U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

66–496 CC WASHINGTON : 2001

THE ROLE OF JOHN HUANG AND THE RIADY

FAMILY IN POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 15, 16, AND 17, 1999

Serial No. 106–142

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

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

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

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

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

KRISTI L. REMINGTON, Senior Counsel

JIM SCHUMANN, Counsel

LISA SMITH ARAFUNE, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on:

December 15, 1999 ........................................................................................... 1

December 16, 1999 ........................................................................................... 239

December 17, 1999 ........................................................................................... 417

Statement of:

Huang, John ...................................................................................................... 42

Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:

Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana:

Calls and fax transmissions from Stephens, Inc .................................... 315

Exhibit 4 ..................................................................................................... 228

Exhibit 5 ..................................................................................................... 230

Exhibit 6 ..................................................................................................... 232

Exhibit 7 ..................................................................................................... 234

Exhibit 11 ................................................................................................... 570

Exhibit 13 ................................................................................................... 575

Exhibit 15 ................................................................................................... 54

Exhibit 17 ................................................................................................... 56

Exhibit 18 ................................................................................................... 59

Exhibit 19 ................................................................................................... 61

Exhibit 20 ................................................................................................... 64

Exhibit 21 ................................................................................................... 72

Exhibit 22 ................................................................................................... 74

Exhibit 23 ................................................................................................... 76

Exhibit 24 ................................................................................................... 116

Exhibit 25 ................................................................................................... 224

Exhibit 64 ................................................................................................... 580

Exhibit 65 ................................................................................................... 589

Exhibit 67 ................................................................................................... 593

Exhibit 68 ................................................................................................... 597

Exhibit 109 ................................................................................................. 572

Exhibit 167 ................................................................................................. 318

Exhibit 168 ................................................................................................. 320

Exhibit 324 ................................................................................................. 612

Exhibit 328 ................................................................................................. 615

Exhibits 403–412 ....................................................................................... 529

Exhibit 439 ................................................................................................. 550

Exhibit 440 ................................................................................................. 559

Prepared statements of ............................................................................. 8, 242

Chenoweth-Hage, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Idaho, prepared statement of ......................................................... 237

Huang, John, prepared statement of .............................................................. 45

LaTourette, Hon. Steven C., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio:

Exhibit 316 ................................................................................................. 169

Exhibit 317 ................................................................................................. 264

Exhibit 318 ................................................................................................. 266

Exhibit 320 ................................................................................................. 268

Exhibit 323 ................................................................................................. 270

Exhibit 337 ................................................................................................. 328

Exhibit 338 ................................................................................................. 330

Exhibit 441 ................................................................................................. 375

Exhibit 442 ................................................................................................. 409

Exhibits 446–450 ....................................................................................... 440

Page

IV

Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by—Continued

LaTourette, Hon. Steven C., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio—Continued

Exhibits 452–456 ....................................................................................... 447

Exhibit 501 ................................................................................................. 352

Exhibit 502 ................................................................................................. 355

Exhibit 513 ................................................................................................. 358

Exhibit 525 ................................................................................................. 473

Exhibit 532 ................................................................................................. 475

Exhibit 537 ................................................................................................. 477

Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Florida:

Exhibit 31 ................................................................................................... 94

Exhibit 32 ................................................................................................... 153

Exhibit 33 ................................................................................................... 151

Exhibit 34 ................................................................................................... 155

Exhibit 35 ................................................................................................... 157

List of 122 individuals .............................................................................. 35

Recommendation for independent counsel by Mr. LaBella and Mr.

Freeh ....................................................................................................... 36

Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Connecticut:

Exhibit 153 ................................................................................................. 489

Exhibit 174 ................................................................................................. 508

Exhibit 192 ................................................................................................. 522

Exhibit 417 ................................................................................................. 620

Exhibit 432 ................................................................................................. 622

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana:

Articles dated July 3, 1999 and March 23, 1997 .................................... 208

Exhibit 97 ................................................................................................... 221

Exhibit 98 ................................................................................................... 278

Exhibits 99 and 100 .................................................................................. 281

Exhibit 101 ................................................................................................. 287

Exhibit 102 ................................................................................................. 290

Exhibit 103 ................................................................................................. 292

Exhibit 104 ................................................................................................. 295

Exhibit 105 ................................................................................................. 297

Exhibit 106 ................................................................................................. 300

Exhibit 107 ................................................................................................. 302

Exhibit 108 ................................................................................................. 306

Exhibit 207 ................................................................................................. 398

Exhibits 208 and 209 ................................................................................ 400

Exhibit 210 ................................................................................................. 390

Exhibit 211 ................................................................................................. 392

Exhibit 212 ................................................................................................. 394

Exhibit 378 ................................................................................................. 422

Exhibits 379 and 380 ................................................................................ 429

Expense record for John Huang ............................................................... 219

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California:

Article dated October 14, 1996 ................................................................. 81

Information concerning fines of $25,000 or more ................................... 466

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29

Wilson, James C., chief counsel, Committee on Government Reform, exhibit 354 ......................................................................................................... 636

(1)

THE ROLE OF JOHN HUANG AND THE RIADY

FAMILY IN POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:10 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Burton, Shays, Mica, Souder,

LaTourette, Waxman, and Norton.

Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; James C. Wilson, chief

counsel; David A. Kass, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; Mark

Corallo, director of communications; Kristi Remington, senior counsel; James J. Schumann and M. Scott Billingsley, counsels; Kimberly A. Reed, investigative counsel; Renee Becker, deputy press

secretary, Robert Briggs, editor and assistant clerk; Robin Butler,

office manager; Michael Canty, Toni Lightle, and Maria Tamburri,

staff assistants; Nicole Petrosino, legislative aide; Leneal Scott,

computer systems manager; Lisa Smith Arafune, chief clerk;

Corinne Zaccagnini, systems administrator; Phil Schiliro, minority

staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kenneth Ballen,

minority chief investigative counsel; Kristin Amerling, Sarah

Despres, David Sadkin, Paul Weinberger, and Michael Yang, minority counsels; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant; and Andrew Su, and Barbara Wentworth, minority research assistants.

Also present: Ty Cobb and Jack Keeney, counsel for Mr. Huang.

Mr. BURTON. Good morning. A quorum being present, the Committee on Government Reform will come to order. You may have

a seat right now, gentlemen.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ written opening

statements be included in the record; and, without objection, so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits and extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in the record,

and without objection so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that questioning in the matter under

consideration proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of House Rule 11 and

Committee Rule 14 in which the chairman and ranking minority

member allocate time to committee counsel as they deem appropriate for extended questioning not to exceed 60 minutes divided

equally between the majority and minority. Without objection, so

ordered.

2

I also ask unanimous consent that questioning in this matter

proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of House Rule 11 and Committee Rule

14 in which the chairman and ranking minority member allocate

time to members of the committee as they deem appropriate for extended questioning not to exceed 60 minutes equally divided between majority and minority. And, without objection, so ordered.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Now that we have agreed to some of these procedural matters before the committee, I read in Roll Call that you are

planning to conduct your own Internet broadcast of this and future

hearings, and I think this would be a positive development if it is

done right. I am a little surprised because you and your staff never

consulted with us about it.

As I understand the House rules, we would need unanimous consent to proceed until such time as our committee rules have been

changed to permit this in-house broadcasting of committee activities. I would not object today if we could commit together to working together, you and the minority, to amend the committee rules

to address this coverage and to provide, one, that the coverage will

be in compliance with rule 11, clause 4; two, that the coverage will

be fair and nonpartisan; and three, that the minority will have

prompt access to a copy of the coverage.

If you are willing to agree to those terms, then I will not object

to having the committee go ahead with this new Internet live

broadcast even though the rules, until they are changed, won’t permit it.

Mr. BURTON. We agree fully with that, Mr. Waxman, and it is

our intent to do that. If there has been a misunderstanding we

apologize, because we have been planning on this and working on

this for several months. One of the reasons that we want to have

the Internet coverage is, first of all, it will give the American people both the minority and the majority views on a number of

issues. It will give them complete access to our hearings. Right now

the media coverage of some of our very important hearings has

been rather limited, and in some cases the media has interpreted

things that have happened based upon their own philosophy.

We think the American people deserve the unvarnished facts in

our hearings and in our investigations, and I think they will get

that because the Internet won’t leave anything out. We will make

sure that the minority has full access to everything, that there is

fair distribution of the time allocated, as we have in the past to

both the minority and majority, and we will have the rules amended at the first opportunity when we come back in January.

Mr. WAXMAN. If the chairman would permit, I thank you for that

statement and your willingness to work together. I just have to say

for the record that it makes me nervous when any agency of government—and of course our committee is an agency of government—controls what would be sent to the media. And if we have

Internet television coverage of our hearing, and it is our people or

your people controlling who will be covered, what they say—not

what they say but who the cameras will turn on and things along

those lines—I would want us to make sure that the ground rules

3

are absolutely pinned down to be fair. I sense from what you have

said you agree with that.

Mr. BURTON. I do agree with that.

Mr. WAXMAN. And on that basis, even though the Democrats on

this committee could insist on a vote to change the rules to be

taken before we would permit this to take place, we won’t object

for today, and we will work together for future hearings.

Mr. BURTON. We thank you, Mr. Waxman. We will now proceed

with our opening statements.

I would like to welcome everybody back this afternoon. We have

a limited number of Members who are here. Obviously we are in

a holiday season and a lot of the Members have other commitments. So we are probably going to have about five or six Members

here for the questioning of Mr. Huang and his legal counsel, but

I do appreciate the Members who are here being here, and we will

try to do this as expeditiously as possible.

Because of the tremendous number of questions we have, the

hearing will probably take 3 days and possibly 4 days to complete.

