[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3096-H3102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CAMPAIGN FINANCE INVESTIGATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is recognized for one-half of the remaining time 
tonight.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me get back to the point and invite 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) to hang around if he wants to, 
who I happen to think a lot of, incidentally.
  But Kent La, the man who would be the witness to the Burton 
committee, which we will vote on tomorrow, and I certainly urge my 
friend from Wisconsin to reconsider his position, which I would have a 
hard time believing that it does not have just a little hint of 
partisanship in it. But I know the gentleman well and I would think 
more of him than that.
  So let me just say about Kent La, because apparently my colleagues 
have not heard of this guy. But he is an associate of Ted Sioeng and he 
is the United States distributor of Red Pagoda Mountain Cigarettes. He 
has a major stake in these cigarettes, the best-selling brand of 
cigarettes in China and the third largest selling cigarette in the 
world. The company is

[[Page H3097]]

owned by the Communist Chinese Government; a fact.
  Ted Sioeng and his associates gave $400,000 to the Democrat National 
Committee. Of this amount, Kent La, the witness, gave $50,000. Now, 
every witness that has come before their committee has said, ``You need 
to interview Kent La.'' But Kent La has invoked the fifth amendment. He 
is one of the 92 who have fled the country or taken the fifth 
amendment. But he is saying he will testify if he has immunity.
  The Democrat Department of Justice gave him immunity. But on the 
committee, the Democrats are blocking his opportunity to be a witness. 
Now, inasmuch as this investigation is not about the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton) but about campaign financing, why will not my 
colleagues vote to give the guy immunity?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Two corrections. I serve on the committee. 
My colleague made the statement that the Department of Justice has 
given him immunity. If the Department of Justice had given him 
immunity, there would be no need for our committee to give him 
immunity.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time just to say that the gentleman is 
correct. What they said, and they said it in writing, is that they have 
no problem with the committee giving him immunity. So he is correct on 
a technicality. But again, that is only a technicality. The matter is, 
what does the witness have to say?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. If the gentleman would further yield, the 
second statement that he made I want to correct. My colleague stated 
that every witness who has come before this committee has talked to 
this gentleman. I cannot recall a single witness who has testified 
before this committee who has made that statement. I am on the 
committee. Not a single witness has said that.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Not a single witness has. But let us say my colleague 
scored.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. That just defeats his question, then, if my colleague 
just agreed with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, and I want to get to my friend from 
the Upper Peninsula. But let me say this; my colleague wins on a 
technicality. Two technical points, two minor technical points; they 
win.
  The fact is, I want to know why my colleagues will not give the guy 
immunity to testify if they are really interested in getting to the 
truth.
  Mr. STUPAK. Technical point. That is not a technicality when the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) tells my colleague, and he sits 
on the committee, that no witness has ever mentioned that the committee 
should interview this guy. That is not a technical point; that is the 
truth of the matter.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I guarantee my colleagues, I am 
going to give them that point.
  Now my question is, when the Department of Justice has signed off on 
immunity, why will not my colleagues let the guy testify? And how could 
my colleague from Michigan say in good conscience that he is being fair 
and that he is really nonpartisan, he is really interested in getting 
at the truth, when he will not let a witness come before the committee?
  Mr. STUPAK. If your question, and my colleague should have stayed at 
Michigan State longer because he would have learned this, if his 
question was and if the truth was that every witness said to have this 
guy testify, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) said that 
is not the truth, based upon his hypothetical, if this was true, I am 
sure, I cannot speak for committee members, I would vote for it if his 
statement was true.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I am not on the committee. I am not 
on the committee. I am giving my colleagues those two points.
  The question is, and my colleagues know, the greater issue is not the 
punctuation of the sentence but it is the answer to the question; and 
the question is, why will my colleagues not let the guy testify?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for 
yielding; because, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a very interesting case 
study here. We have here on the floor of the Congress, under the 
ostensible notion of nonpartisanship or bipartisanship, a very clever 
and very lawyerly-like dissemination and dissection on technical 
figures of speech. Indeed, to be completely accurate, if we want to 
indulge in these types of statements, I would have to gently correct my 
friend from Michigan; because the accurate statement from the gentleman 
from Wisconsin was that he could not respect anyone testifying, as my 
friend from Georgia said.
  So we could be awash here in technicalities. But it is very 
instructive to listen to the tenure and tone of the preceding hour and 
indeed those characterizations that come to us, with apologies to Drew 
Pearson and Jack Anderson and others, in this Washington merry-go-
round; because it sadly reduces to farce some very important concepts.
  I listened with interest to the concerns of our friends from the 
other side about the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and let me 
commend them for being rather clever and I believe being totally 
partisan, while standing there cloaking themselves in the veil of 
nonpartisanship.
  But there is a larger question tonight, Mr. Speaker; and it deals not 
with the chairman of any House committee, nor on the technicalities of 
parsing statements and trying to out-lawyer each other. Though, for the 
record, I should point out I am not an attorney. ``JD'' does not stand 
for ``juris doctorate''; and I consider that to be an asset, quite 
frankly. No, the larger question has to do with the rule of law in a 
society and a truly bipartisan attempt to get to the bottom of some 
very serious, serious allegations.
  Indeed, if history is our guide, a quarter century ago, we saw 
bipartisanship when there were genuine concerns and indeed a 
constitutional crisis surrounding the White House, when the President 
made a claim of executive privilege that was overruled by the judicial 
branch.
  Well, this Chamber and the other Chamber moved forward to solve that 
problem. So the bigger question tonight, as I am happy to yield time 
back to my colleague from Georgia, has nothing to do with the 
technicalities and the character questions of any Member of Congress. 
It has everything to do with over 90 witnesses who have either taken 
the fifth amendment or fled the country. And indeed, in that context 
and the serious, serious allegations surrounding not only those actions 
but what has transpired perhaps at the other end of Pennsylvania 
Avenue, I would submit to my colleague from Georgia, my friends from 
the other side of the aisle, that this has little to do with the 
chairman of any committee here and everything to do, sadly, with this 
administration and the curious behavior and the curious defenses 
offered by the left.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. I agree with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) 
that this is a very serious matter and should be taken very seriously. 
And the part that upsets maybe us and the reason why I have been taking 
to the floor is, let us go back to the original question that the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) asked about this individual and 
the Justice Department granting him immunity and that every witness 
before the committee, and the only one here who is on that committee is 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), said they should interview 
this guy.

