[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 118 (Thursday, September 28, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8444-H8454]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           REGARDING UNSUBSTANTIATED SENSATIONAL ALLEGATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we have a 
responsibility to exercise oversight over a wide range of issues. This 
is one of our most fundamental obligations, and it includes 
investigating potential problems, both in the executive branch and the 
private sector.
  Mr. Speaker, along with that responsibility comes extraordinary 
power. We have the power to require citizens to come before us and 
respond to detailed questions about their lives. We have the power to 
require citizens to provide us with their most sensitive personal 
information, including their bank records, telephone logs and diaries.
  And when we make allegations about the conduct of citizens, our 
statements are broadcast on television and radio and printed in 
newspapers all across the country. We thus have the power to 
permanently tarnish individuals' reputations. So it is essential that 
when we fulfill our responsibilities to investigate, we investigate 
responsibly and be accountable for what we do.
  When we make a serious charge about an individual's conduct, we 
should be certain of the accuracy of our accusation. If we later learn 
of information that refutes that charge, we ought to correct the 
record. And when we harm individuals by making charges that are wrong, 
we ought to apologize.
  Wen Ho Lee has been in the news a lot recently. Many Members of 
Congress have been justly critical of the irreparable damage that has 
been done to his reputation. No one should be subject to unfounded 
smears by government officials. But, unfortunately, over the past 
several years, a pattern has emerged in which Members of Congress have 
done just that.
  Members of Congress have repeatedly made sensational public 
allegations against individual American citizens. Many of these initial 
allegations have received widespread coverage in the media. Further 
investigation, however, often has shown that the allegations are 
unsupported by the facts. And when the facts eventually do emerge, the 
news media inevitably gives little attention to the truth, and the 
public record is rarely corrected.
  Let me give you an example: In June 1997, former Representative 
Gerald Solomon, the chairman of the House Rules Committee claimed he 
had ``evidence'' from a government source that John Huang, the former 
Commerce Department official and Democratic National Committee fund-
raiser, had ``committed economic espionage and breached our national 
security.''
  This allegation of espionage was very serious. It amounted to a claim 
of treason, the most serious accusation that can be brought against an 
American. It was reported on national television and in newspapers 
across the country.
  But it turns out that that allegation was based on nothing more than 
gossip at a reception. When the FBI interviewed Mr. Solomon about this 
allegation, he told the FBI that he was told by a Senate staffer at a 
Capitol Hill reception that the staffer ``received confirmation, that 
`a Department of Commerce employee had passed classified information to 
a foreign government.' ''
  According to the FBI interview notes, the Senate staffer did not say 
that the employee was John Huang, nor did he say that information went 
to China. Representative Solomon did not know who the staffer was.
  In a second interview with the FBI, Representative Solomon recalled 
that what the staffer said to him was, ``Congressman, you might like to 
know that you were right there was someone at Commerce giving out 
information.''
  Again, in this interview, Representative Solomon told the FBI that he 
did not know the name of the staffer who made this comment. In fact, 
the only way Mr. Solomon could identify the staffer was to describe him 
as ``a male in his 30s or 40s, approximately 5 feet, 10 inches tall 
with brownish hair.''
  Mr. Speaker, here is another example: In June 1999, Representative 
Dan Burton issued a press release accusing Defense Department 
officials, including Colonel Raymond A. Willson of attempting to tamper 
with the computer of a committee witness, Dr. Peter Leitner, of the 
Defense Threat Reduction Agency, sometimes known as DTRA.
  Mr. Burton alleged, ``While Dr. Leitner was telling my committee 
about the retaliation he suffered for bringing his concerns to his 
superiors and Congress, his supervisor was trying to secretly access 
his computer. This smacks of mob tactics.'' He further commented, 
``George Orwell couldn't have dreamed this up.''
  But Colonel Willson did not tamper with Dr. Leitner's computer; both 
the committee and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations 
conducted investigations and found that Colonel Willson had done 
nothing improper.
  It turns out that the incident at issue was nothing more than a 
routine effort to obtain files in the witness' computer that were 
necessary to complete an already overdue project.
  I regret to say that I am unaware of any public apology by Mr. Burton 
or Mr. Solomon for making these sensational allegations about Colonel 
Willson or Mr. Huang.
  Now, it is true that Mr. Huang has admitted involvement in conduit 
campaign contributions between 1992 and 1994, but Members of Congress 
should

[[Page H8445]]

be accountable for their allegations regardless of whether the 
individual targeted has committed other wrongdoings.
  There have been many others who have been the target of 
unsubstantiated claims by Members of Congress, and who have yet to 
receive a public apology. Many of these allegations have focused on 
individuals in the administration. I believe that this pattern reflects 
a significant abuse of the serious powers that have been entrusted to 
us.
  I asked my staff to compile a report on unsubstantiated sensational 
allegations that have been made over the past few years. This report 
describes 25 of the most widely publicized of such allegations, as well 
as the facts that have been uncovered regarding the allegations.
  Mr. Speaker, I will enter this report into the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  I would like to take this opportunity today to set the record 
straight about at least some of the many wild claims that have been 
made.
  One of these allegations involves a very sad incident in 1993, in 
which Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster was found dead in a 
nearby park. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Burton suggested numerous times on 
the floor of the House that Mr. Foster had been murdered and that his 
murder was related to the investigation into President and Hillary 
Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater land deal.
  Mr. Burton's allegations have been repeatedly repudiated.
  On August 10, 1993, the United States Park Police announced the 
following conclusions of its investigation: ``Our investigation has 
found no evidence of foul play. The information gathered from 
associates, relatives and friends provide us with enough evidence to 
conclude that Mr. Foster was anxious about his work and he was 
distressed to the degree that he took his own life.''
  On June 30, 1994, Independent Counsel Robert Fiske issued his report 
stating that ``the overwhelming weight of the evidence compels the 
conclusion that Vincent Foster committed suicide.''
  More recently, on October 10, 1997, Independent Counsel Ken Starr 
concluded ``the available evidence points clearly to suicide as the 
manner of death.'' No further statements have been made by 
Representative Burton who made the allegation of foul play or murder.
  Let us turn to another allegation. In June 1996, Representative 
Burton claimed that the White House had improperly obtained FBI files 
of prominent Republicans and that these files ``were going to be used 
for dirty political tricks in the future.''
  Committee Republicans also released a report suggesting that the 
files were being used by the Clinton administration to compile a ``hit 
list'' or an ``enemies list.'' Just yesterday, a Member of the 
Republican House leadership again referred to this charge on a 
nationally syndicated radio program, but these allegations have been 
thoroughly investigated by the Office of the Independent Counsel and 
repudiated.

  The Independent Counsel had been charged with examining whether 
Anthony Marceca, a former White House detailee, senior White House 
officials, or Mrs. Clinton had engaged in illegal conduct relating to 
these files.
  According to the report of the Independent Counsel Robert Ray in 
March 2000, ``neither Anthony Marceca nor any senior White House 
official or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton engaged in criminal 
conduct to obtain through fraudulent means derogatory information about 
former White House staff.''
  The Independent Counsel also concluded that ``Mr. Marceca's alleged 
criminal conduct did not reflect a conspiracy within the White House,'' 
and stated that Mr. Marceca was truthful when he testified that ``no 
senior White House official, or Mrs. Clinton, was involved in 
requesting FBI background reports for improper partisan advantage.''
  The next allegation I am going to describe has occupied the House 
Committee on Government Reform for the past 4 years. Beginning in 1996, 
Representative Burton and other Republican leaders suggested that there 
was a conspiracy between the Chinese Government and the Clinton 
administration to violate Federal campaign finance laws and improperly 
influence the outcome of the 1996 Presidential election.
  In a February 1997 interview on national television, Mr. Burton 
stated if the White House or anybody connected with the White House was 
selling or giving information to the Chinese in exchange for political 
contributions, then we have to look into it, because that is a felony, 
and you're selling this country's security, economic security or 
whatever to a Communist power.
  Then on the House floor in June 1997, Representative Burton alleged a 
``massive'' Chinese conspiracy. He said we are investigating a possible 
massive scheme of funneling millions of dollars of foreign money into 
the U.S. electoral system. We are investigating allegations that the 
Chinese Government at the highest levels decided to infiltrate our 
political system.
  Although the House Committee on Government Reform to date has spent 4 
years and over $8 million investigating these allegations, no evidence 
was provided to the committee to substantiate the claim that the 
administration was ``selling or giving information to the Chinese in 
exchange for political contributions,'' and no evidence was provided to 
the committee that the Chinese Government carried out a ``massive 
scheme'' to influence the election of President Clinton.

                              {time}  1545

  In August 1997, several Republican leaders called for an independent 
counsel to investigate allegations that Former Secretary Hazel O'Leary 
had in effect ``shaken down'' Democratic donor Johnny Chung by 
requiring him to make a donation to the charity Africare as a 
precondition to a meeting with her. For example, on national 
television, Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson 
stated, ``We need independent investigation made of people like Hazel 
O'Leary.''
  But it turns out there was no such misconduct by Secretary O'Leary. A 
Department of Justice investigation found ``no evidence that Mrs. 
O'Leary had anything to do with the solicitation of the charitable 
donation.'' In fact, it turned out that Secretary O'Leary's first 
contact with Mr. Chung occurred after Mr. Chung had made his 
contribution, making the allegation factually impossible.
  Another allegation. On national television in September 1997, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) suggested that the Clinton 
administration was engaging in an abuse of power by using the Internal 
Revenue Service, the IRS, to retaliate against the President's 
political enemies.
  The Washington Times also quoted the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) as stating, ``One case might be a coincidence. Two cases might 
be a coincidence. But what are the chances of this entire litany of 
people, all of whom have an adversarial relationship with the 
President, being audited?'' That was his quote.
  These remarks by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) concerned 
allegations that the IRS was auditing conservative groups and 
individuals for political purposes. According to these allegations, 
several nonprofit tax-exempt organizations that supported positions 
different from those of the Clinton administration were being audited 
while other organizations favoring policies of the Clinton 
administration were not.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation conducted a 3-year bipartisan 
investigation of these allegations. In March, 2000, the committee 
reported that it had found no evidence of politically motived IRS 
audits. Specifically, the bipartisan report found there was ``no 
credible evidence that tax-exempt organizations were selected for 
examination, or that the IRS altered the manner in which examinations 
of tax-exempt organizations were conducted, based on the views espoused 
by the organizations or individuals related to the organization.''
  Further, the report found ``no credible evidence of intervention by 
Clinton administration officials (including Treasury Department and 
White House officials) in the selection of (or the failure to select) 
tax-exempt organizations for examination.'' Another allegation that was 
made that was not substantiated and, when the facts came out, were not 
supported by those facts.
  Another example. In October of 1997, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) held a hearing in the Committee

[[Page H8446]]

 on Government Reform in which he said he would produce evidence of 
``blatantly illegal activity by a senior national party official'' in 
the Democratic National Committee. The star witness at that hearing, 
David Wang, alleged that the then DNC official John Huang had solicited 
a conduit contribution from him in person in Los Angeles on August 16, 
1996.
  But it was not John Huang who had solicited Mr. Wang. Credit card 
records, affidavits, and other evidence conclusively demonstrated that 
Mr. Huang had been in New York, not Los Angeles, on the day in 
question. Democratic fund-raiser Charlie Trie subsequently appeared 
before the committee and acknowledged that it had been he and an 
individual named Antonio Pan, not Mr. Huang, who had solicited the 
conduit contribution.
  Members of the committee have repeatedly asked that the committee 
officially correct the record on this matter because of this false 
charge against Mr. Huang, but the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 
has refused to do so.
  Another example. In October 1997, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) also appeared on national television and suggested that the 
White House had deliberately altered videotapes of Presidential fund-
raising events. On CBS's ``Face the Nation'', he said, ``We think maybe 
some of those tapes may have been cut off intentionally, they've been, 
you know, altered in some way.'' He also said that he might hire lip 
readers to examine the tapes to figure out what was being said on the 
tapes.
  Well, investigations by the House Committee on Government Reform and 
the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, however, including review by 
a technical expert hired by the Senate committee, produced no evidence 
of any tampering with the tapes.
  My colleagues might remember some of these examples because they all 
were prominently mentioned in the press at the time the allegations 
were made.