I know that is not good news for everybody, but we haven’t had the

opportunity to talk to Mr. Huang or his counsel for about 3 years

now, and since we have the opportunity, we want to make sure we

make good use of it and complete it as thoroughly as possible.

I would like to thank you once again for being here. I know your

schedules in your districts are very full with all the holiday celebration. So I appreciate you being here.

For those of you who are following these hearings, this hearing

is happening during the recess, and as I said, you won’t see as

many Members of the Congress here as you would when we are in

session. However, I expect other Members to join us as we get underway, and they will be coming in and out because of their schedules.

This is a very important hearing. We have been waiting for 3

years to hear Mr. Huang’s testimony. For the last 3 years Mr.

Huang has been 1 of 122 people who have invoked the fifth amendment or left the country. In our interim report which we filed over

a year ago, we noted that 17 people associated with Mr. Huang had

either taken the fifth or left the country. The result has been a lot

of unanswered questions. These are questions that the American

people deserve to get answered.

We voted to grant Mr. Huang immunity in October. He is here

today to testify and tell his story and answer questions. In my

view, it is better late than never. And, Mr. Huang, we welcome you

and appreciate you being here.

I want to say just a couple of things about how we are going to

proceed. This is going to take some time. We are going to be at this

for several days. We have a large amount of material to go

through, and there just isn’t any quick and easy way to do it. I

plan to work into the evenings if necessary, and I plan to go into

the weekend if we have to. This is probably the first and only time

that John Huang will testify in public, and we have an obligation

to be thorough.

In many ways this is going to be more like a deposition than a

hearing. Anyone who has sat through a lengthy deposition knows

4

that it can be tedious at times, but I think it is necessary to get

this information on the record.

Normally, before we hold a hearing we have our staffs interview

a witness. In previous sessions, our staffs had deposition authority.

That was not extended during this Congress, because at the time

we initiated and instituted this Congress we didn’t think it was

necessary, and when we have staff interviews or depositions our

staff goes over all of the issues with a witness in advance. That

way, by the time we get to a hearing, we can focus on the most

relevant facts. We have not been able to do that this time.

At the time that we voted to immunize Mr. Huang, Mr. Waxman

asked that we do all of the questioning in public and I agreed to

do that.

So this is going to be a unique situation. We don’t know in advance what the answers to many of the questions are going to be.

We have an idea because we have received the FBI’s interviews.

However, they didn’t cover all of the issues that we need to cover.

At times I think this will be very interesting and at other times

it is sure going to be monotonous. However, we have been working

on this for 3 years. We have waited a long time, and I think we

need to be as thorough as possible and I want to thank everyone

in advance for bearing with us.

Before I talk about the substance of the hearing, I want to talk

for a moment about the scheduling problems we have had. They

could have been avoided and what happened last week left me a

little frustrated.

My staff has talked for over a month with Mr. Huang’s lawyers,

and we had planned to start these hearings yesterday, for many

weeks. It wasn’t until last week after we noticed the hearing dates

that Mr. Keeney informed us that Mr. Huang was scheduled to testify before a grand jury in Los Angeles yesterday. It was clear that

this appearance had been planned well in advance, and I don’t understand why we didn’t know about this earlier, but nevertheless

we are here today.

Members of Congress had canceled events in their districts to be

here yesterday. I had a subcommittee chairman who wanted to

hold a hearing yesterday, and we had to cancel that. So we had

that hearing delayed until next year, and unfortunately, because of

Mr. Huang’s testimony before the grand jury yesterday, he had to

fly all night on the red eye. He looks no worse for wear, but it must

have been a tough night for him.

Most people think that this foreign fundraising scandal began in

1995 or 1996. It did not. This scandal was born in the summer of

1992. Bill Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas, and he was running for President. James Riady was a billionaire living in Indonesia. Mr. Riady flew from Jakarta to Los Angeles in August 1992.

He took a limousine ride with then-Governor Bill Clinton. He

promised to raise $1 million for Bill Clinton’s campaign. That set

in motion a pattern of illegal activity that was repeated over and

over again in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996.

Foreign money was funneled to straw donors. Straw donors gave

money to the DNC and other campaigns. Campaign officials

claimed to have no idea anything suspicious was going on. It happened time and time again with John Huang, James Riady, Charlie

5

Trie, Pauline Kanchanalak, Ted Sioeng, Johnny Chung, and Mark

Jimenez.

The DNC ultimately returned more than $31⁄2 million in illegal

money, and I noted that in the New York Times today it indicated

that money was not illegal, but—I can’t remember the exact word,

‘‘improper’’—those were illegal contributions. Not improper, they

were illegal.

John Huang’s name and Charlie Trie’s name were connected to

most of it. Since then we have uncovered more illegal foreign

money that the DNC still hasn’t returned. In the fall of 1992 Mr.

Riady worked with Mr. Huang to funnel about $200,000 through

Lippo bank employees. It then went to the DNC, and it also went

to some State Democrat parties, including California, Michigan,

Ohio, and Missouri. Normally you wouldn’t think that an Indonesia

businessman would think of directing contributions to Missouri.