                              {time}  2230

  There were about three things wrong with that. See, the problem is 
this, we are throwing out these accusations which, when corrected, we 
call a technicality. But when we hurl an accusation in the position we 
are in as elected Members of the Congress of the United States, it is 
very important, before we

[[Page H3098]]

impugn people's reputations, before we make accusations that the facts 
be crystal clear.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim the time here, because we 
can talk about Kent Law, but I have already said you can have the 
technicality on that. I am not on the committee.
  But what I do not quite understand is, do you not have the slightest 
bit of curiosity as to why the guy who works for the Chinese Communist-
owned Red Pagoda cigarette company, why they gave $400,000 to the 
Democratic National Committee?
  I yield to my friend from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. To answer the gentleman's question, if your three points 
were correct, that Justice gave them immunity, that every witness said 
that it is true----
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming the time. Listen, my friend from the Upper 
Peninsula, this is part of the Democratic tactic of delay, of distract. 
I am saying, hey, do you know what, I only know what I read. My 
question is, forget the technicalities. Tell me why you do not think it 
is important for a guy to testify.
  Mr. STUPAK. If you would let me.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Still claiming the time, if you do not want to talk 
about Kent Law and grant him immunity, what about the $3 million that 
was funneled through John Huang, which the Democratic National 
Committee had to return? Does it concern you that the Chinese 
Government may have been trying to influence the election process?
  Or if you do not want to talk about that, could we talk about why 
Webb Hubbell got $700,000 in money after he left his job and before he 
went to prison?
  Or if you do not want to talk about that, can we talk about Charlie 
Trie, who is a friend of the President, from Arkansas who funneled 
$700,000 in contributions to the President's legal defense fund?
  If you do not want to talk about that, could we talk about Charlie 
Trie's Macao-based benefactor that wired him $1 million from overseas 
banks.
  There is enough here that surely we can talk about one issue besides 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and Republicans who do not say 
things correctly.
  Mr. STUPAK. If the gentleman would yield, to the original question on 
the technicalities----
  Mr. KINGSTON. No. Let me reclaim my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. You have got to let me answer.
  Mr. KINGSTON. No. I think you have already said you have given me an 
F for grammar, an F for credibility, whatever. I understand that. So do 
not go back down that trail. I am giving you another two.
  Mr. STUPAK. Let me answer your question.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Stupak, I was a salesman, and when you get the 
order, you get the order. The sale is over with. Go home. I am giving 
you the order. I am going on to a different issue.
  Mr. STUPAK. I am trying to sign my name.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I am trying to say, you won that round.
  Now I am asking you, which one of these other issues do you want to 
talk about?
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Salesman, I am trying to sign my name to your order 
form.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I am always glad to yield to my friend, the gentleman 
from Michigan, in hopes that he will answer the question finally.
  Mr. STUPAK. To sign your order, Mr. Salesman, the answer would be, 
yes, I would grant him immunity if I was on the committee. Based upon 
those facts, if they were correct, I would grant him immunity. That is 
your original question. I would agree with you.
  Mr. KINGSTON. How about the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I am on the committee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Have we sold you, brother? Can you come around?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. For me, the issue is credibility and 
fairness. So you can paint these pictures. I am standing here with no 
documents; you have got some documents that obviously have been 
prepared as a tactical point.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming the time, this is, as a matter of fact, 
available to you, as it is me. It is the statement of the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. That is fine. It is over. For me, it is 
over in the committee. When you have a committee chair that uses a 
term, calls the President a term that I think both of you gentlemen 
would wash out your kids' mouth with soap and says he is out to get the 
President, I think it flunks the fairness test. That is what it is. It 
has flunked the fairness test, and it has flunked the credibility test.
  Mr. KINGSTON. So because the gentleman perceives the procedure as 
being unfair, then he says there is no problem.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. No. No.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The issue is the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is 
so unfair that the potential that the Chinese Communist government is 
infiltrating our government is not an issue because we do not like the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Would the gentleman yield?
  Assuming what you say is true, and I do not know that it is, and that 
you are bothered by it, I think you heard us talk about every single 
editorial has said this committee basically has lost its credibility.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Wait a minute. Reclaiming the time, if I can go on the 
technicality argument so eloquently demonstrated by my friend from 
Michigan, you said ``every editorial.'' Why, that is not true at all. 
The editorials in my hometown paper, the editorial that I have 
somewhere around here from the Washington Post says get over the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). Look at the tapes. So if you want 
to get into that--
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, I thank my friend from Georgia because, since 
we sadly have lapsed into hyperbole and always want to be mindful of 
the technical requirements of our good friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan, we can indulge in an institutional memory in this Chamber 
long before I arrived here.
  Indeed, the Wall Street Journal opined on this subject this morning, 
discussing the tactics of previous chairmen in this House, how one 
gentleman ``used to arrange to have full, detailed news stories appear 
the same morning his victims were scheduled to testify.''
  It is very interesting to hear these protestations of a lack of 
fairness when history is replete with so many abridgements, so many 
convenient sharings of facts from so many committee chairmen for so 
long under a previous majority. Again, while we could score debating 
points, that simply only serves to distract us and play tit for tat 
when there is a larger question at stake.

