Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3452-H3461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
SHOULD CONFER IMMUNITY CONCERNING ILLEGAL FOREIGN FUNDRAISING
ACTIVITIES

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 440) expressing the sense of the
Congress that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight should
confer immunity from prosecution for information and testimony
concerning illegal foreign fundraising activities.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 440

Whereas the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is
currently investigating the unprecedented flow of illegal
foreign contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign during the
1996 Presidential campaign;
Whereas more than 90 witnesses in the investigation have
either asserted the fifth amendment or fled the United States
to avoid testifying, including 53 persons involved in raising
money for the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton-
Gore campaign;
Whereas among the 53 persons who have either asserted the
fifth amendment or fled the United States to avoid testifying
are former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell; former
White House aide Mark Middleton; longtime Clinton friends
John Huang, Charlie Trie, and James and Mochtar Riady; and
Chinese businessman Ted Sieong and 11 members of his family;
Whereas democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung has told
Department of Justice investigators that he funneled more
than $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions from a
Chinese military officer to Democrats during the 1996
campaign cycle, according to a New York Times report on May
15, 1998;
Whereas Chung told Federal investigators much of the
$100,000 he gave to the Democratic National Committee in the
1996 campaign came from Communist China's Peoples Liberation
Army through Liu Chaoying, a Chineese Lieutenant Colonel and
aerospace industry executive;
Whereas Chung's account and supporting evidence, such as
financial records, is the first direct evidence of Communist
Chinese campaign contributions being funneled to the
Democratic National Committee and Clinton-Gore '96;
Whereas subsequent to the receipt of the illegal campaign
contributions from Communist Chineese officials the Clinton
Administration relaxed export controls and overruled a
Pentagon ban on the sale and export of sophisticated
satellite technology to China;
Whereas on April 23 and May 13, 1998, the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight unsuccessfully sought to
grant immunity from prosecution to 4 important witnesses,
including 2 former employees of Johnny Chung who have direct
knowledge concerning Communist Chinese attempts to influence
United States policy and make illegal campaign contributions;
Whereas these 4 witnesses, Irene Su, Nancy Lee, Larry Wong,
and Kent La, each have direct information concerning the
efforts employed by Johnny Chung, Ted Sieong, and other
foreigners to violate Federal campaign laws and exercise
foreign influence over the 1996 elections;
Whereas the Department of Justice does not object to the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's desire to
confer immunity on Irene Wu, Nancy Lee, Larry Wong, and Kent
La;
Whereas Irene Wu, Johnny Chung's office manager and primary
assistant, would provide the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight firsthand information and knowledge about
Chung's payments to Clinton-Gore '96 and his relationships
with foreign nationals;
Whereas Nancy Lee, an engineer at Mr. Chung's company,
solicited contributions from her colleagues for the benefit
of Clinton-Gore '96, and those contributions serve as the
foundation of criminal charges brought against Mr. Chung;
Whereas Larry Wong, a long-time friend and associate of
convicted felon Gene Lum, has direct knowledge concerning
Lum's method of making illegal foreign money contributions to
Clinton-Gore '96;
Whereas Kent La, the United States distributor of Communist
Chinese cigarettes, has direct and relevant information about
illegal foreign money contributions made to the Democratic
National Committee by Ted Sioeng; and
Whereas the inability of the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight to confer immunity on these 4 important
witnesses serves as an impediment to the important work of
the committee in determining the extent to which officials
and associates of the Chinese and other foreign government
sought to influence the 1996 elections and United States
policy in violation of Federal campaign contribution laws and
regulations: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of
Representatives that the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight should

[[Page H3453]]

vote to direct the General Counsel of the House of
Representatives to apply to a United States district court
for an order immunizing from use in prosecutions the
testimony of, and other information provided by, Irene Wu,
Nancy Lee, Larry Wong, and Kent La at proceedings before or
ancillary to the Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield
my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and that he may be
able to yield time as he sees fit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was in objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced House Resolution 440. This
resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight should confer immunity to four
witnesses who have direct knowledge about how the Chinese government
made illegal campaign contributions in an apparent attempt to influence
our foreign policy. This resolution is not about titillating gossip,
nor is it about partisan politics. Simply put, this resolution is about
determining whether American lives have been put at risk and whether
Communist-controlled companies and Chinese officials were given access
to sophisticated technology that jeopardizes our national security.
To give my colleagues a sense as to why this resolution is so
important, I would like to ask them to consider some disturbing
revelations that have come to light about the connection between the
Clinton administration and Communist China.
Last week various news sources, including the New York Times,
reported that the Clinton administration's decision to approve exports
of satellite technology to China in 1996 may have been connected with
campaign contributions to the Democrat Party. In short, it is alleged
that the Clinton administration granted waivers to two companies in
1996, Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronic Corporation,
that allowed them to export sophisticated satellite technology to
Communist China.
Loral's chairman, Bernard Schwartz, donated more than $600,000 to the
Democrat Party. Last week the New York Times also reported that in
March of 1996, the President overruled both the State Department and
the Pentagon, which wanted to keep sharp limits on China's ability to
launch American-made satellites using Chinese rockets, and turned
oversight of granting such permission for these launches over to the
Commerce Department, which was in favor of permitting them.
At the time the Commerce Department was headed by the late Ron Brown,
who was previously chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
One of the beneficiaries of that decision, according to the Times,
was China Aerospace, a military-run Chinese company that employed Liu
Chaoying as an executive. The Times also reported that one-time
Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung has told the Justice Department
investigators that he funneled $100,000 in cash from Liu to the
Democratic National Committee during the 1996 presidential campaign.