Who was steering this money to all these States? That is one of the

things that we want to find out.

When we published our interim report last fall, we published

bank records and memorabilia that showed the contributions were

illegal. To my knowledge, not a penny of that money was returned

by any of those campaign committees.

More illegal money was given through the Lippo Group in 1993

and 1994. In 1996 the DNC received $450,000 from an Indonesian

couple named Wiriadinata. Forgive me if I don’t pronounce all

these names correctly. The money came from Indonesia, from a

close associate of Mr. Riady. Mr. Huang was listed as the solicitor

of these contributions. This is one of the many issues we will be

asking him about this week.

The big question is why? Why did James Riady want to raise $1

million for Bill Clinton’s campaign? When you add it all up, the

Riadys and their associates gave almost $2 million to the President’s campaign and his other causes. Why? Did they like his

health care plan? Did they admire his position on social security?

I doubt it.

There was an interesting passage in John Huang’s FBI 302 interviews. They were talking about the $100,000 that Mr. Riady gave

to Webster Hubbell. Mr. Huang was asked if there was a purpose

behind this money. He responded, ‘‘everything has a purpose.’’ I

don’t know exactly what he meant. That is one of the things we

want to ask him about this week.

I doubt that we are going to get all of the answers today. I don’t

know if Mr. Huang has all of the answers. We reviewed John

Huang’s FBI 302 interviews. If there is a reason or a purpose behind all this money, I didn’t see it there.

If we really want to get the answers, we need to talk to James

Riady. He needs to testify. Mr. Riady hasn’t set foot in this country

in 3 years. I understand from media reports that his lawyers are

trying to negotiate a plea agreement with the Justice Department.

From what I understand, Mr. Riady wants to clear away his legal

problems so he can come back into the United States. If he wants

to come back to the United States, the first thing he should do is

come forward and explain his role in this whole fiasco to the American people. I think they deserve some answers.

6

It is clear to me that the Justice Department had enough evidence to indict Mr. Riady a long time ago. I don’t know why he

hasn’t been indicted. The Attorney General made a decision 2 years

ago not to appoint an independent counsel. She invited a lot of

scrutiny when she did that. We will be watching very closely to see

if Mr. Riady gets a sweetheart deal.

I know what kind of deals Republicans got from Janet Reno’s

Justice Department. There was a man named Simon Fireman. He

funneled about $120,000 to the Bob Dole for President campaign.

He got a $6 million fine. There is a company by the name of Empire Sanitary Landfill. They gave $129,000 in illegal contributions

to Republican campaigns. They were fined $8 million. Another Republican who was responsible for fewer illegal conduit contributions than Mr. Huang got a $5 million fine. Unlike Mr. Huang,

both of the Republicans got terms of detention.

We will just have to wait and see what happens with Mr. Riady.

The fact that James Riady hasn’t been able to come back into the

country has not stopped him from keeping in touch with the President. He showed up when the President was in New Zealand for

an economic conference in September, and the meeting was captured on videotape.

Because Mr. Riady has thumbed his nose at the campaign finance investigation, we wondered why the President would greet

him so warmly and how he could get a seat of honor at an event

the President attended. We asked the White House about the meeting, and they were quick to supply two tapes that the White House

photographer took, and I would like for you to see the tapes from

the White House right now.

[Videotape played.]

Mr. BURTON. OK. That is the end of tape one, and as you can

see, it doesn’t look like much happened. As a matter of fact, when

the tape panned back to the President, he had just passed Mr.

Riady, and he hadn’t really—it doesn’t show him making much contact with him, and you do see a long shot of the wall over there

where the TV cameras were. So let us take a look at tape two the

White House sent us.

[Videotape played.]

Mr. BURTON. Now, you notice that the tape stopped just as Mr.

Clinton approached Mr. Riady.

Now, I would like for you to see tape three. This tape came from

a source not connected with the White House.

[Videotape played.]

Mr. BURTON. That shows a little different picture. The White

House tapes don’t show it, but President Clinton really did pay

some special attention to Mr. Riady. This White House is so consumed with covering things up that their taxpayer-funded photographer wouldn’t even allow a tape to be made of the President

shaking Mr. Riady’s hand. No one minded the President meeting

Mr. Riady. They just didn’t want anyone to know how warmly he

was greeted because of the problems surrounding Mr. Riady.

Did the President ask Mr. Riady to come back and explain his

role in this scandal? I don’t think so. The White House has never

shown an intense desire to get all the facts out. The President

7

should ask Mr. Riady and all the other people who have stayed out

of the country to come back and explain their actions.

Some people say the American people don’t care anymore, that

they don’t want to know the facts. Well, I don’t think that is true,

but the fact of the matter is we have a responsibility on this committee to get to the bottom of it, because illegal campaign contributions coming from foreign sources and foreign governments were

given to influence the outcome of the elections in 1996 and 1992.