  Though the truth may ultimately turn out to be uncomfortable perhaps 
for us all, indeed for us all, why would anyone choose to obfuscate and 
call into question fellow Members of Congress when, instead, the 
problem, as much of the evidence indicates, has little to do with the 
rules of this House and everything, sadly, to do with the reported 
practices, questionable practices of fund-raising and relationships, 
and sadly what in fact could turn out, Mr. Speaker, to be crimes.
  Why not get to the heart of the matter? The people in my district 
want to know.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming the time, we have about 30 minutes. I want 
to say that you are the first two Democrats who would be willing to 
come down here and discuss this. It speaks well for both of you and 
your convictions.
  I wanted to say, also, there are certainly a lot of gray areas in 
this whole debate. But I also say that there is a heck of a lot of 
partisanship being exhibited that goes beyond the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Why do we not do this? Why do we not all kind of keep this ball 
rolling and talk for about a minute each, and everybody can get in his 
point or two. Of course, if I look real bad, I will claim more time, 
but if that is agreeable, why do we not do that?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I would be more than happy to. It is your 
time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I will 
keep this on my watch.

[[Page H3099]]

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Okay. If I wanted to be a partisan hack on 
this issue, the smartest thing in the world for me to do would be to 
say, keep the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) in that chairmanship, 
because I have seen these editorials, and I mentioned the editorials I 
have referred to. The editorials have skewered them. They have not been 
good, frankly, for the Republicans.
  So I would say let him stay there, but I am interested in having the 
truth. I think that there are other people on this committee, I am on 
this committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. 
Morella), the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), there are many 
others on that committee who could run that committee and frankly would 
have credibility.
  I think what we have to do is, we have to have a search for the 
truth. Again, for me, sadly the committee no longer has credibility. 
That is what the issue is for me. I would be lying to you if I told you 
anything else. It just simply no longer has any credibility.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). As usual, 
he is a gentlemen. And I appreciate the opportunity to engage with him 
on this, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) as well.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Do not leave yet, because I do want to respond to that. 
The gentleman's 60 seconds were just running out.
  Let me say this, if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was the 
chairman of that committee or the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Canady) 
or the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), from a distance, it 
sounds great.
  But when we think about what happened to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers) when he was looking at California vote fraud, he and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the cochair, leading people on that 
committee were accused of racism even though both Republicans have 
Hispanics in their immediate family, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers), three Hispanic grandchildren, but he was called a racist by 
many, many Democrats.
  I think that we have gotten into this habit of, if you do not like 
the content of the debate, attack the person. So if it was not the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and it was the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), I am sure we would all start talking about 
something about him that folks found offensive.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). 
And, note, I came in at 10 seconds left to go.
  Mr. STUPAK. A couple of things. You agreed on the point that we were 
on some technicalities, but when you are doing investigations like 
this, or discussions, technicalities, truth has to prevail over 
technicalities. In the last comments of gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth), you know he is talking about all these other things, but the 
end does not justify the means.
  We have the Constitution here. We have an oath of office. We have a 
Bill of Rights. We have a Privacy Act. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) was warned not to release those things, and he still did. There 
the end is trying to justify the means, and you cannot do that. You 
cannot trample constitutional safeguards to make your points, whatever 
they may be.
  I do not think the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) or the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) or the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) or any others would have done that when they get 
a letter from the AG saying, this is highly sensitive, do not do that. 
I do not believe we would have been reading about these tapes in the 
paper. I think they are sensitive to those things.
  I do not think there is a personal agenda with these others, which 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has more or less admitted to. 
That is what loses credibility in our eyes and the eyes of the American 
people.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Hayworth.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my friends from the 
other side for again trying desperately to shift this focus to another 
Member of Congress, who has endured great criticism in the media, as 
have other people who are not Members of Congress. The name Kathleen 
Willey comes to mind and many others who have been placed in a 
situation where, if they appear to make statements that are contrary 
either to the minority on this Hill or to those who now reside at the 
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, are called into question, their 
character is called into question. But I think it is worth noting, if 
we accept for just a minute the premise that----
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for 
being so judicious to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The clock does not lie.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I will sit back and listen with great interest to what 
the gentleman has to say.
  Mr. KINGSTON. It is not my time. I was going to yield to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), but I will yield my time to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I will thank the gentleman from Georgia 
very much. He has been a gentleman.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Can I just make a point? This is a very serious 
question for the American people. I appreciate the comity and the 
civility, but I would hope on this issue and many others it would never 
degenerate into levity because what we are discussing is very serious. 
It goes to the heart of our constitutional Republic.
  My friend, the gentleman from Michigan said the ends do not justify 
the means. Accepting that, then all these matters could be cleared up 
if over 90 witnesses had not either taken the fifth amendment or fled 
the country.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if the President of the United States who 
several weeks ago told the press corps and, by extension, the American 
people that we deserve the facts sooner, not later, would simply come 
forward and share those facts with the American people. Again, I would 
remind my friends who remind us that the ends do not justify the means, 
who are quick to point to our Constitution that, indeed, the 
Constitution of the United States gives this branch of government, the 
legislative branch of government, oversight of the actions in the other 
two branches.