{time} 1945

Liu is a lieutenant colonel in the Chinese army and the daughter of a
top Chinese military official.
The Times' report is significant in that it represents the most solid
evidence yet of a Chinese connection in the campaign finance scandal.
More importantly, it opens the door to allegations that the Chinese
government was able to jeopardize U.S. national security because of
illegal campaign contributions.
Mr. Speaker, one might logically ask, ``How does this affect
America's national security?'' Well, I think the answer is quite
obvious. Any technology transfer that benefits China's space program
also benefits China's missile program.
In fact, a little over 2 weeks ago it was reported in The Washington
Times that Communist China had aimed 13 long-range strategic missiles
at the United States. These missiles have a range of 8,000 miles and
are capable of delivering nuclear warheads that can obliterate an
entire city in a single blast.
We have also learned that China is aggressively pursuing development
and modernization of their entire missile program. Not only are they
improving the accuracy of their short-range missiles which threaten
their neighbors, they are also developing an entirely new class of
missiles capable of bringing their nuclear weapons to American
families.
So, Mr. Speaker, we need to know why and if the President of the
United States changed the policy in a way that gave sensitive and
sophisticated missile technology to a Nation that now aims nuclear
weapons at our sons and daughters. Mr. Speaker, I can only ask all of
my colleagues to join with me as we try to ensure whether or not our
children grow up in a safe world or in a world in the throes of another
arms race, or even another Cold War.
President Clinton is expected to travel to China next month where he
is also expected to announce new space technology cooperation
agreements. Before he leaves, the American people must know exactly if
past cooperation with China has undermined our national security.
Congress and the American people must have the answers to some very
specific questions:
Why did the President overrule the State Department and turn such
important decisions over to the Commerce Department?
How did this transfer of technology jeopardize our national security
and American lives?
No Member of this body should rest until we know the answers to these
questions. Giving immunity to these four important witnesses is a first
step in opening the door to the truth in these very important matters.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Boehner resolution. I
completely agree that the four witnesses should be given immunity. I
believe every Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight also supports immunity for the witnesses.
In fact, our only reservation on the merits has been that the
witnesses still have not provided proffers of their testimony, which is
a standard and essential procedure in an immunity case. That is what we
said when the committee first voted on immunity on April 3, it is what
I said in a letter to the Speaker on May 10, and it is what we said
again when the committee voted on immunity on May 13.
On May 10, I sent a letter to the Speaker, and I want to quote from
that letter. I wrote to the Speaker and I said:

I am writing in the spirit of bipartisanship to work with
you to find a constructive solution to the difficult problems
facing the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
During the past several weeks, you have personally attacked
me and questioned my integrity without justification. I
believe, however, that the American people expect more from
us than name calling and partisan battles. Instead of
escalating this fight, I want to make a genuine attempt to
work with you to meet these expectations.

I said to the Speaker, and I further quote,

I am prepared to recommend to my Democratic colleagues that
they support the pending immunity requests, but before I do,
I believe the rules and procedures guiding the committee's
campaign finance investigation must be changed so that the
committee can conduct a fair and thorough investigation.

Well, 2 weeks have passed, and the Speaker still has not responded to
my letter and my request that we work together. We have tried to make
it as clear as possible that our problem is not with immunity, our
problem is with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan Burton) and his
handling of this investigation. That is a problem the Speaker, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the other Members of the
Republican leadership insist on ignoring.
Since we last voted in committee, new information has come to light,
originally in The New York Times, about the possibility that Johnny
Chung may have been a conduit for political contributions from China.
The

[[Page H3454]]

new allegations are serious and deserve thorough congressional
investigation.
Although there is no indication that the four witnesses seeking
immunity have information relevant to these new allegations, the new
evidence reinforces my belief that the witnesses should be given
immunity. The new evidence also reinforces my belief that the gentleman
from Indiana is the wrong person to be leading this investigation.
We are dealing with extremely serious allegations. We owe the
American people a serious, credible investigation. So here we are
today, and the Republican leadership has made no attempt to work with
us in a bipartisan way. The Republican leadership is not sending this
issue to another committee, it is not bringing the issue up on the
House floor, it is not proposing to fix the Burton problem. The
leadership is here telling us immunity is essential and then insisting
on the one immunity option they know we will oppose. It is rare that
partisanship and cynicism are this transparent.
Two weeks ago The New York Times, which has been leading the call for
a thorough and aggressive investigation into the President's 1996
campaign, printed an editorial called ``The Dan Burton Problem,'' and I
want to take a moment and read in part from that editorial.

By now, even Representative Dan Burton ought to recognize
that he has become an impediment to a serious investigation
of the 1996 campaign finance scandals. If the House inquiry
is to be responsible, someone else on Mr. Burton's committee
should run it.
Coming on the heels of an impolitic remark by Mr. Burton
about the President 2 weeks ago, the tapes fiasco is forcing
the House Republicans to confront two blunders: The first was
to entrust the investigation of campaign finance abuses to
Mr. Burton, the chairman of the House Government Reform and
Oversight Committee. The second was to give him unilateral
power to release confidential information.
Mr. Burton, a fierce partisan, not known for balanced
judgment, was plainly the wrong man for a sensitive job. If
Mr. Burton will not step aside, Speaker Newt Gingrich should
convene the Republican Caucus and ask it to name a
replacement. Mr. Gingrich should also agree to rules both to
provide a check on the new Chairman's power and to enhance
bipartisanship.
By agreeing to improvements in the rules, Republicans would
remove a major criticism of the committee's process as well
as the Democrats' excuse for denying immunity. For now, Mr.
Gingrich seems determined to back Mr. Burton. That will only
delay getting a truthful account of fund-raising in the 1996
election.

