[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 120 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8593-H8595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS SPECIAL ORDER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of 
serving in this body for 14 years. And during the 14 years, one of the 
things that I have learned about our colleagues is that we all have a 
feeling of high regard for each other. If someone is going to say 
something about another Member, the protocol usually has been that the 
Member be told about it in advance.
  This past Thursday that did not happen, as the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) got up after everyone left Washington, late 
Thursday, and did a special order for 1 hour; a tirade mentioning a 
number of Members of Congress. Now, I will not do to him what he did to 
our colleagues. He only mentioned me briefly, but I told the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) this morning that I would come here 
personally and respond to the things he said regarding me.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said that we were too 
harsh in criticizing the administration for the possibility of having 
the administration transfer technology to China in return for campaign 
dollars. He went on to make two specific charges: number one, that the 
Cox Committee, which I served on, in fact totally exonerated the 
administration on those allegations; and, number two, that the Justice 
Department said there was no

[[Page H8594]]

 reason to believe there was any need to further investigate the 
transfer of campaign dollars for technology to China.
  Well, let us look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that this 
gentleman, the largest single contributor in the history of American 
politics, Mr. Bernard Schwartz, from 1995 to 2000, contributed 
personally $2,255,000 to Democratic national candidates, DNC, the 
Democratic Senatorial Committee and the Democratic Congressional 
Committee.

                              {time}  1915

  The allegation was in 1998 when he contributed $655,000 to those 
candidates that there was a potential quid pro quo because Bernard 
Schwartz had been lobbying for a permit waiver to transfer satellite 
technology to China.
  Now, the Justice Department has said on the record they opposed that 
the President intervene to a make a waiver decision, but the President 
went ahead on his own.
  Now, in fact, our Cox committee did not even look at this issue. In 
fact, if the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) would have bothered 
to read the Cox committee report, in the appendix under the scope of 
the investigation it says, we did not even consider the political 
contribution aspect of this because other committees were looking at it 
and because we could not get people to testify because they pled the 
fifth amendment or they left the country.
  But let us look at what the Justice Department said. Here is what the 
Justice Department said in the LaBella memo, which I would encourage 
our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and every 
citizen in America to request from their Member of Congress:
  ``It is not a leap to conclude that having been the beneficiary of 
Schwartz's generosity in connection with the media campaign, the 
administration would do anything to help Bernie Schwartz and Loral if 
the need arose.''
  This was written not by a Republican. This was written by Charles 
LaBella, Justice Department special investigator to Louis Freeh, which 
went to Janet Reno.
  They further said this, Mr. Speaker: ``As suggested throughout this 
memo, there are many as yet unanswered questions. However, the 
information suggests these questions are more than sufficient to 
commence a criminal investigation.''
  Who would that criminal investigation have been against? It would 
have been against four people: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, 
and Harold Ickes, who is Hillary's campaign manager in New York. It 
would have been against the Loral Corporation and Bernard Schwartz.
  So here we have it, Mr. Speaker. The two allegations made by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) are totally false. He owes an 
apology to the American people. Because, number one, the Cox Committee 
never looked at these facts. And he should know that unless he cannot 
read very well. It is right here in the text. Number two, he claims the 
Justice Department dismissed these allegations out of hand.
  Well, I trust the American people. I would urge all of our colleagues 
to have this report available to every constituent across America, the 
LaBella memo. It is 94 pages. It is redacted, but they can read for 
themselves and they can see what this Justice Department, what FBI 
Director Louis Freeh, what handpicked Janet Reno Investigator Charles 
LaBella said about the need for a criminal investigation.
  They name the four people in this document, and the four people are 
those four I mentioned along with Bernard Schwartz and the possibility 
of a quid pro quo for the $655,000 and all this money being 
transferred.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, when I get more time, I will go through the 
specific findings in the LaBella memo where they raised the issue of 
the request coming in to the President and specifically on February 18, 
1998, the President signed the waiver after the Justice Department 
advised him not to sign it.
  On January 21 of that same year, Schwartz donated $30,000 to the DNC. 
On March 2 he donated $25,000. All through that year, he donated 
$655,000 dollars. And that is why Louis Freeh and that is why Charles 
LaBella said there needs to be a further investigation for criminal 
activities involving the transfer of campaign dollars to the Democratic 
party, to the President and the Vice President and the First Lady and 
Harold Ickes based on the technology transfer to China, especially 
through the waiver that Bernie Schwartz got even though the Justice 
Department advised the President not to grant that waiver.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) owes this 
Congress an apology.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following documents that I 
just referenced:
       H. Res. 463 also authorized the Select Committee to 
     investigate PRC attempts to influence technology transfers 
     through campaign contributions or other illegal means. In 
     light of the fact that two other committees of the Congress 
     have been engaged in the same inquiry and had begun their 
     efforts long before the Select Committee's formation, the 
     Select Committee did not undertake a duplicative review of 
     these same issues. The Select Committee did, however, contact 
     key witnesses who could have provided new evidence concerning 
     such issues.
       The Select Committee's efforts to obtain testimony from 
     these witnesses were unsuccessful, however, because the 
     witnesses either declined to testify on Fifth Amendment 
     grounds or were outside the United States. Because the Select 
     Committee was unable to pursue questions of illegal campaign 
     contributions anew, no significance should be attributed, one 
     way or the other, to the fact that the Select Committee has 
     not made any findings on this subject. The same is true with 
     respect to other topics as to which time constraints or other 
     obstacles precluded systematic inquiry.
       Much of the information gathered by the Select Committee is 
     extremely sensitive, highly classified, or proprietary in 
     nature. In addition, the Select Committee granted immunity 
     to, and took immunized testimony from, several key witnesses. 
     Pursuant to an agreement reached with the Justice Department, 
     this testimony must be protected from broad dissemination in 
     order to avoid undermining any potential criminal proceedings 
     by the Justice Department.
       There are two documents which could form a basis upon which 
     to predicate a federal criminal investigation. The first is a 
     February 13, 1998, letter from Thomas Ross, Vice President of 
     Government Relations for Loral, to Samuel Berger, Assistant 
     to the President for National Security Affairs. It could be 
     argued from this letter that Schwartz intended to advocate 
     for a quick decision on the waiver issue by the President. In 
     the letter, annexed as Tab 47, Ross wrote: ``Bernard Schwartz 
     had intended to raise this issue (the waiver) with you 
     (Berger) at the Blair dinner, but missed you in the crowd. In 
     any event, we would greatly appreciate your help in getting a 
     prompt decision for us.''
       In the letter Ross also outlined for Berger how a delay in 
     granting the waiver may result in a loss of the contract and, 
     if the decision is not forthcoming in the next day or so, 
     Loral stood to ``lose substantial amounts of money with each 
     passing day.'' The President signed the waiver on February 
     18, 1998. On January 21, 1998, Schwartz had donated $30,000 
     to the DNC; on March 2, 1998, he donated an additional 
     $25,000.
       The second document is a memo from Ickes to the President 
     dated September 20, 1994, in which Ickes wrote:
       ``In order to raise an additional $3,000,000 to permit the 
     Democratic National Committee (``DNC'') to produce and air 
     generic tv/radio spots as soon as Congress adjourns (which 
     may be as early as 7 October), I request that you telephone 
     Vernon Jordan, Senator Rockefeller and Bernard Schwartz 
     either today or tomorrow. You should ask them if they will 
     call ten to twelve CEO/business people who are very 
     supportive of the Administration and who have had very good 
     relationships with the Administration to have breakfast with 
     you, as well as with Messrs. Jordan, Rockefeller and 
     Schwartz, very late this week or very early next week.
       ``The purpose of the breakfast would be for you to express 
     your appreciation for all they have done to support the 
     Administration, to impress them with the need to raise 
     $3,000,000 within the next two weeks for generic media for 
     the DNC and to ask them if they, in turn, would undertake to 
     raise that amount of money.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``There has been no preliminary discussion with Messrs. 
     Jordan, Rockefeller or Schwartz as to whether they would 
     agree to do this, although, I am sure Vernon would do it, and 
     I have it on very good authority that Mr. Schwartz is 
     prepared to do anything he can for the Administration.'' See 
     Tab 12 (emphasis in original).
       From this memo one could argue that Ickes and the President 
     viewed Schwartz as someone who would do anything for the 
     Administration--including raising millions of dollars in a 
     short period of time to help the media campaign. We now know 
     not only that the media campaign was managed by Ickes from 
     the White House, but also that it played a critical role in 
     the reelection effort. Consequently it is not a leap to 
     conclude that having been the beneficiary of Schwartz' 
     generosity in connection with the