I think the American people really want to know if foreign governments and foreign individuals are trying to influence our elections. I think they want to know who their government is beholden

to. I think we have an obligation to finish what we started. We

have an obligation to the history books to get the facts on the

record.

Now, Mr. Huang, I have reviewed your opening statement and

I read part of it in the New York Times today, and I can’t let it

go by without some comment. You make it sound like people who

are trying to get the facts out are somehow being unfair to Asian

Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to

make it crystal clear. Nothing in this committee’s work should be

interpreted as a slight on Asian Americans or any other ethnic

group. There should be no roadblocks to the participation of any

American regardless of their ethnicity in our political system. I am

very sympathetic to innocent people whose lives have been hurt by

the campaign finance scandal, but again, let me make it clear we

have had to talk to a lot of people, and the Department of Justice

has had to talk to a lot of people because you encouraged them to

give contributions, which was breaking the law, because they

looked up to you and because they trusted you.

Mr. Huang, you were the vice chair for the finance committee at

the Democrat National Committee. You are a very sophisticated

player in the U.S. political system. You understand it. You knew

the law, and when you decided to break the law, you caused a lot

of people to be hurt, and most of them unfortunately were Asian

Americans. I really hope you will not try to blame the Justice Department or the Congress for things that you are responsible for.

We have a lot of work to do. There are many, many issues that

we want to question you about, Mr. Huang. I haven’t even touched

on most of them here. In the interest of time, I won’t now.

Let me once again thank you for being here, Mr. Huang, and I

want to thank members of the committee who traveled during the

holiday to be with us here as well, and Mr. Waxman, I will yield

to you for an opening statement.

[NOTE.—The FBI interview and summary of John Huang is

printed at the end of the hearing.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to waive my statement today, but I thought more about this hearing, and I thought

about it and I realized that it was important to make some facts

and observations for the record and certainly part of the record for

this hearing.

The Burton investigation started in 1996 after the L.A. Times,

the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC,

CNN and other media sources broke stories about campaign irregularities in the 1996 Presidential campaign. In the past 38 months,

this committee has uncovered little new, but we have settled into

a familiar and predictable pattern.

Phase one begins with the chairman making a sensational and

unsubstantiated allegation. After that, a newspaper headline follows, and then we move into phase two, when Mr. Burton pledges

he won’t rest until he gets the facts because the American people

have a right to know.

Phase three involves getting the facts, which invariably don’t

support the original allegations made in phase one. Now this is a

problem.

Phase four solves the phase three problem. That is when the

chairman accuses the White House, the President, Janet Reno, the

Justice Department or Democrats on this committee of

stonewalling, obstructing justice or covering up, and Mr. Burton

generally says he won’t stop until he gets what he wants because

the American people have a right to know.

Phase five is always interesting because that is when the White

House, the Justice Department or the FBI capitulates, and we actually receive the information, what was said to be a smoking gun,

but just as in phase three, that material never seems to support

the original allegations.

At that point we enter phase six. Forget the original allegations,

forget the facts, pretend it never happened and don’t admit a mistake. Instead, make new, sensational and unsubstantiated allegations. Go back to phase one and hope no one ever notices.

There has never been a congressional investigation quite like

this one. In 3 years, Chairman Burton has unilaterally issued over

883 subpoenas. Now, let me repeat that because it is really quite

unprecedented: 883 subpoenas related to the campaign finance investigation. To fully appreciate how astounding that is, consider

that from 1960 to 1994, not a single chairman of any House committee ever issued a unilateral subpoena. It is simply amazing.

Mr. Burton tries to rationalize this by claiming he has been

blocked at every turn, but the fact is that the committee has received over 1.5 million pages of documents and deposed over 160

witnesses. Now, the chairman indicated that in the past he has deposed the witnesses before he ever had the hearing, but today we

are hearing from Mr. Huang without that deposition preceding the

hearing. Of those precisely 161 people who have been deposed by

the committee, only 15 were ever brought to a public hearing. That

meant the rest had to go behind closed doors to be questioned over

and over and over again about every detail, some of which did not

even relate to the campaign finance investigation.

Could you imagine being called before a congressional committee

and being forced to answer questions behind closed doors about

25

every possible thing that the attorneys that work for this committee might think could be useful to try to trip you up or someone

else up?

Well, Mr. Burton asked this committee to immunize 12 witnesses. Now, the committee Democrats have immunized all 12 witnesses. The reason that is significant is that the committee needs

a two-thirds vote, so they need our votes to immunize witnesses,

and we have gone along in every instance, even in cases where it

didn’t make much sense. The committee has had a virtually unlim- ited budget. We have spent over $7 million in the last Congress

alone, and we don’t know the full figures for this one. What do we

have to show for this, aside from the fact that we are now hearing

from Mr. Huang? The Washington Post wrote that the investigation ‘‘runs the risk of becoming its own cartoon, a joke and a deserved embarrassment.’’ The New York Times called it ‘‘A parody

of a reputable investigation,’’ and Norm Ornstein noted it was, ‘‘A

case study in how not to do a congressional investigation.’’ Reputations have been recklessly smeared. Some of those

smeared have been public figures like Bruce Babbitt, Maggie Williams, Hazel O’Leary, Cheryl Mills and Janet Reno. Others have

been ordinary citizens like Professor Chi Wang, whose bank

records were erroneously subpoenaed, or Chief Petty Officer

Charles McGrath, the career military officer in charge of the office

that was falsely accused of doctoring White House videotapes, and

Colonel Raymond Wilson, another career officer who was wrongly

accused of witness intimidation and mob tactics for trying to respond to a legitimate Senate inquiry. Even those who have done

something wrong, like Webster Hubbell and John Huang, end up

in the strange position of being wronged themselves when our committee gets involved.

