[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 27 (Friday, March 13, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1914-S1918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      THE WHITEWATER AND 1996 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN INVESTIGATIONS

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am here for two reasons today. First, 
the Governmental Affairs Committee filed its report last week. I have 
individual views in that report regarding the scandals surrounding the 
1996 Presidential campaign. I said in my individual views that I would 
focus, in a major floor speech, on what I consider to be the principal 
issue of that investigation. I am here today to fulfill that 
responsibility.
  Secondly, today I have sent a letter to the Attorney General focusing 
on what I consider to be the principal problem connected with our 
investigation. I owe it to her to make a full explanation of why I have 
sent her that letter.
  Now, Mr. President, I am a Member of the Senate who served on the 
first committee investigating Whitewater activities, chaired by Don 
Riegle, the Senator from Michigan. I call that Whitewater I.
  I served on the second committee investigating the matters relating 
to Whitewater, chaired by Senator D'Amato, which I call Whitewater II.
  I served on the Governmental Affairs Committee investigating the 
excesses of the 1996 campaign, which I shall call Thompson.
  From those three committees, I have some observations that I think I 
would like the Members of the Senate to be aware of. I am going to do 
two things in my presentation. First, I will outline the common threads 
that have run through all three of those investigations. They give us a 
pattern of how the Clinton administration reacts to scandal; and, 
second, I will, in response to the letter I have sent to the Attorney 
General, focus on the one specific situation that remains unresolved 
that in my opinion is the most important situation in this whole 
circumstance.
  So let us go to my first task, the identification of the common 
threads. At the end of Whitewater I, I went back to the office and 
dictated a memo to myself for historical purposes to help me remember 
what I had learned out of that situation. I have gone back and reread 
that memo and share with you now the things I wrote down.
  I came to the conclusion that the low-level people who testified 
before us--that is, people who are fairly far down in the bureaucracy--
have good memories, gave us direct answers, and tell the truth as they 
see it. I found that pattern across the board. On the other hand, the 
higher level officials had bad memories, gave us evasive answers, and 
did their best, in my opinion, to shave the truth. As I say, I saw this 
pattern in the very first Whitewater committee. I saw it repeated again 
and again through all three experiences.
  Let me give you some examples. In Whitewater I, the Resolution Trust 
Corporation employees, who were involved with investigating this 
matter, who first noticed the criminal referrals relating to President 
Clinton's--then Governor Clinton's--business partners, all had good 
memories, gave us direct answers and told us the truth.
  But when we got to a higher level, we found a Treasury Department 
official who actually tried to convince the committee that he had lied 
to his own diary. That is, the notes he had taken contemporaneous to 
the events were wrong and the version he was now giving us before the 
committee was the correct one.
  When we got to the highest level, members of the White House staff, 
we had the people who could not remember anything.
  In Whitewater II, at the lowest level, the Secret Service people, the 
Park Police, the White House secretaries who worked in the office of 
the White House general counsel all had clear memories, all told us the 
truth, all were very direct in their responses.
  When we got up to a slightly higher level, reminiscent of the man who 
lied to his diary, we had a political appointee who could not recognize 
her own voice when it was played back to her on a tape recording of a 
conversation she herself had had, saying, ``I'm not sure that's me.''
  When we got to the highest level, White House intimates, we had a 
White House official who said she could not remember being in the White 
House even though the Secret Service showed she had been there and had 
been in the family residence portion of the White House for 2 hours on 
that particular day, and she had no recollection whatsoever of the 
incident. She did recall making calls of condolence to people with 
respect to Vince Foster's suicide, but she could not recall any 
conversations about any other subject during that time period.
  Now, when we get to the Thompson committee, at the lowest level, we 
had briefers from the CIA, we had secretaries at the Department of 
Commerce, we had a bookkeeper from the Lippo Bank, all of whom had very 
clear memories--direct answers, believable.
  Then we got up to the DNC staffer, he constantly had to have his 
deposition read back to him when he was in front of the television 
cameras to remind him that his version now was not the same as his 
version previously.
  When we got to the highest level, the Deputy Chief of Staff to the 
President of the United States, he said he ``could not recall'' 299 
times--one time short of a perfect bowling score.
  So, I came to my first conclusion: If you want to know what happened, 
talk to the people at the lower level, talk to the people whose jobs 
are not dependent upon White House patronage.
  The second common theme comes not from a detailed memo to myself but 
from an editorial that appeared in the New York Times. This editorial 
appeared January 22nd of this year. It was not talking about the three 
investigations that I have described, but it does analyze, better than 
anything I have seen, the patterns of this administration. It says, 
quoting from the New York Times:

       This Administration repeatedly forces its supporters to 
     choose between loyalty and respect for the law. Those are 
     Clinton . . . themes established long before the charges that 
     Mr. Clinton had a sexual relationship with a White House 
     intern. . . . In such circumstances in the past, the White 
     House has relied on two principal weapons, stonewalling and 
     attacking. . . .

  I would like to take it through the same pattern as the first theme I 
discovered.
  Let us go back to Whitewater I. Admittedly, there was a relatively 
small amount of stonewalling in Whitewater I. It was mainly memory 
loss. But there were attacks, attacks on the RTC employees, attacks on 
their veracity, attacks on their integrity, attacks on the way they did 
their jobs.
  We really saw this pattern in stonewalling and attacking when we got 
to Whitewater II. Stonewall the subpoena. Insist that you cannot find 
the notes. Say that that is attorney-client privilege. Then we saw 
something new that entered in here which I call the ``incompetence 
defense.'' Constantly we were told the reason they could not produce 
the information we wanted is that ``a Secretary had misread the 
subpoena. . . . We didn't know that's what you wanted. . . . That was 
in the wrong file. . . . We looked in the wrong place. . . . We don't 
know where

[[Page S1915]]

the notes came from.'' Part of the stonewalling pattern was the 
incompetence defense. ``We are so incompetent down here we can't 
provide you with anything.''

  Attack? Oh, yes, we saw it in Whitewater II--attack witnesses, 
including, incidentally, Linda Tripp, who was one of the low-level 
people who appeared before us in Whitewater II and who, in response to 
the attack she received by virtue of her direct answers, decided she 
had better start tape recording all of her conversations in order to 
protect herself. Attack the witnesses, attack the committee staff, and 
most of all, attack the chairman.
  All of us in this Chamber know the tremendous amount of abuse that 
was heaped upon the head of the committee, Al D'Amato, by virtue of his 
chairmanship of that committee. I personally saw it in the following 
instance. I appeared on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer opposite Anne 
Lewis, Deputy Director of the Democratic National Committee. She said 
on that occasion, with great indignation, ``It is no coincidence that 
Al D'Amato, the chairman of Bob Dole's election effort, was appointed 
chairman of the committee to handle this investigation against 
President Clinton.'' I stepped in and corrected her. I said, ``As a 
matter of fact, it is coincidence.'' It is the purest coincidence. The 
individual who made the decision that Al D'Amato would be the chairman 
of that investigation was actually George Mitchell, the Democratic 
majority leader in this Senate, who in the 103d Congress determined it 
would be the Banking Committee that would handle the Whitewater 
investigation. George Mitchell didn't realize that the voters would put 
Al D'Amato in that position in the 104th Congress. Pure coincidence. I 
saw Anne Lewis on television the next day after I had given her that 
additional information saying, ``It is no coincidence'' about Al 
D'Amato, and she went on with her charge, her unrelenting attack.
  In the Thompson committee, the same pattern. They attacked the 
witnesses, they attacked the staff, they attacked the chairman, and in 
this case, they attacked the committee members. I know that because 
they attacked me. Here was the circumstance. We had a description of 
Charlie Trie and how he was acting, and one of the members of the 
committee said he really couldn't understand that action, implying that 
Charlie Trie should be dismissed as nothing more than a buffoon. I 
stepped in and said, ``No. I have owned a business in Asia. I have done 
business in Asia. Charlie Trie's actions are the typical actions of an 
Asian businessman.'' By that afternoon, the Democratic National 
Committee issued a press release attacking me as a racist, and within 3 
or 4 days, par for the course with their efficiency, there were letters 
to the editor of my hometown newspaper repeating the charge that I was 
a racist.
  I found it interesting that somewhat later when President Clinton was 
describing why Charlie Trie acted the way in which he did, he pointed 
out he was simply responding to the culture that he came out of, the 
business situation in which he found himself--in other words, a typical 
Asian businessman. I find it interesting that to the Democratic 
National Committee when I say it, it is racist; when President Clinton 
says it, it is exculpatory. In fact, of course, it is neither one.
  Stonewall and attack, stonewall and attack, stonewall and attack. We 
saw it through all three of these investigations. If I may, we are 
seeing it again with respect to Kenneth Starr and what is going on in 
the investigation into the President's personal life. Those are the 
themes that I saw. The second conclusion I add to the first one: The 
White House will stonewall and attack at every turn. Those who speak up 
candidly do so at their peril.
  Now, let me go to my second task, which is to focus on what I 
consider to be the most serious unresolved situation in all of this. 
For this we need to take a little history. We go back to 1977 and to 
the State of Arkansas. In 1977, Mochtar Riady decided it was time to 
come to the United States. He found a partner who would help him come 
into the United States, a man by the name of Jackson Stephens of Little 
Rock, AR. Now, Mochtar Riady is an ethnic Chinese who was born in 
Indonesia. He rose from running a bicycle shop to becoming a 
billionaire. We know on the basis of the IMF debate that is currently 
going on with respect to Indonesia how one becomes a billionaire in 
Indonesia. It is being called ``crony capitalism.'' It is characterized 
by money laundering, insider trading, and a cozy relationship with the 
Government that usually involves substantial payments to officials of 
the Government. That is the culture in which Mochtar Riady became a 
billionaire. We will revisit that in a minute.

