SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
44–527 CC
1997
CAMPAIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 8, 1997
Serial No. 105–50
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
CHRISTOPHER COX, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
PETE SESSIONS, Texas
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas
BOB BARR, Georgia
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
TOM LANTOS, California
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GARY A. CONDIT, California
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, DC
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JIM TURNER, Texas
THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
———
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent)
KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director
RICHARD D. BENNETT, Chief Counsel
JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk
PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held on October 8, 1997
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Allen, Hon. Thomas H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maine, prepared statement of
Barrett, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement of
Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana:
Letter dated October 6, 1997
Prepared statement of
Condit, Hon. Gary A., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of
Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, prepared statement of
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Davis, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of
Ford, Hon. Harold E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, prepared statement of
Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of
Lantos, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, Republican fundraising letters press packet
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, information concerning committee expenses
Portman, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, prepared statement of
Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, lyrics to a song
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont, prepared statement of
Schiff, Hon. Steven, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Mexico, prepared statement of
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sessions, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, prepared statement of
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of
Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, prepared statement of
Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, prepared statement of
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State of California:
Letters exchanged regarding the investigation
Prepared statement of
CAMPAIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:10 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Present: Representatives Burton, Gilman, Hastert, Morella, Shays, Cox, Ros-Lehtinen, McHugh, Horn, Mica, Davis of Virginia, McIntosh, Souder, Shadegg, LaTourette, Sununu, Pappas, Snow-barger, Barr, Portman, Waxman, Lantos, Owens, Towns, Kanjorski, Condit, Sanders, Maloney, Barrett, Norton, Fattah, Cummings, Kucinich, Blagojevich, Davis of Illinois, Tierney, Turner, Allen, and Ford.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Richard Bennett, chief counsel; Dan Moll, deputy staff director; Judith McCoy; chief clerk; Teresa Austin, assistant clerk/calender clerk; Robin Butler, office manager; William Moschella, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; Will Dwyer, director of communications; Ashley Williams, deputy director of communications; Barbara Comstock, chief investigative counsel; Tim Griffin, Robert Rohrbaugh, Jim Wilson, and Uttam Dhillon, senior investigative counsels; Dave Bossie, oversight coordinator; Phil Larsen, investigative consultant; Kristi Remington, Alicemary Leach, Bill Hanka, and David Kass, investigative counsels; John Irving and Jason Foster, investigators; Carolyn Pritts, administrative investigative assistant; David Jones and John Mastranadi, investigative staff assistants; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Agnieszka Fryszman, Elizabeth Mundinger, Kristin Amerling, Andrew McLaughlin, and David Sadkin, minority counsels; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant; and Sheridan Pauker, minority research assistant.
Mr. BURTON. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight will come to order. Could we have the doors closed, please, and could everyone take their seats?
Today, we are going to start our investigation with opening statements from both the majority and minority sides of the aisle. We will try to get through these in an expeditious manner. I would like for Members, if at all possible, to keep their statements to 5 minutes.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I hope to be one of the few who violates that rule, but as the chairman I will use my prerogative as chairman to go into a little bit more detail than others may be able to.
As we begin these hearings, we are confronted with questions involving the basic integrity of our Democratic electoral process. We must address serious questions regarding the respect that this White House has for legitimate oversight and even the criminal justice system.
Before we begin our opening statements today, I would like to comment on the recently released White House tapes. In the past few days, it has come to light that videotapes of White House coffees were hidden from this committee, the Senate and the Justice Department, despite numerous subpoenas which have been outstanding. Ours was outstanding for 7 months.
Back in March of this year, we subpoenaed these records. We specifically asked for videotapes and audiotapes, unedited.
Let's look at the language that's on the screen. When the White House failed to respond to our subpoenas, we were forced to move to contempt in May of this year. Only then did the President's men commit to a full production of the records. At that time, Mr. Ruff told me personally that the contempt citation we were moving was the impetus for them coming around.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On June 27, 1997, the President's counsel, Mr. Ruff, officially certified that the White House, and this is right out of his letter, ''produced all documents responsive to the committee subpoenas;'' all documents responsive to the committee's subpoenas.
Of course, that was not the case. It is now apparent that even when the Senate learned of these tapes, the White House continued to provide misinformation on their very existence. As the Washington Post observed yesterday, quote, the attitude of this White House toward the truth, whenever it is in trouble, is the same: Don't tell it or tell only as much as you absolutely must, or as helps, end quote.
Now, the President says he will cooperate. Yet our request on Monday for the complete logs of all videotaped or audiotaped events at the White House by close of business Tuesday was not complied with. They continue to run the clock and divert attention to other matters.
In addition to that, we have now been informed there may be some fund-raising tapes, up to 150, that we don't have. And so when the President says they have complied, all we have to do is look at the tapes. Well, we would like to have all the tapes unedited in their entirety. And we do not yet have them.
This is not good faith compliance. We intend to fully examine this.
I would also like to enter for the record my October 6, 1997 letter to the White House relating to these matters. Without objection, that will be so entered.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The letter referred to follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 4 AND 1 TO 3 HERE
Mr. BURTON. Now to our investigation, there are almost daily revelations about troubling actions taken by senior White House and Democratic National Committee officials in the frenzy to fill the campaign coffers. The American people have a right to know what went wrong. There were millions of dollars in campaign contributions that have been returned because of illegal or highly suspicious sources.
As the chief oversight committee in Congress, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight serves this role in informing the American people about how laws designed to govern our free elections may have been thwarted.
We are committed to thorough and fair hearings on the role of foreign money in recent campaigns. While the excesses of the White House and the Democratic National Committee may have propelled this investigation, the committee also is examining matters relating to the Republican National Committee and will continue to follow the facts wherever they lead us, in either party.
We are here today because we are compelled, by credible allegations of wrongdoing and by our public responsibility, to conduct oversight of these matters. Numerous individuals have pled guilty to criminal charges relating to campaign fund-raising. In the course of our investigation, we have found credible evidence of illegal foreign money funneled and conduit payments made to the Democratic National Committee.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The committee has amassed considerable evidence relating to the activities of former senior DNC official and Clinton appointee John Huang, and former Clinton appointee Charlie Trie. We are, however, at the very beginning of this investigation. I have no allusions that our task will be an easy or a quick one. This is going to take some time.
This committee's hearings will cover many subjects, because the reported abuses of campaign laws and misuse of Government resources are vast. Our initial focus has been on how political parties took or raised contributions from foreign sources. I am gravely concerned about foreign governments, foreign companies or foreign nationals trying to influence our electoral process and also our foreign policy.
Of equal concern, however, is the possibility that the United States is perceived by other countries as so corrupt that they would believe that they could tamper with our democratic process to further their own agenda. At the end of the day, the individuals who are involved must be held accountable.
It was not, ''the system,'' which solicited millions of dollars in illegal contributions. The system did not rent out the Lincoln bedroom. The system didn't withhold subpoenaed records. The system is not responsible for individuals ignoring the campaign finance laws that we already have. It is individuals who are responsible for these actions. It is individuals who must be held accountable. The administration and others are using, ''the system,'' as an excuse to change the subject. We are talking about existing laws being broken here.
Although the Clinton White House is extremely adept at spin control and damage control, it claims to be hopelessly incompetent when it comes to locating records subpoenaed by this committee, the Senate committee, or its own Justice Department. As the Washington Post asked yesterday, quote, Can anyone believe this is on the up and up? end quote. You simply could not make up some of the more outlandish actions taken by this, ''anything goes White House.''
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last February, this committee received documents from Harold Ickes. We were stunned to see the President's own handwriting—he said he didn't know anything about this initially—but his own handwriting ordering, quote, ready to start overnights right away. Give me the top 10 list back along with $100,000 to $50,000, end quote.
He didn't know anything about it and yet his handwriting proved otherwise. In this atmosphere, is it any surprise to find Chinese arms dealers, drug dealers, leaders and fugitives from justice attending DNC events at the White House with the President? The tone was set at the top. And as Harry Truman said, the buck should stop there.
We have learned that the chairman of the Democratic National Committee contacted a man named Bob at the CIA on behalf of a DNC donor. The National Security Council was overruled on providing access to DNC donors who had been described as hustlers. Millions of dollars in conduit payments were made to the DNC. We are told, it was simply a mistake; everybody does it; or the system is to blame. These are the words of people looking to shift the responsibility and the blame.
All Americans should understand that these campaign finance scandals are unprecedented in many ways and international in scope. Over 60 people have taken the fifth amendment or fled the country. These people are now unavailable to aid in our efforts to get at the truth and let America know what the truth is—American people know what the truth is.
Many of these individuals are close friends of the President. Let's take a look at some of the President's close friends and associates who refuse to cooperate with this investigation.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, we have John Huang, who has taken the fifth amendment. Mr. Huang has been a friend of the President's since the 1980's. He visited the White House over 90 times, between 1993 and 1996. At a July 22, 1996 fund-raiser, the President praised, quote, his long-time good friend, John Huang, end quote, who raised over $3 million for the DNC.
Before coming to Washington in 1994, Mr. Huang worked for the Riady-owned Lippo Group. We find the Lippo Group and the Riadys throughout this whole mess.
He raised funds for the President and the DNC during the 1992 election. After President Clinton took office, Mr. Huang requested a political appointment in the Clinton administration. After Mr. Huang and James Riady met with the President, Mr. Huang finally received his appointment to the Department of Commerce in July 1994.