  In November 1997, Republican leaders drew on unsubstantiated reports 
by conservative radio talk shows and publications to accuse the Clinton 
administration of selling burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery 
for campaign contributions. Republican Party Chairman Jim Nicholson 
accused the administration of a despicable political scheme, and 
several Republican leaders, including the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton), called for investigations. Former Representative Gerald 
Solomon stated ``this latest outrage is one more slap in the face of 
every American who ever wore the uniform of their country, who seem to 
be special objects of contempt in this administration.''
  The General Accounting Office then conducted an independent review of 
the allegations that waivers to the burial plot eligibility 
requirements were granted in exchange for political contributions. In 
January 1998, GAO stated, ``We found no evidence in the records we 
reviewed to support recent media reports that political contributions 
have played a role in waiver decisions.''
  Further, the GAO said, and I am quoting again from them, ``Where the 
records show some involvement or interest in a particular case on the 
part of the President, Executive Branch officials, or Members of 
Congress or their staffs, the documents indicate only such factors as a 
desire to help a constituent or a conviction that the merits of the 
person being considered warranted a waiver.''
  Another example. In January 1998, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) held 4 days of hearings in the Committee on Government Reform 
regarding whether campaign contributions influenced the actions of 
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt or other Department of the 
Interior officials with respect to a decision to deny an Indian 
gambling application in Hudson, Wisconsin. During those hearings, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) alleged that the decision was a 
political payoff and that it stinks and smells.
  Well, on August 22, however, Independent Counsel Carol Elder Bruce 
released the report of her investigation into the Hudson casino 
decision. She found that the allegations of political payoff were 
unsubstantiated, concluding from her report, I now quote, ``A full 
review of the evidence . . . indicates that neither Babbitt nor any 
government official at Interior or the White House entered into any 
sort of specific and corrupt agreement to influence the outcome of the 
Hudson casino application in return for campaign contributions to the 
DNC.''
  The next allegation is not only unsubstantiated, but it involved the 
inappropriate disclosure of very private information. The allegation 
concerns Webster Hubbell, who was Assistant Attorney General until 
March 1994. Prior to that, he was a partner with Hillary Clinton at the 
Rose Law Firm in Littlerock, Arkansas. In December 1994, Mr. Hubbell 
pled guilty to tax evasion and mail fraud and went to prison for 16 
months. During his imprisonment, Mr. Hubbell's phone calls to his 
friends, family, and lawyers were routinely taped by prison 
authorities. Such taping of phone calls is standard procedure in 
Federal prisons.
  Well, the tapes of Mr. Hubbell's phone calls were turned over to the 
Committee on Government Reform. As the Justice Department advised the 
committee, the tapes were protected by the Privacy Act and were not 
supposed to be released publicly. Nevertheless, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton) released the document in April of 1998 entitled 
the ``Hubbell Master Tape Log'', which contained what were purported to 
be excerpts from these tapes. It was subsequently revealed that many of 
these excerpts were in fact inaccurate or omitted exculpatory 
statements by Mr. Hubbell.
  For example, according to the transcripts of the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton), if Mr. Hubbell had filed a lawsuit against his 
former law firm, it would have ``opened up'' the First Lady to 
allegations, and for this reason Mr. Hubbell had decided to ``roll 
over'' in order to protect the First Lady. These transcripts included a 
quote of Mrs. Hubbell saying, ``you are opening Hillary up to all of 
this'', and Mr. Hubbell responding, ``I will not raise those 
allegations that might open it up to Hillary'', and ``So, I need to 
roll over one more time.'' These quotes were taken from a 2-hour 
conversation between the Hubbells.
  The ``Hubbell Master Tape Log'', however, omitted a later portion of 
the same conversation that exonerates the First Lady. This included the 
following remarks exchanged between Mr. Hubbell and his wife:
  Mr. Hubbell: ``Okay, Hillary's not, Hillary isn't, the only thing is 
people say why didn't she know what was going on. And I wish she had 
never paid any attention to what was going on in the firm. That's the 
gospel truth. She just had no idea what was going on. She didn't 
participate in any of this.''
  Mrs. Hubbell: ``They wouldn't have let her if she tried.''
  Mr. Hubbell: ``Of course not.''
  The ``Hubbell Master Tape Log'' of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) also included a passage in which Mr. Hubbell allegedly said, 
``The Riady is just not easy to do business with me while I'm here.'' 
Mr. Riady, by the way, was a well-known figure in these campaign 
contributions that had been under investigation. In fact, the actual 
tape states, ``The reality is it's just not easy to do business with me 
while I'm here.'' He misrepresented the word ``reality'' for ``Riady''.
  Another example, and I want it on the Record in hopes that maybe 
someone will find this Record maybe in the press and report the 
corrections for maybe nearly as large as the original sensational 
allegations.
  In April 1998, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) sought 
immunity from the Committee on Government Reform for four witnesses: 
Nancy Lee, Irene Wu, Larry Huang, and Kent La. He and other Republican 
leaders, including Speaker Newt Gingrich, alleged that these witnesses 
had important information about illegal contributions from the Chinese 
Government during the 1996 elections.
  Speaker Gingrich alleged that the four witnesses would provide 
information on ``a threat to the fabric of our political system.'' The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) alleged that the witnesses had 
``direct knowledge about how the Chinese Government made illegal 
campaign contributions'' and stated that the decision regarding 
granting immunity ``is about determining whether American lives have 
been put at risk.'' That is his quote.

[[Page H8447]]

                              {time}  1600

  But after the committee provided these witnesses with immunity, their 
testimony revealed that none had any knowledge whatsoever about alleged 
Chinese efforts to influence American elections. For example, Mr. 
Wong's primary responsibilities in working for Democratic donor Noral 
Lum were to register voters and serve as a volunteer cook.
  One Member even suggested that the President could have committed 
treason. In May 1998, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) made 
remarks on the House floor regarding allegations that the political 
contributions of the chief executive officer of Loral Corporation, 
Bernard Schwartz, had influenced the President's decision to authorize 
the transfer of certain technology to China. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) described this issue as a, ``Scandal that is 
unfolding that I think will dwarf every scandal that we have seen 
talked about on this floor in the past 6 years.'' And said further, 
``This scandal involves potential treason.''
  The Department of Justice examined the allegations relating to 
whether campaign contributions influenced export control decisions and 
found them to be unfounded. In August 1998, Lee Radek, chief of the 
department's public integrity section, wrote that ``there is not a 
scintilla of evidence or information that the President was corruptly 
influenced by Bernard Schwartz.'' Charles La Bella, then head of the 
department's campaign finance task force, agreed with Mr. Radek's 
assessment that ``this was a matter which likely did not merit any 
investigation.''
  I have not heard that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has given any 
apologies.
  The House select committee investigated allegations relating to 
United States technology transfer to China and whether campaign 
contributions influenced export control decisions. In May 1999, the 
committee findings were made public. The committee's bipartisan 
findings also did not substantiate the suggestion of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania of treason by the President.
  In recent years, some Members have even engaged in a practice of 
asking the Department of Justice to consider criminal charges against 
individuals who have provided testimony that is inconsistent with 
Members' theories, and I want to go into that, but I do want to point 
out that to make a statement that the President of the United States 
has committed treason, to make it on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, to have it in the press by people who are in our 
government, elected by their constituents, is a serious matter. And to 
find later that a charge like that was unsubstantiated, it has got to 
bother all of us.
  We have had a series of Members, when they found statements made that 
they did not think were what they wanted to hear, they have sent 
letters to the Justice Department and then they have asked the Justice 
Department to say that those statements and testimony that were 
inconsistent with their views ought to be prosecuted; they ought to be 
prosecuted as criminal matters. I will give some examples.
  In September 1998, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) sent a 
criminal referral to the Department of Justice alleging that White 
House Deputy Counsel Cheryl Mills provided false testimony to Congress 
and obstructed justice. He told The Washington Post that there was, 
``very strong evidence,'' that Ms. Mills lied to Congress. But the 
claims of the gentleman from Indiana were based on a run-of-the-mill 
document dispute. Ms. Mills believed that two documents out of over 
27,000 pages produced to the House Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight were not responsive to a request from the gentleman from 
Indiana, while the gentleman from Indiana believed that the two 
documents were responsive.
  Instead of viewing this disagreement as a difference in judgment, the 
gentleman from Indiana charged that Ms. Mills was obstructing justice 
and that she lied to the committee. The Justice Department investigated 
the allegations by the gentleman from Indiana and found them to be 
without merit.
  Over the past several years, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 
has made similar referrals to the Department of Justice regarding three 
other individuals who testified before the House Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight. Now, not all mistaken allegations are 
made with an intent to intimidate or cause harm. Not all are made with 
a knowing disregard of the facts. Sometimes such allegations simply 
reflect sloppy investigative work. But the allegations of Members of 
Congress are not just words. Publication of such allegations in the 
newspaper can cause an individual embarrassment in their community.
  Can anybody listening to me imagine an allegation being made about 
them, that they committed a crime; how they would feel; how their 
reputation might be tarnished. Defending against an allegation can 
cause individuals to wrack up thousands, sometimes hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in legal fees. Particularly in light of the 
powerful impact our words can have on the lives of individuals, when we 
learn that our allegations are not true, we ought to do everything we 
can to remedy the harm our mistakes have caused.

