[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7796-H7800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, let me state at the beginning here a couple 
of entry points.
  One, I talked last night and earlier tonight a little bit on this 
particular subject, and I do not want to give the impression that that 
is all that I am focusing on or anybody else here is focusing on. All 
day long we have been debating multiple bills. I spoke on the juvenile 
justice bill, on the medicinal use of marijuana bill. We also passed 
Congressman Sessions' methamphetamine bill, many other pieces of 
legislation. I met for several hours with the Higher Education 
Conference Committee. We do many things. But one of the things we do 
have a charge of is government oversight.
  It is also very difficult, and I know it seems kind of curious as we 
discuss some of these matters, that we are under very tight and wise 
rules about what we can and cannot say, and it is like having a hundred 
or a thousand or a million pound gorilla out there on one subject right 
now that we cannot talk about. And we have to be very careful about 
what we say about the highest leaders in our land and about other 
Members, and I think those rules are good.
  So sometimes if it seems we are a tad evasive at this point, it is 
not that we are in general, but on this House floor I think we have 
high standards to meet, we have weighty matters before us, as we have 
had before in this country's history. And I know many Americans wish 
this would just go away and that we would not have to deal with these 
subjects. But in fact we do, that it is not just a question of moral 
outrage. I have been outraged for an extended period of time, and, like 
others, I have called for resignation on what I believe is the lack of 
moral leadership in this country.
  But we have high standards that we have to go through here in 
multiple ways, and it is not just about one aspect of anything, and for 
those who say cannot you just get this over with, there are lots of 
questions that we have to explore here.
  We need to know whether our government has been for sale. A lot of 
people think all the matters that have gone on in Washington are 
related to sex or even about whether or not individuals have told the 
truth in front of a jury or tried to influence others. But it goes

[[Page H7797]]

far beyond that, and we need to get to the bottom of the truth, and any 
kind of interim measure is not going to work because the fact is that 
it would shut off other questions that need to be investigated as well; 
questions, as I tried to illustrate last night, that have been 
stonewalled.
  We have had 116 people either flee this country in order to avoid 
questions, or have pled the fifth amendment. As I illustrated last 
night, if we put those names across the front, they would cover this 
entire well, and by House rules I was not able to do that because it 
would violate House decorum because it would block the whole front of 
this with the names of people who will not participate in oversight 
investigation of their country because they might go to jail if they 
talked.
  We have had, and it is a frightening trend, and it is hard to tell 
where it goes and who, but we have to get to the bottom of this. We 
cannot have what is in effect like the TV movies, or last night I used 
an example from the Twilight Zone, where a whole town refuses to talk 
because if nobody talks, then you cannot ever get to the bottom of the 
truth.
  Earlier tonight we talked about whether there should be a special 
prosecutor for campaign finance. We cannot just try to lock up the 
little people and not get to the big people. We had that debate today 
in juvenile justice, we had that debate, and we will again tomorrow in 
our drug laws. At what point do you say you are not going to just lock 
up every end user, if it is against the law you are going to be 
punished, but that we have got to get to the people who are selling 
them and the people who are selling them. The question is who is making 
the decisions that have compromised the integrity across the board in 
many cases enough that we have five special prosecutors looking at 
Cabinet members, or have had, we have them looking at White House 
officials. We have a former second-ranking official in the Justice 
Department who has been in prison. We have the legal counsel at the 
White House has committed suicide. We have deep troubles in this 
country that we need to pursue, and I want to go through tonight, which 
I only started last night, some of the individuals that we are trying 
to get to talk and some of the questions.
  I want to start with a man named Johnny Chung.
  On June 20, 1998, the Washington Post reported stunning allegations 
made by DNC donor Johnny Chung that he knowingly received $300,000 from 
a Chinese Army officer, an aerospace official, for the purpose of 
making political contributions. In March of 1998, Chung pled guilty to 
orchestrating illegal conduit contributions and other related charges, 
is now reportedly cooperating with Justice Department officials.
  Johnny Chung gave $366,000 to Democrats in the 1996 campaign. 
Following the 1996 elections, the DNC returned all of these 
contributions because of doubts about the origins of the money. 
According to the Washington Post, Chung has told the Justice Department 
that at least $80,000 of the money he contributed came from Liu Chao 
Ying, a formal lieutenant colonel in the Chinese Army. Chung further 
alleged that top DNC officials such as Richard Sullivan, the former DNC 
Finance Director, continued to solicit donations from him, despite 
having good reason to believe that the donations were illegal. Chung 
became prominant as a DNC contributor and frequent White House visitor 
during the 1995-96 campaign cycle when he presented a $50,000 check to 
the First Lady's chief of staff, Maggie Williams, on March 9, 1995, 
inside the White House. This contribution paved the way for Chung to 
bring a delegation of high-level Chinese business executives to the 
weekly radio address. Just prior to making this contribution, Chung 
received a $150,000 wire transfer from the Haomen Beer Company in 
China. After the event, Chung was informed by Richard Sullivan of the 
DNC that the photographs that were taken with high officials and 
Chung's business associates would not be released to him due to the 
objections of the National Security Council. One NSC official even 
referred to Chung as a hustler.
  The photos were eventually released to Chung, but only after he 
contributed an additional $125,000 at an April 1995 DNC fund-raiser in 
China. Chung has been quoted as saying, quote, the White House is like 
the subway, you have to put coins in to open the gates, end quote.
  Chung's success at a DNC fundraiser gave him unfettered access to the 
White House. The White House WAVE records show that between February 
1994 and February 1996, Chung was admitted into the White House 49 
times. In October 1995 Chung escorted the chairman of China 
Petrochemical Corporation, Mr. Chiang to a series of high-level 
meetings in Washington.