At the same time that the Clinton administration hired Mr. Huang, and I hope everybody gets this, the Riady family hired Webb Hubbell and paid him $100,000 for no apparent work. After Mr. Huang worked at the Commerce Department for a little over a year, there was a concerted effort to move him over to the Democratic National Committee.
Associates of the Riady family contacted numerous DNC and administration officials on John Huang's behalf. Mr. Huang and Mr. Riady met with the President in September 1995 to request that Mr. Huang move to the DNC. According to Bruce Lindsey, Mr. Huang felt that he, quote, could be most helpful to the President, end quote, at the DNC.
More than half of the over $3 million he raised at the DNC was pledged to be returned because the contributions were illegal or highly questionable.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Next, we have Charlie Trie who has fled the country. Like John Huang, Charlie Trie also knew the President for years in Arkansas and visited the White House on dozens of occasions. DNC documents from the summer of 1994 list Trie as an FOB, friend of Bill. His $100,000 contribution during the summer of 1994 gave him a seat at the President's head table during the Presidential gala; for a $100,000 contribution.
These contributions came just days after he received a $100,000 wire from the Lippo Bank. And Mr. Trie, to the best of our knowledge, never made a lot of money and certainly couldn't afford a $100,000 contribution. He was of moderate income.
Next, we have the Riady family, who controls the Lippo Group, which employed John Huang. The Riadys supported President Clinton in Arkansas throughout the 1980's, made large contributions to the DNC and State parties in the closing months of the 1992 campaign, and as I mentioned earlier, paid Webb Hubbell $100,000. The Riadys are not in the country and refuse to make themselves investigable to this committee or other investigators.
Just last September, however, James Riady was available to attend intimate meetings with the President. And it won't surprise anyone that Webb Hubbell has also taken the fifth amendment and refused to cooperate with this committee.
Hubbell was one of the President's best friends from Arkansas. President Clinton appointed him to the No. 3 position at the Justice Department. In early 1994, Hubbell found himself in the middle of the Whitewater scandal. Because of his legal problems, Hubbell resigned his top Justice Department job in the spring of 1994. By the end of the year, while under criminal investigation, Hubbell, with apparent ease, earned over half a million dollars, at least a half million dollars, in consulting fees for doing little, if no, work.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Administration officials and Clinton friends found this work for Hubbell because even as Mack McLarty candidly acknowledged in notes he took, quote, law firms were reluctant to touch him, end quote, meaning Webb Hubbell.
At what was reportedly a critical juncture in the Whitewater investigation in June 1994, Mr. Hubbell received the $100,000 payment from a Lippo affiliate. This payment followed numerous meetings of the Riadys and John Huang at the White House in June 1994.
Former special assistant to the President and 1992 Clinton fund-raiser, Mark Middleton, has also taken the fifth amendment. Mr. Middleton met on dozens of occasions with James Riady, John Huang, Charlie Trie and Charlie Trie's business partner, Ng Lap Seng while he worked for the White House Chief of Staff, Mack McLarty. When Mr. Middleton left the White House in February 1995, he turned his White House access and ties to these individuals into Asian business deals. Mr. Middleton also remained active in the 1996 campaign and directed donors to the DNC and the White House coffees.
Mark Jimenez, a former client of Mark Middleton, is the most recent witness to invoke the fifth amendment before this committee.
Next, we have Johnny Chung, the infamous hustler, who gave $366,000 to the DNC, has taken the fifth. It was Mr. Chung who said, in July of this year, quote, I see the White House is like a subway. You have to put in coins to open the gates, end quote.
Mr. Chung should know. He made 55 trips to the White House and was a frequent guest in the First Lady's office. Mr. Chung was able to bring a delegation of Chinese businessmen into the White House for lunch at the White House Mess, among other perks. In exchange, he was expected to give money.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One call sheet, prepared for DNC Chairman Don Fowler read, quote, Johnny committed to contribute $75,000 to the DNC reception in Los Angeles on September 21st. He has still not sent his contribution. Tell him if he does not complete his commitment ASAP, bad things will happen. That's a threat, end quote.
Lack of cooperation by so many people should not be rewarded with a lack of attention, but rather with a commitment or a more vigilant investigation.
How is it that so many highly placed friends of the President have ended up taking the fifth or fleeing the country? Sixty-one people have refused to cooperate with either our committee or the Senate committee's investigation. We will not allow these obstacles to defeat our obligations to the American people. They have a right to know.
Although people may be impatient for hearings, what this committee is doing is slow, painstaking work. We will hold hearings when we are satisfied that we can present important pieces of this puzzle to the American people and not before.
The President and the Vice President should assist by reaching out to these 60-plus witnesses, many of whom are close friends, and ask for their help to get to the truth.
Mr. President, Tom Brokaw contacted Charlie Trie. Why not you? He is a friend of yours.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. President, aren't you curious as to how Charlie Trie was able to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to the DNC when he did not have a successful business venture? Where did you think he got all of that money that he gave to the DNC that made him a managing trustee? The people have a right to know.
Mr. President, your long-time friend, John Huang, is reportedly sitting at home these days. Why don't you ask him to come forward and explain his fund-raising practices and where the money came from? The people have a right to know.
Mr. President, your former Associate Attorney General and close friend and golfing partner, Webb Hubbell, refuses to discuss his $100,000 payment from the Riadys, a payment which came shortly after numerous visits to the White House by the Riadys and John Huang were made. Don't you think the American people deserve an explanation? The people have a right to know.
Mr. President, do you condone this wall of silence erected by your friends? If not, Mr. President, tear down that wall.
We have heard much about campaign finance reform in the past few weeks. Mr. President, if you want to be a leader in campaign finance reform, then lead by example. Help us find out who broke the current laws that are already on the books. The laws that were broken were not hazy or fuzzy. They are straightforward laws such as it is illegal to funnel foreign money into campaigns and it is illegal to use conduits to funnel money into campaigns. Will you help us, Mr. President? Or will we have to wait for a Justice Department that reads the Washington Post for its next investigative lead?
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In our constitutional system of checks and balances, Congress serves as an independent reviewer of the facts. Among the several tools available to us is the granting of immunity to individuals with important information for our investigation. Tomorrow, we will hear the testimony of three witnesses who have been immunized by this committee, the sister of Charlie Trie, Manlin Foung, her friend, Joseph Landon, and a Los Angeles businessman, David Wang.
In addition, the committee also has received a proffer from two key witnesses. In May of this year, Nora and Gene Lum pled guilty to felony conspiracy to violate Federal campaign laws. As a part of the Lums' plea agreement with the Justice Department, they were granted immunity by the Justice Department from further prosecution under the Federal election statutes. The attorneys for Nora and Gene Lum have provided a written proffer to the committee, which outlines the areas about which they will provide testimony.
The proffer indicates that the Lums will testify on a number of significant matters currently under investigation by this committee. The committee consideration of the Lums' proffer has been under way for several months by staff on both sides of the aisle.
Representatives of the minority were present at a July meeting when the proffer was first made by the Lums' attorneys. Further, they accompanied the majority staff at a meeting to discuss the matter with the Justice Department officials.
The Justice Department initially indicated they did not agree with the committee's suggestion to grant immunity to these witnesses, even though they have already themselves granted these people immunity.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On July 23, 1997, I sent a letter to Attorney General Reno requesting an explanation of their position. To date, I have not received any response from the Attorney General, and it has been 3 months. Sounds like they are pretty busy over there.
Today, with the permission of the Lums' attorneys, I am making this proffer available to the committee members and the public. I plan to schedule a committee business meeting to consider immunity for the Lums before the end of this month. The Lums' proffer and the investigative work that has been done by the committee staff indicates 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.
In conclusion, I would like to note there is a growing concern that there was real corruption in the financing of campaigns in this country and that this corruption may have affected our foreign policy and possibly our national security.
The American people have a right to know whether any national interests were put in jeopardy by these activities. Let's get the facts out.
As Abraham Lincoln said, ''Let the people know the facts and the country will be saved.''
I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits be made a part of the record and without objection, that will be done.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KANJORSKI. Objection.
Mr. BURTON. You do object?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I do object. I want to call the Chair's attention to the fact that the Chair just violated the Rules of the House, as I understand them. If the Chair will refer to Rule 11, clause 2(k)7, it is stated there that no evidence or testimony taken in executive session may be released or used in public sessions without the consent of this committee.
As I understand it, there has been no vote in this committee to release any of the facts or testimony contained in depositions previously taken, and the Chair has exhibited on the screen exhibit C–6 with a statement taken from the deposition of David Mercer.
Mr. BURTON. Give me just a second to check with my legal counsel, would you please?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Certainly.
[Pause.]
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman is correct. One exhibit in the information we want to submit for the record should not have been divulged at this time, but all of the other exhibits will be made a part of the record, with the exception of the one the gentleman referred to.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KANJORSKI. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and certainly not intending to object to any of the exhibits the chairman has offered, and quite frankly, calling the chairman's attention to the fact, it was the minority side of this committee that fought to disclose all of these depositions so that this information could properly be brought before the public. I reiterate that the chairman should reconsider his position in denying the press, the American public, and the minority of this committee the use of those depositions at this hearing so that we can properly bring out all the facts and information that are relevant to this hearing.