My colleagues, this is a serious matter, and that is why we have
asked that the Speaker give us leadership on this issue to work with us
in a bipartisan manner. It sometimes seems that the Speaker acts as if
he thinks he is still in the minority; that he is an insurgent. But the
Speaker is the Speaker of the House. He is the Speaker of the whole
House, and he should be working to bring all of us together for a fair
and credible investigation, not trying to drive partisan wedges between
us and trying to impede a serious investigation.
Now, the Republicans have a majority in this House. When the chairman
of the investigation calls the President of the United States a scum
bag, when he admits he is after the President, when he doctors
transcripts that purport to represent evidence the committee obtained,
when he issues over 600 unilateral subpoenas and targets 99 percent of
his 1,000 subpoena and other information requests to Democrats, we
Republicans and Democrats have a very real problem.
When the committee's Republican chief counsel quits because he is not
allowed to conduct a professional investigation, when the Republican
chief investigator is fired, we have a very real problem. We have a
committee out of control. But because Republicans have the majority in
this House, it is a problem that they alone can solve. All the
Democrats ask is what The New York Times proposed: Act responsibly,
solve the problem. We are prepared to vote for immunity if the majority
is willing to work with us in even the most minimal way.
I am going to vote for this resolution because it really is
tantamount to a meaningless gimmick. It is an empty exercise in
political posturing. I should also point out for the record that the
resolution contains a number of basic factual errors, and I will submit
information correcting these mistakes.
A meaningful act would be to reform the procedures we have in the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, or send this matter to
another committee, so that we can get on with the investigation.
If this matter is as important to the Speaker as he says it is, and
it should be, we only ask that he work with us for a constructive
investigation. Please do not posture on such an important issue.
Democrats are ready and have been ready to vote for immunity. All we
ask is that the investigation be fair, bipartisan and competent.
And that means, by the way, that we get the facts, and then see what
conclusions those facts lead us to, not reach the conclusions first and
then try to see what facts will fit into those conclusions.
I have heard incredible statements by some of my Republican
colleagues when they talk about money from the Chinese government going
to the President of the United States and he knowingly then gives
weapons technology to the Chinese that may jeopardize our national
security. If that is the allegation, we better have facts to back it up
because, quite frankly, that is not just accusing the President of the
United States of a crime, that is accusing the President of the United
States of the crime of treason.
We ask the Speaker, bring us together to act rationally. We ask the
Speaker to work with us. Give us bipartisanship. Make some tough
decisions. If the Speaker is going to send this to the committee for
another vote, take some time first to meet with the minority Members
and try to find common ground. If that does not occur, it will be
absolutely clear that this is all about cynical politics not genuine
concern, and the American people will have yet another reason to tune
us all out.
Mr. Speaker, I provide for the Record the letter to the Speaker and
information correcting the factual errors contained in the resolution
to which I referred to earlier:
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight,
Washington, DC, May 10, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing in the spirit of
bipartisanship to work with you to find a constructive
solution to the difficult problems facing the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight. During the past several
weeks, you have personally attacked me and questioned my
integrity without justification. I believe, however, that the
American people expect more from us than name-calling and
partisan battles. Instead of escalating this fight, I want to
make a genuine attempt to work with you to meet their
expectations.
I am prepared to recommend to my Democratic colleagues that
they support the pending immunity requests. But before I do,
I believe that the rules and procedures guiding the
Committee's campaign finance investigation must be changed so
that the Committee can conduct a fair and thorough
investigation.
Of course, such changes also require that the chair of the
investigation be fair and credible. Mr. Burton, the current
chairman, has disqualified himself by his actions. He has
called the President a vulgar name and said that he is out to
get the President. And he has ``doctored'' evidence by
releasing altered and selectively edited transcripts of the
Webster Hubbell tapes. There are several senior Republican
members of the Committee who could immediately take his place
and continue the investigation. For the investigation to have
any legitimacy, this must happen.
A fair investigation must have fair procedures. Some have
asserted that the Democratic members want a veto over the
conduct of the investigation. This is not true. We are not
seeking the right to block the issuance of subpoenas or the
release of documents. All we want is the opportunity to
present our arguments to the Committee if we raise objections
that the chair is unwilling to acknowledge. We recognize that
we are in the minority and that we can be outvoted. Fairness
dictates, however, that we should at least have the right to
appeal our case to the Committee members if we are summarily
rejected by the chair.
I am not asking for unusual procedures. The exact opposite
is the case. In the last year, Mr. Burton issued over 600
subpoenas unilaterally, without minority concurrence or a
Committee vote. That is more than three unilateral subpoenas
for every day the House was in session. To the best of my
knowledge, however, no Democratic committee chairman since
the McCarthy era forty years ago ever issued a subpoena
unilaterally. The congressional subpoena power is an awesome
power. It compels an individual to turn over documents to
Congress or to testify before Congress against the
individual's

[[Page H3455]]

will. Prior to Mr. Burton, committee chairmen simply did not
exercise this power unilaterally.
As Lee Hamilton, the chair of the House Iran-Contra
investigation, wrote me:
As a matter of practice in the Iran-Contra investigation,
the four Congressional leaders of the Select Committee--
Senators Inouye and Rudman, Representative Cheney and I--made
decisions jointly on all matter or procedural issues,
including the issuance of subpoenas. I do not recall a single
instance in which the majority acted unilaterally.
Likewise, Mr. Burton's unilateral release of subpoenaed
documents is the exception, not the rule. I cannot think of a
precedent for a committee chairman releasing such personal
information--such as Mr. Hubbell's private conversations with
his wife and daughters--unilaterally.
There are many precedents in congressional history for fair
investigative procedures. You have referred repeatedly to the
Watergate investigation as a model of bipartisanship. The
House Watergate investigation had fair procedures that
provided the minority the right to seek a committee vote if
they objected to a proposed subpoena or document release.
These Watergate procedures would provide an excellent model
for this investigation.
Fair procedures do not lead to gridlock. To the contrary,
they lead to bipartisan cooperation and a more successful
investigation. They also are a safeguard against the kind of
abuses that have characterized Mr. Burton's investigation.
Under the rules followed in other congressional
investigations, the entire committee is accountable for the
investigation. Under Mr. Burton's rules, the Committee has
transferred virtually all its power to him alone and he is
accountable to no one. The events of the past weeks make it
clear why this model should never be used again.
Senator Thompson followed fair procedures in his campaign
finance investigation, and he was able to accomplish far more
than Mr. Burton. In fact, he held 33 days of hearings and
filed a 1,100-page report before Mr. Burton held his twelfth
day of hearings. The Thompson procedures would be another
excellent model for this investigation.
You have accused me and other Democrats of ``stonewalling''
the investigation. That is not accurate. Mr. Burton has had
virtually limitless powers. Democrats have blocked none of
the 602 unilateral subpoenas he has issued, nor have we
blocked any of the 148 depositions that his staff has
conducted. In fact, we even supported the only other three
immunity requests made by Mr. Burton. I want to be part of a
thorough investigation of campaign finance abuses. I don't
want to be in a position I am in now, where I must oppose
immunity requests as a matter of principle.
Mr. Speaker, I am willing to put partisanship aside in
addressing the problems on the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight. I hope you will join with me in this effort.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman,
Ranking Minority Member.
____