  As I say, in 1977 Mochtar Riady wanted to come to the United States, 
and given the fact that his company, his group, called the Lippo Group, 
is primarily involved in banking, insurance, securities, and property 
development, it is natural that he should first look to acquire a bank. 
Jackson Stephens said to him, ``We can help you acquire the National 
Bank of Georgia from Bert Lance.'' But Mochtar Riady did not move fast 
enough. There were some Middle East investors who moved in, acquired 
the National Bank of Georgia, renamed it the Bank of Commerce and 
Credit International, or BCCI, and it went on to its own history and 
its own story, and we will leave it at that.
  Perhaps disappointed in his inability to acquire the National Bank of 
Georgia, Mochtar Riady looked elsewhere, and Jack Stephens had an 
alternative for him in the State of Arkansas. So Mochtar Riady sent his 
second son and heir, James Riady, to Little Rock, to intern at Stephens 
& Company where he became acquainted with the then Attorney General of 
the State of Arkansas, a rising young politician named Bill Clinton. 
Riady and Stephens went on to joint ventures in Hong Kong and in other 
deals.
  But in 1984, Riady and Stephens jointly took control of the Worthen 
Bank in Little Rock. James Riady was installed to run the Worthen Bank, 
and he brought from Hong Kong an experienced international banker to 
help him, a man by the name of John Huang. Now, immediately the bank 
ran afoul of Federal regulators. The Comptroller of the Currency 
accused bank officials of breaking Federal laws that limit insider 
loans. One reporter put it, ``The Feds imposed controls on insider 
lending and started to ease the Riadys out of the bank. The pipeline 
from Worthen to Jakarta would be cut off.'' Forced out of their control 
of the Worthen Bank, the Riadys moved their operations to California. 
They took over a small bank, renamed it the Lippo Bank of California, 
and James Riady and John Huang moved to California to head up the bank.
  Now, as occurred in Arkansas, the stewardship of the Lippo Bank of 
California promptly drew the attention of the regulators. Twice within 
4 years it was hit with cease and desist orders from the FDIC. The 
first one was issued for ``unsafe or unsound banking practices.'' The 
second was issued for underreporting foreign currency transfers between 
California accounts and accounts in Hong Kong. The Los Angeles Times 
has noted, ``Since 1990, Lippo Bank has spent most of its existence 
under the FDIC cease and desist orders which are uncommon and among the 
most severe actions an agency can take.''
  Now, the Riadys did not stop with banking in California. They 
branched out into other businesses. We found three of them in the 
Thompson committee, Hip Hing Holdings, San Jose Holdings, and Toy 
Center Holdings. There was one common thread of all three, they all 
lost money.
  The most spectacular loser was Hip Hing Holdings. Here is a summary 
of its financial results. In 1992, it had total income of $38,400. It 
had expenses exceeding that income of $482,395. They donated, out of 
that $38,000 in total income, $55,400 to the Democratic National 
Committee. That has since been returned, having been determined to have 
been illegal. In 1993, it didn't do any better. Its income went down to 
$35,000, which brought losses, because their expenses were stable, 
brought their losses up to $493,000, and this time they donated $32,960 
to the Democrats.
  The committee determined this was a clear example of money laundering 
because the $55,400 that came in 1992 was all reimbursed from Jakarta. 
We asked the bookkeeper of the Hip Hing Holdings how this worked. She 
said, ``Whenever I needed any money I contacted Jakarta and they sent 
it.'' Now, John Huang was the president of Hip Hing