Mr. BURTON. That is a matter that has been under discussion and we will consider to review that.
Mr. MICA. Regular order.
Mr. KANJORSKI. No further objection.
Mr. MICA. Regular order.
Mr. BURTON. Do I hear an objection?
Mr. KANJORSKI. No objection.
Mr. BURTON. No objection. So the information will be submitted for the record, with the exception of the document that was referred to.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton, and the information referred to follow:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 29 TO 35 AND 5 TO 28 HERE
Mr. BURTON. We will now hear from Mr. Waxman, the ranking minority member.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, months ago the Democrats on this committee, led by Congressman Gary Condit, asked that we get copies of the depositions taken by the Senate. We debated the issue in committee, wrote to Senators Thompson and Glenn with the request and we raised the issue several more times with your staff. So I was skeptical when I received a tip 2 weeks ago that, in fact, you had copies of many of those depositions, and I was disappointed to learn last week that it was true that you did have copies of the Senate depositions, but had not shared them with us.
You explained this mistake by pointing to staff and administrative error. That has also been the explanation for at least five other instances when the minority received misinformation or didn't receive documents. It is also the explanation given 2 seconds ago when it was pointed out that a deposition taken in executive session was leaked right here at this hearing, even though it is against the rules of the Congress to release depositions without a vote of the committee. In fact, when the Democrats asked that all the depositions be made public, the Republicans argued against it, saying that they didn't think it was appropriate. It seems like the majority's view is, release is appropriate on a selective basis if it serves a particular purpose.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, the explanation for that is simply another bungle, another error, another mistake, somebody else was responsible, probably the staff. Now, I have accepted your explanations, but I still find this conduct inexcusable.
In the same way, I can understand the White House's explanation for the coffee tape fiasco, but I still find it inexcusable. This seems to happen so often with the White House, that I wondered whether it is nefarious conduct, as the chairman has concluded, or just a lack of competence. I believe Charles Ruff, the President's Counsel, would not intentionally mislead Congress. And since in many cases it is the failure to provide the information when first requested and not the substance of the information that is damaging, ineptness seems to be a more logical explanation.
At this point, this seems to me to be the case with the coffee videos. But it is still inexcusable. When you go beyond that, as you did this morning, Mr. Chairman, then it becomes clear that partisanship, again, is the dominant theme in our committee. And no investigation can be credible so long as it is motivated by partisanship.
Our committee has, of course, a fundamental obligation to investigate serious abuses of our Nation's campaign finance laws without regard to the political consequences, whether they be to the Democrats or Republicans. Every Democrat on this committee has supported such an effort. In fact, on March 6th, all 20 minority members signed a letter to Speaker Gingrich supporting an aggressive and comprehensive investigation into all alleged campaign finance abuses.
We did, however, offer a suggestion: Instead of authorizing two identical and duplicative efforts, the House and Senate resources should be consolidated into one thorough and bipartisan investigation.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We continue to believe our proposal would have saved money and been more effective at uncovering the truth about what really happened last year.
Well, neither Speaker Gingrich nor any of the Republican members of this committee ever responded to that letter. Instead, the House and Senate committees have investigated the same issues, deposed the same witnesses and subpoenaed the same documents with no coordination between us.
Everything that the chairman outlined in his opening statement this morning for around 15 minutes, we didn't need to spend a single dime on to investigate because it was all reported by the press or the Senate.
Senator Thompson has now chaired 26 days of hearings and he, Senator Glenn and their colleagues have provided a valuable service. The Senate hearings may not have captured the public's attention, but they have uncovered disturbing conduct and exposed some of our campaign system's most glaring deficiencies.
In contrast, our committee's work has been beset by a series of problems and raw partisanship. I won't recite the litany, but our low point probably came in July when the Republican chief counsel resigned because he said he had not been given the authority to, quote, implement the standards of professional conduct, end quote, necessary to do his work.
In addition, Mr. Rowley noted that he wanted to, quote, follow where the evidence leads, end quote, while others wanted to use the investigation simply to, quote, slime, end quote, the Democrats. After Mr. Rowley left, the committee's Republican staff was without a chief counsel for nearly 2 months.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Perhaps the best measure of partisanship is that of the 554 subpoenas and requests for information Chairman Burton has issued, 544 have been directed at Democratic targets. Only 10 have sought information for Republican fund-raising abuses. Given those numbers, it is no surprise that Chairman Burton once reportedly predicted that his investigation would ensure Republican control of the House in 1998.
Now, given Senator Thompson's work, we face a real question of purpose. We have already spent almost $3 million without holding a single hearing. Before we invest millions more, we should have a clear understanding of what we are doing and how it relates to what Senator Thompson and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr have already investigated.
Well, we won't find that understanding today. Instead, we are likely to hear a quotable series of partisan but unsubstantiated accusations.
Keep in mind, as they are presented, that Chairman Burton and his colleagues have refused to release the 52 depositions the committee has taken, except in the one instance where they released it improperly today, at least a portion of one deposition.
Those depositions comprise nearly all of the committee's investigative work, and the reason those depositions remain secret is they offer no support for the accusations you will hear.
One final point. I began my comments by recognizing the serious responsibility we have to investigate, but we also have an equally serious responsibility to legislate when reform is needed, and our campaign finance system is in desperate need of reform.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Several of our colleagues on this committee, including Representative Tom Allen from Maine, Representative John Tierney from Massachusetts, and Representative Chris Shays from Connecticut have sponsored bills that would improve the system. I have cosponsored their legislation and hope my colleagues won't be content just to investigate last year's problems. Our system is broken and our job is to fix it.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to tomorrow's hearing and working with you, as best we can, and I want to, at the conclusion of this statement, put into the record the letters we have exchanged about our committee's investigation and the letters to Speaker Gingrich to be included in the record following my statement.
Mr. BURTON. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman and the information referred to follow:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 36 TO 37, 44 TO 308, AND 38 TO 43 HERE
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members' written statements be included in the record.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statements of Hon. Christopher Shays, Hon. Stephen Schiff, Hon. Thomas M. Davis, Hon. Rob Portman, and Hon. Thomas H. Allen follow:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 309 TO 321 HERE
Mr. BURTON. The next person to speak will be the vice chairman of the committee, Mr. Chris Cox of California.
Mr. COX. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are here today because it is our responsibility. The very first sentence of our Constitution states that it is the purpose of the Federal Government to establish justice. But today, as we meet here in Washington, DC, at the highest levels of our Government, there is no justice. It is fair to say that a single newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, has uncovered more evidence about the many Clinton scandals than has the Department of Justice.
Today, there is no question that John Huang and Charlie Trie laundered foreign money for Bill Clinton, the President of the United States. But there is no indictment. The Attorney General, according to sources quoted in the Washington Post, obstructed the FBI from interviewing and investigating high officials of the Clinton administration.
The Washington Post put it plainly yesterday in an editorial. Quote, ''The attitude of this White House toward the truth, whenever it is in trouble, is the same: Don't tell it, or tell only as much as you absolutely must, or as much as helps.''
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Continuing to quote from the Washington Post, ''their first reaction,'' referring to the White House, ''their first reaction to the name John Huang was to suggest they had never heard of him. That was before it turned out he had visited the White House 78 times in 15 months. Call it stonewalling. Can anyone really believe they don't know the answer? Can anyone believe this is on the up and up?'' That is what the Washington Post had to say yesterday.
The New York Times was just as blunt. Yesterday's headline described the Justice Department meltdown. Quote, ''It has been a full year since Miss Reno was confronted with initial evidence,'' wrote the New York Times, ''of the biggest political money scandal in a generation. Her response shows little concern with her place in history as a custodian of the Justice Department.'' New York Times, Tuesday, October 7, column one editorial.
If the Congress does not commence this investigation, there will be no justice. Janet Reno will not investigate Bill Clinton or Al Gore. She cannot absolve them. She has shown that Justice has a hopeless conflict of interest. She, herself, is part of the President's Cabinet.
Her letter to this Congress of last Friday states that she has no evidence that fund-raising events took place in the White House and on that ground refuses to appoint an Independent Counsel to begin an investigation.
One thing is clear. Neither Janet Reno nor Justice has conducted an arm's length investigation. When the Attorney General issued her letter on Friday, she claimed to make her decision on the basis of, ''all of the information known to me as a result of the Department of Justice's ongoing investigation into campaign finance allegations.'' But there is no such investigation, not a real one, not a credible one. Two days before her letter was issued, the Counsel to the President, Charles Ruff, knew of the existence of the videotapes of the White House fund-raising coffees. Mr. Ruff wrote this in a letter to the chairman of this committee. He knew it on Wednesday. He met with the Attorney General on Thursday and he did not tell her.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
He did not tell her and she did not ask. Don't ask, don't tell, describes not only the Clinton policy on gays in the military, but the Clinton policy on White House tapes.
The next day, the Attorney General issued her letter absolving the President of fund-raising in the White House and at White House coffees on the basis of evidence discovered in the investigation even though that investigation had actually sought those videotapes, but not discovered them.
Mr. Ruff's conduct in meeting with the Attorney General, knowing of this evidence and not telling her when he knew Justice was after it, is obstruction and cover-up, pure and simple.
The chief White House propagandist, Lanny Davis, told reporters, it is up to you to declare us incompetent. But that's not our job. It is up to us to see that justice is done.