  I am saddened and disturbed at the pattern we have seen over recent 
years, where Members of Congress have failed to take responsibility for 
their sensational claims. Today, I have described just some examples of 
the many allegations that should be corrected. There are more in this 
report that I am entering into the Record, and there are additional 
unsubstantiated claims beyond those that are in this report. I have 
spoken today because I believe this record must be corrected.
  The American people have entrusted the House of Representatives with 
extraordinary powers. The institution as a whole suffers when its 
Members are not accountable for the exercise of these powers. The 
American public should be able to trust that when we conduct oversight, 
we will act responsibly and that we will not impugn the integrity of 
others with unsubstantiated attacks. The fact that they are in a 
different political party does not justify that. The fact they may 
disagree with some of our own political views does not justify making 
serious and unsubstantiated allegations to tarnish them.
  The least we can do, if we act so irresponsibly to make these kinds 
of allegations, is to put the facts about such allegations in the 
Congressional Record; and the facts, when they show the allegations 
were not true, should serve as the basis for Members to publicly 
announce their error.
  To accuse someone of treason, to accuse someone of perjury, to accuse 
someone of obstruction of justice, and then to find those charges were 
not true, not even to say you are sorry and to correct the record and 
apologize, the only thing I can say to those Members who have done 
that, after all that, have you no decency?
  The least we can do is to correct the facts, correct the allegations, 
to make apologies, even though we all know the truth never catches up 
with the lie. The headline of the front page, which is the allegation, 
never gets corrected by the page 25 story that says that the original 
allegation was not true.
  Mr. Speaker, the committee report I referred to earlier is submitted 
for the Record herewith:

[Prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Minority Staff Report, Committee on 
   Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives--September 2000]

    Unsubstantiated Allegations of Wrongdoing Involving the Clinton 
                             Administration

       Over the past eight years, Chairman Dan Burton of the House 
     Government Reform Committee and other Republican leaders have 
     repeatedly made sensational allegations of wrongdoing by the 
     Clinton Administration. In pursuing such allegations, 
     Chairman Burton alone has issued over 900 subpoenas; obtained 
     over 2 million pages of documents; and interviewed, deposed, 
     or called to testify over 350 witnesses. The estimated cost 
     to the taxpayer of investigating these allegations has 
     exceeded $23 million.\1\
  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  

       Chairman Burton or other Republicans have suggested that 
     Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster was murdered as part 
     of a coverup of the Whitewater land deal; that the White 
     House intentionally maintained an ``enemies list'' of 
     sensitive FBI files; that the IRS targeted the President's 
     enemies for tax audits; that the White House may have been 
     involved in ``selling or giving information to the Chinese in 
     exchange for political contributions''; that the White House 
     altered videotapes of White House coffees to conceal 
     wrongdoing; that the Clinton

[[Page H8448]]

     Administration sold burial plots in Arlington National 
     Cemetery; that prison tape recordings showed that former 
     Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell was paid off for 
     his silence; and that the Attorney General intentionally 
     misled Congress about Waco.
       This report is not intended to suggest that President 
     Clinton or his Administration have always acted properly. 
     There have obviously been instances of mistakes and 
     misconduct that deserve investigation. But frequently the 
     Republican approach--regardless of the facts--has been 
     ``accuse first, investigate later.'' Further investigation 
     then often shows the allegations to be unsubstantiated. In 
     fact, FBI interviews showed that one widely publicized 
     Republican allegation was based on nothing more than gossip 
     at a congressional reception.
       This approach has done great harm to reputations. The 
     unsubstantiated accusations have frequently received 
     widespread attention. For example, Chairman Burton's 
     allegation regarding White House videotape alteration 
     received widespread media coverage. It was reported by 
     numerous television news programs, including CBS Morning 
     News,\2\ CBS This Morning,\3\ NBC News at Sunrise,\4\ NBC's 
     Today,\5\ ABC World News Sunday,\6\ CNN Early Prime,\7\ CNN 
     Morning News,\8\ CNN's Headline News,\9\ CNN's Early 
     Edition,\10\ Fox's Morning News,\11\ and Fox News Now/Fox In 
     Depth.\12\ In addition, newspapers across the country, 
     including the Washington Post,\13\ the Las Vegas Review-
     Journal,\14\ the Houston Chronicle,\15\ the Commercial 
     Appeal,\16\ and the Sun-Sentinel,\17\ published stores 
     focusing on the allegation. Two months later, when Senator 
     Fred Thompson announced that there was no evidence that the 
     videotapes had been doctored, there was minimal press 
     coverage of his statement.\18\
       The discussion below examines the facts--and lack thereof--
     underlying 25 of the most highly publicized allegations.
       Allegation: During 1994 and 1995, Chairman Burton suggested 
     numerous times on the House floor that Deputy White House 
     Counsel Vince Foster had been murdered and that his murder 
     was related to the investigation into President and Hillary 
     Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater land deal.\19\
       The Facts: Chairman Burton's allegations have been 
     repeatedly repudiated.
       On August 10, 1993, the United States Park Police announced 
     the following conclusions of its investigation: ``Our 
     investigation has found no evidence of foul play. The 
     information gathered from associates, relatives and friends 
     provide us with enough evidence to conclude that . . . Mr. 
     Foster was anxious about his work and he was distressed to 
     the degree that he took his own life.'' \20\ On June 30, 
     1994, Independent Counsel Robert Fiske issued his report 
     stating that ``[t]he overwhelming weight of the evidence 
     compels the conclusion . . . that Vincent Foster committed 
     suicide.'' \21\
       More recently, on October 10, 1997, Independent Counsel Ken 
     Starr concluded: ``The available evidence points clearly to 
     suicide as the manner of death.'' \22\
       Allegation: In 1995 and 1996, Republicans alleged that the 
     White House fired the employees of the White House travel 
     office so that White House travel business would be given to 
     Harry Thomason, a political supporter of President Clinton. 
     The Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, William F. Clinger, said he saw the First Lady's 
     ``fingerprints'' on efforts to cover up and lie about the 
     travel office firings.\23\ Discussing the travel office 
     matter, Rep. Dan Burton said, ``The First Lady, according to 
     the notes we have, has lied.'' \24\
       The Facts: In June 2000, the Office of the Independent 
     Counsel issued a press release announcing that its 
     investigation into the Travel Office matter had concluded. 
     Independent Counsel Robert Ray stated:
       ``This Office has now concluded its investigation into 
     allegations relating to . . . Mrs. Clinton's statements and 
     testimony concerning the Travel Office firings and has fully 
     discharged [her] from criminal liability for matters within 
     this Office's jurisdiction in the Travel Office matter.'' 
     \25\
       Allegation: In June 1996, Chairman Burton alleged that the 
     White House had improperly obtained FBI files of prominent 
     Republicans and that these files ``were going to be used for 
     dirty political tricks in the future.'' \26\ Committee 
     Republicans also released a report suggesting that the files 
     were being used by the Clinton Administration to compile a 
     ``hit list'' or an ``enemies list.'' \27\
       The Facts: These allegations have been thoroughly 
     investigated by the Office of the Independent Counsel and 
     repudiated. The Independent Counsel had been charged with 
     examining whether Anthony Marceca, a former White House 
     detailee who had requested the FBI background files at issue, 
     senior White House officials, or Mrs. Clinton had engaged in 
     illegal conduct relating to these files.
       According to the report issued by Independent Counsel Ray 
     in March 2000, ``neither Anthony Marceca nor any senior White 
     House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, engaged 
     in criminal conduct to obtain through fraudulent means 
     derogatory information about former White House staff.'' 
     The Independent Counsel also concluded that ``Mr. 
     Marceca's alleged criminal conduct did not reflect a 
     conspiracy within the White House,'' and stated Mr. 
     Marceca was truthful when he testified that ``[n]o senior 
     White House official, or Mrs. Clinton, was involved in 
     requesting FBI background reports for improper partisan 
     advantage.\28\''
       Allegation: Beginning in 1996, Chairman Burton and other 
     Republican leaders suggested that there was a conspiracy 
     between the Chinese government and the Clinton Administration 
     to violate federal campaign finance laws and improperly 
     influence the outcome of the 1996 presidential election. In a 
     February 1997 interview on national television, Chairman 
     Burton stated:
       ``If the White House or anybody connected with the White 
     House was selling or giving information to the Chinese in 
     exchange for political contributions, then we have to look 
     into it because that's a felony, and you're selling this 
     country's security--economic security or whatever to a 
     communist power.\29\''
       Further, on the House floor in June 1997, Chairman Burton 
     alleged a ``massive'' Chinese conspiracy:
       ``We are investigating a possible massive scheme . . . of 
     funneling millions of dollars of foreign money into the U.S. 
     electoral system. We are investigating allegations that the 
     Chinese government at the highest levels decided to 
     infiltrate our political system.\30\''
       The Facts: The House Government Reform Committee to date 
     has spent four years and over $8 million investigating these 
     allegations. No evidence provided to the Committee 
     substantiates the claim that the Administration was ``selling 
     or giving information to the Chinese in exchange for 
     political contributions.''
       The FBI obtained some evidence that China had a plan to try 
     to influence congressional elections.\31\ However, no 
     evidence was provided to the Committee that the Chinese 
     government carried out a ``massive scheme'' to influence the 
     election of President Clinton.
       Allegation: In June 1997, Rep. Gerald Solomon, the Chairman 
     of the House Rules Committee, claimed that he had 
     ``evidence'' from a government source that John Huang, the 
     former Commerce Department official and Democratic National 
     Committee fundraiser, had ``committed economic espionage and 
     breached our national security.'' This allegation was 
     reported on national television and in many newspapers across 
     the country.\32\
       The Facts: In August 1997, and again in February 1998, Rep. 
     Solomon was interviewed by the FBI to determine the basis of 
     Rep. Solomon's allegations. During the first interview, Rep. 
     Solomon told the FBI that he was told by a Senate staffer at 
     a Capitol Hill reception that the staffer ``received 
     confirmation that `a Department of Commerce employee had 
     passed classified information to a foreign government.' '' 
     According to the FBI notes on the Solomon interview, the 
     Senate staffer did not say that the employee was John 
     Huang, nor did he say that information went to China. Rep. 
     Solomon did not know who the staffer was.\33\
       In his second interview with the FBI, Rep. Solomon recalled 
     that what the staffer said to him was: ``Congressman you 
     might like to know that you were right there was someone at 
     Commerce giving out information.'' Again in this interview, 
     Rep. Solomon told the FBI that he did not know the name of 
     the staffer who made this comment.\34\
       Allegation: In August 1997, several Republican leaders 
     called for an independent counsel to investigate allegations 
     by Democratic donor Johnny Chung that former Energy Secretary 
     Hazel O'Leary had, in effect, ``shaken down'' Mr. Chung by 
     requiring him to make a donation to the charity Africare as a 
     precondition to a meeting with her. On national television, 
     Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson stated, 
     ``[W]e need independent investigation made of people like 
     Hazel O'Leary.'' \35\ Rep. Gerald Solomon, the chairman of 
     the House Rules Committee, criticized the Attorney General 
     for being ``intransigent'' in refusing to appoint an 
     independent counsel.\36\
       The Facts: A Department of Justice investigation found ``no 
     evidence that Mrs. O'Leary had anything to do with the 
     solicitation of the charitable donation.'' \37\ In fact, it 
     turned out that Secretary O'Leary's first contact with Mr. 
     Chung occurred after Mr. Chung had made his contribution, 
     making the allegation factually impossible.\38\
       Allegation: In September 1997, Chairman Burton suggested on 
     national television that the Clinton Administration was 
     engaging in an ``abuse of power'' by using the Internal 
     Revenue Service (IRS) to retaliate against the President's 
     political enemies.\39\ The Washington Times also quoted the 
     Chairman as stating: ``One case might be a coincidence. Two 
     cases might be a coincidence. But what are the chances of 
     this entire litany of people--all of whom have an adversarial 
     relationship with the President--being audited?'' \40\
       The Facts: The Chairman's remarks related to allegations 
     that the IRS was auditing conservative groups and individuals 
     for political purposes. According to these allegations, 
     several non-profit tax-exempt organizations that supported 
     positions different from those of the Clinton Administration 
     were being audited while other organizations favored by the 
     Administration were not.\41\
       The Joint Committee on Taxation conducted a three-year 
     bipartisan investigation of these allegations. In March 2000, 
     the Committee reported that it had found no evidence of 
     politically motivated IRS audits.\42\ Specifically, the 
     bipartisan report found there was ``no credible evidence that 
     tax-exempt organizations were selected for examination, or 
     that the IRS altered the manner in which examinations of tax-
     exempt organizations were conducted, based on the views