[[Page S1916]]

Holdings. He was also an officer in every other one of these Lippo 
corporations that I have described, including the Lippo Bank, the one 
for which he was qualified by virtue of his background. We asked the 
Lippo Bank president what John Huang did all day. The president and 
John Huang had adjoining offices and they shared a single secretary. 
You would think if anyone would know what John Huang's activities were, 
it would be the bank president of the Lippo Bank. He responded he had 
no idea what John Huang did all day. We asked the same question of the 
bookkeeper; we got the same answer. They didn't know what the president 
of this company, which was losing half a million a year, and no one 
seemed to care, was doing with his time.

  Well, we know what he was doing with his time. John Huang traveled 
extensively as the Riadys' principal agent in the United States. Among 
other places, he went to Little Rock to keep up his contact with then 
Gov. Bill Clinton. He raised money for Governor Clinton's reelection 
and he raised money for the campaign for President. The committee 
determined that in 1992 the Riadys were the largest single contributor 
to the Democratic National Committee, larger than any union, larger 
than any Hollywood star, larger than any special interest group 
connected with the Democratic Party. The No. 1 contributor to the 
Democratic National Committee was the Riady family.
  After the election, John Huang continued traveling the country as the 
Riadys principal agent in the United States, but he added a new wrinkle 
to his activities. He started hosting officials of the People's 
Republic of China, taking them wherever possible to introduce them to 
members of the Clinton administration.
  In one case, he brought a Riady partner with connections to the 
Chinese intelligence apparatus to meet Vice President Gore. Now, why 
the People's Republic of China? Why would the Riadys be interested in 
courting favor with the Chinese? Public sources say the Riadys have 
more than $1 billion invested in China. We asked the CIA if there were 
other links between the Riadys and the Chinese. The answers are in S-
407, the secret room here in the Capitol, and any Senator who wishes 
can repair there and see just how close the relationship is between the 
Riadys and the Chinese. I assure you it is very close.
  This is what the committee says: ``The committee has learned from 
recently acquired information that James and Mochtar Riady have had a 
long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency. The 
relationship is based on mutual benefit, with the Riadys receiving 
assistance in finding business opportunities in exchange for large sums 
of money and other help''-- I said we would revisit crony capitalism. 
``Although the relationship appears based on business interests, the 
committee understands that the Chinese intelligence agency seeks to 
locate and develop relationships with information collectors, 
particularly persons with close connections to the U.S. Government.''
  Let's go back to 1992. The Riadys, the largest single contributor, 
what did they want? The answer: they wanted a job in the Clinton 
administration for John Huang. Now, when his name went to the personnel 
processors, they assumed, we found out in the committee, that the 
primary reason for supporting John Huang was he was an Asian American 
and this was one of President Clinton's diversity appointments. 
Frankly, the appointment languished. It sat there for a year and a half 
and then two things happened:
  No. 1, Webb Hubbell, Hillary Clinton's former law partner, and 
President Clinton's close friend, found himself out of a job, out of 
money, and on his way to jail. No. 2, James Riady went to the White 
House five times in 1 week. On his last day at the White House, which 
was June 25, he attended the President's radio address. The White House 
photographers turned on the videotape. I have seen the videotape of the 
radio address and of the people who were there. At the end of the radio 
address, each person there shook hands with the President, had his 