The Justice Department has no conflict of interest investigating Congress. Since 1970, over 60 Members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, have been indicted and charged with crimes. But this White House and Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate themselves. Despite the national outcry, they have steadfastly refused to appoint an Independent Counsel.
The Senate investigation has a deadline which is soon expiring. It is up to us. The Congress must do all we can to ensure that suspected criminals are charged with crimes, that the guilty are punished, that justice is done and that America and our Constitution are secure.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thank the chairman for convening these hearings and I yield back.
Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman from California.
The next person to be recognized is Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would prefer to make my statement after we cast our votes, if I may.
Mr. BURTON. Well, we have 15 minutes before this vote will be concluded. I would like to move along until we get close to the vote, if it is possible.
Is there someone else on your side?
Mr. LANTOS. I am prepared to begin my statement. I merely suggest I will not conclude it by the time we need to leave.
Mr. BARR. You only have 5 minutes.
Mr. LANTOS. I am delighted to begin. If that is your privilege—pleasure, I will do so.
Mr. BURTON. Well, aside from the chairman and the ranking minority member, we wanted to try to confine our statements to 5 minutes or as close to that as possible, Mr. Lantos.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. I shall proceed, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, it is very hard to tell whether this hearing has the quality of Alice in Wonderland or the theater of the absurd. It probably has the quality of both.
There is an attempt on the part of Members on the other side to portray the fund-raising difficulties that this country confronts as a battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil.
I find it difficult to believe, and I suspect the American people find it difficult to believe, that $558 million was raised by Republicans and $336 million by Democrats, all of the Republican funds raised with virginal purity while the Democratic fund-raising was deeply flawed.
I would like to direct your attention and the attention of my other colleagues to today's Wall Street Journal, page A–10. There is a small article which reads as follows: ''Firm is fined $8 million in campaign finance case.'' And the article says, as follows: ''A Pennsylvania landfill operation has agreed to pay an $8 million fine for campaign finance violations that a prosecutor said involved illegally funneling donations to the campaigns of President Clinton, former Senator Bob Dole and various congressional candidates.''
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The article goes on to say the charges stem from an allegedly illegal scheme in which campaign donations were funneled through conduits, a spokesman for the company said. Donations to the Presidential campaigns of Messrs. Dole and Clinton by company employees and associates of seemingly limited means were the subject of an article in the Wall Street Journal in April 1996, and so on.
This little item, which, of course, is not surprising, although it said, more accurately portrays what, in fact, is happening in the field of campaign finance than all the violently and vitriolically partisan statements of yourself and others.
It is a fact that our campaign finance system is broke. It is broke because it is unenforceable and because both Republicans and Democrats have violated a tremendous range of campaign finance regulations. And this pose, which is so unseemingly and so unbelievable and so unattractive and so incredible, that somehow all of the flaws and mistakes were committed on the Democratic side while this virginal purity on the Republican side allows my colleagues with a degree of hypocrisy that boggles the mind to claim outrage at all of these things that happened.
Yesterday, in connection with the coffee tapes, Senator Thompson made the observation that incompetence is wearing thin as a defense. Well, let me comment about incompetence, if I may.
I received in my congressional office an official invitation on September 17th from the Republican leadership of the U.S. Senate cordially inviting me to serve as a Member of the Republican Senatorial inner circle and outlining, in excruciating detail, the incredible opportunities I will have of dining, wining, rubbing elbows with, conferring and giving advice to the leadership—the Republican leadership of the U.S. Senate if I only send in my inner circle membership.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A member of my staff a bit earlier received another invitation, this time from the Presidential Roundtable. Honorary members of the Presidential Roundtable are President George Bush, President Ronald Reagan, President Gerald Ford. The Presidential Roundtable chairman is also Vice President Dan Quayle and, of course, the letterhead lists Mitch McConnell, Steve Forbes and Senator Santorum of Philadelphia.
This is a marvelous letter, which I would like to place in the record, and I would like to read a portion of it at this point.
. . . I am pleased to inform you that in recognition of your personal achievements, I have nominated you to serve as one of Virginia's representatives on the Republican Presidential Roundtable. This is an exceptional honor that I hope you will not pass up. For as America prepares to meet the challenges of the 21st Century, my Republican Senate colleagues and I genuinely need your help in shaping the new agenda that will guide both our party and our Nation.
You see, the Presidential Roundtable is a unique group of only 400 Americans, whose membership includes corporate CEOs, small business owners, doctors, bankers, executives, entrepreneurs, community leaders and concerned citizens. . . . And now that a vacancy has occurred among the coveted 18 Presidential Roundtable memberships reserved for Virginia, I sincerely hope you will consider stepping forward to claim it.
The letter goes on in very interesting detail, outlining all the good things that will come the way of my friend if he steps forward and becomes 1 of these 18 members from Virginia of the Presidential Roundtable.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, our biannual Roundtable Forums continue to provide opportunities for members to meet regularly in both formal and informal settings with the great decisionmakers and political leaders of the 1990's, including Majority Leader Trent Lott, the entire Republican Senate Leadership, the powerful Chairmen of standing Committees of the U.S. Senate, and the GOP's newly-elected Senators who are well-positioned to lead America far into the first decade of the 21st Century.
Now, I don't want to read the whole letter, but I will read the operative phrase. It says,
I hope you will take a moment to complete your Membership Acceptance and return it today, along with your personal or corporate check, or partial membership dues payment of $5,000, $2,500, $1,250 or $1,000.
This will give you an opportunity, I am quoting again, of ''an even greater opportunity to forge the lasting friendships with our Senators that have become such a hallmark of a Roundtable membership.''
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Lantos, if I might interrupt. I think you made your point and if you could conclude.
Mr. LANTOS. Not quite, but I have made a portion of my point.
Mr. BURTON. You are doing very well, but if you could conclude, we would appreciate it because we want to stay as close to the 5-minute rule as possible, sir.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. Well, when we return, I would like to conclude this letter, if I may.
Mr. BURTON. Your time has expired and, as I said earlier, we want to keep every Member as close to the 5-minute rule as possible. We will allow latitude to the ranking member and myself, but I don't want to go beyond that. We have 40-some Members here, sir.
Mr. LANTOS. May I finish then?
Mr. BURTON. OK.
Mr. LANTOS. ''We have already arranged for Roundtable members to have personal photo sessions with the entire Republican Senate Leadership when we gather at the welcoming reception on Tuesday evening.''
The letter speaks for itself. It is signed by Senator Mitch McConnell, chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. And I think it deals with the issue of access and payment for access.
Now, I find the letter nauseating, but no more nauseating than similar letters emanating from the Democratic side and if we would just get rid of the hypocrisy that permeates this hearing, which says that the Democrats are doing these horrible things while we
pure Republicans are merely dealing with the public's business, the American people would have a greater degree of trust in their Government.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thank the Chair.
[The information referred to follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 322 TO 331 HERE
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. And if you accede to the wishes of the Republican National Committee, be sure not to do it on Federal property.
The committee will stand in recess.
Mr. LANTOS. They sent me the letter on Federal property.
[Recess.]
Mr. BURTON. We will reconvene the meeting. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hastert.
Mr. HASTERT. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think the real question of these hearings addressed the searing question of have the election laws of these United States been broken? And have the election laws of this country been broken or circumvented by the campaign committee of the chief law enforcement officer of this Nation?
The real issue here is will these hearings be used by some to divert our attention from that issue and instead use it for a launching platform for, quote, campaign reform, end quote.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, we need to keep our focus on one question: Have the election laws of this country been broken intentionally or unintentionally? As chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, I want to simply and directly state my concerns about the potential threat to our country's security that may have been and may continue to be posed by foreign influences on our electoral process.
The peril associated with direct foreign influence on our elections should be obvious. This Nation is a democracy and a democracy is not for sale. And one more point: If foreign governments have been contributing to U.S. elections, they have not been doing so for our benefit. Any such contributions would, by definition, imperil our Nation's security, since the reasons for contributions would likely be to secure favors and extend influence. I won't belabor the point, but it is central to this inquiry.
The primary inquiry of these hearings, from my perspective, is twofold. The threshold question is: Did the Chinese Government contribute to the Democratic National party or any other campaign organization?
The second question is: If it can be shown that the Chinese Government was involved in contributing to the Democratic National party or any other campaign organization, did the Chinese Government receive any special benefits in return for its contributions to the Democratic national campaign organization?
I am reserving my judgment on both of these inquiries. But as to the first inquiry, I do believe that the evidence so far supports the proposition that the Chinese did contribute to the DNC.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congress has documented that money came from China. This money appears to be coming through conduits to the Democratic National Committee and literally to the very doorsteps of the White House. I await further evidence in either direction on this point.
As to the second question: Did the Chinese Government obtain any benefits from the alleged illegal contributions? Was there a quid pro quo? I am not a lawyer, but it appears obvious that we may eventually need to hear from someone who can detail the conduct and motivations of the President if we are going to get to the bottom of this money trail.
As Judge Sirica once said, in a different context, follow the money, follow the money, follow the money.
Accordingly, I think we should make every effort, in a bipartisan way, to get eyewitnesses before us. I also sincerely think that the President should help us in this, particularly if the witnesses in question remain overseas. Furthermore, some witnesses who could explain the facts have asserted their fifth amendment right not to incriminate themselves.