                              {time}  2130

  Arranged meetings for him with the Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, 
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers, and DNC Chairman 
Donald Fowler. Chung then donated $25,000 to Africare, a favorite 
charity of O'Leary, and introduced him to let us say a high-ranking 
official at the dinner.
  Chung invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to a subpoena to 
testify before the committee in November 1997. He gave a partial 
briefing to committee members, including me, behind closed doors on the 
condition that his statements be kept confidential.
  Questions we would like to ask Johnny Chung: Did you donate up to 
$100,000 to democratic campaigns that came from Liu Chao Ying the head 
of China Aerospace International and the lieutenant colonel in the 
People's Liberation Army?
  Was Liu Chao Ying hoping to get something specific in return?
  Of the $366,000 that Chung donated to the DNC, how much originated 
outside of the United States of America illegally?
  Why did Chung bring senior executives from China Petrochemical 
Company to meet with the Energy Secretary O'Leary and Assistant 
Secretary Lawrence Summers in October 1995?
  It would be nice if we could ask those questions.
  John Huang is a naturalized U.S. citizen. He was a senior executive 
at Lippo Bank in Los Angeles where he reported to James Riady. He and 
his wife personally donated over $20,000 to the DNC and DSCC during the 
1992 election cycle. He also donated $86,000 to the Presidential 
Inaugural Committee in January of 1993. One week later, he was 
reimbursed of the $86,000 by Lippo Bank. Huang left Lippo in June of 
1994, after a successful lobbying effort by James Riady to place him in 
the administration. Internal DNC memorandum show that he was listed as 
a ``must consider'' for such appointments at either Commerce, Treasury 
or State Departments. John Huang was approved for a position as Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for East Asia and the Pacific at the Commerce 
Department by the President.
  He received a ``interim top secret clearance'' 6 months before he 
began his job at Commerce. In his new position, he kept close ties to 
officials at Lippo Bank in Indonesia, telephoning at least 70 times 
from his Commerce office, all while receiving at least 37 classified 
briefings. He also visited the White House at least 78 times between 
July 1, 1995 and July 3, 1996.
  On September 13, 1995, he had attended a meeting in the Oval Office 
with the highest ranking officials in this country and also staff, 
including Bruce Lindsey, James Riady, and Joe Giroir. At this meeting, 
a decision was made to move Huang from the Commerce Department to the 
DNC where he would target his fund-raising efforts primarily on the 
Asian American community. Three months later, in December of 1995, he 
resigned to become a fund-raiser for the DNC. He raised between $3 and 
$4 million while at DNC. He was a primary contact for Charlie Trie and 
Pauline Kanchanalak, both of whom have been indicted by the Justice 
Department in its ongoing campaign finance probe. The DNC has returned 
more than $3 million he raised. These contributions were returned 
because they were either illegal or suspicious.
  He invoked the Fifth Amendment on February 18, 1997 in response to a 
House subpoena dated February 13, 1997. Here are some questions we 
would like to ask him:
  It is clear that you and Charlie Trie were working together at some 
level to raise money for the DNC. We would