[[Page H8449]]

     espoused by the organizations or individuals related to the 
     organization.'' Further, the report found ``no credible 
     evidence of intervention by Clinton Administration officials 
     (including Treasury Department and White House officials) in 
     the selection of (or the failure to select) taxexempt 
     organizations for examination.''\43\
       Allegation: In October 1997, Chairman Burton held a hearing 
     which he claimed would produce evidence of ``blatantly 
     illegal activity by a senior national party official.''\44\ 
     The star witness at that hearing, David Wang, alleged that 
     then-DNC official John Huang had solicited a conduit 
     contribution from him in person in Los Angeles on August 16, 
     1996.\45\
       The Facts: It was Charlie Trie and his associate Antonio 
     Pan, not John Huang, who solicited Mr. Wang. Unlike Mr. 
     Huang. Mr. Trie and Mr. Pan were never ``senior officials'' 
     at the DNC. Credit card records, affidavits, and other 
     evidence conclusively demonstrated that Mr. Huang and been in 
     New York, not Los Angeles, on the day in question.\46\ Mr. 
     Huang later testified before the Committee and denied Mr. 
     Wang's allegations. On March 1, 2000, Democratic fundraiser 
     Charlie Trie appeared before the Committee and acknowledged 
     that it had been he and Mr. Pan, not Mr. Huang, who had 
     solicited the conduit contribution.\48\
       Allegation: At an October 1997 hearing before the House 
     Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Chairman Burton 
     publicly released a proffer from Democratic fundrasiers Gene 
     and Nora Lum. Chairman Burton stated that the proffer 
     indicated that ``the solicitation and utilization of foreign 
     money and conduit payments did not begin after the 
     Republicans won control of the Congress in 1994. Rather, it 
     appears that the seeds of today's scandals may have been 
     planted as early as 1991.''\49\ Specifically, the proffer 
     suggested that President Clinton endorsed the candidacy of a 
     foreign leader in exchange for campaign contributions.\50\ 
     This allegation was reported in the Washington Post in an 
     article entitled ``Story of a Foreign Donor's Deal With `92 
     Clinton Camp Outlined,'' and in other national media.\51\
       The Facts: To investigate this allegation and other 
     allegations concerning the Lums, Chairman Burton issued 
     nearly 200 information requests that resulted in the receipt 
     of over 40,000 pages of documents, 50 audiotapes, a videotape 
     and numerous depositions. After this extensive investigation, 
     however, the Chairman was never able to produce any evidence 
     to support the dramatic allegation in the proffer.
       The proffer presented by Chairman Burton stated that, 
     during the 1992 campaign, the Lums arranged a meeting with a 
     Clinton/Gore official for an individual who had proposed to 
     arrange a ``large donation in exchange for a letter signed by 
     the Clinton campaign endorsing the candidacy of a man who is 
     now the leader of an Asian nation.'' The proffer states that 
     the official ``later provided a favorable letter over the 
     name of Clinton,'' that a ``Clinton/Gore official signed then 
     Governor Clinton's name to the letter,'' and that the 
     individual who made the request for the letter then made a 
     $50,000 contribution that reportedly came from ``a foreign 
     person then residing in the United States.''\52\
       In its investigation, the only letter the Committee 
     obtained that concerned then-Governor Clinton's position on 
     an election in Asia is an October 28, 1992, letter on 
     Clinton/Gore letterhead that pertains to the presidential 
     election in Korea. This document specifically states that 
     then-Governor Clinton does not believe it is appropriate 
     for U.S. public officials to endorse the candidacies in 
     foreign elections. The letter states:
       ``Thank you for bringing to my attention the impact in 
     Korea that my statement of September 17th has caused. I would 
     appreciate your help in clarifying the situation in Korea 
     through proper channels. My statement was a courtesy reply in 
     response to an invitation to me to attend an event in honor 
     of Chairman Kim Dae-Jung, and to extend to him my greetings. 
     It was not meant to endorse or assist his candidacy in the 
     upcoming presidential election in Korea. I do not believe 
     that any United States government official should endorse a 
     presidential candidate in another country.\53\''
       Allegation: On October 19, 1997, Chairman Burton appeared 
     on national television and suggested that the White House had 
     deliberately altered videotapes of presidential fund-raising 
     events. On CBS's Face the Nation, he said ``We thing ma--
     maybe some of those tapes may have been cut off 
     intentionally, they're been--been, you know, altered in some 
     way.'' He also said that he might hire lip-readers to examine 
     the tapes to figure out what was being said on the tapes.\54\
       The Facts: Investigations by the House Government Reform 
     and Oversight Committee and the Senate Governmental Affairs 
     Committee produced no evidence of any tampering with the 
     tapes. Shortly after Chairman Burton made his allegation 
     regarding tape alteration, the Senate Governmental Affairs 
     Committee hired a technical expert, Paul Ginsburg, to analyze 
     the videotapes to determine whether they had been doctored. 
     Mr. Ginsburg concluded that there was no evidence of 
     tampering.\55\ In addition, Colonel Joseph Simmons, commander 
     of the White House Communications Agency (WHCA), Colonel Alan 
     Sullivan, head of the White House Military Office which 
     overseas WHCA, and Steven Smith, chief of operations of WHCA, 
     all testified under oath before the House Government Reform 
     and Oversight Committee in October 1997 that they were 
     unaware of any alteration of the videotapes.\56\
       Allegation: In November 1997, Republican leaders drew on 
     unsubstantiated reports by conservative radio talk shows and 
     publications to accuse the Clinton Administration of selling 
     burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign 
     contributions.\57\ Republican Party Chairman Jim Nicholson 
     accused the Administration of a ``despicable political 
     scheme,'' and several Republican leaders, including Chairman 
     Burton, called for investigations.\58\ Representative Gerald 
     Solomon stated, ``[t]his latest outrage is one more slap in 
     the face of every American who ever wore the uniform of their 
     country, who seem to be special objects of contempt in this 
     administration.'' \59\
       The Facts: The Army has established restrictive eligibility 
     requirements for burial at Arlington. Individuals who are 
     eligible for Arlington National Cemetery burial sites include 
     service members who died while on active duty, honorably 
     discharged members of the armed forces who have been awarded 
     certain high military distinctions, and surviving spouses of 
     individuals already buried at Arlington, among others. The 
     Secretary of the Army may grant waivers of these 
     requirements.\60\
       In January 1998, the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
     concluded an independent investigation of the allegations 
     that waivers were granted in exchange for political 
     contributions. As part of this investigation, GAO analyzed 
     the laws and regulations concerning burials at Arlington, 
     conducted in-depth review of Department of Army case files 
     regarding approved and denied waivers, and had discussions 
     with officials responsible for waiver decisions.\61\
       GAO's report stated: ``[W]e found no evidence in the 
     records we reviewed to support recent media reports that 
     political contributions have played a role in waiver 
     decisions.'' Further, GAO stated: ``Where the records show 
     some involvement or interest in a particular case on the part 
     of the President, executive branch officials, or Members of 
     Congress or their staffs, the documents indicate only such 
     factors as a desire to help a constituent or a conviction 
     that the merits of the person being considered warranted a 
     waiver.'' \62\
       Allegation: In January 1998, Chairman Burton held four days 
     of hearings into whether campaign contributions influenced 
     the actions of Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt or 
     other Department of the Interior officials with respect to a 
     decision to deny an Indian gambling application in Hudson, 
     Wisconsin. During those hearings, Chairman Burton alleged 
     that the decision was a ``political payoff'' and that it 
     ``stinks'' and ``smells.'' \63\
       The Facts: On August 22, 2000, Independent Counsel Carol 
     Elder Bruce released the report of her investigation into the 
     Hudson casino decision. She found that the allegations of 
     political payoff were unsubstantiated, concluding:
       ``A full review of the evidence . . . indicates that 
     neither Babbitt nor any government official at Interior or 
     the White House entered into any sort of specific and corrupt 
     agreement to influence the outcome of the Hudson casino 
     application in return for campaign contributions to the 
     DNC.'' \64\
       Allegation: In April 1998, Chairman Burton suggested that 
     President Clinton had created a national monument in Utah in 
     order to benefit the Lippo Group, an Indonesian conglomerate 
     with coal interests in Indonesia.\65\ James Riady, an 
     executive of the Lippo Group, was a contributor to the DNC. 
     In June 1998, in a statement on the House floor, Chairman 
     Burton reiterated his allegation: ``[T]he President made the 
     Utah Monument a national park. What is the significance of 
     that? The largest clean-burning coal facility in the United 
     States, billions and billions of dollars of clean-burning 
     coal are in the Utah Monument. It could have been mined 
     environmentally safely according to U.S. engineers. Who would 
     benefit from turning that into a national park so you cannot 
     mine there? The Riady group, the Lippo Group, and Indonesia 
     has the largest clean-burning coal facility, mining facility, 
     in southeast Asia. They are one of the largest contributors. 
     Their hands are all over, all over these contributions coming 
     in from Communist China, from Macao and from Indonesia. Could 
     there be a connection here?'' \66\
       The Facts: In September 1996, President Clinton set aside 
     as a national monument 1.7 million acres of coal-rich land in 
     Utah under a 1906 law that allows the president to designate 
     national monuments without congressional approval.\67\ After 
     two years of investigation, the Committee produced no 
     evidence that there is any connection between the designation 
     of this land as a monument and Riady group or any other 
     contributions.\68\
       Allegation: In April 1998, Chairman Burton released 
     transcripts of selected portions of Webster Hubbell's prison 
     telephone conversations. According to these transcripts, if 
     Mr. Hubbell had filed a lawsuit against his former law firm, 
     it would have ``opened up'' the First Lady to allegations, 
     and for this reason Mr. Hubbell had decided to ``roll over'' 
     to protect the First Lady. These transcripts included a quote 
     of Mrs. Hubbell saying, ``And that you are opening Hillary up 
     to all of this,'' and Mr. Hubbell responding, ``I will not 
     raise those allegations that might open it up to Hillary'' 
     and ``So, I need to roll over one more time.'' These quotes 
     were taken from a two-hour March 25, 1996, conversation 
     between the Hubbells.\69\