                              {time}  2245

  Oversight of actions in the executive branch of government. And, 
indeed, I am sorry my friend from Michigan did not stay with us, Mr. 
Speaker, because there is one question that is out there. For if the 
ends do not justify the means, how then do we reconcile not only the 
gulf between the statement of our President, who said the American 
people deserve the facts sooner, rather than later, how then do we also 
reconcile, Mr. Speaker, the statements of the Vice President of the 
United States, who in meeting the press after allegations, and indeed 
later substantiated that fund-raising phone calls were made on Federal 
property from the White House, then attempted to tell the American 
people at a press conference that his legal counsel informed him there 
is no controlling legal authority?
  You see, Mr. Speaker, and my colleague from Georgia, this goes to the 
heart of the matter. There is a controlling legal authority. It is 
called the Constitution of the United States, and, by extension, the 
Constitution articulating that it is the Congress of the United States 
that shall have that oversight.
  Indeed, the question remains, as I listened with great interest to my 
friend from Wisconsin, at long last, is there not one, is there not one 
member of the minority, who would step forward to vote to grant 
immunity, as advocated by the Justice Department, so that these serious 
allegations can be addressed? Is there not one who is willing to step 
forward?
  Is there not one who can heed the lessons of history? And I think, 
Mr. Speaker, of the former Senator from Tennessee, Howard Baker, who 
put principle above partisanship, who was willing a quarter century ago 
to let the chips fall where they may. And I just wonder Mr. Speaker and 
my colleague from Georgia, have our friends on the other side taken a 
profoundly different lesson from that history, that the notion of 
stonewalling and obfuscation and changing the subject can somehow 
resonate?

[[Page H3100]]

