[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.

                          ____________________