Factual Inaccuracies in H. Res. 440

Claim: ``[M]ore than 90 witnesses in the investigation have
either asserted the fifth amendment or fled the United States
to avoid testifying.''
Fact: This number is misleading because it includes:
12 individuals who have been given immunity and already
testified;
8 Buddhist nuns who were never immunized because their
testimony would have duplicated other testimony;
21 individuals who are listed as having fled the country
who in fact live in foreign countries;
11 individuals who, while not cooperating with Congress,
have been convicted by or are cooperating with the Department
of Justice.
Claim: ``[S]ubsequent to the receipt of the illegal
campaign contributions from Communist Chinese officials the
Clinton Administration relaxed export controls . . . on the
sale and export of sophisticated satellite technology to
China.''
Fact: This statement is inaccurate. The Clinton
administration relaxed export controls before not after, June
1996, when Johnny Chung reportedly first met Liu Chaoying.
The Clinton administration announced its decision to move
commercial communications satellites from the Munitions List
to the Commerce Control List of dual-use items, moving export
licensing jurisdiction from the Department of State to the
Department of Commerce, In March 1996--three months before
Mr. Chung allegedly met Ms. Liu. Moreover, the practice of
issuing waivers was not begun by the Clinton Administration.
According to the New York Times (May 17, 1998), it was first
used by the Bush Administration.
Claim: ``[T]he Department of Justice does not object to the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's desire to
confer immunity on . . . Kent La.''
Fact: The Department of Justice does have serious
reservations about immunizing Kent La. In a letter dated
April 22, 1998, the Department of Justice expressed its view
that ``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.'' The numerous
leaks of information during the course of Committee's
investigation suggests that the confidentiality that the
Department of Justice has requested could not be maintained.
Claim: The four witnesses have ``direct knowledge''
concerning ``Communist Chinese attempts to influence United
States policy and make illegal campaign contributions,''
``illegal foreign money contributions made to the Democratic
National Committee by Ted Sioeng,'' or ``convicted felon Gene
Lum['s] . . . method of making illegal foreign money
contributions to Clinton-Gore '96.''
Fact: The four witnesses have had employment or business
relationships with Johnny Chung, Ted Sioeng, and Gene Lum. It
is not yet clear, however, that any of the four witnesses
have significant information about the alleged illegal
activities involving foreign contributions. Based on what is
currently known about the witnesses, they would appear to be
relatively minor witnesses with little new information to
provide investigators.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this
time. This is really a sad day for the House, that we have to bring a
resolution like this to the House, and I rise in strong support of the
resolution. I wish we did not have to bring it.
To some, bipartisan means as long as they buy into their
partisanship, they will go along. To some, they think it is the
chairman of the committee that is the problem. This has nothing to do
with the chairman of the committee. What it has to do, and the American
people have seen it, that if people really wanted to get to the truth,
the revelations that came over the weekend, we would have known years
ago, at least months ago.

{time} 2000

But the American people have seen this administration stonewalling
and dragging their feet, hiding documents, hiding behind their lawyers.
We have seen Members of the other party and the other body attacking
Chairman Thompson, attacking Chairman D'Amato. And over here they
attack the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), they attack the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink), and now they are attacking the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Burton), all for one purpose; and that is they are
scared to death to get to the truth.
Well, if all the scandals surrounding the Clinton administration had
not meant much to the American people in the last 3 months, the latest
revelations coming about the White House prove that they matter now.
According to press accounts, the White House accepted campaign
contributions from officials of the Communist Chinese army and then
later approved the shipment of sensitive defense technology to that
country. Now, we do not know if there is a connection there or not. But
the American people have the right to know the truth. And this was done
over the objections of several foreign policy advisors in this
administration. This technology has threatened the balance of power in
Asia, giving India an excuse to test nuclear weapons, thereby
threatening the security of every human being on earth.
So, Mr. Speaker, where were the Democrats when we asked them for
their cooperation earlier this year in finding out the facts about this
serious situation? Where were the Democrats when the House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight tried to interview witnesses who had
important information about this national security crisis?
Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle appear to be
turning their backs on the truth because they want to play these
partisan games. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is no time for partisan games.
Our national security is threatened by this new Asian arms race, which
has been unwittingly jump-started by the political hacks at the White
House.
Now, I hope that these latest revelations would give even the
fiercest partisan a reason to seek the truth. My friends, these events
have put into motion the greatest crisis the world has seen since the
end of the Cold War. Now is the time for Congress to work together to
find out the facts, and I urge my Democrat colleagues to join

[[Page H3456]]

