[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 138 (Saturday, October 28, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1990-E1991]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING INVOLVING THE CLINTON 
                             ADMINISTRATION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 27, 2000

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, submit the following letter into the 
Congressional Record, ``Response to Comments by Rep. Curt Weldon 
Regarding the Government Reform Committee, Minority Staff, report, 
Unsubstantiated Allegations of Wrongdoing Involving the Clinton 
Administration.''

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                 Washington, DC, October 27, 2000.
     Hon. Curt Weldon,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. Weldon: On September 28, I spoke on the House 
     floor regarding a series of unsubstantiated allegations by 
     members of Congress that have unfairly smeared the 
     reputations of numerous individuals. I also entered into the 
     Congressional Record facts relevant to many of these 
     sensational allegations.
       As you know, one of the allegations I discussed was your 
     claim in a 1998 floor statement that the President could have 
     committed ``treason,'' one of the most serious crimes an 
     American can commit. You responded in a floor statement of 
     October 2, 2000. You claim that I made ``totally false''

[[Page E1991]]

     statements relating to your ``treason'' remarks.
       On September 28, I described your ``treason'' statement as 
     follows:
       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.''
       You have not disputed this characterization of your 
     remarks. You also did not dispute my statement that when a 
     member of Congress makes such a sensational allegation, it 
     can have tremendous impact. In your case, your ``treason'' 
     remarks were not only part of the Congressional Record, but 
     were publicized in national media reports.
       You have, however, taken issue with two sets of facts that 
     I put into the record on September 28 after describing your 
     ``treason'' remarks. First, I said:
       The Department of Justice examined the allegations relating 
     to whether campaign contribution 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.''
       You said on October 2 that my statement was wrong, pointing 
     to a passage in a July 16, 1998, memo by Mr. La Bella that 
     discussed two documents potentially relevant to the Loral/
     Schwartz allegations. My statement, however, quoted two 
     subsequent Department of Justice memos--an August 12, 1998, 
     memo by Mr. La Bella and an August 5, 1998, memo by Mr. 
     Radek.
       Further, Mr. La Bella himself said that his July 16 memo 
     took the view that the Loral/Schwartz matter ``likely did not 
     merit any investigation.'' Discussing his July 16 memo (the 
     ``Interim Report'') and Mr. Radek's August 5 memo (the 
     ``Review''), Mr. La Bella stated on August 12, 1998:
       The Review shares the view expressed in the Interim Report 
     that this was a matter which likely did not merit any 
     investigation.
       In May 2000, Los Angeles Times investigative reporters 
     examined the Justice Department's investigation of the Loral/
     Schwartz matter. In a May 23, 2000 article entitled Internal 
     Justice Memo Excuses Loral, They wrote:
       During a May 2 hearing, [Senator] Specter commented that 
     LaBalla has pushed, in his
       But the impression was wrong.
       The LaBella report and related documents, which were 
     obtained earlier this year by The Times, tell quite a 
     different story. In fact, by the time LaBella delivered his 
     report to Atty. Gen. Janet Reno in the summer of 1998, the 
     task force had effectively excused Schwartz and Loral from 
     the campaign finance investigation. . . .
       ``Poor Bernie [Schwartz] got a bad deal,'' one former task 
     force investigator said in an interview. ``There was never a 
     whiff of a scent of a case against him.''
       As you can see, therefore, I was entirely accurate in my 
     summary of the Justice Department's investigation. It is your 
     description of the evidence--not mine--that distorts the 
     facts.
       You also took issue with the second set of facts I put in 
     the record relating to your ``treason'' remarks. In my 
     September 28 statement, I said:
       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 your October 2 remarks, you asserted, ``Now, in fact, 
     our Cox committee did not even look at this issue.'' This 
     statement is remarkable, particularly since you were a member 
     of the Cox Committee yourself.
       As support for your claim, you cited language in the Cox 
     Committee report which notes that the Committee did not end 
     up looking at attempts by the People's Republic of China 
     (PRC) to influence technology transfers through campaign 
     contributions. Your ``treason'' remarks, however, centered on 
     allegations relating to contributions by Bernard Schwartz, 
     not the PRC. And, indeed, the Committee did examine these 
     allegations.
       As the Committee report notes, Mr. Schwartz was one of the 
     individuals interviewed or deposed by the Committee. The 
     Committee also interviewed or deposed Loral Vice President 
     Thomas B. Ross. As noted in a May 24, 1998, New York Times 
     article regarding the Loral/Schwartz allegations, Mr. Ross 
     was the author of a February 13, 1998, letter to national 
     security advisor Sandy Berger that urged a swift decision on 
     the waiver issue. In fact, you drew attention to this very 
     letter by Mr. Ross in your October 2 remarks.
       Your assertion that the Cox Committee ``did not even look 
     at this issue'' is therefore simply wrong.
       The fact is, the Cox Committee report expressly mentions 
     the Loral/Schwartz allegations, but does not confirm your 
     conclusions in any way. This lack of findings in the report 
     underscores the fact that your ``treason'' remarks remain 
     unsubstantiated even though several investigative bodies have 
     examined the Loral/Schwartz matter.
       When a member of Congress makes a wild allegation, the 
     burden should be on that member to support it. It is 
     tremendously unfair--and contrary to our system of justice--
     to presume that the burden is on the target of the allegation 
     or others to disprove unsubstantiated allegations. In this 
     instance, the facts show that you made an inflammatory 
     statement about the President in 1998 using the word 
     ``treason'' and your statement remains unsubstantiated.
       I hope this helps clarify the record.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Henry A. Waxman,
                                               Member of Congress.

     

                          ____________________