[[Page H7798]]

like to know if you were aware of Charlie Trie's numerous conduit 
contributions.
  We would like to know if John Huang was aware that the $450,000 that 
he solicited for the Wiriadinatas came directly from Indonesia.
  We would like to know if John Huang was aware that the donation by 
Pauline Kanchanalak came directly from Thailand.
  We would like to know if John Huang solicited contributions while he 
worked at the Commerce Department.
  We would like to know if John Huang passed on information he received 
during classified briefings to anyone at the Lippo Bank, since, while 
he was receiving the classified briefings, he made 70 calls to Lippo 
Bank.
  We would like to know if John Huang used his influence within this 
administration to benefit the Riady family in any way.
  And once again, as I pointed out last night, remember, it is that 
family that had concerns about the drilling in the parts of the 
Escalante wilderness area that had concerns about China, that had 
concerns about Vietnam.
  Ted Sioeng, his family and business associates, contributed over 
$700,000 into the American political process from 1995 to 1996. The 
committee has determined that the majority of this money was derived 
from foreign sources or otherwise legally impermissible. Sioeng's 
contributions, either personally or through his business associates and 
family members, were given to a variety of Federal, State and local 
political organizations and candidates. The largest beneficiary of his 
contributions was the DNC. The DNC received $400,000 from his business 
associates and family members, $150,000 of which was also given to 
Republican causes.
  Over 28 witnesses relevant to the committee's investigation of Ted 
Sioeng have asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self 
incrimination, left the country, or refused to be interviewed.
  He is an Indonesian-born businessman who travels on the Belize 
passport. His major business is the production and distribution of 
China's number 1 selling cigarette brand, Red Pagoda Mountain. The 
committee believes Sioeng improperly directed illegal foreign 
contributions to the DNC and other political entities and candidates.
  The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs concluded that he had 
``worked, and perhaps still works, for the Chinese government.'' The 
committee has developed substantial evidence to support the Senate's 
conclusion.
  Ted Sioeng left the country in early 1997. Since that time, he has 
refused to cooperate with the investigations being conducted by the 
House and the Senate. He is believed to reside in Hong Kong or the 
People's Republic of China.
  Questions we would like to ask him:
  Did you ask your daughter to donate $100,000 to the DNC in February 
1996?
  Why have more than 20 members of your family or circle of business 
associates either taken the Fifth Amendment that you would incriminate 
yourself if you testified, or fled the country?
  Did Sioeng arrange a scheme in which at least $300,000 in 
contributions to the DNC were funded from bank accounts in Indonesia 
and Hong Kong?
  James Riady is an Indonesian-based banker and son of Mochtar Riady, 
chairman of the Lippo Group, a $500 billion Asian business empire. 
James Riady is a permanent resident of the United States. In 1977, 
he met our current President when he was serving as Arkansas's State 
Attorney General. James was sent by his father to Arkansas to learn the 
banking and finance business at Stephens, Inc.