On October 9, 1997, for instance, when Mr. Burton held his first

hearing with a supposed blockbuster witness David Wang, the

chairman promised that if Mr. Wang were granted immunity and

permitted to testify, his testimony would show that John Huang,

who is here today with us, illegally laundered campaign contributions while a DNC official. As the chairman put it, ‘‘This is the first

time we have found an active person at the DNC who was involved

in money laundering, and we will be able to prove that.’’

Once granted immunity, Mr. Wang confessed to an illegal tax

and immigration scheme that was far more serious than his conduit contribution violation, but he was immunized so no prosecution could be taken against him. Even worse, the testimony he gave

to the committee about John Huang was demonstrably false. His

account was factually wrong and was debunked as he appeared before our committee.

To this day, however, Mr. Burton refuses to acknowledge his mistake and admit that his allegations about John Huang in that particular instance were wrong.

Now, if we don’t have a committee owning up to correct the

record, let’s just at least look to the example set by the Wall Street

Journal. They ran an article last week, December 9th, ‘‘Highly Publicized Horror Story That Led To Curbs On IRS Quietly Unravels

in Virginia Civil Court.’’ And, in this particular instance there was

testimony in the Senate about how an IRS agent stormed this

26

man’s home and restaurant amid a misguided criminal inquiry.

Well, when they finally got into a trial, it became clear that those

inflammatory statements made in a Senate hearing turned out to

be inaccurate.

If this investigation has a redeeming feature, perhaps it is that

future congressional investigations will have a model of what not

to do.

The Burton investigation has suffered from at least five fundamental flaws that future chairmen should avoid at all costs.

First, tread carefully when making allegations. I just mentioned

the David Wang fiasco, but that is not the only unsubstantiated allegation made about John Huang. In April 1997, Newt Gingrich,

who was Speaker of the House of Representatives, alleged that,

‘‘John Huang was clearly being given secrets while going to the

Chinese embassy.’’ Mr. Burton suggested on national television

that Mr. Huang, ‘‘May very well have given information that he

shouldn’t to the Chinese and others,’’ and he could be a Chinese

spy. Well, 2 years have passed, and there is still no evidence to

support these over-the-top accusations, but they have resulted in

over 7,000 news stories about Mr. Huang, and in a strange and unfortunate way, by raising the stakes, they have actually ended up

minimizing the serious violations that Mr. Huang actually committed.

Instead of recklessly crying treason, we could have worked together on a bipartisan basis to shine a spotlight on conduit contributions, but we didn’t.

Partisanship is the obvious second flaw of this investigation.

Congressional investigations need to be bipartisan to be credible,

and all wrongdoing, Democratic or Republican, has to be on the

table. When this investigation began, I offered to work with the

chairman in a bipartisan way with no holds barred. We would have

looked at campaign finance abuses, following the facts to wherever

they may lead, whether they be from Democrats or Republicans, let

us find out how this system is being abused, and, from my perspective, change what I think is an inherently rotten campaign finance

system.

Well, the chairman rejected that offer. I mentioned earlier that,

to date, Mr. Burton has issued 883 subpoenas. 874 of those subpoenas have been issued to Democratic targets, and only 9 have been

sent to Republican targets. The fact is that the Burton investigation won’t ask any questions about Republican wrongdoing.

Last August every Democrat on this committee sent Mr. Burton

a letter asking that we investigate a serious conduit contribution

scheme that involved Tom DeLay, one of the most powerful Members of the House, No. 3 in the Republican House leadership. A Republican businessman, Peter Cloeren, admitted to participating in

a conduit scheme that he said was suggested to him by Mr. DeLay.

Mr. Cloeren provided specific and credible information that deserved further scrutiny. Not one subpoena has been issued, no documents have been requested, and no hearings have been scheduled.

Remarkably, Mr. Burton has never even had the courtesy to respond to our letters.

Now, it is important to keep in mind that the illegal scheme that

Mr. Cloeren participated in was indistinguishable from the one Mr.

27

Huang participated in. The only difference was that it involved Republicans.

I know some people believe there is more than partisanship at

work. They genuinely believe that there is a clear anti-Asian bias

and that Mr. Huang has received such extraordinary scrutiny and

has been accused of treason without evidence to back it up simply

because he is Asian. Those feelings only deepened when one Republican Senator called Charlie Trie’s actions, ‘‘Classic activities on the

part of an Asian who comes out of that culture,’’ and a House Republican joked that we found only, ‘‘The tip of the egg roll.’’