[[Page H8450]]

       The Facts: Webster Hubbell was Assistant Attorney General 
     until March 1994. Prior to that, he was a partner with 
     Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, 
     Arkansas. In December 1994, Mr. Hubbell pled guilty to tax 
     evasion and mail fraud and went to prison for 16 months.
       During his imprisonment, Mr. Hubbell's phone calls to his 
     friends, family, and lawyers were routinely taped by prison 
     authorities. Such taping is standard in federal prisons. 
     These tapes were turned over to the Government Reform and 
     Oversight Committee. Although the tapes are supposed to be 
     protected by the Privacy Act, Chairman Burton released a 
     document in April 1998 entitled the ``Hubbell Master Tape 
     Log,'' which contained what were purported to be excepts from 
     these tapes. However, it was subsequently revealed that many 
     of these excepts were in fact inaccurate or omitted 
     exculpatory statements made by Mr. Hubbell that directly 
     contradicted the allegations.\70\
       For example, while the ``Hubbell Master Tape Log'' quoted 
     the above portions of the March 25, 1996, conversation 
     between Mr. and Mrs. Hubbell, it omitted a later portion of 
     the same conversation that appears to exonerate the First 
     Lady. The later portion of that conversation follows, with 
     the portions that Chairman Burton omitted from the ``Hubbell 
     Master Tape Log'' in italics:
       ``Mr. Hubbell: Now, Suzy, I say this with love for my 
     friend Bill Kennedy, and I do love him, he's been a good 
     friend, he's one of the most vulnerable people in my 
     counterclaim. OK?
       ``Mrs. Hubbell: I know.
       ``Mr. Hubbell: Ok, Hillary's not, Hillary isn't, the only 
     thing is people say why didn't she know what was going on. 
     And I wish she never paid any attention to what was going on 
     in the firm. That's the gospel truth. She just had no 
     idea what was going on. She didn't participate in any of 
     this.
       ``Mrs. Hubbell: They wouldn't have let her if she tried.
       ``Mr. Hubbell: Of course not.''
       The ``Hubbell Master Tape Log'' released by the Chairman 
     also included an italicized passage in which Mr. Hubbell 
     allegedly said: ``The Riady is just not easy to do business 
     with me while I'm here.'' In fact, the actual tape states: 
     ``The reality is it's just not easy to do business with me 
     while I'm here.''
       Allegation: In April 1998, Chairman Burton sought immunity 
     from the Committee for four witnesses: Nancy Lee, Irene Wu, 
     Larry Wong, and Kent La. He and other Republican leaders, 
     including Speaker Newt Gingrich, alleged that these witnesses 
     had important information about illegal contributions from 
     the Chinese government during the 1996 elections.\71\
       Speaker Gingrich alleged that the four witnesses would 
     provide information on ``a threat to the fabric of our 
     political system.'' \72\ Rep. John Boehner alleged that the 
     witnesses had ``direct knowledge about how the Chinese 
     government made illegal campaign contributions'' and stated 
     that the decision regarding granting immunity ``is about 
     determining whether American lives have been put at risk.'' 
     \73\ Committee Republican Rep. Shadegg stated that one of the 
     witnesses, Larry Wong, ``is believed to have relevant 
     information regarding the conduit for contributions made by 
     the Lums and others in the 1992 fund-raising by John Huang 
     and James Riady.'' \74\
       The Facts: In June 1998, the Committee provided these 
     witnesses with immunity. After they were immunized, their 
     testimony revealed that none had any knowledge whatsoever 
     about alleged Chinese efforts to influence American 
     elections. For example, Mr. Wong's primary responsibilities 
     in working for Democratic donor Nora Lum were to register 
     voters and serve as a volunteer cook.\75\ Following is the 
     total testimony he provided regarding James Riady:
       ``Majority Counsel: Did Nora ever discuss meeting James 
     Riady?
       ``Mr. Wong: James who?
       * * *
       ``Majority Counsel: James Riady.
       ``Mr. Wong: No.\76\ ''
       Allegation: In May 1998, Rep. Curt Weldon suggested on the 
     House floor that the President could have committed treason. 
     Rep. Weldon's remarks involved allegations that the political 
     contributions of the Chief Executive Officer of Loral 
     Corporation, Bernard Schwartz, had influenced the President's 
     decision to authorize the transfer of certain technology to 
     China. Rep. Weldon described this issue as a ``scandal that 
     is unfolding that I think will dwarf every scandal that we 
     have seen talked about on this floor in the past 6 years,'' 
     and said, ``this scandal involves potential treason.'' 
     \77\ The National Journal reported this allegation in an 
     article that referred to Rep. Weldon as a ``respected 
     senior member of the National Security Committee.'' \78\
       The Facts: The Department of Justice examined the 
     allegations relating to whether campaign contributions 
     influenced export control decisions and found them to be 
     unfounded.\79\ In August 1998, Lee Radek, chief of the 
     Department's public integrity section, wrote that ``there is 
     not a scintilla of evidence--or information--that the 
     President was corruptly influenced by Bernard Schwartz.'' 
     \80\ Charles La Bella, then head of the Department's campaign 
     finance task force, agreed with Mr. Radek's assessment that 
     ``this was a matter which likely did not merit any 
     investigation.'' \81\
       A House select committee investigated allegations relating 
     to United States technology transfers to China, and whether 
     campaign contributions influenced export control decisions. 
     In May 1999, the Committee findings were made public. The 
     Committee's bipartisan findings also did not substantiate 
     Rep. Weldon's suggestions of treason by the President.\82\
       Allegation: In September 1998, Rep. David McIntosh sent a 
     criminal referral to the Department of Justice alleging that 
     White House Deputy Counsel Cheryl Mills provided false 
     testimony to Congress and obstructed justice.\83\ He told the 
     Washington Post that there was ``very strong evidence'' that 
     Ms. Mills lied to Congress.\84\
       The Facts: Rep. McIntosh's claims were based on a run-of-
     the-mill document dispute. Ms. Mills believed that two 
     documents out of over 27,000 pages of documents produced to 
     the Government Reform and Oversight Committee were not 
     responsive to a request from Rep. McIntosh, while Rep. 
     McIntosh believed the two documents were responsive. Instead 
     of viewing this disagreement as a difference in judgment, 
     Rep. McIntosh charged that Ms. Mills was obstructing justice 
     and that she lied to the Committee.\85\ The Justice 
     Department investigated Rep. McIntosh's allegations and found 
     them to be without merit.\86\
       Allegation: In October 1998, Rep. David McIntosh alleged 
     that the President, First Lady, and senior Administration 
     officials were involved in ``theft of government property'' 
     for political purposes. To support this claim, Rep. McIntosh 
     claimed that the President's 1993 and 1994 holiday card lists 
     had been knowingly delivered to others outside of the 
     government, and that, with respect to the holiday card 
     project, evidence suggested a ``criminal conspiracy to 
     circumvent the prohibition on transferring data to the DNC.'' 
     \87\
       The Facts: The White House database, known as ``WhoDB,'' is 
     a computerized rolodex used to track contacts of citizens 
     with the White House and to create a holiday card list. In 
     putting together the holiday card list, the Clinton 
     Administration followed the procedures established by 
     previous administrations. A number of entities, including the 
     White House and the Democratic National Committee, created 
     lists of card recipients, and the White House hired an 
     outside contractor to merge the lists, and produce and mail 
     the cards. As with past Administrations, the production and 
     mailing costs of the holiday card project were paid for by 
     the President's political party to avoid any appearance that 
     taxpayer funds were being used to pay for greetings to 
     political supporters.
       The evidence showed that the contractor charged with 
     eliminating duplicate names from the 1993 holiday card list 
     failed to remove the list from its computer. This computer 
     was subsequently moved--for unrelated reasons--to the 1996 
     Clinton/Gore campaign. The Committee uncovered no evidence 
     that this list was ever used for campaign purposes. In fact, 
     computer records showed that the Clinton/Gore campaign never 
     accessed it, and it appears that the campaign was not aware 
     that the computer contained this list.
       With respect to the 1994 holiday card list, a DNC employee 
     learned that the contractor charged with eliminating 
     duplicate names from the list did not properly ``de-dupe'' 
     the list. Therefore, the worked with her parents and several 
     volunteers over a weekend to properly perform this task. The 
     evidence indicates that neither the 1994 nor the 1993 holiday 
     card list was used for any other purpose than sending out the 
     holiday cards.\88\
       Allegation: In March 1999, Chairman Burton sent a criminal 
     referral to Department of Justice alleging that Charles 
     Duncan, Associate Director of the Office of Presidential 
     Personnel of the White House, made false statements to the 
     Committee regarding the appointment of Yah Lin ``Charlie'' 
     Trie to the Bingaman Commission.\89\
       The Facts: Chairman Burton alleged that Mr. Duncan made 
     false statements in his answers to Committee interrogatories 
     in April 1998, \90\ These answers included statements by Mr. 
     Duncan that, to the best of his recollection, no one 
     expressed opposition to him regarding the appointment of Mr. 
     Trie to a trade commission known as the ``Bingaman 
     Commission.'' \91\ The main basis for the Chairman's 
     allegation was that Mr. Duncan's responses were 
     ``irreconcilable'' with statements purportedly made by 
     another witness, Steven Clemons.\92\
       Investigation revealed that Mr. Clemons's statements were 
     apparently misrepresented by Mr. Burton's staff. Mr. Clemons 
     was interviewed by two junior majority attorneys without 
     representation of counsel. Immediately after the majority 
     released the majority staff's interview notes of the Clemons 
     interview in February 1998, Mr. Clemons issued a public 
     statement noting that he had never seen the notes, he had not 
     been given the opportunity to review them for accuracy, and 
     that `'the notes have significant inaccuracies and 
     misrepresentations . . . about the important matters which 
     were discussed,'' \93\ The Department of Justice closed its 
     investigation of Mr. Duncan without bringing any charges.\94\
       Allegation: In June 1999, Chairman Burton issued a press 
     release accusing Defense Department officials of attempting 
     to tamper with the computer of a Committee witness, Dr. Peter 
     Leitner, of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), while 
     he was testifying before the House Committee on Government 
     Reform. The Chairman alleged, ``While Dr. Leitner was telling 
     my committee about the retaliation be suffered for bringing 
     his concerns to his superiors and

[[Page H8451]]

