[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.

                          ____________________