  In its report on campaign finance, the U.S. Senate suggests that the 
Riady family has had a ``long-term relationship with the Chinese 
Intelligence Agency.'' James Riady is the deputy chairman of the 
family's main business, the Lippo Group. The Riady family, including 
its business and partners, donated more than $700,000 to the Democrats 
between 1991 and 1996.
  Mochtar Riady and his son James have told close associates that they 
``helped get Huang his Commerce Department position in return for their 
political support for the President.'' Other reports have indicated 
that James Riady has claimed Huang was ``my man in the American 
government.'' James Riady visited the White House on 19 occasions, 6 of 
which were to see the deputy White House Chief of Staff Mark Middleton. 
He lives in Indonesia and has refused to be interviewed by this 
committee in January 1998.
  Questions we would like to ask Mr. Riady:
  Did you lobby the President to get John Huang's job in the Commerce 
Department?
  Did you ask the top leaders of our country, did you or your father, 
were you asked by the top leaders of our country to pay $100,000 fee to 
Webb Hubbell while Hubble was under investigation?
  Let me repeat that, because I tripped over that. We want to know 
whether he or his father, since they paid $100,000 fee to Webster 
Hubble, which helped in our opinion possibly to keep Webster Hubble 
from cooperating, did he get asked by anybody at the White House. But 
we cannot ask him that, because he will not cooperate.
  Did the Lippo Group receive any classified information from January 
Huang while he was at the Commerce Department who we have already 
documented called that group from the Commerce Department?
  What were the Riadys hoping to get in return for the hundreds of 
thousands of dollars they gave to the Democratic party in the early 
1990s? They are very a prominent, practical and capitalist company. It 
is doubtful they were just throwing their money away.
  Ng Lap Seng is a Macao businessman and Charlie Trie's business 
partner. They jointly owned a Macao company, through which, according 
to the FBI, Ng wired Trie more than $900,000, part of which Trie 
donated to the DNC.
  Maria Shaw is being investigated for one of the classic cases that we 
have ever seen: a bunch of Buddhist nuns who gave $100,000 each, but do 
not understand where the money came from, and where prominent officials 
of the United States participated in that period where that money was 
transferred and apparently knew it was a fund-raiser. That is under 
investigation.
  Charlie Trie is a long time friend from Arkansas of people in this 
administration where he ran a Chinese restaurant in Arkansas. He served 
as a trustee to the Democratic national party and was afforded liberal 
access to the White House and the top leadership at the White House. 
Trie was admitted to the White House on at least 45 occasions to visit 
with Mark Middleton and others. Mr. Trie is believed to have used 
members of his own family and other associates to funnel over $600,000 
in illegal conduit payments to the Democratic National Committee during 
the 1996 campaign cycle. President Clinton was once quoted as saying, 
``Charlie has been a close friend of mine for 2 decades.''
  Trie brought $645,000 in contributions to the President's legal 
defense fund. Many of them were in sequentially numbered cashiers 
checks. All were returned after it was learned they were connected to a 
Buddhist cult in Taiwan.
  Trie came into possession of $200,000 in travelers's checks that came 
from Jakarta, Indonesia. At least $50,000 of this money was used for 
conduit contributions.
  Trie received over $1 million in wire transfers from his patron in 
Macau. Again, much of this money was used for conduit contributions. In 
April of 1996, Trie was appointed by President Clinton to the 
Commission on United States Pacific Trade and Investment Policy, which 
advised the President on ways to ``achieve a significant opening in 
Japan, China and other Asian and Pacific markets to U.S. businesses.''
  After his named surfaced in the press in connection to the illegal 
fund-raising scandal, Trie fled to China. He was reportedly living in 
Shanghai. In June 1997, NBC news interview with Tom Brokaw, Trie 
boasted he could stay in China for 10 years. He ultimately did return 
to the United States following his indictment. Trie quipped, 
``congressional investigators will never find me.''
  Charlie Trie initially left the country for a year in 1997. He 
invoked the Fifth Amendment on May 11, 1998, in response to a March 25, 
1998 committee subpoena.
  Questions we would like to ask Charlie Trie:
  Why did you use conduit donors to make contributions to the 
Democratic party?