It concerns me, and I think it should concern every American, that there are so many people close to the President who believe that they may have committed a crime. That fact should give us all pause. At least as our investigation relates to those who have asserted their fifth amendment rights, we will probably never know the specific role the administration played unless we are able to get and grant immunity to these witnesses.
In my opinion, there comes a time when the people's right to know may outweigh the necessity to send these witnesses to jail.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the realm of national security, one fact bothers me more than any other and that fact is this: Shortly after Mr. Clinton became President, evidence shows he went out of his way to ensure that China obtained extremely sensitive technology. This was technology previously blocked by national security restrictions. Examples of the technology included turbo fan jet engines for missiles, sophisticated computers that provide guidance for military aircraft, and actual rocket missile guidance systems.
I await further testimony and documents, but I will confess that the campaign fund-raising issue for me leads down many trails. And the one that troubles me the most is the one with national security implications. That said, I shall not prejudice the testimony we may hear today or which we may expect to hear in the future. I shall listen to all the facts with an open mind. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. Does he yield back the balance of his time?
Mr. HASTERT. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Mr. Kanjorski.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I begin this set of hearings with disappointment today. I first came to this great city and to serve in this great capital some 44 years ago, in 1953, the last Republican Congress before the 104th Congress; that was the 83d Congress. I had the pleasure to serve during the first administration of President Dwight David Eisenhower. And unaccustomed as I was to this city at that time, as a young man I discovered that individuals will be attacked in this political system for reality or for appearance.
And during that administration, a great historical name of Sherman Adams, from the Adams family of Massachusetts, had to surrender his position as Chief of Staff to the President because of what was then called a vicuna coat. Since that time, vicuna coats have gotten much larger and have become the habit of American politics.
I would have been overjoyed and very satisfied with my service in Congress if I had known that we were coming together in this committee to do something substantive, to really free up what has become a cancer on the political process of this country.
Unfortunately, I do not think any of us have arrived with our surgeon's tools today to treat that disease. Instead, we have arrived with pre-conclusions, illogical conclusions, and a willingness to jump to facts. Even though most of us are legally trained, I have never heard so many lawyers willing to have a finding before the evidence is in, and before the facts can be arranged in any logical order to force a conclusion. But be that as it may, this is Washington, DC, and I appreciate that.
I think today, however, Mr. Chairman, you have an opportunity, an unusual opportunity, to change the history of the last 9 months and to go at this to really leave a legacy to the American democratic system; and it needs help. If honestly we were to propose new procedures and effects and go at this investigation in a professional way, without preconceived conclusions or notions, we could work great contribution to the American political system.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If we continue in the type of diatribe we have heard from some of the Members this morning, in having previously concluded—I don't know why we are holding a hearing in some instances—or seizing upon innuendo, conjecture and conclusions that are not warranted by any of the facts or evidence that I am aware of at this point, if we have that type of hearing, we are going to have nothing but a partisan charade that will accomplish nothing and signify something that disturbs me.
And the thing that disturbs me is that there is an unwillingness, it seems, in the Congress, in this committee, to accept the fact that in November 1996, there was a Presidential election and the present occupant of the White House won that election.
And I thought that the examples learned in 1993, with trying to reverse the 1992 election with Whitewater and everything else that has preceded ad infinitum, would not be carried out in the second term of this Presidency; that with prosperity in this country beyond imagination, with peace in the world that our generation never had, and with major problems that this Government and this President could attain to, we in a very partisan way, on both sides, have slipped into this quagmire, if you will, to attack personalities and people without justification sometimes.
I cannot excuse some of the mistakes made by this White House in providing information to this committee or the Thompson committee, nor will I attempt to do it. But I will not judge it as being criminal in intent or malicious in some way. Quite frankly, I would hope I would give it in the same way that I sometimes listen to the diatribe of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I just say they do not really mean to do evil; they just do not understand. And I would hope that if we looked at that in the White House, we would understand the same thing.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But going beyond this President and this White House, what opportunity do we really have? Is there anyone on this committee or in the Congress today that does not know that special interest money, huge corporate money, huge union money, huge wealth money, is permeating policy decisions both in this Congress and probably in the executive branch? And quite frankly, it probably has always been that way. But there was some reasonable suppression of it, control of it, guidance of it, exposure of it that today seems to be lacking.
I do fear for American democracy as I have seen it through most of my lifetime, because I am not sure my daughter or her children are guaranteed to see this process work too much into the future if we do not do something to cut out this political cancer that exists, and it exists in money. It exists out there in the press and the media and the fact that we cannot talk to constituents anymore, but have to spend thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars on single 30-second attack ads in order to elect ourselves to office, whether it be here in the Congress or in the Presidency.
We know that sometimes that money comes with not direct connection to position, but indirect. Certainly, people do not contribute millions of dollars—I think Mr. Lantos this morning pointed out an example, an $8 million fine for the contribution to multiparties, multi-individuals, most Republican, of $180,000—$160,000 went to Republicans—and it was done with the intention of having some influence. Should we have known that? Will we know that in the future? Can we do something about it? Yes, if the Congress directs itself to campaign finance reform.
Mr. Shays, on the other side, has a reasonable position on that. Mr. Tierney on our side has a reasonable position on that. We had an opportunity lost in the Senate yesterday. Or are we going to waste opportunity and go down this terrible road of being purely partisan and enforce what the American people already believe about these investigations; that they are nothing but partisan attacks to disturb and dislodge the success of this President in his second term?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If that's the case, we don't deserve their attention. But if we strive for higher ideals and intentions, we will catch the imagination and the appreciation of the American people.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 332 TO 338 HERE
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mrs. Morella.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you. Chairman Burton, I want to indicate my appreciation for your convening today's hearing. Our committee has a responsibility to investigate the political fund-raising practices surrounding the 1996 elections. We have been charged with determining which campaign finance laws have been broken and how domestic and foreign contributions have been parlayed into policy.
Both the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the press have raised serious questions about campaign donations and fund-raising practices, both illegal and legal, in the 1996 election cycle.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many of these troubling questions remain unanswered and the American people deserve answers. Why is the White House stonewalling this investigation by retaining critical documents and tapes? Why did the DNC ignore critical information about donors and fail to do background checks? How did contributors gain access to the White House? Did these contributors influence policy? Why have many of our key witnesses left the country?
Tomorrow, we will hear from witnesses who gave conduit contributions at the request of Charlie Trie and John Huang. The witnesses who will testify before this committee are linked or privy to suspect fund-raising activities, many of which are illegal.
Clearly, the Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits contributions by foreign nationals in connection with any election. But it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish which campaign practices are legal and which are not and, most important, which campaign practices should be illegal.
Soft money began to fill campaign coffers following the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments of 1979, which allowed a greater role for State and local parties by exempting certain grass-roots and generic party-building activities from FECA coverage. And although they are legal, soft money contributions have led to questionable fund-raising practices and to the escalating costs of elections.
This is my hope for our committee's hearings; I hope it is shared by all the members of the committee: that we thoroughly investigate the very serious allegations of violations of law, patterns of misconduct and abuses of power by high-ranking Government officials; that we do so in a bipartisan manner; that in the course of our investigation we shed light on what should be illegal and that our investigation leads to an overhaul of our existing campaign finance laws.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is no doubt that loopholes in existing campaign finance laws invite the kinds of abuses we will examine in the days ahead. So as we look at violations of current campaign finance law, we must also address the law's shortcomings. To ignore this reality is to waste an opportunity to enact real reform.
As I mentioned, our committee has the responsibility to conduct this serious investigation, and with this responsibility comes the duty of each of our Members to seek answers in a professional, fair manner.
I believe Chairman Burton, I take him at his word, that our committee's investigation will follow the evidence wherever it leads, and I will ensure that this is the case.
Campaign finance violations bring all of us down in the eyes of the American people, the very people whom we are here to serve.
In the coming months, it is critical that we take a stand against that which is illegal, no matter which party is guilty, and reform our laws to curb the excess of soft money and other abuses that should be illegal.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Condit.
Mr. CONDIT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think to a person we all support congressional oversight and investigation of this issue. Some of us, on both sides of the aisle, think we ought to be taking a serious and hard look at the way we finance our political campaigns, but this committee should be willing to look critically at potential violations of law, regardless of political party, and we ought to be willing to follow the trail wherever it leads us.
We started this process several months ago with the idea of—hope of fixing a broken system. Since then, we have deposed 57 witnesses. The question is: What have these 57 witnesses told us that we didn't already know or that wasn't already available? Seeking the truth and doing it in a cost-efficient manner are not opposing views, and that's the real point I am trying to make to this committee, Mr. Chairman, that they are not mutually exclusive.
We can and we should continue to seek the truth. That ought to be our No. 1 goal. But we should do it in a cost-effective manner for the taxpayers of this country. We can do both and we should do both.
The amount of redundancy and duplication in this investigation, frankly, is ridiculous. Being thorough in our investigation and ensuring that we do not waste money is where our emphasis ought to be. We have a dual responsibility. We must seek the truth but that doesn't mean that we have to waste the taxpayers' money in doing so.
We have spent, as it has been mentioned several times, $3 million in this body alone, to say nothing of the millions of dollars spent on the other investigation by the other body. On top of that, we have committed hundreds of hours of staff and personnel time to this investigation.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And what about the burden we have placed upon the witnesses? We have asked them to come here, share with us the information that they have. We have deposed them. For the most part, on their own expense they have come and provided that information.