us now in investigating these allegations. The American people have a
right to know the truth.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the Majority Leader,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I will get to the point. The point is we have long since
now passed the point at which we can be casual about this. We are not
talking about campaign finance violations. We are not talking about
small things. We have very big questions here and very grave questions
before the American people.
Did the President of the United States permit the sale of technology
to China that would allow them to target missiles against United States
citizens?
Did the President of the United States allow that sale to be made by
an American firm already under investigation for trespasses against
American law regarding the sale of such merchandise?
Did the President of the United States allow that sale against the
protest of his own State Department and his own Department of Defense
and over the objections of his own Justice Department?
Did the President of the United States know that the money received
for his campaign, the campaign for people of his party, came from an
officer in the Chinese Government who is also a major officer in
Chinese corporations that were under sanction by the United States
Government?
Did the transfer of the missile technology to China spark India's
nuclear testing?
And did India's nuclear testing, in response to China's new capacity,
spark the desire to do so in Pakistan?
Does the Defense Department find our national security is threatened?
Is the President, as Bill Safire suggests, the ``proliferation
president''?
Does the President of the United States have the standing in the
international community to be the leader that America must have in its
president?
Just last week, the President failed to convince our major allies to
join us in sanctioning India over testing nuclear weapons. Yesterday,
he agreed to waive Helms/Burton sanctions on European countries helping
Iran develop its oil industry, and I am still wondering where did that
come from.
Last year, the President could get very little support for efforts to
force weapons inspections in Iraq. And, last year, the President could
not even get his own party in the House of Representatives to give him
fast track authority.
The President of the United States should command international
respect as the leader of the free world. Until President Clinton comes
forward with the truth, the cloud hanging over this presidency in not
only international affairs but domestic affairs will grow.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose there are times when it is amusing and even
entertaining to pretend a wide-eyed innocence as one joins the
stonewalling effort of the administration. If it were only a matter of
domestic campaign finance law, violations, perhaps America could afford
to give a wink and a nod to feigning moral outrage because one does not
like the chairman of the committee, or that committee, or the other
committee, or this committee.
But this is bigger than that. It is more important than that. It is
about the genuine security needs of the American people in a world that
may, in fact, be increasingly more dangerous than we ever thought we
would face again and about the President of the United States being
respected in the international community so that he can give the
leadership in world affairs that this Nation feels it must give.
This is a serious matter. It is time to get serious. It is time to
put away all the lawyer tricks. It is time to put away all the cute
politics. It is time to get serious and say to the President, to all
with whom he has had association in these matters, ``Come forward. Tell
the truth. Get it off your chest. You will feel better for it. It is
possible that you may make it possible for us to make America safer for
it.''
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). Both the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) control
9\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am not usually engaged in these type of
discussions, but I made it a point to come down tonight because I like
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner). I have had the occasion to spend
some time with him and find him to be a man of admirable quality. I
came to the House at the same time that the Majority Leader came to the
House, and I find him to be a man of quality.
Indeed, it is a sad day for the House of Representatives and for this
government. We seem to be ever increasingly accepting leaks,
contentions, illogical reasoning; and bright and intelligent men that
exercise unusual influence in this House and in this country are
willing to leap ahead and make conclusions, as the gentleman from
California said, making a charge that the President of the United
States is guilty of treason.
I have served in this House probably longer than most Members here
because I started my service as a page and I followed the House
through. So I went through the McCarthy hearings. And I am not going to
make any reference that this reminds me of that because that is
something for historians to determine.
But I have taken the time to read the Record of the House in 1972 and
1973 and 1974, and I would challenge my friends on the other side to
examine the statements of then Speaker Carl Albert, the Majority
Leader, or at that time the Majority Leader, and the Majority Whip and
the Caucus Chairman and show us one instance where that leadership came
to the floor of the House of Representatives to assert an indictment
and a conviction for the crime of treason against the President of the
United States on the basis of leaked information in a New York
newspaper by unnamed investigators that have arrived at some facts that
they do not draw conclusions from.
I would like to tell my friends on the other side, I have been a very
serious member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for
18 months now in this investigation. I have sat through hundreds of
hours of hearings and depositions and things that have been thrown
around this town and around this world.
The Majority Leader yesterday said that he was going to see that the
deposition of Johnny Chung was released. Well, by golly, if he can
release it, I wish he would tell me where it is. Because I sat in a
meeting when Johnny Chung and his lawyer refused to take a deposition
before this Committee but was entertained by the Chairman of our
Committee for about 2 or 2\1/2\ hours in, quote, a friendly discussion;
and at that time and through those 2 hours of testimony never did he
remotely indicate where any funds came from from foreign government,
foreign agents, or that he, in fact, had any activity that would
castigate not only the national Democratic party but certainly not the
President of the United States.
Suddenly, the deposition is to be released on Wednesday. Apparently,
my friend from Ohio has more information than I have. I have been 2
weeks at hearings asking for proffers.
In his opening statement, my colleague indicated what these four
witnesses are going to testify to. Why did not the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton) allow to us have those proffers if he is sharing
it with the majority side and conference chairman?
Mr. Speaker, we are not going to solve this. But I want to say one
thing. I think the leaks that were made over the weekend are serious
leaks. They are not proper. They are not right. They do not stand for
anything. But they are things that we should be investigating. I think
it is time to put politics and partisanship aside. We may have serious
problems. And we may have none.
If my colleagues want my belief, I am going to tell them this. If I
conclude that for an $80,000 contribution to the Democratic National
Committee that the President of the United States committed treason, I
will tender my resignation the day that fact is established to me.
I cannot believe that any responsible Representative, Republican,
Democrat, Independent, in the Congress of the

[[Page H3457]]

United States could be so foolhardy to think that the President of the
United States would risk that country's security, violate his oath of
office, commit treason, and subject not only every man, woman, and
child in America, but the 6 billion people of this world, to nuclear
war. What a charge. What an incredible charge.
All I suggest, my colleagues, is before we make these wild
allegations, statements and charges, please take the time to realize
that a bipartisan investigation is necessary; and that is the only
thing the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) requests.

{time} 2015

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, no one is alleging any specific act. There
are questions, lots of questions that we are trying to get answers to.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs.
Fowler).
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It is
unfortunate that this has become a partisan debate. I rise today, not
as a Republican, but as a member of the House Committee on National
Security.
Make no mistake about it. This is a national security issue. This is
about finding out how and why the Clinton administration overruled
Pentagon experts to allow sensitive military technology to be
transferred to the Chinese.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not happy with the
course of the campaign finance investigation. They are opposing
immunity for four key witnesses to register their protest with the
Chairman. But, Mr. Speaker, who is really being punished? Who is hurt
if there is a successful effort to block Congress' attempt to determine
the truth? A nation, Mr. Speaker.
Our Nation is at risk. Our men and women in uniform are at risk. The
American people deserve to know why their Commander in Chief approved
the sale of sensitive military technology to China, not once, but
twice, over the objections of his Defense Department, State Department,
Justice Department, and intelligence agencies.
This is a national security issue that should not be subject to the
same partisanship that has characterized so much of the campaign
finance investigation.
I urge my colleagues to consider this Nation's legitimate national
security interest and vote yes on the Boehner resolution.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Pennsylvania asks how
could we possibly think that a donation of $80,000 could cause the
President to do something so terrible as has been suggested here. We
are not talking about $80,000. We are not talking about $80,000 at all.
We are talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars
that were funneled into the President's reelection effort by people
involved with these transfers of technology.
I have never called to treason and I will not call to treason. I
think what we have here is a betrayal of the interest of the people of
the United States of America, especially if that had anything to do
with those millions of dollars that were funneled into the President's
reelection effort from the Red Chinese and the American companies that
were involved with transferring the technology.
Why do we have to come to the floor to insist that these four
individuals who know about these campaign contributions be permitted to
testify? It is absolutely ridiculous that we have had to come this far.
No one will ever be able to know for sure what is going on if you are
saying what is happening here unless we hear their testimony. We need
to get to the bottom of this. This is a national security issue as well
as a political corruption issue. But no one will ever be perfect enough
when a Democrat President is being investigated.
Ken Starr had impeccable credentials and now he has been vilified.
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) makes one or two verbal
mistakes and all of a sudden that is being used as a diversion to pull
the public's attention away from these very serious national security
charges.
We need to get to the bottom of this. We need to make sure, and we
are not going to be diverted by some nonsense about the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton) made a couple of verbal abuses. That does not cut
it with us when we have weapons technology going to improve the
Communist Chinese capabilities of launching nuclear weapons against the
United States of America. That is that serious.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner) has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, as usual, when our colleague from California (Mr.
Waxman) speaks I think of many things. One thing that I thought of was
Alice in Wonderland. When Alice is admonished to say what she means,
she says ``I do. At least I mean what I say. That is the same thing,
you know.'' ``Not quite so,'' she was then lectured. ``Saying that you
mean what you say is the same as I mean what I say. I say what I mean
would be like saying I say what I eat is the same as I eat what I
see.''
Unlike Alice in Wonderland, Mr. Speaker, we are in the real world.
Mr. Waxman gets up here and pontificates about how he will vote for
this resolution knowing full well that then when he goes back to the
committee, he and all of his colleagues or at least those who still
travel in lockstep with him will vote against it. He means what he
says, and he says what he means, but neither is actually the case.
I did not object when the gentleman from California said he was going
to insert corrective language in his statement. The reason that I did
not object to it was the fact that I certainly hoped that he will
correct the one misstatement that I find in the resolution on page 2,
paragraph 4, which says that Mr. Chung's account and supporting
evidence is the first direct evidence of Communist Chinese campaign
contributions.
I presume that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) will insert
in the Record the voluminous amounts of material and evidence directly
related thereto that is already in the Record of direct evidence of
Communist Chinese campaign contributions.
He may want to go back and I presume he will correct the Record to
indicate and set forth the eight trips that Ng Lap Seng made to this
country in 1994, 1995 and 1996, bringing large amounts, hundreds of
thousands of dollars of cash in here and within 2 days of each one of
those entries into this country made a visit to the White House, and on
most occasions visited directly with Mark Middleton at the White House.
The gentleman from California might also go back and review some of
the tapes in which Mr. Clinton, the President of the United States, was
meeting Chinese officials and others thanking them for attending a
fund-raising event. He might also review the voluminous evidence we
have of other money coming from Macao and the Bank of China into the
Clinton/Gore campaign in 1995 and 1996.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Wise).
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has made
very serious allegations and demanded an investigation. I think he is
correct in terms of requesting the investigation based on the
allegations he has made.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, the
Republican whip, has made serious allegations, and they too should be
investigated. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority
leader. Has made serious allegations.
As a 16-year member of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight and one who is a subcommittee chair in my time, I, too, agree
that because those allegations have been made they should be
investigated.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, said