     Congress, his supervisor was trying to secretly access 
     his computer. This smacks of mob tactics.'' He further 
     commented, ``George Orwell couldn't have dreamed this 
     up.'' \95\
       The Facts: Both the Committee and the Air Force Office of 
     Special Investigations subsequently conducted investigations 
     regarding the allegation of computer tampering. The Committee 
     interviewed 11 DTRA employees, obtained relevant documents, 
     and learned that the allegation was untrue. Instead, the 
     incident was nothing more than a routine effort to obtain 
     files in the witness's computer that were necessary to 
     complete an already overdue project.
       When Dr. Leitner was on leave to testify before the 
     Committee on June 24, 1999, his superior, Colonel Raymond A. 
     Willson, had reassigned a task of Dr. Leitner's to another 
     DTRA employee. This reassignment--responding to a letter from 
     Senator Phil Gramm--occurred because DTRA's internal due date 
     for the project was passed and Dr. Leitner's draft response 
     was not accurate. As part of reassigning the task. Col. 
     Willson asked the office's technical division to transfer 
     relevant files from Dr. Leitner's computer. The transfer 
     never occurred, however, because the employee to whom the 
     task was reassigned did not need Dr. Leitner's files to 
     complete the task. Dr. Leitner's computer was not 
     touched.\96\
       On July 12, 1999, the Committee also learned that the Air 
     Force Office of Special Investigations had completed its 
     investigation and found that Col. Willson had done nothing 
     improper.
       Allegation: In July 1999 testimony before the House Rules 
     Committee, Chairman Burton stated that the House Committee on 
     Government Reform had received information indicating that 
     the Attorney General ``personally'' changed a policy related 
     to release of information by the Department of Justice so 
     that an attorney she knew ``could help her client.'' \97\
       The Facts: One year after Chairman Burton testified before 
     the Rules Committee, the House Government Reform Committee 
     took testimony from the relevant witnesses at a July 27, 
     2000, hearing.
       Chairman Burton's allegations concerned efforts by a Miami 
     attorney, Rebekah Poston, to obtain information for her 
     client, who had been sued in a Japanese court for libel by a 
     Japanese citizen named Nobuo Abe. The alleged statements at 
     the heart of this lawsuit related to whether Mr. Abe had been 
     arrested or detained in Seattle in 1963. Mr. Abe maintained 
     that he had never been detained and that statements to the 
     contrary made by Ms. Poston's client were defamatory.\98\ In 
     order to support her client's interests in this lawsuit, Ms. 
     Poston filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with 
     several components of the Department of Justice in November 
     1994 seeking records that reestablished that her client's 
     statements were true and that Mr. Abe had, in fact, been 
     arrested or detained.
       In response to Ms. Poston's FOIA requests, the INS, Bureau 
     of Prisons, and Executive Office of the United States 
     Attorneys informed Ms. Poston that no records on Mr. Abe 
     existed.\99\ The Department of Justice, however, initially 
     informed Ms. Poston that it was its policy not to confirm or 
     deny whether the Justice Department maintains such files on 
     an individual unless the individual authorizes such a 
     confirmation or denial.\100\ After Ms. Poston appealed 
     this decision and threatened litigation on the matter, the 
     Justice Department reversed its decision and confirmed to 
     her that no records on Mr. Abe existed. This decision to 
     confirm the lack of records was legal and it was damaging 
     to Ms. Poston's client. The Justice Department official 
     who directed this decision testified the he believed it 
     was appropriate because it precluded potential litigation 
     and did not deprive anyone of privacy rights because no 
     release of records was involved.\101\
       Although the Chairman suggested that the Attorney General 
     ``personally'' changed Department policy to allow release of 
     information, the records produced to the Committee show that 
     the Attorney General recused herself from the decision.\102\ 
     John Hogan, who was Attorney General Reno's chief of staff at 
     the time of Ms. Poston's FOIA request, testified before the 
     House Government Reform Committee that the Attorney General 
     ``had no role in this decision whatsoever, initially or at 
     any stage.'' \103\
       Allegation: In August and September 1999, Chairman Burton 
     alleged that Attorney General Reno had intentionally withheld 
     evidence from Congress on the use of ``military rounds'' of 
     tear gas, which may have some potential to ignite a fire, 
     during the siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX. 
     Specifically, on a national radio news broadcast in August 
     1999, he stated that Attorney General Reno ``should be 
     summarily removed, either because she's incompetent, number 
     one, or, number two, she's blocking for the President and 
     covering things up, which is what I believe.'' \104\
       Further, on September 10, 1999, Chairman Burton wrote the 
     Attorney General regarding a 49-page FBI lab report that on 
     page 49 references the use of military tear gas at Waco. He 
     stated that the Department had failed to produce that page to 
     the Committee on Government Reform during the Committee's 
     Waco investigation in 1995, and asserted that this failure 
     ``raises more questions about whether this Committee was 
     intentionally misled during the original Waco 
     investigation.'' \105\ In a subsequent television interview, 
     Chairman Burton stated, ``with the 49th page of this report 
     not given to Congress when we were having oversight 
     investigations into the tragedy at Waco and that was the very 
     definitive piece of paper that could have given us some 
     information, it sure looks like they were withholding 
     information.'' \106\
       The Facts: Evidence regarding the use of ``military 
     rounds'' of tear gas was in Chairman Burton's own files at 
     the time he alleged that the Department of justice had 
     withheld this information. Within days after Chairman 
     Burton's allegations, the minority staff found several 
     documents provided by the Department of Justice to Congress 
     in 1995 that explicitly describe the use of military tear gas 
     rounds at Waco on April 19, 1993.\107\
       Further, contrary to Chairman Burton's allegations, the 
     Department of Justice in fact had produced to the Committee 
     copies of the FBI lab report that did include the 49th page. 
     Former Senator John Danforth, whom the Attorney General 
     appointed as a special counsel to conduct an independent 
     investigation of Waco-related allegations, recently issued a 
     report that commented as follows on document production to 
     congressional committees:
       ``[W]hile one copy of the report did not contain the 49th 
     page, the Committees were provided with at least two copies 
     of the lab report in 1995 which did contain the 49th page. 
     The Office of Special Counsel easily located these complete 
     copies of the lab report at the Committees' offices when it 
     reviewed the Committees' copy of the 1995 Department of 
     Justice production. The Department of Justice document 
     production to the Committees also included several other 
     documents that referred to the use of the military tear gas 
     rounds, including the criminal team's witness summary chart 
     and interview notes. The Special Counsel has concluded that 
     the missing page on one copy of the lab report provided to 
     the Committees is attributable to an innocent photocopying 
     error and the Office of Special Counsel will not pursue the 
     matter further.'' \108\
       Allegation: In November 1999, Chairman Burton appeared on 
     television and claimed that FBI notes of interviews with John 
     Huang show that the President was a knowing participant in an 
     illegal foreign campaign contribution scheme. According to 
     the Chairman, ``Huang says that James Riady told the 
     President he would raise a million dollars from foreign 
     sources for his campaign,'' that ``$700,000 was then raised 
     by the Riady group in Indonesia,'' and that ``that money was 
     reimbursed by the Riadys through intermediaries in the United 
     States. All that was illegal campaign contributions.'' He 
     further stated: ``[T]his $700,000 that came in--the President 
     knew that James Riady was doing it. He knew it was foreign 
     money coming in from the Lippo Group in Jakarta, Indonesia, 
     and he didn't decline it. He accepted it, used it in his 
     campaign, and got elected.'' \109\
       The Facts: The FBI interview notes do not support the 
     Chairman's allegation. The FBI notes of interviews with Mr. 
     Huang do indicate that Mr. Riady, who was a legal resident at 
     the time told President Clinton that he would like to raise 
     one million dollars.\110\ The notes do not indicate, however, 
     that Mr. Riady discussed the source of the contributions he 
     intended to raise, and Mr. Huang told the FBI that he 
     personally never discussed individual contributions or the 
     sources of such contributions with the President.\111\
       In December 1999, John Huang appeared before the Committee. 
     He testified that he had no knowledge regarding whether 
     President Clinton knew of foreign money coming from the Lippo 
     group to his campaign, and that he did not believe that the 
     President knew about it. He further stated that he had no 
     knowledge that Mr. Riady indicated to the President the 
     source of the money he intended to raise.\112\ In addition, 
     Mr. Huang testified that, as far as he knew, President 
     Clinton had not participated in or had any knowledge of 
     efforts to raise illegal foreign campaign contributions.\113\
       Allegation: In December 1999, Chairman Burton alleged that 
     the White House prevented White House Communications Agency 
     (WHCA) personnel from filming the President meeting with 
     James Riady, a figure from the campaign finance 
     investigation, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 
     (APEC) summit meeting in New Zealand in September 1999. 
     During a December 15, 1999, hearing entitled ``The Role of 
     John Huang and the Riady Family in Political 
     Fundraising,'' Chairman Burton showed the two tapes made 
     by the WHCA personnel, and then showed a video filmed by a 
     press camera. Of the third tape, the Chairman said:
       ``That shows a little different picture. The White House 
     tapes don't show it, but President Clinton really did pay 
     some special attention to Mr. Riady. This White House is so 
     consumed with covering things up that their taxpayer-funded 
     photographer wouldn't even allow a tape to be made of the 
     President shaking Mr. Riady's hand. No one minded the 
     President meeting Mr. Riady. They just didn't want anyone to 
     know how warmly he was greeted because of the problems 
     surrounding Mr. Riady.\114\''
       The Facts: President Clinton shook James Riady's hand in a 
     rope line in New Zealand in September 1999. One of the WHCA 
     cameras filming the President from the side stopped filming 
     as the President greeted Mr. Riady. The other camera, filming 
     the President head-on, panned away from the President as he 
     moved down the rope line and did not return to him until he 
     moved past Mr. Riady.