Ultimately, most of them will never even be asked to testify before this committee. What we ought to be doing is setting our sights on ensuring that the money we spend is not being thrown away in a very cavalier way.
If we are sincere in being here today, then we ought to agree on a clear focus of this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I wholly—I support seeking the truth. I once again think that is the point here. But to go blasting away in some random manner hoping that we hit something or stumble into something is just plain irresponsible.
The main problem with this investigation is that we are not conducting it in a cost-efficient manner, and I hope by the end of this investigation that we can report to the American people that something substantive has transpired.
Now it is time, I believe, for us to find a solution, and we all know that is a very easy thing to say. In reality, it is very hard to do. But it is time for us, I believe, to come up with a solution and find a legislative remedy. And let us use this hearing as a springboard to enact some of those solutions, like campaign finance reform. Let's set a date when this hearing will end, and then move forward with that plan or that solution.
Mr. Chairman, we all support this investigation and the oversight. We need to ensure that we follow the course that is being laid out as quickly and as efficiently and as effectively as possible and waste as little taxpayer money as we possibly can. We owe that to the American people.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Gary A. Condit follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 339 HERE
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Mr. Shays. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Gilman.
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues. Throughout this session of Congress, our Government Reform and Oversight Committee has performed an arduous task of investigating campaign finance improprieties and any possible violations of law. This task became necessary as press revelations in the weeks prior to the 1996 election period raised questions about the Democratic National Committee's fund-raising practices, ranging from funneled foreign contributions to violations of domestic fund-raising laws.
These revelations include the related activities of John Huang and Yah Lin Charlie Trie both who reportedly contributed funds in the names of other people and both reportedly facilitated the contribution of foreign funds into the Democratic National Committee. John Huang refused to cooperate with our committee's investigators by invoking his privilege against self-incrimination, while Charlie Trie has fled the country and is thought to be somewhere in the People's Republic of China.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, contributions in connection with any election are prohibited by foreign governments, by political parties, corporations, associations and partnerships, individuals with foreign citizenship and immigrants not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
In addition, FECA provides that no person shall make a campaign contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his or her name to be permitted to effect such a contribution. Accordingly, the American people are in need of the facts to determine whether or not their political leaders in Washington have been abusing current Federal campaign laws and whether the current campaign finance system has been working effectively.
Furthermore, and more important, the American people need to be able to discern whether foreign contributions and resources are influencing our Nation's campaigns. The committee hearings on which we are about to embark will hopefully assist us in answering these very important questions.
Our committee's investigation has included 55 individual subpoenas, 76 bank subpoenas, 39 depositions, all within the past 7 months. The Department of Justice has yet to appoint an Independent Counsel, even though campaign finance improprieties continue to be revealed and reported on a daily and weekly basis. This, in light of the fact that FBI Director Freeh not long ago called for and stressed the need for an Independent Counsel in this current campaign finance scandal.
Moreover, along with many of my colleagues, I believe that we should adopt meaningful campaign finance reform, something we are all interested in. And I am heartened with the course of action taken to date by our full committee. The allegations we have been investigating follow an election cycle that discussed record amounts of money being spent on Federal campaigns. This trend of escalating campaign spending and abuses raises many concerns that the campaign finance laws enacted in the seventies are no longer adequate and need serious reform.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe that our committee is proceeding in the right direction, and I look forward to continue to work with my colleagues in ensuring that our Nation's campaign finance laws are going to be adequate and up to the challenge in meeting the current trend of increased campaign spending.
Accordingly, it is of utmost importance that we put an end to any current abuses and to restore the American people's trust. The hearings on which we are about to proceed are a positive step in that direction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Mr. Sanders.
Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to make two points and pick up on something that Mr. Kanjorski said a moment ago, and that is in November 1998, Mr. Chairman, there are going to be national elections and what the experts tell us is that about two-thirds of the American people are not going to bother to vote. We had the lowest voter turnout of any industrialized Nation on earth. There will be districts that Members come from where 25 percent of the people will vote.
Now, there are a lot of reasons why the American people are giving up by the tens of millions in the political process, but I would argue that certainly one of the reasons is their belief that our campaign finance system is totally corrupt; that big money dominates what goes on here and that for ordinary people and working people, low-income people who don't have the $50,000 to contribute at fund-raising dinners or the $100,000 to contribute to the parties of their choice, that they are not—that their voices and their needs are not going to be heard. I think that is basically a true statement.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is a reason why this institution gives huge tax breaks to the rich and does not have a national health care system, or we had to fight so hard to raise the minimum wage to all of $5.15 an hour, and so forth and so on. The American people understand that.
They are not naive and they understand that when somebody contributes several hundred thousand dollars, maybe to both political parties, they are getting something for their dollars.
Now, if these hearings and the work of this committee is nothing more than for the—and I say this as an Independent—for the Republicans to say, gee, we are great. We never have any problems. Those terrible Democrats in the White House, gee, they are just evil, but not us. No one is really going to believe that and they shouldn't believe that. Everybody knows that the system is affecting everybody.
So if this committee is really going to have an impact on what goes on in Congress and what goes to—what I think the American people perceive, we are going to have to fight to expose everything that is going on and then the direction must be to lead us to real campaign finance reform. No one is going to take this seriously if all that we do is say that the White House is terrible, terrible, terrible but, gee, no, I am not going to vote for real campaign finance reform. I am not going to vote or fight to make sure that big money does not continue to control the political process.
So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, and I think Mr. Lantos made this point, Mr. Kanjorski, others have made this point, you have an enormous responsibility. You can play a role in turning the politics of this country around by leading us in the direction of real campaign finance reform and take away the power of big money in controlling the agenda here. That's the first point.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second point that I want to make, Mr. Chairman, I make as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs. As you may know, last year Chairman McIntosh of that subcommittee asked the GAO, the Government Accounting Office, to thoroughly investigate the computerized Rolodex at the White House.
This little known investigation into a computer data base has ballooned into a substantial portion of this committee's campaign finance investigation. I am not sure that many of the Members know that. As the ranking minority member of that subcommittee, I am deeply concerned that the subcommittee may be wasting the taxpayers' money in overusing the committee's deposition authority on this obscure inquiry.
Mr. Chairman, this narrow investigation has eaten up hundreds of thousands of committee dollars since its inception over 1 year ago. It has consumed——
Mr. MCINTOSH. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. Let me finish and then I will yield.
Mr. MCINTOSH. I will be glad to explain what the money is being used for, if the gentleman would yield.
Mr. SANDERS. Pardon me?
Mr. MCINTOSH. If the gentleman will yield, I would be glad to give a summary of what the money was used for.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SANDERS. Let me finish and then I am happy to yield. OK?
It has consumed 15 of the 57 campaign finance depositions. In other words, over one-fourth of the committee depositions were limited to questions about the data base.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, it has cost the White House hundreds of thousands of dollars during just one 3-month period in which the White House tracked the cost of responding to this investigation; and the related GAO audit, it estimated that the response cost the taxpayers $155,000, and that's over a 3-month period.
In addition, the witnesses that have been deposed have had to hire counsel at a potential personal cost of thousands of dollars. This can be a significant burden on the witnesses called by the committee, one of whom is an unpaid volunteer, as I understand it, at the White House.
I would conclude by saying, I don't think the American taxpayers approve of us wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on a political fishing expedition. I don't think they want more than one-quarter of the committee's campaign finance depositions to be on an obscure investigation of a computerized Rolodex. Unless the committee can demonstrate that the White House data base investigation is not a waste of taxpayer dollars, this costly and partisan investigation should be dropped.
And I would be happy to yield to my friend, Mr. McIntosh.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Hon. Bernard Sanders follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 340 TO 343 HERE
Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Sanders.
Let me say very briefly that this investigation is continuing apace. We found out very early on that this White House computer data base was used to keep track of the coffees and the use of the Lincoln bedroom for campaign fund-raising, something which the White House's own lawyers told staff of the President would be an illegal purpose if it were for campaign or political fund-raising.
We are continuing to depose all of those who were involved in creating and using the data base to find out exactly what happened and still have many more depositions to go forward in doing that.
We want to give every opportunity for this White House to justify the purpose for something that clearly appears, on its face, to have been intended to be an illegal theft of Government property for political purposes. We need to find out what happened and report to the American people about this. Thank you.
Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. Yes, I would yield to Mr. Waxman.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WAXMAN. I hope that with the same zeal we look at some of the ways Members of Congress have conducted their affairs, whether they have made phone calls out of their offices, whether they have used their Government allotments for campaign purposes. Maybe we ought to look at their data bases and stuff like that.
I think that it just seems a little bit hypocritical when we see attacks only in one direction and only one partisan direction. I would just point that out.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by this investigation. I am troubled by the serious violations of law. I am troubled by abuse of fund-raising practices that, while perhaps not technically illegal, are obviously wrong. I am troubled by the administration's strategy of lawyerly word games, inadvertent discovery and delay; troubled that so many witnesses have taken the fifth, fled, forgotten or simply have refused to cooperate; and I am troubled when partisanship blocks the path to individual accountability for abuses and to reform of a system so eagerly and thoroughly abused.