[[Page H7799]]

  Did the $200,000 in travelers checks come from the Riady family in 
Indonesia and clearly trying to influence the foreign policy of this 
country? Why did Trie flee the country in the wake of the campaign 
finance scandal?
  Why was Ng Lap Seng giving Charlie Trie hundreds of thousands of 
dollars to make illegal contributions here in the United States?
  Did the top people in this government who knew Trie from Arkansas 
ever question where he was getting the hundreds of thousands of dollars 
that he was giving to their party? They knew him, they knew he did not 
have the money.
  Pauline Kanchanalak, citizen of Thailand, was one of the most 
prominent witnesses to have fled this country. She recently returned to 
the United States after she was indicted by a Federal grand jury in 
Washington on charges of funneling at least $679,000 in illegal foreign 
contributions to the DNC and State Democratic parties.
  The Justice Department has also indicted Kanchanalak's business 
associate and sister-in-law, Duangnet Kronenberg, who has taken the 
Fifth Amendment. According to the indictment, Kanchanalak and 
Kronenberg served at conduits for contributions for foreign companies 
and individuals into American campaigns. The Justice Department itself 
has alleged that Kanchanalak and Kronenberg gained access to the top 
leaders, I will not say who, because of House rules. This access was 
intended by defendants to impress clients and help their business 
ventures. In fact, Kanchanalak visited the White House at least 26 
times, Kronenberg at least 9 times. Kanchanalak donated $32,000 to the 
DNC in October 1994, 2 days after the Commerce Department trade 
officials and John Huang helped arrange the inaugural ceremony for a 
U.S. Thailand business council at the White House. The 2 also gave a 
total of $135,000 to the DNC on the same day that Kanchanalak and Huang 
escorted 3 businessmen into a White House coffee. One businessman did 
most of the talking about the People's Republic of China.
  The DNC has returned $253,000 in illegal contributions from 
Kanchanalak, but has not returned any of the $105,000 in contributions 
from Kronenberg. Both were also charged with obstruction of justice 
shortly after the campaign finance scandal broke. The 2 removed boxes 
of files from their offices and hired someone to erase the memories of 
their computers.
  A point I want to make about what we were talking about tonight. You 
have heard me in a number of these cases refer to people who have been 
indicted. The question is, and this is what was at the core of our 
insisting on a special prosecutor, because we heard the FBI director 
and Mr. Labella tell our committee that you cannot get a fair 
investigation, and to suggest strongly that Democratic appointed 
officials, as the Attorney General is, cannot be neutral, and that, in 
fact, there are questions whether they have been going individually 
after these cases.