[[Page H3458]]

something that stuck with me, and I remember he said this is too big,
in effect, for partisanship. He is absolutely correct. That is why we
ask that to not be a partisan investigation, because these allegations
are so serious that are being made that if the American people are to
accept the results of any investigation it must be a credible
investigation.
So what we have asked those of us Democrats, and I hate to think on
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight we have now gotten to
the point of having to identify ourselves as partisan labels, we never
had to do that before, but those of us who voted against immunity do
not vote against immunity because we want to stop an investigation. We
voted because it is not a credible investigation.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) referred to allegations in the
New York Times, and that, on the basis of those, the committee ought to
look at it. But it also should be mentioned the New York Times
editorial of May 8, which says, and I quote:

By now, even Representative Dan Burton to recognize that he
has become an impediment to a serious investigation of the
1996 campaign finance scandals.

If the 1996 campaign finance scandals are such that he is an
impediment to them, what about something as serious as the allegations
that have been made by the gentleman from the other side?
We have seen an investigation on our committee which was to be
bipartisan; and, yet, 1,037 out of 1,049 subpoenas, depositions,
interrogatories, and other information requests, in this so-called
bipartisan investigation have been targeted at whom? At Democrats,
despite the fact that in Republican, in soft, despite the fact that in
the soft money raising contest it was the Republican Party that raised
the most soft money and indeed it is the soft money that is the basis
of 95 percent of all allegations, whether directed at Republicans or at
Democrats.
Mr. Speaker, we want immunity. We want a thorough investigation. We
want to walk with or talk and work with the leadership of the other
side. We want a credible investigation.
What is a credible investigation? It is one like they did in
Watergate. It is one like they did in Iran Contra. It is one like our
committee did up until a couple years ago in which, when there is a
subpoena to be issued, it cannot be unilaterally issued by one person.
That is abuse of power. But that one person must consult with the
minority.
If there is no agreement reached, we take it to the committee. That
is all. Then the best sides wins. The side that demonstrates the merits
of the argument decides whether or not that subpoena is issued. That is
all. That is the way this committee has operated and that is the way
this Congress has operated until recently.
So, yes, the American people deserve that credible investigation.
They must know that these allegations are out there and they are
serious, know that those allegations are out there and the American
people want this investigation. But it has got to be credible if it is
to have any credibility.
So we want to work with you, Mr. Speaker, want to work with the other
side. We want that investigation. If it is, and I believe it is, these
allegations are that important, simply by being raised, then it demands
going the extra level to make sure that that investigation has the
credibility and the bipartisanship that is so important.
That is why I will vote for this, because I happen to believe that
these individuals ought to be given immunity. I also want to make sure
that the committee has to operate in such a way that the investigation
and the product is credible and not simply something that at the end of
the day was not worthy of the entire Congress.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Ohio
(Mr. Traficant).
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Burton) or Bill Clinton. It is not about the Lincoln
bedroom or Monica Lewinsky. This debate is about our national security.
This is no fly on our face. This is an elephant eating our assets,
and that elephant is China, Communist China, with a foothold on our
soil that has missiles, as we speak, pointing and capable of hitting
every American city, a nation that threatened Taiwan. What are we,
nuts? Now we find out that Johnny chunk got $300,000 from a member of
the Chinese Army to gain access to the White House, and he boasts about
it.
Look, the White House is not a one-stop shopping mall for campaign
headquarters, folks. Congress must investigate this matter, and a
Congress that plays partisan politics with this is a Congress that
endangers the national security of every citizen.
I support the resolution, and I am glad to see that the Democrats
will be supporting it as well. We must support this resolution, and we
must investigate this matter.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio on the
other side of the aisle for offering the proper picture here.
Mr. Speaker, I rise without venom or vitriol tonight. My colleague
from West Virginia is correct. These are serious allegations that go to
the heart of our constitutional republic. This must transcend
partisanship. This Congress must do its constitutional duty.
Our founders wisely granted this branch oversight over the executive
branch. Accordingly, these witnesses should be granted immunity for all
the right reasons, because, as Republicans and Democrats, we recognize
that we are Americans first, and we owe it to the citizens of this
Nation to get to the bottom of these disturbing allegations.