Our job is to judge the extent and impact of illegal foreign contributions, money laundering and other campaign finance abuses that have threatened our national security and undermined the integrity of domestic political process.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our commitment is to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without regard to partisan political calculations. But that job has been made far more difficult because, as has been noted, 39 witnesses have asserted their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, 39 witnesses; 11 potential witnesses have fled the country, 11 witnesses; 11 foreign nationals have refused to be interviewed; and the number of witnesses with blank memories grows daily.
Do I believe the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Mr. Fowler, cannot remember when the National Security Council warned him that Roger Tamraz was a national security risk? I am sorry. I cannot believe him.
Do I believe the Vice President of the United States did not know that when he went to the Hsi Lai Temple it was a fund-raising event? I am sorry. I cannot believe him.
The only difference I see so far between the terrible abuses in the Nixon White House and the terrible abuses in the Clinton White House is the Nixon White House abuses happened under Republican watch and were investigated; the Clinton White House abuses happened and are happening under Democratic watch.
The administration is still haphazardly finding materials, obviously within the scope of subpoenas issued by this committee 7 months ago. And from my review of the transcripts, it appears the committee minority staff's only contribution to the examination of witnesses has been to trivialize the investigation and to apologize to the witnesses for the inconvenience of having to give a deposition.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nevertheless, our charge remains twofold: One, find out who abused the system; and two, recommend systemic statutory and regulatory repairs to fix what is wrong.
In past investigations, it was not enough then to say the system is broken, everybody does it, so let's just pass a law without bothering those responsible. It is not enough now. Just as it is not enough to fix individual culpability without drawing and applying a larger lesson to rehabilitate a system that induces otherwise good people to do undeniably bad things.
For the protection of their fundamental freedoms, the American people must rely on the wisdom of our laws and the integrity of the men and women sworn to uphold those laws. Here we had a failure of both. Porous laws were exploited by unscrupulous people. Our sworn responsibility demands we investigate and remedy both. Until we do both, our work is not complete. Unless we do both, our troubles have just begun.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of very positive things going on in America. Unemployment and inflation are at a 25-year low. Crime in our major cities is down, with our largest city, New York, leading the way. But Americans don't think Washington is improving their lives. In the last Presidential election, we had the lowest turnout in generations; less than 50 percent. The American people don't associate low mortgage and student loan rates with fiscal discipline in Washington, because all they see coming out of Washington is Republicans and Democrats trying to destroy one another over campaign finance abuses.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Each week, there is a new outrage. We learn about a new violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the campaign finance laws. Americans are turned off so they are tuning out. They aren't participating in their democracy because they think their democracy is a little out of their price range.
These hearings will clearly demonstrate that soft money, those unlimited contributions made to political parties, is at the root of the campaign finance abuses this committee is investigating.
Whether it is delivered by a well-healed tobacco lobbyist or a nun who has taken a vow of poverty, soft money is a plague on both of our houses, both Democrat and Republican. It creates the impression, true or false, that you have to pay to play and that legislating is just something we try to squeeze in between fund-raisers.
What soft money boils down to is a loophole that circumvents restrictions on hard money. We can and we must close this loophole. Letting it stand, either by doing nothing or cynically undermining reform efforts with deliberate poison pills, is nothing less than a betrayal of American democracy.
Washington is not irrelevant to America. The values on which Washington was built make America possible. Our broken campaign finance system has placed those values in jeopardy. In footing the bill for this hearing, the American people don't want us to protect the system; they want us to clean it up. They doubt we can do it and for good reason.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let us work together across party lines to rein in soft money and prove once and for all that our democracy is not for sale.
Tomorrow, we will hear from people who allegedly served as conduits to get illegal money into the DNC, people who were apparently used by others to circumvent contribution limits and to break the law. This is not news. Since 1992, the Federal Election Commission has investigated 67 foreign contribution cases. The agency is looking into 27 alleged conduit payments. Their records include discoveries of a man who couldn't pay his bills or pay his child support but managed to funnel $600,000 in foreign contributions to the Republican party in 1992.
There are plenty of skeletons in closets on both sides of the aisle. This is not a one-party problem. Nor is it a new problem.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle enjoy pointing fingers at Democratic fund-raising, but when the focus shifts to their own fund-raising and the problems of the entire political system, they abruptly change tactics. That is why the Senate stopped its investigation in midstream. As Senator Collins, Republican of Maine, said last week—and she was quoted in the New York Times, ''For the first time, it looked like the focus would be much more on ourselves. It is easier for us to sit in judgment of another branch of government, the executive branch, than to sit in judgment of ourselves. I believe we should go forward to learn the truth about these abuses, but I will be very surprised if we learn anything that is either new or startling.''
We will hear a lot today, we have already heard a lot today, about, ''enforcing the laws.'' But when it comes to funding the Federal Election Commission, the agency whose job it is to enforce these laws, my colleagues are afraid to put their money where their mouths are.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We should let the Federal Election Commission do its job so that we can do ours. And our job, Mr. Chairman, is not simply to assign blame, but to reform the system.
There are before Congress now 80 different pieces of proposed legislation to reform campaign finance laws. Yet not a single one of them has made it to a hearing.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop fixing the blame and to start fixing the problem.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON. One second.
I would just like to make one real quick point before we go to the next witness.
It has been mentioned several times that we have not issued subpoenas that were requested by the minority, and while there have been some problems, the minority subpoenas have been withdrawn, according to our counsel, and he has been trying to work things out with the minority counsel to facilitate some of these subpoenas being granted.
Now, we cannot say we are going to grant all of them, but we really can't grant subpoenas that you requested when you have withdrawn that request; and that is one of the concerns that we have.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. BURTON. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. WAXMAN. We withdrew our request for subpoenas after they sat pending for over 3 months without any action. We saw no purpose in having those subpoena requests hanging out there and being further ignored.
Mr. BURTON. Well, let me just respond by saying, our new counsel is willing to sit down and try to facilitate some assistance for you in getting some of these subpoenas granted.
The next person to speak is Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. As a Cuban American and a congressional representative from south Florida, I am especially interested in knowing the relationship between certain alleged illicit contributions made by south Florida residents and their effect upon United States-Cuba relations. Specifically, I would like to know why Jorge Cabrera, a convicted felon and drug dealer, states that he was approached for a $20,000 contribution to the DNC in exchange for an invitation to a fund-raiser with Vice President Al Gore.
Was his background as a drug dealer not investigated? Even if Cabrera's reputation and past convictions were ignored, did someone not wonder as to the origins of his $20,000 check, which came from Mr. Cabrera's checking account that supposedly includes funds from Colombian cocaine deals?
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Cabrera has been convicted for trafficking in 6,000 pounds of cocaine and now sits in a Federal penitentiary fulfilling a 19-year sentence. The supposed solicitor of this contribution, who Mr. Cabrera claims was Vivian Mannerud, is a major contributor to the Democratic party, an owner of an airline charter company that flies to Havana, and is also a renowned sympathizer of the repressive agenda of the Castro dictatorship.
Mr. Cabrera claims that he met with Ms. Mannerud at the Copacabana Hotel, a posh hotel in one of Havana's most exclusive areas, and I would like to play a little song here.
[Song played.]
[The lyrics follow:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 344 HERE
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. We will hand out the words to the Members. And it says that at the Copa, Copacabana, the DNC spot in Havana; and we want to know what the connection is. And the location where this petition took place, Havana, Cuba, home of the tyrannical Castro regime, certainly brings a lot of questions to mind. Considering United States-Cuba relations in the past, does not Mr. Cabrera's claims, that the petition for a donation took place in Havana, Cuba, conflict with United States foreign policy?
If Mr. Cabrera's claims are true, is the DNC condoning the practice of United States residents visiting Cuba, a country controlled by a totalitarian regime, in order to solicit funds in the Cuban capital for the United States Presidential campaign?
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another concern of mine is the recent testimony given by a plantation Florida businessman, R. Warren Medoff before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. On October 22d of last year, Mr. Medoff attended a $1,500 a plate Coral Gables fund-raiser intending, he said, to urge the President to renew flights to Cuba. These flights had been banned since March, when Castro's fighters killed four innocent men and shot down their planes, which were on a humanitarian mission, flying over international waters.
Mr. Medoff said that he indicated to the President that he could offer the Democratic party a $5 million gift. The President, states Medoff, responded by saying, you can tell the people that they will be able to fly.
The flights were resumed the same day.
Based on Mr. Medoff's claims, one wonders, is the White House, in consideration for a substantial contribution, $5 million, willing to forgo the loss of American lives who were flying over international waters and who were shot down by Castro in order just to fill up its treasure chest?
And I would like to bring up the ties of one south Florida resident, John Henry Cabanas, a Key West businessman, who has publicly expressed admiration for Castro, saying, ''Fidel is like my father and I believe that he loves me like his son.'' Federal records show that Mr. Cabanas appears to have contributed or helped in steering over $62,000 to the Democratic party and its candidates.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A lawyer at the Treasury Department states that United States law prohibits a person from knowingly and willfully engaging in a transaction with Cuba or a Cuban national. According to sources, Cabanas flouted that law for decades by spending money and receiving payment for his work in Cuba before he left in 1988.