picture taken, and left. Hanging back until everyone was gone was James 
Riady and John Huang.
  After the radio address was over and the people had cleared the Oval 
Office, James Riady, John Huang, and Bill Clinton were left alone. At 
that point, unfortunately, the White House photographer turned off the 
video camera, so we don't know what happened at that meeting. But this 
much we do know: On the next business day, Monday, June 27, Webb 
Hubbell was retained by the Lippo Group for $100,000, and John Huang 
got a memo from James Riady outlining his severance from Lippo in 
anticipation of his joining the administration in the Commerce 
Department. Ultimately, that severance came to nearly $900,000--over 4 
years' pay--to an executive who had presided over nothing but losing 
operations.
  Well, as we know, the amounts we have shown of these losses are chump 
change to a billionaire. The Riadys were not in America to make money. 
They came to America looking for something other than financial gain 
from their investments in the United States, and they seemed to have 
gotten it when John Huang went to the Commerce Department less than a 
month after that White House meeting. James Riady summarized it very 
well when he described John Huang as ``my man in the American 
Government.'' John Huang didn't have just any job. He became the 
principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Economic Policy 
with access to critical economic information, including classified 
briefings from the CIA.
  What did John Huang do at the Commerce Department? Well, we know from 
some of those lower level people that he attended a lot of meetings and 
that he was a very assiduous note taker. He was an information 
collector. But other than that, his superiors at Commerce said the same 
thing that his superiors at the Lippo Bank said: ``We really don't know 
what John Huang did with his time. We really don't know what he did 
each day.''
  Well, we know at least some of the things he did. No. 1, we know he 
went to the White House 67 times while he was Deputy Assistant 
Secretary. I know Cabinet officers who would be jealous of the 
opportunity to go to the White House half that often. No. 2, we know 
that at least once or twice nearly every week in the entire time he was 
at the Commerce Department he walked out of his Commerce Department 
office, went across the street to Stephens Inc's Washington office 
where he received packages, FAXes, and phone calls; and then with the 
door closed in an office in that suite, he made phone calls and sent 
out FAXes. We do not know to whom. We do not know what was in those 
packages that he received there or why it was essential for him to go 
there at least once, and often twice, almost every single week for 18 
months.
  We also know that even though he had received close to $900,000 in 
severance from the Lippo Group, there was one tie with the Lippo Group 
that was not severed. They left him with a corporate telephone credit 
card, and he used that credit card to make over 400 telephone calls to 
Lippo officials--at least 232 of them to officials of the Lippo Bank. 
Many of these calls were made on his Commerce Department telephone, 
using the corporate credit card from the corporation from which, 
supposedly, he had been severed.
  Now, here, therefore, is the structure: You have John Huang in the 
Commerce Department, in an area of great sensitivity, taking notes and 
getting briefed by the CIA, and in and out of the White House more 
often than a Cabinet officer. He is on the phone weekly, or more often, 
to Lippo executives who have very close ties to Chinese intelligence. 
If ever there was a conduit that could be used to pass intelligence 
information from inside the Clinton administration to the Chinese 
intelligence apparatus, or Lippo, or both, that conduit was this: From 
the United States Government through the conduit created by John Huang 
to the Lippo Group or the Chinese Government. Was this what the Riadys 
hoped for when they paid for all those money-losing corporations? If it 
is, they certainly had it.

