few weeks after the 
Gore fundraiser. Surprise, surprise, he has not come back.
  How does it happen? They let it. They do not follow rule No. 1, which 
is to follow the current law.
  I would like to, if I can, take a few more minutes here to go to the 
third case, Johnny Chung. This is his quote: ``I see the White House 
like a subway; you have to put in coins to open the gates.'' That is 
how Johnny Chung explained his $50,000 contribution which was delivered 
to the First Lady's office in 1995 to buy access to the President.
  Chung said he was seeking VIP treatment for a delegation of visiting 
Chinese businessmen when he was asked to help defray the First Lady's 
White House Christmas receptions that had been billed to the DNC. 
Chung's visit to Washington in March 1995 raised concerns in the 
Clinton administration's National Security Council.
  So in answer to the gentleman from Florida's question, here the 
National Security Council at least warned them. The Passport Office did 
not. The other, presumably State Department, did not, on the case from 
Haiti. They did not warn the White House on the drug dealer's 
connections, but here the National Security Council did warn them.
  One aide described Chung in the memo as ``a hustler'' trying to 
exploit his contacts at the White House. And we already saw in the 
first case what the contacts in the White House can do for bilking poor 
immigrants.

[[Page H8308]]

  Chung essentially paid $7,000 a head to have six businessmen and 
himself watch Bill Clinton deliver an 8-minute radio address followed 
by photos with the President.
  Chung knows his way around the White House. In December 1994, he 
escorted a Chinese beer executive through the West Wing, carrying two 
six-packs and taking pictures as they went. A photo with the First Lady 
with the beer executive is on display on one of Beijing's busiest 
street.
  ``He became an irritant,'' says one White House official. He took 
unfair advantage of the First Lady's office.'' At least he never came 
away empty handed.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. If the gentleman could stay to answer a few 
questions, first of all, the first question I have is, how did the 
White House respond to the National Security Council's warning about 
Mr. Chung?
  And I ask that because I had been speaking previously about how 
actually the National Security Council had said, do not let Mr. Tamraz 
in; he is an international fugitive. Then, of course, we saw the 
Democratic National Committee chairman improperly use his power to 
influence the Energy Department and influence the CIA to put pressure 
on the National Security Council.
  And of course Ms. Heslin was tough and told them that he was an 
international fugitive, he could not get in, so they went around her.
  How did the White House respond when the NSC also said this 
international business gangster was dangerous?
  Mr. SOUDER. With benign neglect, would be kind. With overt refutation 
and opposite action, would be the correct way, because not only did 
they allow him in, they allowed him in repeatedly, and at a radio 
address, and into the White House with the Chinese businessmen. So they 
did not heed their National Security Council's warning.
  And so at some point we have to say, how are we going to pass 
additional laws to regulate people who will not follow the laws, who 
allow drug dealers in, who allow people in who blow up bridges, who 
have their passports revoked, who have been warned by the National 
Security Council that the guy is a risk?
  What they are doing is, they are going ka'chung, ka'chung, so to 
speak, because they want the money, they want the cash register to ring 
with the dollars, because that was the primary goal, not the integrity 
of the political process of the United States.
  They abused people like Johnny Chung. His statement when he says he 
thought that was what you have to do, this is not a statement on Johnny 
Chung as much as it is a statement on the White House: ``I see the 
White House as like a subway. You have to put in coins to open the 
gates.''
  So people who did not understand our system were led by this 
administration to think that the way it works in America is, they have 
to put the coins in, or you do not get any action. And that is a 
disappointing demonstration to people from all these different 
countries about how this works.
  I am so disappointed in this administration, that they would let the 
world think that the way we do business with the President of the 
United States is giving him illegal campaign contributions.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. And, regretfully, that is something that has been 
echoed, again in the New York Times: ``Oil man says he got access by 
giving the Democrats money.'' And in this story he testifies, ``I think 
next time I will give $600,000,'' and stated, really, that the way to 
get into the White House was money and said that was the only reason he 
was there, was money.
  I want to yield in a second to the gentleman from Kansas, who is 
certainly a good friend and a great Congressman, but my office has 
called me back up, and I have to offer an apology, because I had said 
no Democrat had stood up and questioned the fundraising. And my office 
notified me that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has; and, of 
course, he is a trailblazer.
  I have to remind the gentleman from Arizona, he owes the gentleman 
from Ohio a steak dinner, because he said he would give a steak dinner 
to the first Democrat that actually stood up and questioned it. The 
gentleman from Ohio, of course, the trailblazer, did that.
  Something that the gentleman from Indiana and I have not touched on 
yet, something that we are going to be working on in the coming months, 
has been the abuse by the Democratic National Committee and the AFL-CIO 
to launder money.
  According to press reports and according to three Teamsters officials 
who have been indicted now and who are talking to the U.S. Justice 
Department, the AFL-CIO and the DNC have been acting improperly.
  There is another part of this scandal that, of course, the Attorney 
General would like to ignore but simply cannot. The Washington Post, on 
Friday, September 19, 1997, wrote, ``U.S. says Carey aides used DNC and 
AFL-CIO. Consultants plead guilty to funneling money to 10 Teamsters 
presidents' reelection campaign.'' And in the heart of the article it 
says, ``Both the DNC and the Clinton-Gore Reelection Committee agreed 
to seek contributions to the Carey campaign in exchange for Teamsters' 
donations to the Democratic National Committee.'' And, of course, 
according to the Washington Post, that is what happened. That is what 
the United States is telling us now.