There is also the issue of Mr. Cabanas' alleged counterintelligence work. According to two former Cuban intelligence officials, Cabanas was a full-time agent of the Interior Ministry State Security Department. A defector and a one-time 20-year Interior Ministry intelligence officer also said that Cabanas' specific job was to spot spies among foreigners in Cuba, including diplomats, journalists and tourists. Mr. Cabanas' counterintelligence work for the Cuban regime is also very alarming.
Did the Democratic party, in its frenzy to obtain sufficient funds to re-elect the President and oust the Republican Congress, allow for contributions to be made by ex-spies of a totalitarian and repressive dictatorship? And has this spy been able to influence United States policy toward Cuba?
It is necessary to investigate whether any of these contributions have resulted in the softening of United States policy toward the Castro regime, and I hope that this committee examines to the fullest any intent by the Castro regime and its sympathizers here in the United States of influencing United States policy toward the Cuban dictator.
And I thank the chairman for the time.
Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Barrett.
Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today, as we begin what will no doubt be a long and extensive probe into Democratic party's fund-raising activities, we start down a path clearly defined by the lines of partisanship. We will focus on the alleged misuse of funds and the skirting of campaign laws by one party and one party only.
I acknowledge that some wrongdoings may have occurred as a part of the fund-raising efforts by the Democratic party during last year's elections. Some of these improprieties have been brought to light by Senator Thompson's investigation.
I believe that those who have committed illegal acts in the effort to finance Federal campaigns should be dealt with accordingly. Breaking the laws that regulate our elections cannot be tolerated. I also believe, however, that any committee of Congress investigating wrongdoing should not focus all its energies and resources on the persecution of one political party, be that party in the majority or the minority.
Let's face it, candidates raise money. And last year the GOP set new records for raising it, and they didn't raise it all from widows and choir boys.
In order to fully understand the depth of the problem, we should be looking at all methods that are used to abide by or skirt the campaign laws. That includes methods used by both parties.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, from the get-go, this committee has brandished a partisan flag and the chairman has refused to even go through the motions of a fair investigation. Instead, the committee has bungled, blundered and botched this investigation and, as a result, has drawn upon this committee serious questions about its integrity.
Mr. Chairman, we will see a constant theme develop during these hearings. We will be told that the laws are murky, compliance is difficult, and the loopholes are too big to withstand the rush of money in our elections. All the evidence will lead to one thing that this committee will not consider in the course of this investigation, that campaign finance reform is needed now. And without it, the integrity of public elections will continue its slide down the slippery slope of public opinion.
This committee is not limited by time and the Republican leadership has indicated that it will not be lacking funding. In fact, the committee has a $3.8 million budget with access to an additional $7 million. All indications are that the committee will meander on into the next legislative year and into the campaign season in 1998.
To date, a clear mission for this investigation has not been communicated. We have witnessed several embarrassing episodes, including the resignation of the chairman's legal team and the delays in the start of this investigation.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope we can work to expose the deficiencies in the campaign finance laws and that we can work together toward identifying and acting on a solution to them. Without a clear objective like that, the investigation is destined to be dragged down by partisan bickering and finger-pointing. It is time that we rise above the partisanship that has plagued this investigation.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to applaud the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, for his efforts to bring campaign finance reform to the floor of this House. He has shown an uncommon courage and dedication to restoring integrity to our electoral process. The Republican leadership, unfortunately, has vowed to keep the bill from being considered, but they may not be able to do so much longer. Hopefully, these hearings will prompt Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Armey to reconsider their positions and yield to the will of a good number of members to consider some sort of reform before the end of the 105th Congress.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas M. Barrett follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 345 TO 346 HERE
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, at long last, with the start of this hearing, the House, through this committee, joins with the Senate in seeking to answer a long and very troubling list of questions involving the possible violation of various laws, regulations and, I might add, generally accepted standards of proper behavior amongst public officials.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the past year, each day has seemed to bring new revelations about alleged improprieties, indiscretions and violations of the public trust, and with each disclosure, the faith and the confidence of the American public in their Government and in their elected representatives have sunk to lower and lower levels.
On this, our first full day of inquiry, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that, above all else, we will pursue and ultimately uncover and reveal the truth.
The people of this Nation deserve to know what, if any, laws were broken and who amongst their elected representatives and public officials might have broken them. The people of this Nation need to understand that these allegations, if in any way true, will not be tolerated. They need to believe that the authority of public office does not provide a shield of immunity from the law but, rather, creates a higher standard of adherence to it.
There are those—and we have heard them today, Mr. Chairman—who would have the people of this country believe that these hearings should be designed solely to develop a new set of laws to administer the financing of campaigns. They would have the people of this country focus blame somewhere other than on those who chose to defy the public trust and operate outside the existing legal standards.
True, few thinking people today fail to realize the need to update and, where necessary, recraft the current campaign finance structure; and, to the extent that these sessions serve to clarify the best path toward that goal, so much the better. But the primary objective of these hearings is no more to identify the need for new laws or that the investigation of the crimes of Jeffrey Dahmer was somehow a search for new proscriptions against cannibalism.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are not looking at a failure of the law. We are searching for the lawless. To those who would absolve the guilty and indict the process, I would simply ask, what in the current law has failed to earn your respect?
What phrase, which word or mark of punctuation has led you to hold these laws in such contempt, has caused you to conclude that the alleged perpetrators are innocent, somehow victimized by a law that in your judgment is unworthy of observation?
I would imagine that at some time in all of our childhood, Mr. Chairman, we have used that kind of excuse. We have told our parents, ''But everybody does it,'' even if everybody wasn't doing it.
My colleagues, we are not children. Allegations of corruption, influence peddling, improper use of Federal offices and buildings and illegal interference of foreign governments on American electoral politics are not child's play. Let's not treat it as such.
Mr. Chairman, in my part of the country, we have a saying, ''You can't fix tomorrow if today is broken.'' In America today, I fear that the political system may indeed have been broken, broken by a few who apparently were in search of much.
It is the duty of this committee, through these hearings, to find out who, how, and why, if at all, they were indeed broken; and only then can we work together to bring about a better tomorrow, a better tomorrow by fixing today. If the American people can't ask this much of us, then we in no way deserve the high honor that they have bestowed upon all of us.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is their House. This is their Government. We need to vigorously and solely pursue their interests by rooting out the wrong that may have been done and holding those who might have acted without faith and beyond the public trust fully responsible for the actions they chose of their own volition, in pursuit of their own self-interest.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we begin anew, I have been sitting here reminding myself that I have sat on this committee for a number of years now and that, in some sense, this is not new; that we have been investigating the Clinton administration since I got to Congress.
First it was Whitewater or Travelgate, Filegate. We had the data base discussed earlier. And now we have the campaign finance circumstance.
Now, I have looked at a lot of this information. I have participated with many others on the committee in various briefings. All of the information that has been shared up to this moment indicates that to the degree that a foreign government had intentions of influencing an election, that intention was focused at influencing congressional elections and State legislative elections. And I do note that through everything that has been said, we always hear these—these cute phrases that separate the allegation of the Chinese Government's influence and the abuses that we allege took place in the Clinton-Gore campaign. And I think it is important to note that if we are looking for information about the Chinese Government's influence on elections, we should start with the evidence that we have, and the first level of that is that they were interested in influencing the Congress.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, what made them think that they could influence the Congress through financial contributions? I am not sure. But it is, I think, of import that we, you know, we not try to cover up this very significant allegation by focusing in on our favorite target, which is President Clinton; and that we look truthfully for the answers as to what influence was trying to be purchased and with whom, and not miss this maybe very important national security issue by our obsession with going after President Clinton.
The other thing that is of note is that I saw the other day that the Governor of California, who ran for President and now is thinking about running again, suggested that the Republican party should stop trying to win the next election based on this scandal mode, chasing Bill Clinton, but perhaps there may be some other issues of national importance. And I am reminded that some of my service on this committee has been productive, and that is, under the leadership of a subcommittee chairman, Chris Shays, we investigated the whole issue of the chemical exposure of our troops in the Persian Gulf. That was important. That was important work that I thought brought appropriate respect to the work of this committee.
As we go forward now into this investigation, I would hope that we would look at, to the degree that we are looking for and searching for those who have broken the law, that we would remind ourselves—for instance, on the front page of today's Hill Newspaper, there is a significant article about an organization of funneling money into Presidential campaigns to help people avoid contribution limits.
Now, these contributions are focused at Republican candidates for Congress. So if we are looking for lawlessness, perhaps we might look at the front page of the Hill Newspaper.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Or we might look now at what Chairman Haley Barbour has said. He said he went to Hong Kong. He was on a boat in a foreign land asking for millions of dollars to help elect Republicans to the Congress in 1994. That is now a subject of a grand jury investigation. If we were looking for illegal activities, if we were concerned about foreign influences in our elections, perhaps we might look at this matter.
But seemingly the only thing that this committee is interested in doing is to somehow bring down this President, and if we can't get him on Travelgate or Filegate or the data base or campaign scandals, maybe we will get him on driving without a license.
I did note the other day in the papers that he was driving a car at a Secret Service facility, and I am not sure whether he is a licensed driver. So maybe the committee soon, after we finish with this, can investigate that.
But in the meantime, there are a number of issues related to campaign finances that should draw our attention and they don't all relate just to the Democratic party.
Thank you.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time?
Mr. FATTAH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. Does the President have a valid driver's license?
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FATTAH. I know you will look into it.
Mr. BURTON. Mr