[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 49 (Tuesday, April 28, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2335-H2337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SPEAKER TROUBLED BY PARTISAN BEHAVIOR DURING CAMPAIGN FINANCE
INVESTIGATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pryce of Ohio). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrich) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. GINGRICH. Madam Speaker, I rise with concern and sadness to
report to the House on a letter I am sending the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Burton), Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, today. I want to read the letter and then I want to explain
why I am sending it and the background of sending it.
``Dear Chairman Burton: I was deeply troubled by the partisan
Democrat behavior shown last week during the vote on granting immunity,
to which even the Justice Department is not opposed, to four key
witnesses in your campaign finance investigation.
``This is the exact opposite of previous congressional
investigations, in which Republican Members worked in a diligent and
bipartisan manner with Democrats to uncover the truth. According to
David Dorsen, the assistant chief counsel of the Senate Watergate
Committee, the `Watergate Committee voted consistently and unanimously
for immunity.' In fact, even during Iran-Contra the Congressional
investigative committees voted unanimously to grant a limited form of
immunity to Oliver North, John Poindexter and Albert Hakim. There is no
logical reason for the Democrats' stonewalling and sharply partisan
actions. Again, even the Department of Justice has clearly stated in
writing that they have `no opposition to the committee granting
immunity.'
``The Democrats' efforts to block immunity, despite their own
administration's willingness to accept it, cannot withstand the
public's demand for the truth. For this reason, I encourage you to vote
again on the immunity issue. It is obvious that these four witnesses
would provide a great deal of clarification and a better understanding
of the illegal campaign finance irregularities that took place in the
1996 election cycle.
``The American people have a right to know exactly what happened
during the last election cycle. The very foundations of a democracy are
a well-informed populace with the right to know the truth and a rule of
law ensuring that all are equal in the eyes of justice. Therefore, at
this time I strongly urge you to hold a second vote on granting
immunity to the four key witnesses who were denied it last week.''
My hope is that by next week the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight could vote. I urge every Democrat who voted no, and it was
19-0, 19 against immunity, to reconsider their vote.
I want to report to the House. Here is what the vote was about. The
Department of Justice had cleared, for the purposes of giving
testimony, three witnesses, and had cleared for the purposes of
testimony in an executive session a fourth witness. Let me report to
the House who they are:
Irene Wu, Johnny Chung's office manager and primary assistant at
Automated Intelligent Systems, already immunized by the Department of
Justice, testified before a grand jury. Instrumental in better
understanding Chung's relationships with foreign nationals with whom he
attended political fund-raising events, formed corporations, and from
whom he received money.
Nancy Lee, an engineer at Automated Intelligent Systems, Inc.
Witnesses say Lee solicited contributions to Clinton/Gore '96 from her
colleagues and then reimbursed them. That is, of course, illegal.
Already immunized by the Department of Justice; testified before a
grand jury.
Larry Wong, close friend of Nora and Gene Lum. Believed to have
relevant information regarding conduit contributions, that is,
contributions that were not really from the person who made them
technically, but they came from somebody else, in this case probably
foreign money, made by the Lums and others.
And then under a special arrangement, Kent La, president and
registered agent of Loh Sun International. Believed to have direct
knowledge of Ted Sioeng's activities. At a minimum, La and Sioeng
traveled, attended social functions and at least one fund-raiser, and
transacted business together. The Department of Justice does not oppose
granting congressional immunity with the understanding that the
committee will only depose La in executive session at this time.
I am submitting for the Record the letters from the Department of
Justice, all of them saying, and I would just read one of them because
they are repetitive:
``Dear Mr. Bennett: I am writing in response to your letter of April
7, 1998, requesting the Department of Justice's position on the
granting of immunity to Irene Wu. The Department of Justice has no
opposition to the Committee granting immunity to Ms. Wu. We
[[Page H2336]]
appreciate greatly your coordinating with us in this matter.''
Madam Speaker, the letters referred to are as follows:
U.S. Department of Justice,
Criminal Division,
Washington, DC, April 16, 1998.