{time} 2030

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I want a serious investigation. I want us to be able to
conduct this investigation responsibly, competently and fairly. We have
a resolution on the floor like this. After all the months we have asked
for bipartisanship, it still seems to me like we are in the process of
kids' play.
Let us work together. This matter must be investigated in a way that
speaks well of the House. I ask the Speaker to work with us. This is
not the time to fire up your base; this is the time for you to be a
leader of the House for the people of this country.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Republican
Policy Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox) is recognized for one and three-quarter minutes.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, what I hear from the minority side is that they are in
support of granting immunity to these witnesses; just not now, just not
at this time and this place, just not in this way, because they are
busy protesting the committee and its existence.
It is perhaps politically acceptable to engage in acts of political
protest in an election year, but obstruction of justice is not an
acceptable form of protest. Today, the minority stands alone in
obstructing the grants of immunity to these 4 witnesses, because the
Clinton administration----

Point of Order

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair whether an
accusation of obstruction of justice is permitted on the House floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reference to obstruction of justice
should not be made with respect to specific or certain Members of the
House of Representatives.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the
gentleman, I will withdraw the remark, to the extent that it conveys
violation of statute. I do not mean to suggest that. What I mean to
suggest very explicitly is that the minority is obstructing what the
Justice Department itself wishes to do.
In its defense of the Clinton Administration, the minority is more
tendentious than is the administration itself. The administration has
no objection to the grant of immunity to these witnesses.

[[Page H3459]]

The most important of the four witnesses whose testimony we seek to
immunize is Kent La. Kent La is the United States distributor for Red
Pagoda Mountain Cigarettes, the largest Communist Chinese brand. The
man who is a distributor for these cigarettes in the United States is
the person whose testimony we seek to hear.
The contributions that Mr. La is going to testify about, from
Communist Chinese tobacco billionaire Ted Sioeng, his family and their
associates in the worldwide tobacco business, totalled over $400,000 to
the Democratic National Committee in 1996 alone. All these
contributions were solicited by John Huang. $50,000 of them came from
Kent La himself.
We can differ about the facts, but we should not differ about whether
to get the facts. Let us get the truth. Let us grant immunity to these
witnesses, as the Clinton administration agrees we can and must.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Boehner Resolution.
I completely agree that the four witnesses should be given immunity.
I believe every Democrat on the House Government Reform and Oversight
Committee also supports immunity for the witnesses. In fact, our only
reservation on the merits has been that the witnesses still haven't
provided proffers of their testimony, which is a standard and essential
procedure in immunity cases.
That is what we said when the Committee first voted on immunity on
April 23. It's what I said in a letter to the Speaker on May 10. And
it's what we said again when the Committee voted on immunity on May 13.
In my May 10 letter to the Speaker, I wrote:

I am writing in the spirit of bipartisanship to work with
you to find a constructive solution to the difficult problems
facing the Committee on Government Reform an Oversight.
During the past several weeks, you have personally attacked
me and questioned my integrity without justification. I
believe, however, that the American people expect more from
us than name-calling and partisan battles. Instead of
escalating this fight, I want to make a genuine attempt to
work with you to meet their expectations.
I am prepared to recommend to my Democratic colleagues that
they support the pending immunity requests. But before I do,
I believe the rules and procedures guiding the Committee's
campaign finance investigation must be changed so that the
Committee can conduct a fair and thorough investigation.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be inserted
in the Record.
Two weeks have passed, and the Speaker still has not responded to my
letter and my request that we work together. We have tried to make it
as clear as possible that our problem isn't with immunity; our problem
is with Dan Burton and his handling of the investigation.
That's a problem the Speaker, Mr. Boehner, and the other members of
the Republican leadership insist on ignoring.
Singe we last voted in committee, new information has come to light
in the New York Times about the possibility that Johnny Chung may have
been a conduit for political contributions from China. The new
allegations are serious and deserve thorough congressional
investigation. Although there is no indication that the four witnesses
seeking immunity have information relevant to these new allegations,
the new evidence reinforces my belief that the witnesses should be
given immunity.
The new evidence also reinforces my belief that Dan Burton is the
wrong person to be leading the investigation. We are dealing with
extremely serious allegations. We owe the American people a serious,
credible investigation.
The Committee's Democrats have said we would vote for immunity if the
Dan Burton problem were fixed. We have said we would encourage the
Democrats on either the House Oversight Committee or the House
International Relations Committee to vote for immunity if this issue
were sent to those committees. We have said we would support immunity
on the floor. But we have been as clear as we can that we will not
support immunity without first addressing the Dan Burton problem.
So here we are today and the Republican leadership has made no
attempt to work with us in a bipartisan way. The Republican leadership
is not sending this issue to another committee, it's not bringing the
issue up for a floor vote, it's not proposing to fix the Burton
problem. The leadership is here telling us immunity is essential and
then insisting on the one immunity option they know we will oppose.
It's rare that partisanship and cynicism are this transparent.
Two weeks ago, the New York Times, which has been leading the call
for a thorough and aggressive investigation into the President's 1996
campaign, printed an editorial entitled ``The Dan Burton Problem.'' I
want to take a moment and read it.

[From the New York Times, May 8, 1998]