[[Page H8452]]

     The third camera, the camera Chairman Burton claimed was 
     operated by a member of the press, captured the whole 
     exchange between the President and Mr. Riady. This exchange 
     lasted approximately 10 seconds and consisted of a handshake 
     and a brief, inaudible conversation.
       Committee staff interviewed Jon Baker, the person who 
     operated the camera filming the President from the side, and 
     Quinton Gipson, the person who operated the camera filming 
     the President head-on. Mr. Baker told staff that no one 
     instructed him not to film the President and Mr. Riady and he 
     did not know who Mr. Riady was. Similarly, Mr. Gipson said he 
     did not know who James Riady was and that he did not get any 
     guidance about taping the event from anyone.
       WHCA policy is to film any remarks the president gives, but 
     not necessarily to film every move the President makes. WHCA 
     camera operators do not take direction from the White House 
     about how to cover events. Mr. Baker told Committee staff 
     that he stopped filming when he did because he had to pack up 
     his equipment and rush to join the motorcade and it was a 
     coincidence that neither he nor the other cameraman captured 
     the full exchange between the President and Mr. Riady.
       Allegation: In July 2000, Chairman Burton said a videotape 
     of a December 15, 1995, coffee at the White House indicates 
     that Vice President Gore suggested that DNC issue 
     advertisements be played for Democratic donor James Riady, 
     who has been the subject of campaign finance probes. 
     According to the Chairman, Vice President Gore ``apparently 
     states: `We oughta, we oughta, we oughta show Mr. Riady the 
     tapes, some of the ad tapes.' '' \115\
       The Facts: Chairman Burton played the videotape at a July 
     20, 2000, hearing of the Government Reform Committee. 
     However, it was not possible to determine what was said on 
     the tape.
       Further, it was impossible to determine to whom the Vice 
     President was speaking because he was not on camera during 
     the alleged comment. A Reuters reporter describing the 
     playing of the videotape at the hearing wrote, ``Gore's 
     muffled words were not clear.''\116\
       When chairman Burton played the tape on Fox Television's 
     program Hannity and Colmes, the person whose job it is to 
     transcribe the show transcribed the tape excerpt as follows:
       ``We ought to--we ought to show that to (unintelligible) 
     here, let (unintelligible) tapes, some of the ad tapes 
     (unintelligible).\117\''


                               footnotes

       1. The minority staff of the Government Reform Committee 
     estimates that the costs of the congressional campaign 
     finance investigations alone have exceeded $23 million. This 
     figure includes $8.7 million that a 1998 General Accounting 
     Office report found federal agencies reported spending on 
     responding to congressional inquiries on campaign finance 
     matters; over $8 million that the House Government Reform 
     Committee has spent on its campaign finance investigation; 
     $3.5 million that the Senate Government Affairs Committee 
     spent on its campaign finance investigation; $1.2 million 
     authorized for the House Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce's investigation of allegations of campaign finance 
     abuses concerning the Teamsters; and $2.5 million authorized 
     for select committee that investigated allegations that the 
     Clinton Administration gave missile technology to China in 
     exchange for campaign contributions. See GAO Survey of 
     Executive Branch Cost to Respond to Congressional Campaign 
     Finance Inquiries (June 23, 1998); House Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight, Interim Report: 
     Investigation of Political Fundraising Improprieties and 
     Possible Violations of Law, Additional and Minority Views, 
     105th Cong, 3968-69 (1998) (H. Rept. 105-829). When the costs 
     of investigating allegations in addition to the campaign 
     finance allegations are included, the total costs likely 
     significantly exceed $23 million. Many of these additional 
     investigations involved substantial congressional resources 
     as well as executive branch resources to respond to 
     inquiries. For example, to investigate allegations concerning 
     the government's actions at Waco, Texas, the House Government 
     Reform Committee has conducted at least 82 interviews, and 
     has received over 750,000 pages of documents from the Justice 
     Department and the Defense Department in response to 
     Committee requests.
       2. CBS, CBS Morning News (Oct. 20, 1997).
       3. CBS, CBS This Morning (Oct. 20, 1997).
       4. NBC, NBC News at Sunrise (Oct. 20, 1997).
       5. NBC, Today (Oct. 20, 1997).
       6. ABC, ABC World News Sunday (Oct. 19, 1997).
       7. CNN, CNN Early Prime (Oct. 19, 1997).
       8. CNN, CNN Morning News (Oct. 20, 1997).
       9. CNN, Headline News (Oct. 20, 1997).
       10. CNN, Early Edition (Oct. 20, 1997).
       11. Fox, Fox Morning News (Oct. 20, 1997).
       12. Fox, Fox News Now/Fox in Depth (Oct. 20, 1997).
       13. Tapes May Have Been Altered, Rep. Burton Says; Clinton 
     Aide Decries Chairman's `Innuendo' (Oct. 20, 1997).
       14. GOP Suggests Tapes Altered (Oct. 20, 1997).
       15. GOP Suspects White House Altered Fund-raising Tapes 
     (Oct. 20, 1997).
       16. Panel May Use Lip Readers to Check Fund-raising Tapes 
     (Oct. 20, 1997).
       17. Tape-Tampering Denied (Oct. 21, 1997).
       18. Senator Thompson announced these findings on NCB's Meet 
     the Press (Dec. 7, 1997). Only a handful of media outlets 
     reported this announcement, and these reports focused on 
     other campaign finance issues and mentioned the Thompson 
     announcement only at the very end of the accounts. E.g., Reno 
     and Freeh to Testify, Morning Edition, National Public Radio 
     (Dec. 9, 1997) (reporting on the upcoming House Government 
     Reform and Oversight Committee hearing on the independent 
     counsel decision and noting Senator Thompson's announcement 
     at the very end). Beyond coverage of Senator Thompson's 
     announcement, one article reported that Paul Ginsburg, a 
     technical expert hired by the Senate Governmental Affairs 
     Committee, had found no signs of doctoring, See Expert: 
     Coffee Tapes Are Clean, Newsday (Nov. 8, 1997), and the 
     ``Real Deal'' segment at the end of Face the Nation on 
     November 2, 1997, followed up on Rep. Burton's allegations to 
     report that Mr. Ginsburg was going to report that there was 
     no doctoring.
       19. See, e.g., Congressional Record, H5632 (July 13, 1994).
       20. Office of Independent Counsel, Report on the Death of 
     Vincent W. Foster, Jr. (In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & 
     Loan Association), 5 (Oct. 10, 1997) (citing Federal News 
     Service (Aug. 10, 1993)).
       21. Id. at 7 (citing Report of the Independent Counsel 
     Robert B. Fiske, Jr., In Re: Vincent W. Foster, Jr., at 58).
       22. Id. at 111.
       23. Former Clinton Aide Faces Questions on Memo; Document 
     Suggests that First Lady Was Behind Firings in Travel Office, 
     Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Jan. 6, 1996).
       24. House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
     Hearing, White House Travel Office--Day Three, 104th Cong., 
     111 (Jan. 24, 1996).
       25. Press Release, Office of the Independent Counsel (June 
     22, 2000).
       26. Congressional Record, H6633 (June 20, 1996).
       27. House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
     Investigation of the White House and Department of Justice on 
     Security of FBI Background Investigation Files, 104th Cong., 
     16 (1996) (H. Rept. 104-862).
       28. Office of Independent Counsel, Report of the 
     Independent Counsel (In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan 
     Association) In Re: Anthony Marceca, 7-8 (March 16, 2000).
       29. CNN, Late Edition with Frank Sesno (Feb. 16, 1997).
       30. Congressional Record, H4097 (June 20, 1997).
       31. See Senate Panel Is Briefed on China Probe Figure; 
     Officials Say Evidence May Link L.A. Businessman to Election 
     Plan, Washington Post (Sept. 12, 1997).
       32. E.g., CBS Evening News (June 11, 1997); Huang Leaked 
     Secrets, GOP Lawmaker Says, Los Angeles Times (June 13, 
     1997); Republican Lawmaker Alleges Huang Passed Secrets; 
     Communications with Lippo Group Questioned, Baltimore Sun 
     (June 13, 1997); Congressman Says Evidence Confirms Huang 
     Passed Secrets--The House Rules Chairman Says Information Was 
     Given to the Lippo Group, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (June 13, 
     1997); Huang Gave Classified Data to Lippo, Lawmaker Claims, 
     Austin American-Statesman (June 13, 1997); Huang Accused of 
     ``Economic Espionage,'' Cincinnati Enquirer (June 13, 1997); 
     Legislator Alleges Fund-raiser Gave Classified Data to 
     Overseas Company, Las Vegas Review-Journal (June 13, 1997); 
     Dem Donor ``Breached Security'' Lawmaker Accuses Ex-Clinton 
     Appointee, Arizona Republic (June 13, 1997); Congressman 
     Alleges Huang Passed Secret Data to Firm; White House, FBI 
     Decline to Comment on Solomon's Remarks, Milwaukee Journal 
     Sentinel (June 13, 1997).
       33. Gerald Solomon Interview FD-302 at 1 (Aug. 28, 1997).
       34. Gerald Solomon Interview FD-302 at 1 (Feb. 11, 1998).
       35. CNN, Inside Politics (Aug. 27, 1997).
       36. GOP Lawmaker Seeks Counsel to Probe O'Leary-Chung Tie, 
     Buffalo News (Aug. 22, 1997).
       37. Notification to the Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 592(b) of Results of Preliminary Investigation (Dec. 2, 
     1997).
       38. Id. The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee 
     also discovered that fact. The Committee deposed several 
     individuals, including Secretary O'Leary, to investigate the 
     allegation by Mr. Chung regarding Secretary O'Leary. The 
     Committee scheduled a hearing on the matter, but, upon 
     discovering the allegation was false, canceled the hearing.
       39. NBC's Meet the Press (Sept. 14, 1997).
       40. White House Denies Role in Audit of Jones; IRS Has 
     History of Targeting ``Enemies,'' Washington Times (Sept. 16, 
     1997).
       41. E.g., Whistleblowers' Letter, Newspapers Alert Agency, 
     Washington Times (Sept. 29, 1997); Conservatives Suspect IRS 
     Audit Is Price of Opposing Clinton Policies, Washington Times 
     (Apr. 21, 1997); Politics and the IRS, Wall Street Journal 
     (Jan. 9, 1997).
       42. Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, Report of 
     Investigation of Allegations Relating to Internal Revenue 
     Service Handling of Tax-Exempt Organization Matters (March 
     2000).
       43. Id. at 7.
       44. House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
     Hearings on Conduit Payments to the Democratic National 
     Committee, 105th Cong., 7 (Oct. 9, 1997) (H. Rept. 105-51).
       45. Id. at 257, 271.