Mr. Richard D. Bennett,
Chief Counsel, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Bennett: I am writing in response to your letter
of April 7, 1998, requesting the Department of Justice's
position on the granting of immunity to Irena Wu. The
Department of Justice has no opposition to the Committee
granting immunity to Ms. Wu. We appreciate greatly your
coordinating with us on this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark M. Richard,
Acting Assistant Attorney General.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Criminal Division,
Washington, DC, April 16, 1998.
Mr. Richard D. Bennett,
Chief Counsel, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Bennett: I am writing in response to your letter
of April 7, 1998, requesting the Department of Justice's
position on the granting of immunity to Nancy Lee. The
Department of Justice has no opposition to the Committee
granting immunity to Ms. Lee. We appreciate greatly your
coordinating with us on this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark M. Richard,
Acting Assistant Attorney General.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Criminal Division,
Washington, DC, April 16, 1998.
Mr. Richard D. Bennett,
Chief Counsel, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Bennett: I am writing in response to your letter
of April 7, 1998, requesting the Department of Justice's
position on the granting of immunity to Larry Wong. The
Department of Justice has no opposition to the Committee
granting immunity to Mr. Wong. We appreciate greatly your
coordinating with us on this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark M. Richard,
Acting Assistant Attorney General.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Criminal Division,
Washington, DC, April 22, 1998.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, U.S.
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your letter
of April 7, 1998 requesting the Department of Justice's
position on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
granting immunity to Kent La. As you know, we have met with
Dick Bennett, Kenneth Ballen and other members of the
Majority and Minority staff in an attempt to accommodate the
Committee's desire to obtain Mr. La's testimony and our
desire that any action by the Committee not compromise the
Department's ongoing criminal investigation. In our view, if
Mr. La were to testify publicly at this time, the
Department's criminal investigation could in fact be
compromised. Even if Mr. La were to testify in a closed
session, any disclosure or leak of that testimony, whether
intentional or inadvertent, could seriously compromise the
investigation and any subsequent prosecutions, under the
rulings of Kastigar, North, Poindexter and related cases.
During our discussions with the Committee staff, most
recently on April 20, 1998, we tried to convey to you that
our preference would be to avoid any Committee action to
immunize him. Because of your strong interest in securing his
information at this time, we nevertheless indicated our
willingness not to oppose a grant of immunity to Mr. La under
certain conditions. The Department of Justice, therefore, is
willing to withdraw its objection to the Committee granting
immunity to Mr. La if, and only if, it agrees to adhere
strictly to the following conditions in examining Mr. La.
Based on our discussions with Committee staff, we understand
that these conditions are acceptable to the Committee. The
conditions that the Committee agrees to follow in return for
the Department of Justice withdrawing its objection to the
Committee granting immunity to Mr. La are:
1. The Committee will take Mr. La's deposition in a closed
executive session attended only by Mr. La, his counsel, one
staff member from the Majority, one staff member from the
Minority, and a court reporter.
2. The reporter will make only two copies of the deposition
transcript.
3. The Committee staff who took the deposition will be
provided one copy of the deposition transcript and will
maintain that copy at a mutually acceptable secure location
under conditions that assure that only authorized persons may
have access to the transcript and that no copies of the
transcript may be made. The only persons authorized to have
access to the transcript are Members of the Committee, the
two staff members who took the deposition, and the majority
and minority chief counsel, if they are not the same persons
who took the deposition. [The persons described in the
preceding sentence are hereinafter referred to as ``the
authorized persons.]''
4. The authorized persons may not copy the transcript, but
may take notes, as long as they maintain the notes at the
same location and under the same conditions as the transcript
is maintained. The authorized persons may discuss the
transcript with any other authorized persons, but may not
discuss any aspect of the substance of the transcript with
any other person, including Committee staff, other Members of
Congress, or the public until such time as the Justice
Department states that it has no objection to public
disclosure of the testimony because release of the transcript
or its contents would not compromise the criminal
investigation.
5. The second copy of the transcript will be provided to a
designated attorney within the Department of Justice, but who
is not assigned to the Campaign Financing Task Force, who
will review the transcript to determine if public release of
the testimony could compromise the Department's ongoing
criminal investigations. The designated attorney will
maintain the transcript in a secure location. No Department
of Justice employee other than the designated attorney will
be permitted to review the transcript.