The Dan Burton Problem

By now even Representative Dan Burton ought to recognize
that he has become an impediment to a serious investigation
of the 1996 campaign finance scandals. He has dismissed David
Bossie, the mischievous aide who helped issue inaccurate
transcripts of Webster Hubbell's jailhouse conversation's,
and has apologized to his fellow Republicans. But: that
cannot compensate for inept behavior that has hobbled the
inquiry and complicated Independent: Counsel Kenneth Starr's
criminal investigation of intriguing comments on the tapes.
If the House inquiry is to be responsible, someone else on
Mr. Burton's committee should run it.
Coming on the heels of an impolitic remark by Mr. Burton
about the President two weeks ago, the tapes fiasco is
forcing House Republicans to confront two blunders. The first
was to entrust the investigation of campaign finance abuses
to Mr. Burton, the chairman of the House Government Reform
and Oversight Committee. The second was to give him
unilateral power to release confidential information. Mr.
Burton, a fierce partisan not known for balanced judgment,
was plainly the wrong man for a sensitive job.
When the committee convenes next Wednesday, Democrats plan
to offer motions to transfer leadership of the inquiry to
another Republican on the committee. They will also ask the
committee to adopt the same bipartisan rules for issuing
subpoenas and releasing documents that have been followed by
all previous Congressional investigations.
But it should not come to that. If Mr. Burton will not step
aside, Speaker Newt Gingrich should convene the Republican
caucus and ask it to name a replacement. Mr. Gingrich should
also agree to rules both to provide a check on the new
chairman's power and to enhance bipartisanship.
At the same meeting, the committee will wrestle with
whether to grant immunity from prosecution to four witnesses
who are expected to testify about questionable donations to
Democrats in the 1996 campaign. House Democrats have
threatened to block immunity as leverage to win a rules
change granting them more say. By agreeing to improvements in
the rules, Republicans would remove a major criticism of the
committee's process as well as the Democrats' excuse for
denying immunity.
For now, Mr. Gingrich seems determined to back Mr. Burton.
That will only delay getting a truthful account of fund-
raising in the 1996 election.
There is a Dan Burton problem. It's very real. When the Chairman
leading the investigation calls the President a scumbag, when he admits
he's ``after'' the President, when he doctors transcripts that purport
to represent evidence the committee obtained, when he issues over 600
unilateral subpoenas and targets 99% of his 1000 subpoena and other
information request to Democrats, we--Republicans and Democrats--have a
very real problem. When the committee's Republican Chief Counsel quits
because he's not allowed to conduct a professional investigation, when
the Republican Chief Investigator is fired, we have a very real problem
and a committee out of control. But because Republicans have a majority
in the House, it's a problem only they can solve.
All the Democrats ask in what the New York Times proposed. Act
responsibly. Solve the problem. We are prepared to vote for immunity if
you are willing to work with us in even the most minimal way.
I'm voting for this resolution today because it's a meaningless
gimmick. It's an empty exercise in political posturing. I also should
point out for the record that the Resolution contains a number of basic
factual errors, and I ask unanimous consent that information correcting
these mistakes be inserted after my statement.
A meaningful act would be to reform the procedures we have in the
Government Reform Committee, or to send this matter to another
committee so that we can get on with the investigation. Mr. Speaker, if
this matter is as important to you as you say it is--and as it should
be--work with us for a constructive investigation. Don't posture on
such an important issue. Democrats are ready--have been ready--to vote
for immunity. All we ask is that the investigation be fair, bipartisan,
and competent.
Instead of bringing us together and acting rationally, the Republican
leadership is bringing a gimmick to the floor and continuing to allow
what should have been a serious investigation to degenerate into a
circus. Instead of dealing with the Dan Burton problem, which is
unpleasant for them to confront, they pretend it doesn't exist.

[[Page H3460]]

I urge all my colleagues to vote for this gimmick. But I ask the
Republican leadership to show some genuine leadership. Make some tough
decisions. Give true bipartisanship a try. And work with us so that we
can have a meaningful investigation.
If you are going to send this to the committee for another vote, take
some time first to meet with the minority members and try to find
common ground. If you don't, it will be absolutely clear that this is
all about cynical politics, not genuine concern. And the American
people will have yet another reason to tune us all out.

Factual Inaccuracies in H. Res. 440

Claim: ``[M]ore than 90 witnesses in the investigation have
either asserted the fifth amendment or fled the United States
to avoid testifying.''
Fact: This number is misleading because it includes: 12
individuals who have been given immunity and already
testified; 8 Buddhist nuns who were never immunized because
their testimony would have duplicated other testimony; 21
individuals who are listed as having fled the country who in
fact live in foreign countries; 11 individuals who, while not
cooperating with Congress, have been convicted by or are
cooperating with the Department of Justice.
Claim: ``[S]ubsequent to the receipt of the illegal
campaign contributions from Communist Chinese officials the
Clinton Administration relaxed export controls . . . on the
sale and export of sophisticated satellite technology to
China.''
Fact: This statement is inaccurate. The Clinton
administration relaxed export controls before, not after,
June 1996, when Johnny Chung reportedly first met Liu
Chaoying. The Clinton administration announced its decision
to move commercial communications satellites from the
Munitions List to the Commerce Control List of dual-use
items, moving export licensing jurisdiction from the
Department of State to the Department of Commerce, in March
1996--three months before Mr. Chung allegedly met Ms. Liu.
Moreover, the practice of issuing waivers was not begun by
the Clinton Administration. According to the New York Times
(May 17, 1998), it was first used by the Bush Administration.
Claim: ``[T]he Department of Justice does not object to the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's desire to
confer immunity on . . . Kent La.''
Fact: The Department of Justice does have serious
reservations about immunizing Kent La. In a letter dated
April 22, 1998, the Department of Justice expressed its view
that ``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.'' The numerous
leaks of information during the course of Committee's
investigation suggests that the confidentiality that the
Department of Justice has requested could not be maintained.
Claim: The four witnesses have ``direct knowledge''
concerning ``Communist Chinese attempts to influence United
States policy and make illegal campaign contributions,''
``illegal foreign money contributions made to the Democratic
National Committee by Ted Sioeng,'' or ``convicted felon Gene
Lum['s] . . . method of making illegal foreign money
contributions to Clinton-Gore '96.''
Fact: The four witnesses have had employment or business
relationships with Johnny Chung, Ted Sioeng, and Gene Lum. It
is not yet clear, however, that any of the four witnesses
have significant information about the alleged illegal
activities involving foreign contributions. Based on what is
currently known about the witnesses, they would appear to be
relatively minor witnesses with little new information to
provide investigators.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 440.
The question was taken.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Without objection, the three suspension votes postponed earlier today
will be 5 minute votes immediately following this vote, so there will
be a 15 minute vote, followed by three 5 minute votes.
There was no objection.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 402,
nays 0, not voting 30, as follows:

[Roll No. 161]

YEAS--402

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--30

Archer
Baesler
Barr
Bateman
Bilbray
Clay
Cooksey
Crane
Cummings
Dicks
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Ganske
Gonzalez
Goodling
Greenwood
Harman
Hinchey
Livingston
McDade
McIntosh
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Paxon
Schumer
Shuster
Skaggs
Waters

{time} 2054

Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

[[Page H3461]]

So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________