  Good people can disagree, but the truth should be our guide.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, it is interesting you 
brought up the contrast of Howard Baker and the Republican minority 
during the Watergate scandal compared to John Glenn. You know, John 
Glenn, my elementary school hero shared by so many kids, how far he has 
fallen from those days, high in the stratosphere, to being a lowly 
politician.
  Here is a quote that when he was the ranking member of the Senate 
Oversight Committee on the Thompson committee, Fred Thompson asked how 
the investigators could get more information when so many people had 
fled the country? John Glenn's response was, ``That is their problem.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The Chair would 
remind Members that it is not appropriate to make references to sitting 
members of the Senate, and would ask the Members to respect that.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think that is a good point, Mr. Speaker. I will 
submit this for the record, because it is straight out of the editorial 
page, May 11, Roll Call Magazine.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain a request to 
insert personal references to a sitting member of the Senate.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I will move on.
  Here we have a situation where Dan Burton's big crime, even though he 
has broken no law, but he is being accused of disclosing doctored 
tapes. First of all, no tapes whatsoever were altered. These were not 
tapes that were eavesdropping, surreptitiously sneaked into the 
household of the Hubbells.
  This is where Webb Hubbell, convicted felon, sat in jail and talked 
with his wife when she came to visit him, and over their head was a 
sign that said, ``All conversations are recorded. If you want your 
lawyer, come get him.'' These tapes are public. They came from the 
prison. Webb Hubbell is a convicted felon.
  In those tapes, Ms. Hubbell makes reference to the fact that she is 
worried about losing her job in the Department of Interior if they do 
not cooperate with apparently the White House.
  In there Ms. Hubbell talks about the White House squeeze play. In 
there Mr. Hubbell talks about, ``I will have to roll over again for the 
White House.''
  These are serious matters. Why did they make these statements? Yet 
not one Democrat member of the committee has the slightest bit of 
curiosity about it.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Again we should 
point out that since there was the great brouhaha between the alleged 
discrepancies in the transcript from the majority and the minority 
version as sent out by the ranking minority member, Mr. Waxman of 
California, both transcripts contained that verbiage.
  Again, my colleague from Georgia, would you repeat the comments of 
Mrs. Hubbell and the comments of Mr. Hubbell? Because I think it is 
important, Mr. Speaker, that the American people take note that even 
amidst the great hue and cry and wailing and gnashing of teeth and 
technical arguments offered by the other side, these statements 
appeared in both transcripts and directly on the audio tape. Those 
statements again, Mr. Kingston, were?
  Mr. KINGSTON. That Ms. Hubbell feared that she would lose her job at 
the Department of Interior if Mr. Hubbell took actions against the 
Clintons. Ms. Hubbell said she feels she is being squeezed by the White 
House. Webster Hubbell says, ``I will have to roll over one more time 
for the White House.'' That comes from what, 180 hours worth of tapes.
  Keep in mind, I will yield back to you, but between the time he 
resigned from his job and was convicted, Webb Hubbell received $700,000 
in payments from friends and associates of the President. $100,000 came 
from the Riady family associated with the Lippo Group of Indonesia. The 
payment came within 10 days of a meeting at the White House involving 
the President, John Huang, James Riady and Webster Hubbell.
  This is serious stuff. This is not about Dan Burton and his style as 
chairman and how he may have offended somebody. This is about the 
security of the United States of America. This is serious stuff.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague for yielding. Again, I am not an 