[[Page H8453]]

       46. Minority Staff Report, House Committee on Government 
     Reform and Oversight, Evidence that John Huang Was in New 
     York City on August 15, 16, 17, and 18 (Oct. 9, 1997).
       47. House Committee on Government Reform, Hearing on the 
     Role of John Huang and the Riady Family in Political 
     Fundraising, 108 (Dec. 15, 1999) (stenographic record).
       48. House Committee on Government Reform, Hearing on the 
     Role of Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie in Illegal Political 
     Fundraising, 250-52 (March 1, 2000) (stenographic record).
       49. House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
     Hearings on Campaign Finance Improprieties and Possible 
     Violations of Law, 105th Cong., 11-12 (Oct. 8, 1997) (H. 
     Rept. 105-50).
       50. Proffer of Nora and Gene Lum to the Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight (Aug. 22, 1997).
       51. E.g., Story of a Foreign Donor's Deal With '92 Clinton 
     Camp Outlined, Washington Post (Oct. 9, 1997); House Panel to 
     Hear of '92 Clinton Donation Problem Probe, Los Angeles Times 
     (Oct. 9, 1997).
       52. Proffer of Nora and Gene Lum, supra note 50, at Part 
     B.1-3.
       53. Deposition of Richard C. Bertsch, House Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight, ex. 12 (March 30, 1998). The 
     letter was addressed to Richard Choi Bertsch, who worked for 
     an organization called the Asian Pacific Advisory Council-
     VOTE (``APAC'') which conducted get-out-the-vote and fund-
     raising activities in the Asian-American community in 
     California in 1992. Id. at 10-13, 20-22.
       54. CBS's Face the Nation (Oct. 19, 1997).
       55. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Investigation 
     of Illegal or Improper Activities in Connection with 1996 
     Federal Election Campaigns, 105th Cong., v. 6, 9345-46 (1998) 
     (S. Rept. No. 167); Meet the Press (Dec. 7, 1997) (interview 
     with Senator Thompson).
       56. Deposition of Joseph Simmons, House Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight, 149 (Oct. 18, 1997); 
     Deposition of Alan P. Sullivan, House Committee on Government 
     Reform and Oversight, 37 (Oct. 17, 1997); Deposition of 
     Steven Smith, House Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, 99 (Oct. 18, 1997).
       57. The conservative publication Insight magazine reported 
     that ``dozens of big-time political donors or friends of the 
     Clintons'' had gained waivers of the eligibility rules 
     regarding burials at Arlington National Cemetery. Without 
     naming its sources, the article stated that a ``national 
     cemetery official'' and other sources are ``outraged that the 
     Clinton White House has applied pressure to gain waivers for 
     fat-cat donors.'' Is There Nothing Sacred?, Insight Magazine 
     (dated Dec. 8, 1997, but reportedly released in advance of 
     that date).
       58. White House Denies Burial Politics, Atlanta 
     Constitution (Nov. 21, 1997); Burton to Probe Plots-for-
     Politics Allegations, Indianapolis Star News (Nov. 21, 1997).
       59. Press Release, Rep. Gerald Solomon (Nov. 20, 1997).
       60. General Accounting Office, Arlington National Cemetery: 
     Authority, Process, and Criteria for Burial Waivers, 2-3, 
     appendix 1 (Jan. 28, 1998) (GAO/T-HEHS-98-81).
       61. Id. at 1.
       62. Id. at 9.
       63. House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
     Hearings on the Department of the Interior's Denial of the 
     Wisconsin Chippewa's Casino Application, 105th Cong., v.1, 
     106, 340 (Jan. 28, 1998).
       64. Office of Independent Counsel, Final Report of 
     Independent Counsel in Re: Bruce Edward Babbitt, 430, 441 
     (Aug. 22, 2000).
       65. Burton's Pursuit of President, Indianapolis Star (Apr. 
     16, 1998).
       66. Congressional Record, H4545 (June 11, 1998).
       67. Subpoena Widens Finance Probe; Request for White House 
     Papers Covers 25 Categories, Copy Shows, Washington Post 
     (Aug. 15, 1997).
       68. House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
     Investigation of Political Fundraising Improprieties and 
     Possible Violations of Law, 105th Cong. 3978 (1998) (H. Rept. 
     105-829).
       69. Letter from Rep. Henry Waxman to Chairman Dan Burton 
     (May 3, 1998).
       70. Bridling G.O.P. Leader Says Tapes Speak for Themselves, 
     New York Times (May 5, 1998); Burton Defends Hubbell 
     Transcript Actions, Washington Post (May 5, 1998).
       71. Opening Statement by Chairman Burton, House Committee 
     on Government Reform and Oversight, Business Meeting, 6-13 
     (Apr. 23, 1998); Congressional Record, H2338 (Apr. 28, 1998); 
     Congressional Record, H2444 (Apr. 29, 1998).
       72. Congressional Record, H2336 (Apr. 28, 1998).
       73. Congressional Record H3453 (May 19, 1998).
       74. House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
     Business Meeting, 87 (Apr. 23, 1998) (stenographic record).
       75. Deposition of Larry Wong, House Committee on Government 
     Reform and Oversight, 13-14, 19, 26-27, 43, 52, 57 (July 27, 
     1998).
       76. Id. at 85.
       77. Congressional Record, H3239 (May 13, 1998).
       78. GOP Breaking China Over Clinton's Deals, National 
     Journal (May 23, 1998).
       79. See Internal Justice Memo Excuses Loral, Los Angeles 
     Times (May 23, 2000).
       80. Memorandum from Lee Radek to James Robinson, Assistant 
     Attorney General, Criminal Division (Aug. 5, 1998).
       81. The Addendum to Interim Report for Janet Reno and Louis 
     Freeh Prepared by Charles La Bella and James DeSarno (Aug. 
     12, 1998).
       82. House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and 
     Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of 
     China, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Committed to the Committee of 
     the Whole House, Jan. 3, 1999; Declassified in Part, May 25, 
     1999) (H. Rept. 105-851).
       83. Letter from Rep. David McIntosh to Attorney General 
     Janet Reno (Sept. 17, 1998).
       84. Database Criminal Probe Sought, Washington Post (Sept. 
     9, 1998).
       85. Letter from Rep. David McIntosh to Attorney General 
     Janet Reno (Sept. 17, 1998); House Committee on Government 
     Reform and Oversight, Investigation of the Conversion of the 
     $1.7 Million Centralized White House Computer System, Known 
     as the White House Database, and Related Matters, 105th 
     Cong., 574-581 (Oct. 30, 1998) (H. Rept. 105-828).
       86. Letter from M. Faith Burton, Special Counsel to the 
     Assistant Attorney General, to Rep. David McIntosh (May 6, 
     1999).
       87. House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
     Investigation of the Conversion of the $1.7 Million 
     Centralized White House Computer System, Known as the White 
     House Database, and Related Matters, 105th Cong., 1-6, 33-44 
     (Oct. 30, 1998) (H. Rept. 105-828).
       88. Id., Minority Views, 564-68.
       89. Letter from Chairman Dan Burton to Attorney General 
     Janet Reno (March 22, 1999).
       90. Id.
       91. Charles Duncan's Responses to Interrogatories (Apr. 20, 
     1998).
       92. Letter from Chairman Dan Burton to Attorney General 
     Janet Reno, supra note 89.
       93. Statement of Steven C. Clemons (Feb. 25, 1998); Letter 
     from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Attorney General Janet Reno 
     (Apr. 13, 1999).
       94. Statement of Alan Gershel, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
     General, Department of Justice, House Committee on Government 
     Reform, Hearing on Contacts between Northrop Grumman 
     Corporation and the White House Regarding Missing White House 
     E-Mails (Sept. 26, 2000).
       95. Press Release, Chairman Burton, Burton Angered by 
     Harassment of Witness (June 29, 1999).
       96. Letter from Rep. Henry Waxman to Chairman Dan Burton 
     (July 15, 1999).
       97. Testimony of Chairman Dan Burton, House Rules Committee 
     (July 15, 1999) (available at www.house.gov/reform/oversight/
99_07_15db-rules.htm).
       98. See Letter from Russell J. Bruemmer, Wilmer, Cutler & 
     Pickering, to Richard L. Huff, Co-Director, Office of 
     Information and Privacy, Department of Justice (March 31, 
     1995).
       99. Letter from Wallace H. Cheney, Assistant Director/
     General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to Joseph M. 
     Gabriel, Law Offices of Langberg, Leslie and Gabriel (March 
     2, 1995); Letter from Bonnie L. Gay, Attorney-in-Charge, 
     FOIA/PA Unit, Executive Office of United States Attorneys, 
     Department of Justice, to Joseph M. Gabriel (Dec. 15, 1994); 
     See Letter from Magda S. Ortiz, FOIA/PA Reviewing Officer, 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service, to Rebekah Poston 
     (Dec. 6, 1994) (explaining that a potentially responsive 
     record was illegible and requesting additional information); 
     Letter from Russell J. Bruemmer, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, 
     to Richard L. Huff, Co-Director, Office of Information and 
     Privacy, Department of Justice (March 31, 1995) (explaining 
     that the INS searched for, but ultimately could not find, a 
     record responsive to the FOIA request).
       100. Testimony of Richard Huff and Rebekah Poston, House 
     Government Reform Committee, Felonies and Favors: A Friend of 
     the Attorney General Gathers Information from the Justice 
     Department, 129-31 (July 27, 200) (stenographic record).
       101. Testimony of John Schmidt and John Hogan, House 
     Committee on Government Reform, Felonies and Favors: A Friend 
     of the Attorney General Gathers Information from the Justice 
     Department, 120-23, 128, 140-41 (July 27, 2000) (stenographic 
     record).
       102. Memorandum from Attorney General Janet Reno to staff 
     of the Attorney General (Apr. 28, 1995).
       103. House Committee on Government Reform, Felonies and 
     Favors: A Friend of the Attorney General Gathers Information 
     from the Justice Department, 154 (July 27, 2000) 
     (stenographic record).
       104. Morning Edition, National Public Radio (Aug. 31, 
     1999).
       105. Letter from Chairman Burton to Attorney General Janet 
     Reno (Sept. 10, 1999).
       106. Fox News, Fox News Sunday (Sept. 12, 1999).
       107. Letter from Rep. Henry Waxman to John Danforth, 
     Special Counsel (Sept. 13, 1999); FBI FD-302 of FBI Agent 
     (June 9, 1993) (reporting that a pilot heard ``a high volume 
     of [Hostage Rescue Team] traffic and Sniper [Tactical 
     Operations Command] instructions regarding . . . the 
     insertion of gas by ground units,'' including ``one 
     conversation, relative to utilization of some sort of 
     military round to be used on a concrete bunker''); FBI H.R.T. 
     Interview Schedule (Nov. 9, 1993) (summarizing an interview 
     with an FBI agent and stating that ``smoke on film came from 
     attempt to penetrate bunker w/1 military and 2 ferret 
     rounds'' and further describing the military round as 
     ``Military was . . . bubblehead w/green base''); Handwritten 
     notes (April 19, 1993) (making repeated references to 
     military rounds fired on April 19,

[[Page H8454]]

     1993, such as ``smoke from bunker came when these guys tried 
     to shoot gas into the bunker (military gas round)'').
       108. John C. Danforth, Special Counsel, Interim Report to 
     the Deputy Attorney General Concerning the 1993 Confrontation 
     at the Mt. Carmel Complex, Waco, Texas, 54 (July 21, 2000).
       109. MSNBC, Watch It! With Laura Ingraham (Nov. 2, 1999).
       110. John Huang Interview FD-302 at 19 (Jan. 19-Feb. 10, 
     1999).
       111. John Huang Interview FD-302 at 129 (Feb. 23-March 26, 
     1999).
       112. House Committee on Government Reform, Hearings on the 
     Role of John Huang and the Riady Family in Political 
     Fundraising, 104 (Dec. 15, 1999) (stenographic record).
       113. Id. at 95.
       114. House Committee on Government Reform, Hearings on the 
     Role of John Huang and the Riady Family in Political 
     Fundraising, 15-16 (Dec. 15, 1999) (stenographic record).
       115. Letter from Chairman Dan Burton to Attorney General 
     Janet Reno, 2 (July 18, 2000).
       116. Justice Department Won't Discuss Gore Video, Reuters 
     (July 21, 2000).
       117. Fox, Hannity and Colmes (July 19, 2000).

                          ____________________