  Of course, all of this would disappear if Bill Clinton failed to be 
reelected in 1996. So, in 1995, it was decided in another Oval Office 
meeting, attended by James Riady, John Huang, Bruce Lindsey, and 
President William Clinton, that John Huang would move from

[[Page S1917]]

the Commerce Department to the Democratic National Committee. The same 
apparatus that could have been used to funnel intelligence information 
out could now be used to funnel dollars in. Now, there was objection in 
the Democratic National Committee to John Huang because they were 
afraid he would break the rules, break the law, and embarrass them in 
his fundraising activities. The President himself overcame those 
objections, making it clear that he wanted John Huang at the DNC. John 
Huang went there and he began to raise money. Indeed, did he raise 
money. Here is the list of John Huang's fundraising capabilities:
  In November of 1995, he raised $30,000; in December, $100,000; in 
February of 1996, $1.1 million; in April of 1996, $140,000; in May of 
1996, $600,000; in June of 1996, $90,000; in July of 1996, $700,000. In 
all, it was over $3 million. He created enormous cash flow for the 
Democratic National Committee. Unfortunately, it went both ways because 
almost half of the money that flowed in from John Huang's activities 
had to flow back out as it was determined to have come from illegal 
sources.
  His most spectacular success was the dinner in February of 1996 when 
they raised $1.1 million. Here is what President Clinton had to say on 
that occasion:

       I am virtually overwhelmed by this event tonight. I have 
     known John Huang a very long time. When he told me this event 
     was going to unfold as it has tonight, I wasn't quite sure I 
     believed him. But he has never told me anything that didn't 
     come to pass, an all of you have made it possible.

  Unfortunately, a substantial number of the people at the head table 
at that event could not participate in this tribute to John Huang 
because they didn't understand English. They were not citizens of the 
United States, and they weren't quite sure what was going on. But they 
were sure that money was going in the direction they wanted it to go.
  Now, I want to focus on the most famous of John Huang's fundraising 
activities--the April 29, 1996, fundraiser at the Buddhist Temple that 
he ran along with Maria Hsia. The amount of money he raised was not the 
largest amount, but it was the most significant amount. He raised 
$140,000, most of which had to be returned because the alleged donors 
were, in fact, reimbursed, dollar for dollar, in a way that is classic 
money laundering and clearly illegal. I focus on this not because it is 
the most famous, but because it is the best symbol of what appears to 
have been going on here. It has the most complete cast of characters. 
Here we have one event, and representing the Clinton administration was 
the Vice President, Al Gore; representing the DNC, its chairman, Don 
Fowler; representing the Lippo Group, John Huang, still carrying a 
Lippo credit card; and representing Chinese intelligence, Maria Hsia 
and Ted Sioeng.
  I need to talk a minute about Ted Sioeng. There were press reports 
that indicated he was, in fact, connected with Chinese intelligence. 
When we were in room 407 getting a confidential briefing in executive 
session from the Director of the FBI and the Director of the CIA, I 
asked the question, ``Is there any connection between Ted Sioeng and 
the intelligence operation of the People's Republic of China?'' The 
answer I got was, ``We don't know.'' So I asked the question, ``Aren't 
you interested?'' ``Well, yes.'' I then asked the question, ``Will you 
find out?'' ``Yes.'' And then I asked the question, ``When you find 
out, will you share that information with this committee?'' ``Yes.''