attorney, I never played one on TV, but there is an expression in the 
law dealing with a preponderance of physical evidence.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating. Despite the valiant efforts at 
misdirection to focus attention on a committee in this House, again, 
what is at stake here is the rule of law and, yes, sadly, alleged law 
breaking within the executive branch of government, with actions taken 
by those involved in fund-raising for the reelection efforts of those 
involved in the executive branch of government, with apparent foreign 
donations.
  From where I hail, Mr. Speaker, the Sixth District of Arizona, we are 
always on the watch for wildfires in our wooded areas in the northern 
part of the district. The expression ``Where there is smoke there is 
fire" often, often, appears to be true.

  Now, Mr. Speaker, what the American people need to keep in mind is 
more than a curiosity, how a disgraced former Justice Department 
official could, between the time of his sentencing and his arrival in 
Federal prison receive $720,000 in income, that is a major question, 
and how over 90 witnesses in the committee's investigation of these 
matters have either taken the Fifth Amendment against self-
incrimination or have fled the country.
  Mr. Speaker, the people of the Sixth District of Arizona, whom I am 
honored to represent, offer this common observation: Is there not fire 
where the smoke appears; or at least should not that be investigated? 
And indeed there are pressing problems, problems I am prepared to 
address from the well of this House with my voting card in terms of the 
issue that confront us.
  But our constitutional charge, Mr. Speaker, is to uphold and defend 
the Constitution of the United States. Do we sacrifice the Constitution 
to convenience, or to the predictable cacophony of protests from left-
leaning newspapers and editorial boards across the country? I would say 
no, that principles should always eclipse polling, and that principles 
should transcend popularity. This, Mr. Speaker, goes to the fundamental 
question of the rule of law.
  Dwight Eisenhower offered a guide for those of us involved in public 
life. President Eisenhower's admonition was to never indict 
personalities when dealing with subjects of interest; never to engage 
in personalities.
  By Ike's standard, Mr. Speaker, indeed by the standards of the 
American public, what we have seen with the spirited campaign of 
disinformation, whether it comes against Katherine Willey or a chairman 
of a committee of the Congress of the United States, celebrated in a 
book written by a Washington Post journalist as being the spin cycle, 
what we have seen, sadly, in our public discourse and dialogue, is 
every effort to engage in personalities, and, indeed, through spin, one 
could fancy that someone as virtuous as Albert Schweitzer could be 
transformed in the spin cycle to someone as loathesome as Charles 
Manson.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I think that that is what 
is very important. I do not believe that the President of the United 
States is as guilty as some people seem to believe that he is. I really 
do not. I think he is surrounded by some characters who are very shady, 
very suspicious and who have broken some laws, and my direct question 
is, what laws were broken, why were they broken, and did the United 
States security suffer from it?
  If the gentleman does not mind, I want to make a point. We hear so 
much about Ken Starr is on a witch hunt. Let me give you the names and 
charges and the year that people that he has dealt with have been 
convicted.
  David Hale, conspiracy, false statements, 1994; Charles Matthews, 
bribery, 1994; these are all convicted. Eugene Fitzhugh, bribery, 1994; 
Robert Palmer, conspiracy, 1994; Webster Hubbell, fraud, 1994; Kneel 
Ainley, fraud, 1995; Chris Wade, fraud, 1995; Stephen Smith, 
conspiracy, 1995; Larry Kuka, conspiracy, 1995; James McDougal, fraud, 
1996; Susan McDougal, fraud, 1996; William Marks, fraud, 1997; Governor 
Jim Guy Tucker, fraud, 1996 and 1998; John Haley, fraud, 1998; Webster 
Hubbell, this is under indictment, tax evasion, 1998; Susan McDougal, 
obstruction, contempt, 1998.