And people are genuinely puzzled why Mr. Huang is being singled out to testify for an unprecedented 4 days on conduit contributions where the FEC has investigated literally hundreds of individuals for similar violations over the past several years. Some believe

it is simply partisanship. Some see a clear anti-Asian bias. Whether it is partisanship or bias, it is wrong. A credible investigation

can’t be selective.

The Burton investigation’s third flaw is inexcusable—incompetence. One Republican committee member called it frightening.

Sometimes the mistakes, such as staking out the homes of innocent

individuals, have been simply embarrassing. At other times, they

are almost comical. When the chairman released doctored transcripts of Webb Hubbell’s telephone conversations from prison, the

doctored transcript quoted Mr. Hubbell as saying, ‘‘the Riady is not

just—excuse me, the Riady is just not easy to do business with me

while I am in here.’’ That was the quote in the transcript released

by the committee. The actual tape, of course, was significantly different. What Mr. Hubbell actually said was ‘‘the reality is it is just

not easy to do business with me while I am here.’’ Never mentioned

Riady at all. The bottom line is that careless mistakes undermine

credibility. Just as important, booing and fulminating should never

replace genuine investigating.

Our fourth mistake is that the committee has often used tactics

intended to punish and intimidate witnesses into providing information. Witnesses who don’t do what the chairman wants are routinely subpoenaed and threatened with contempt even if they have

legitimate reasons for their actions. One witness who crossed the

chairman was humiliated in a public hearing simply for asserting

his fifth amendment constitutional rights.

Last, future investigators should not fall in love with their theories of wrongdoing. The biggest problem in this investigation is

that Chairman Burton has been convinced from the start that he

knew what happened. As the chairman said in one revealing interview, ‘‘if I could prove 10 percent of what I believe happened, the

President would be gone. That is why I am after him.’’ And each

time the evidence hasn’t panned out, it has only made him more

sure he is right, and it seems to have convinced him that everyone

is in a conspiracy against him: the White House, Janet Reno, me,

other Democrats on the committee.

In recent weeks it has even extended to the media. Despite the

fact that it has been investigative reporters from the networks and

other major newspapers that have uncovered the scandal, Mr. Burton doesn’t think he is getting enough attention. He has accused

28

the press of ignoring his work and keeping the facts from the

American people. So now the media is also part of the conspiracy.

As a result, the chairman has spent thousands of taxpayers’ dollars installing this new camera system in this committee room so

he can broadcast the hearings himself. His staff calls the expensive

new system—at least they were quoted as calling it in the press— ‘‘Dan-SPAN.’’ Some of you who have closely followed the history of this investigation will remember that last year the chairman directed his

staff to build a fake brick wall in the committee room. That, too,

wasted taxpayers’ dollars. It ended up ruining one of the walls in

this room, and then the taxpayers had to foot the bill to repair the

wall. I don’t know if the new camera system will be worth the

thousands of taxpayers’ dollars we are spending on it, but it does

seem to be yet another indication of lost perspective.

I want to thank everyone for their patience in allowing me to

make my observations part of the record, and I want to close with

a final word about Mr. Huang.

Mr. Huang, I think you owe the American people an apology for

the conduit scheme you participated in. No matter how many mistakes the Burton investigation has made, nothing excuses your illegal conduct, and I hope you will take full responsibility for your actions today, and if any evidence surfaces that supports the most

sensational charges against you, I won’t hesitate to join Mr. Burton

in condemning those actions. At the same time, if there is no evidence to support allegations of money laundering, spying and treason, all of which you have been accused of, I hope the chairman

and others will acknowledge that fact and correct any false statements that they have made.

I thank you for this chance to make these opening statements.

I look forward to hearing your testimony. I am prepared, Mr.

Chairman, to be here at these hearings as long as you plan to hold

them.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

29

30

31

32

33

34

Mr. BURTON. Well, I am happy for that, Mr. Waxman. I just

might say before I yield to Mr. Mica for an opening statement that

the length of the hearings would not have been necessary had we

had the staffs being able to interview these people, interview Mr.

Huang. Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, could you let us know exactly how

much time we will have? Are we going to have 5 or 10 to start?

Mr. BURTON. We are going to go on the 5-minute rule. We wanted to go on 10-minute rounds to be more thorough, but Mr. Waxman insisted on 5-minute rounds. So we will start with that.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. You are not talking about the opening statements,

are you?

Mr. BURTON. The opening statement, we will allow some latitude

there, but in the questioning it is 5 minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN. I think the gentleman has been recognized for an

opening statement. I assume those are generally for Members 5

minutes.

Mr. BURTON. They generally are. Unless you object, we will try

to give the Members a little latitude since we don’t have as many

Members here.