                              {time}  1100

  And, of course, it is blatantly illegal to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], who 
has had some experience dealing with some of the parties involved.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Scarborough] for yielding.
  I want to remind the Speaker that this Congress, through the 
Department of Labor, actually spent $20 million to oversee this 
election, and we were spending our taxpayers' dollars to try to ensure 
that there was a fair election in the Teamsters Union. And what 
happened is that we had an unfair election and that the president of 
the Teamsters Union had to step down, now is in very serious trouble.
  Many people wonder, where do the unions get all this money that is 
available? It comes to them through compulsory union dues, it comes 
from all types of dues from working men and women that are struggling 
to make ends meet. And up to 80 percent of the money in their union 
dues does goes for contract negotiations, it does not go for grievance 
procedures. Eighty percent of the money, or approximately in some cases 
89 percent of the money, goes to the international headquarters here in 
Washington, DC, where they push their own political agenda, where they 
push their own political candidates, where they attempt to launder 
money, in this case, in order to get their agenda forward, with no 
regard to what the workers have in mind as far as what they think is 
best for America.
  Well, this is a typical laundering campaign, where the AFL-CIO was 
funneling money into the Teamsters, the DNC was funneling money into 
the Teamsters, with hopes of later on getting it reimbursed from the 
Teamsters back to the Democratic National Committee.
  But it is not just at the Federal level. It is not just at the White 
House. We have had experience of it happening right in Kansas, in the 
heart of America in the Bible Belt.
  The Wichita Eagle reported about how the Kansas State Democrat Party, 
which is limited by law to receive only $25,000 in Federal funds coming 
from the Federal party to the State party, managed to get $315,000 by 
funneling it through or laundering it through local Democratic 
candidates and county State parties.
  A candidate would get a check for $500; and a phone call would say, 
``We would appreciate if you would send $400 right back to the State 
party.'' A county, the Democrat party, would get a check for $5,000, 
limited by statute again, and it will come back to the party. And they 
used that money to run ads against Senators and against Members of 
Congress who were running for election.
  I think it is really interesting that the defense is kind of the same 
in each instance, whether it is the White House or whether it is the 
Vice President or whether it is the State party. First of all they say, 
``Well, I did not do it.'' Then later on, as more of the details come 
out, they say, ``I didn't not do it. But, well, maybe I did do it, but 
it wasn't wrong.''

[[Page H8309]]

  Then the third line of defense was, ``Well, yes, maybe it was wrong. 
But I will never do it again.'' And then the fourth line of defense is, 
``Well, it is not my fault. We had to win, you see. We had to do 
anything, at any cost, regardless of the law.''
  Well, we must, No. 1, uphold the law here in America. Because if 
there is no justice in Washington, DC, there is no justice in Wichita, 
KS, or in Florida, or Indiana, or anywhere in the United States. We 
must uphold the law of the United States of America in the States.
  The campaign financing must start with the individuals. Rule No. 1, 
as was stated earlier by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder]: 
Follow the law. If we are ever going to find where we are going, we 
have got to find a place to start from. And that is the current law 
today, we must follow the law.
  I guess the Democrat Party in the State of Kansas, the Teamsters, and 
the national party in the White House are tired of breaking old laws, 
so they want campaign reform so they get a brandnew set of laws to 
break.
  I want to say in closing, we cannot write enough laws. We have proved 
that. We have laws upon laws, statute books upon statute books. People 
have to do the right thing. It is up to the American people to ferret 
out those who will misalign what they say and what they do and mistreat 
the taxpayers and the people of America by not doing the right thing. 
So voters need to find candidates that will do the right thing and 
support them so we can change America.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] for his insights. And he is right, 
we have got to abide by the laws that we have already passed.
  I have said for some time that for the Democrats and the President to 
talk about how they want new laws to be passed on campaign finance 
reform would be a lot like the driver of Princess Diana coming back 
from the dead and holding a press conference and demanding that the 
speed limit be lowered in the tunnels of Paris or that the alcohol 
level be lowered in Paris for DUI.
  Abide by the laws that are on the books and nobody is going to get 
hurt. Regretfully, though, this is just another way that they can 
change the subject. And my colleague is right, it is shameful, a lot of 
the bobbing and weaving. I know the White House, the Vice President 
particularly said, ``I did not break the law. I did not do anything 
wrong. And I promise I will never do it again.''
  It just does not make sense. The American people are being 
underestimated. They are smarter. When we see the scandals that are 
occurring, when we see the National Security Council, when we see money 
laundering with the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters, when we see the Energy 
Department being improperly used, the CIA, the NSC, the White House, 
the Vice President's office, it is time for us to do something.
  I agree with the New York Times and I agree with editorial writers 
across the country, Janet Reno has no choice but to step up to the 
plate and hire an independent counsel, not a partisan Democrat, not a 
partisan Republican, but somebody that is independent that can look 
into this and look into the type of abuses, again, that the New York 
Times even wrote about this morning that the Democrats use State 
parties to bypass limits; that $32 million were sent to the local 
level, paid for by ads aiding Bill Clinton, possibly very, very 
illegal.
  Somebody must look into this. We cannot allow the integrity of the 
American system to continue to be questioned like this. Let us get 
somebody independent in that can look at the law and apply the law 
equally to both sides. If that happens, America is the winner, not just 
Republicans or Democrats.

                          ____________________