[[Page H3101]]

  This is finding the head of the snake. Slowly but surely, these 
people, by a Democrat-appointed special prosecutor, have been 
convicted. Yet we hear over and over again that this is a witch hunt.
  I am very concerned about the integrity of the government and the 
security of the United States when we hear such rhetoric.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague for yielding. The irony of some of 
the point-counterpoint, Mr. Speaker, is nothing short of breathtaking. 
Indeed today, as Members of the press faithfully reported, our 
President held a conference and invited the press corps in to talk 
about international justice and the pursuit of those who had allegedly 
committed crimes against this Nation beyond our borders and the concern 
of the pursuit of international justice.
  Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the most meaningful first step that 
our President could take toward preserving international justice would 
be to use the considerable power of his good offices to persuade over 
90 individuals who have either taken the Fifth Amendment or fled the 
country to testify and cooperate fully and/or to return to these shores 
so that they might be questioned.

                              {time}  2300

  Again, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Sixth district of Arizona who 
have contacted me on this issue say, hey, listen, where there is smoke 
there is fire, or at least you should check these things out; 
respectfully request that if, in fact, there is nothing to these 
stories, and indeed we all share the notion of a presumption of 
innocence until guilt is proven, why then is there such stonewalling? 
Why then is there such a reluctance to have at the truth? Why then are 
we subjected to the cavalcade of personal attacks based on whomever may 
level an accusation or make a charge at that particular moment within 
the press corps?
  The expression has to do with a preponderance of physical evidence. 
Indeed, sadly, there is a preponderance of rhetorical evidence and a 
cycling of the spin cycle which indicates sadly that behavior seems to 
be contrary to the desires the American people have for a full, fair 
disclosure of the facts.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think that 
when we have a situation where 92 witnesses have fled the country and 
we have 4 witnesses who the Justice Department says it is okay to give 
immunity to, and we have 19 Members of the Democrat committee who will 
not let these 4 witnesses, 4 very, very key witnesses, who will not let 
them testify under the guise that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton), chairman of the committee, has done something wrong, it is 
pretty ridiculous. It is a sad day for partisanship. It is a new low.
  The gentlemen who were with us earlier tonight are men of integrity. 
I think of them as I know the gentleman does. And I know that it is 
true that honest people can have honest disagreements. But it would 
appear to me that out of 19 Members on the committee, surely one wants 
to hear why an operative with a Chinese-owned cigarette, Communist-
owned cigarette company, why he gave $50,000 to the White House and why 
that company gave $400,000. I would want to hear what the witness had 
to say, just for that alone.
  Mr. Speaker, it is the same pattern over and over again that we keep 
hearing; well, not this witness, not now. Of course I want to 
cooperate, but not tonight, not this particular day for whatever 
reason. We hear so much about the Dan Burton releasing-of-the-tapes 
that were not altered one bit. The transcripts had mistakes on them, 
and that was brought forward.
  Now, where was this righteous indignation when Craig Livingstone and 
the White House operatives had 900 FBI files of private citizens, none 
who were in jail, none who were convicted felons like Webb Hubbell, why 
do we not have the moral outrage about 900 FBI files of private 
citizens being reviewed over at the White House?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, indeed, as my colleague from Georgia 
points out, how profound the gulf between the assertion of the then 
President-elect in late 1992 that it was his intent to have the most 
ethical administration in history. How wide the gulf between that 
assertion and promise and sadly, what has transpired, because not only 
900 FBI files, not only serious questions involving foreign donors to 