                              {time}  2145

  Much like what would happen sometimes in a drug bust in Fort Wayne or 
in Kendallville or in Huntington we can get excited in our district 
because it is a big drug bust there, and we close it down. Instead of 
getting to the next level and the next level.
  What I have been suggesting and you have been watching the pictures 
is this is massive. Let me remind you again, there 116 people; 79 have 
plead the Fifth Amendment, the rest have fled the country or in one way 
or another dodged subpoenas.
  If I put their names up here 10 at a time, it would cover this whole 
stage. If I stacked them up here 10 on a board at a time, it would go 
clear to the top of this ceiling.
  This is a massive problem that we are facing. People say, why can you 
not close this down? Why can you not get to the truth? You are hearing 
we cannot get fundamental questions answered because people will not 
cooperate. It is like a whole city being in on something saying we are 
not going to talk.
  We need a few Americans who know the truth to stand up and say what 
they know so we can continue to move, or we need to start offering 
immunity to these people. It cannot be done under a partisan Justice 
Department. That is what the FBI director is saying, and that is what 
the Justice Department's own career people are saying. And it has to be 
done.
  This is not about sex. The whole country is abuzz about sex. But 
there are other matters here, too. We have seen a pattern. As we heard 
last night in the Teamsters, the same names are showing up. The same 
names are showing up when we start to look at the Indian casino 
questions. The same names show up in scandal after scandal after 
scandal.
  When are we going to get to who is coordinating this and at what 
level and who knew about it and when, the basic questions that we heard 
in Watergate years ago?
  A man known as Antonio Pan is a former high-level Lippo executive 
based in Hong Kong. He was involved in Lippo's business ventures during 
China. He became an associate of Charlie Trie and was indicted along 
with Trie on charges related to illegal fund-raising on January 28, 
1998.
  In October of 1995, Trie and Pan invited then Commerce Secretary Ron 
Brown to attend a fund-raising dinner while on a Trade Mission to 
China. At this dinner, Trie asked many of the attendees, many of whom 
were not United States citizens or permanent residents, to contribute 
to the DNC.
  During February 1996, Pan was also active in soliciting conduit 
contributors for the DNC and reimbursing them with cash on behalf of 
Trie. Pan sent $25,000 in cashier's checks, via overnight delivery, to 
Trie's sister, Manlin Foung, in order to reimburse her for 
contributions to the DNC.
  The money is believed to have originated with the travelers checks 
Trie received from Indonesia. Pan also allegedly received $80,000 in 
cash in August 1996 from Ng Lap Seng and used most of the money to 
reimburse straw contributors in Los Angeles that he had persuaded to 
write checks to the DNC for the President's 50th birthday party in New 
York City. Pan has left the country and cannot be located.
  Questions we would like to ask Mr. Pan: Why did Pan open a savings 
account at the Amerasia Bank in Flushing, New York with $25,200 in 
cash, within minutes withdraw $25,000 and then send it to Charlie 
Trie's sister and her boyfriend in California?
  Why did Pan share a bank account with Charlie Trie?
  Witnesses have told the House Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight that in 1996, Pan withdrew $80,000 in cash and delivered 
portions of it to individuals in Los Angeles who then sent it to the 
Democratic Party.
  Where did this money come from originally? Who asked him to generate 
these contributions? Were Antonio Pan and Charlie Trie working on 
behalf of the Riady family of Indonesia, or were other foreign entities 
behind their activities?
  These are grave questions. I am sure in future days we will be going 
through other names illustrating this point in other ways. But tonight, 
I wanted to give my colleagues an idea of the depth of the problem we 
are facing in this United States government.
  The problems that we have been abuzz about over the last few days are 
not going to just go away. In fact, we have special prosecutors in 
addition to Judge Starr being appointed; times extended. We are going 
to have some more.
  There is only one way that the problem can go away. But we need to 
get to the bottom of this. We cannot do any slap on the wrist, any 
verbal gymnastics here to try to avoid the tough questions.
  We have to know, has this government been for sale at the highest 
levels, especially possibly to foreign influences? Have there been 
patterns of cover-up throughout this entire government, not knowing 
what level it gets to? I don't know that. We have 116 people that will 
not talk to us. And they may turn up other names, if some of them start 
to talk, of other people we need to go to.
  But we have been inching up and inching up. It is clear there is a 
pattern that is far beyond the political appointee of this White House 
to solve. We need a special prosecutor. We need to hear that 
investigation. We need to hear what the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox) turns up in his investigation. We need to see what the Committee 
on the Judiciary turns up. We need

[[Page H7800]]

to see what the Teamsters investigation of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Hoekstra) turns up. We need to see how these things come together. 
If necessary, this House will have to do whatever it needs to do.

                          ____________________