  The next time we gathered in executive session with the Director of 
the CIA and the Director of the FBI, this was their opening comment: 
``We need to make a correction of our previous statements. It turns out 
that in response to Senator Bennett's questions, we went back and 
checked our files and discovered that we did indeed have information 
linking Ted Sioeng to the People's Republic of China.''
  This was discovered in the CIA files. When they went to find the 
source of that information in the CIA files, they discovered that their 
source was the FBI. In fact, it was in both agencies and neither agency 
Director had known about this. I won't go into that matter further, 
because Senator Specter made a speech about it on the floor castigating 
the Department of Justice for not doing the very fundamental kind of 
activities that would have discovered that and prevented their 
Directors from being so embarrassed before the members of the 
committee.
  It is time to summarize. What do we have here? We have a conduit that 
runs from the inside of the Clinton administration to the inside of the 
Chinese intelligence apparatus. It is a conduit through which could 
flow from the United States to the Chinese classified information about 
U.S. trade policy and strategy. It is also a conduit through which 
could flow from the Chinese, or Lippo, to the Democratic National 
Committee funds to support the reelection of President Clinton. We do 
know that funds did flow through that conduit from Lippo to the DNC--
those funds that I identified that came through Hip Hing Holdings that 
have had to be returned. We do not know whether funds have come from 
the Chinese Government, either down through Lippo or directly through 
the conduit to the Democratic National Committee.
  So the key question that must be answered and, in my opinion, still 
is unresolved after all of these investigations, is: Was this conduit 
ever used either way for either purpose--the transmission of 
intelligence information, or the transmission of money?
  When I tried to find out by asking direct questions in executive 
session on this issue, I always get the same answer: ``Senator, we 
cannot give you that information because it is part of an ongoing 
criminal investigation.'' Now, on its face, that is an acceptable 
answer. That says that something is being done about this. Someone of 
importance in the justice apparatus of the United States is looking 
into this and pursuing a criminal investigation.
  But I want to put that in context. Who should conduct that 
investigation, the Department of Justice or an independent counsel? 
When we had word of a scandal in Arkansas prior to Bill Clinton 
becoming President of the United States, Janet Reno, the Attorney 
General of the United States, said that is a matter that requires an 
independent counsel.
  When we had a matter when one Indian tribe was accused of influencing 
a decision relating to the gambling license for a competing Indian 
tribe, Janet Reno, the Attorney General of the United States, said that 
is a matter for an independent counsel.
  When we had accusations that Henry Cisneros lied to the FBI about the 
amount of money he paid his mistress prior to his confirmation 
hearings, Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, said that 
is a matter for an independent counsel.
  When we had accusations that Secretary Espy, Secretary of the 
Agriculture, had taken favors improperly from certain lobbyists, Janet 
Reno, Attorney General of the United States, said that is a matter for 
an independent counsel.
  When we had information that the President had behaved in an improper 
way in his personal life, Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United 
States, turned to Ken Starr and said, ``That's a matter for an 
independent counsel.'' But on the question of whether or not this 
conduit was utilized for illegal transfers of money or intelligence 
information, either way, Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United 
States, says, ``This one I will investigate myself.'' On this one she 
has staked the integrity and objectivity of the Department of Justice. 
If she has staked the integrity and objectivity of the Department of 
Justice, in my opinion, there must be an accounting of that integrity.

  So I have today written the Attorney General a letter. I ask 
unanimous consent that it appear in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I make three points in the letter.
  First, I point out that it is still time for her to do in this 
instance what she has done five times before in instances that are, in 
my opinion, less serious than this one. There is still time to appoint 
an independent counsel. However, if she persists in refusing to do so, 
I think she has, at the very minimum, two responsibilities to this 
Congress.
  First, if she uncovers any indication of the passing of improper 
information through this conduit from the U.S.

[[Page S1918]]