political campaigns, not only straining assertions of no controlling 
legal authority from other members of the administration, but the fact 
that 5 current or former members of this President's Cabinet are under 
investigations, either former or ongoing by independent counsels.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point 
that Don Schmaltz who is the independent prosecutor investigating the 
scandals at the Clinton USDA, 1995, the Justice Department wanted to 
fire him and call him off the investigation. Today, he has had 4 
convictions and brought in $10 million worth of fines. Now, we do not 
hear anybody saying hey, what a fine job this guy has done. All we hear 
is Starr is spending too much money. What about Schmaltz?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, if we wanted to compare independent 
prosecutors, one need only look so far as the efforts of one Lawrence 
Walsh in the so-called Iran Contra affair, an investigation that 
continued, if memory serves me correctly, for upwards of 7 years and 
cost several additional million dollars than any funds spent here to 
date on this modest attempt to get at the truth.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out also under the 
Democrats, we had an 8-year investigation of Labor Secretary Ray 
Donovan and a 7-year investigation of HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce, and 
on those, I do not think there were any convictions. Starr has not been 
on the case 4 years, has spent $24 million, and had 14 convictions or 
guilty pleas. If we could get cooperation in a bipartisan manner, we 
could probably cut the time and the dollar amount in half.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, this comes back to a point that I believe 
needs to be reinforced, Mr. Speaker, the point that my colleague from 
Georgia makes so eloquently. Every time I am home in the Sixth district 
of Arizona, every week I appreciate the bipartisanship, and just the 
common sense of the citizens whom I am honored to serve. And these 
questions as they are addressed to me do not come up as questions of 
Republicans versus Democrats or Congress versus the White House per se; 
the people who contact me have a legitimate concern about knowing the 
truth. And that is what this should be about, despite the best efforts 
to change the focus, to denigrate the actions of others, to complain 
about substance or complain about time and ignore substance and 
substantive facts, that remains the mission.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in this hour of difficulty, I think it is 
incumbent upon us all to simply ask a question: Are we prepared to 
defend the rule of law? Are we prepared to find out the truth? 
Regardless of political philosophy or partisan stripe, are we prepared 
to do those things? Should we not do those things in this society? 
Should we not reaffirm that no person is above the law? Should we not 
reaffirm that there is a controlling legal authority in our society? It 
is called the Constitution of the United States. Woe to us as a 
constitutional republic, woe to us as a society if we say, no, it is 
really not important. It has everything to do with the future of our 
constitutional republic and fairness and the rule of law.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for 
sharing this time, and I know he has some closing thoughts.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: I think it is 
important for us to know that justice knows no party. If Republicans 
have done wrong, let them pay the price. If Democrats have done wrong, 
let them pay the price. Whether the person is popular or not, let 
justice be blind, and let us do it in a bipartisan manner.
  These attacks on the chairman and Members of Congress and the 
investigators have to stop. Let us all be serious. Billy Graham, Perry 
Mason or Mickey Mouse, in doing the investigation of the chairman of 
the committee, they too would be attacked and smeared and denigrated. 
It is time to stop it, it is time to work together to get this thing 
over with so that we can go on to the business of the people: balancing 
the budget, protecting our streets from illegal drugs, reforming health 
care, preserving and protecting Medicare and

[[Page H3102]]

Social Security, and doing all of the important things we need to do. 
Let us get past this investigation and do the work of the great 
American people.

                          ____________________