6. The Committee will not present Mr. La's public testimony
until and unless the Department of Justice attorney has made
the determination, discussed in No. 5, above, that public
disclosure of the transcript or its contents would not
compromise the investigation.
7. The designated attorney will meet with attorneys and
investigators conducting the criminal investigation as
necessary in order to obtain the facts needed to evaluate the
transcript. The designated attorney will not discuss the
transcript or its contents with any other employee of the
Justice Department, or any person other than the two staff
members who took Mr. La's deposition or the majority and
minority chief counsel, until and unless the designated
attorney has made the determination discussed in No. 5,
above.
We recognize that under 18 U.S.C. 6005, the Committee has
the statutory authority to vote to grant immunity to a
witness regardless of the position of the Justice Department.
We believe, however, that the terms and conditions set forth
above will satisfy the Committee's needs while hopefully
protecting the Justice Department's interest in conducting
thorough investigations and prosecutions that are not subject
to Kastigar hearings or related challenges. The Department
has determined that if the Committee were to grant Mr. La
immunity under 18 U.S.C. 6005 at this time and absent the
restrictions outlined above, it would clearly compromise the
Department's ongoing criminal investigation and make it more
difficult to obtain convictions of any person(s) who might
eventually be charged with a crime.
Sincerely yours,
Mark M. Richard,
Acting Assistant Attorney General.
So what happened is this: The chairman of the committee and his staff
worked very closely with the Clinton Administration Justice Department.
They actually got the Justice Department to sign off on granting
immunity. Everything was done exactly appropriately. In that setting,
at a time when the American people could have learned the truth from
eyewitnesses who participated in laundering foreign illegal money, a
threat to the entire fabric of our political system, for some reason
the Democrats voted 19-0 against allowing immunity. That means they
voted 19-0 to cover up this testimony, to block it from getting to the
American people, and to prevent the Congress from being informed.
Now, I think there are two principles that we ought to live by. One
is that the American people have the right to know when the law has
been broken. Period. I cannot imagine why any Member of this House
would want to block the American people from having the right to know
that the law has been broken and who broke it and under what
circumstances.
And when the people breaking the law are foreign nationals trying to
corrupt the United States by bringing in foreign money, in some cases
in a deliberate effort in collusion with billionaires in Asia, we have
every reason as a national security matter to protect our political
system from this kind of illegal foreign money.
In addition, the American people have the right to expect that the
rule of law will prevail, that no one is above the law.
One of the things that the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight is working on is the fact that Webster Hubbell, former number
two person in the Justice Department, one of the most powerful men in
terms of the justice system in the United States in the government,
Webster Hubbell received
[[Page H2337]]
more than $700,000, and I want to commend the committee because the
committee has discovered he received at least $200,000 more than was
previously indicated, after he resigned as Associate Attorney General
on March 4, 1994.
Most of the money came from friends of President Clinton and
Democratic Party supporters and was coordinated by people such as then
U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor, Vernon Jordan, James Riady,
the Indonesian who is also implicated in illegal foreign money. By the
way, Indonesia is one of the countries involved in the International
Monetary Fund bailing out the government which directly involves the
Riadys' economic interests and the Lippo Group, which is the
conglomerate owned by the Riadys which has large interests across Asia,
including in Communist China.
Client records show that Mr. Hubbell did little or no work for most
of the money he received from 18 companies and individuals. Now, his
government job was $123,000 a year. His income totaled $704,000 after
he left his government job. Something very wrong is going on.
The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has an obligation to
find the truth for the American people, to have people sworn under oath
testifying, to work with the Justice Department to make sure that we do
not disrupt their investigation. But when the Clinton Administration
Justice Department says this person can be immunized, there is no
excuse, none, for any Member of this House to vote against that
immunization. I call on the committee next week to have a second
hearing.
I hope every newspaper in this country will look carefully at the
issue. Why would any Member vote against that kind of opportunity? I
think that it is very important that we continue this.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGRICH. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Fifteen seconds.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker
be given 5 additional minutes.
Mr. GINGRICH. I do not think that is possible under the rules.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
____________________