Government to either Lippo or the Chinese, or both, she has the 
responsibility to share that information with the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, and to share it as soon as she finds it.
  Second, if she comes across any indication that there was an illegal 
transfer of money from either the Lippo Group or the Chinese 
Government, or both, into the Democratic National Committee, she has 
the responsibility to share that information with the Governmental 
Affairs Committee immediately after she finds it. We can always 
reconvene in S. 407. We can always go into executive session. But she 
has a responsibility, by virtue of her determination to keep this 
matter to herself rather than giving it to an independent counsel, to 
be that responsive and that accountable to this Congress.
  I say to her, ``Madam Attorney General: By making the decision to 
keep this to yourself you have your work cut out for you. In addition 
to the pattern of poor memory at the highest level, you have a flock of 
witnesses who have fled the country. You have a flock of witnesses, 
including members of the White House staff, who have taken the fifth 
amendment. You have an intricate and almost massive task. And this 
Senator at least will be watching with great interest to see how you 
discharge it.''
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 1998.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madame Attorney General: During its investigation of 
     campaign finance irregularities, the Senate Governmental 
     Affairs Committee uncovered a series of established contacts 
     between the Chinese Government and the Clinton 
     Administration. These contacts could have been used as 
     conduits for the two-way passage of classified information 
     and illegal campaign contributions.
       For example, the American Intelligence Community has 
     concluded that the Riady family of Indonesia has had ``a long 
     term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency''. The 
     Community further concluded that the Chinese intelligence 
     agency ``seeks to locate and develop relationships with 
     information collectors, particularly persons with close 
     connections to the U.S. Government.'' The Committee 
     determined that (1) the Riady family and its associates were 
     the leading source of campaign funds for the Clinton-Gore 
     ticket in 1992, and (2) the Riady family was able to place 
     one of its top officials, John Huang, at the Commerce 
     Department where he had access to sensitive intelligence 
     information. The Committee also concluded that six 
     individuals--John Huang, Charlie Trie, Maria Hsia, Mochtar 
     and James Riady, and Ted Sioeng--have some affiliation to the 
     Chinese Government.
       In a number of circumstances, including allegations against 
     Cabinet officers Henry Cisneros, Michael Espy and Bruce 
     Babbitt, you have decided that potential conflicts of 
     interests required the appointment of an Independent Counsel. 
     The Chinese conduit issue raised by the Committee is far more 
     significant to public confidence in the proper functioning of 
     the American Government than any of these cases. Further, the 
     six individuals named by the Committee all have strong links 
     to ``covered persons'' under the Independent Counsel statute. 
     Therefore, I believe that the appointment of such a Counsel 
     is required. I urge you to reconsider your decision not to do 
     so.
       However, if you persist in your decision to retain 
     jurisdiction within Justice over these cases, it is incumbent 
     on you to agree to do two things as your investigation 
     proceeds: (1) Inform the Senate Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of possible classified information that may have 
     flowed through the conduit from the Clinton Administration to 
     the Chinese Government. (2) Inform the Governmental Affairs 
     Committee of any illegal campaign funds which may have made 
     its way through the conduit from Chinese sources to Clinton-
     Gore or the Democratic National Committee.
       By refusing to turn this matter over to an Independent 
     Counsel, you have taken upon yourself the responsibility to 
     be thorough, vigorous and timely in your investigation. Given 
     the high level of public and congressional interest in the 
     serious circumstances involved, it is only appropriate that 
     the Congress continue to be kept informed of your progress.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert F. Bennett,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to say to my good friend from 
Utah--I think Members of the Senate already know this--no one, no one 
in the Senate, has more articulately and persuasively defended the 
right of American citizens to participate in the political process, 
which is a constitutional right in this country; no one has more 
articulately been involved and persuasively been involved in an effort 
to stop misguided efforts to put the Government in charge of the 
political speech of individuals and groups, candidates, and parties 
than has the Senator from Utah.
  But what he has done today is provide for the Senate and for the 
public a clear summary of the illegal activities of the current 
administration. The Senator from Utah has reminded everyone that it is 
against the law now for foreigners to contribute to American elections, 
for money laundering to be engaged in, and for money to be raised on 
Federal property.
  So the Senator from Utah has done far and away the best summary of 
the activities of this administration going back to 1992 which either 
crossed the line or skirted the edge and has been lost in the sort of 
numbers of different occurrences.
  So what the Senator from Utah has done is cut through all of this, 
summarize it, and give the Senate and the American public a clear 
indication of the sleaze factor that has ranked so high in this 
administration from the beginning to the end.
  So I thank the Senator from Utah. I think it is the most important 
speech that I have heard in the Senate in many, many years. He has made 
an important contribution in this area, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to be here on the Senate floor and to have an opportunity 
to hear this important speech.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kentucky.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Utah for 
the valuable information he just provided to the Senate. I am amazed at 
what has taken place. This information is so valuable that it could be 
used, and should be used, in further inquiries into this matter.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank my friend from South Carolina. This is high 
praise coming from a man who served with my father and who has set an 
ethical standard of which the rest of the Senate can be proud.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________