[[Page H8595]]

     media campaign, the Administration would do anything it could 
     to help Bernie Schwartz (and Loral) if the need arose.
       If in fact there is anything to investigate involving the 
     Loral ``allegations,`' it is--as set out in the Task Force's 
     draft investigative plan--an investigation of the President. 
     The President is the one who signed the waiver, the President 
     is the one who has the relationship with Schwartz; and it was 
     the President's media campaign that was the beneficiary of 
     Schwartz' largess by virtue of his own substantial 
     contributions and those which he was able to solicit. We do 
     not yet know the extent of Schwartz solicitation efforts in 
     connection with the media fund. However, if the matter is 
     sufficiently serious to commence a criminal investigation, it 
     is sufficiently serious to commence a preliminary inquiry 
     under the ICA since it is the President who is at the center 
     of the investigation.
       For all these reasons, the Loral matter is something which, 
     if it is to be investigated, should be handled pursuant to 
     the provisions of the ICA.


                               Conclusion

       We have been reviewing the facts and the evidence for the 
     last ten months. During that time we have gained a 
     familiarity with the cases, the documents and the characters 
     sufficient to draw some solid conclusions. It seems that 
     everyone has been waiting for that single document, witness, 
     or event that will establish, with clarity, action by a 
     covered person (or someone within the discretionary 
     provision) that is violative of a federal law. Everyone can 
     understand the implications of a smoking gun. However, these 
     cases have not presented a single event, document or witness. 
     Rather, there are bits of information (and evidence) which 
     must be pieced together in order to put seemingly innocent 
     actions in perspective. While this may take more work to 
     accomplish, in our view it is no less compelling than the 
     proverbial smoking gun in the end. As is evident from the 
     items detailed above, when that is done, there is much 
     information (and evidence) that is specific and from credible 
     sources. Indeed, were this quantum of information amassed 
     during a preliminary inquiry under the ICA, we would have to 
     conclude that there are reasonable grounds to believe that 
     further investigation is warranted. As suggested throughout 
     this memo, there are many as yet unanswered questions. 
     However, the information suggesting these questions is more 
     than sufficient to commence a criminal investigation.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Members are reminded not to 
make personal references toward the President or Vice President of the 
United States.

                          ____________________