Mr. WAXMAN. I won’t object, but I think that was the answer to

what I thought the gentleman was asking. Then when we get into

the questioning of Mr. Huang, as I understand it, we have agreed

to a half hour on the Republican side and a half hour on the Democratic side for Mr. Burton and myself, a half hour on the Republican side for the staff, a half hour on our side for the staff, and

then after that we will follow the regular order of 5-minute questioning.

Mr. BURTON. The half hour, as far as the staff is concerned, does

not necessarily have to follow right after ours. So we will go directly to the Members after the half hour.

Mr. WAXMAN. Those are the rules. We are going to follow the

rules.

Mr. BURTON. That is fine.

Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for clarifying the time allocation.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would

like to ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the record

some documents and information. First of all, just to clarify the

record, I think it is important that we list at this point in the

record, particularly after the remarks of the other side in their

opening comments, the list of I believe 122 individuals who either

fled the country or pled the fifth amendment, and the correct number and that listing I would like inserted in the record.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

35

36

Mr. MICA. Furthermore, I would like in the record inserted, I

heard from the opening statement of—again, the minority referred

to 883 witnesses called by this committee in our investigation.

From the hearing in which we had Director Freeh and I believe

Mr. LaBella and other appearances before us, they told us in fact

that they had subpoenaed more or as many witnesses as we had,

and I would like that correct number from the record.

Mr. BURTON. Let me correct—— Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object, I didn’t say 883 witnesses. I said 883 subpoenas.

Mr. MICA. Subpoenas, I am sorry.

Mr. BURTON. I think that is what Mr. Mica is referring to, but

we will correct that.

Mr. MICA. They did in fact say that they issued more, if not as

many, as we did.

We also asked the question—I would like that made a part of the

record—about the proportion between Republicans and Democrats,

and I believe that is also contained in this record and in a statement by the FBI. I would like that entered into the record at this

point.

I would also like to have entered into the record the recommendation of both the chief investigator, Mr. LaBella, and the

Director of FBI, their recommendation for an independent counsel,

which is also contained in this record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[NOTE.—The information referred to was received after the hearing, and is printed at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. MICA. I would also like to have entered into the record the

exact statement and my question in response from the FBI Director

in hearings before this committee that never before had he seen

anything on the scale of the activity that had taken place that we

were investigating. The only place I believe—and I would like his

exact response inserted in the record—was with his dealing in the

investigation of the mob, and I would like those exact words put

into the statement at this point.

Mr. BURTON. Are you talking about Louis Freeh, the FBI Director?

Mr. MICA. Yes, his statement.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Freeh, over 65 people have invoked the fifth amendment or fled

the country in the course of the committee’s investigation. Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any matter in which you have prosecuted

or on which you have been involved?

Mr. FREEH. Actually, I have.

Mr. BURTON. You have. Give me a run-down on that quickly.

Mr. FREEH. I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New York City,

and many people were frequently unavailable.

Mr. BURTON. So was that the only time you experienced something like that?

Mr. FREEH. It went on for quite a while.

Mr. BURTON. So the only time that you experienced anything like this was when

you were investigating an organized crime syndicate.

Mr. FREEH. There have been cases, certainly. You asked me about my experience.

Mr. MICA. This is an important hearing, and why are we here

in December a few weeks before the holiday season or during the

holiday season for, many people may wonder. The fact is that never

37

before in the history of an investigation in Congress has there been

anything of the scope of corruption of illegal activities of destruction and misuse of the campaign process. We have also been delayed by an unprecedented blocking of information, disappearance

of witnesses, a lack of cooperation, again unprecedented in the history of congressional investigations.

The other reason we are here is that there have been supposed

investigations and there have been active investigations going on

to this date and we have been kept from witnesses and from those

we have attempted to learn the details of what went on until this

date.

Those are some of the reasons that we are here at this late juncture. I believe it is absolutely critical that we are here and that we

continue to conduct this because never before has the system to

elect the Chief Executive Officer of this Nation, has the system

been so corrupted and the trail of money, whether it is foreign contributions or conduit payments or whatever, but this has really destroyed public trust and confidence in our electoral process and

particularly for the highest office of the land.

So I think it is critical that we, one, expose the holes; two, that

we find out what were the controlling legal authorities and, if they

aren’t there, that we make certain we put them in place; and,

three, that we disclose violations of law and of that process that is

so sacred, that defines our very way of life, in having a Chief Executive Officer elected by the people and a Congress that holds the

whole process accountable and a committee and subcommittee that

I participate in that conducts investigations and oversight so that

our system can be responsible, work and that the American people

can have faith in that system.

So with those comments, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance

of my time.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Mica.

Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will open with a brief

explanation from my standpoint of what I think we have seen these

last frustrating 5 years. And one of the questions is, what is really

important? What are we trying to get at?

And sometimes when we bring a witness forward, we don’t necessarily find what we were wondering, what might be there. Sometimes it seems that the administration is protecting lower-level witnesses under the guise of ongoing investigations when we are looking at some really critical fundamental things.

For example, I was one frustrated Member of Congress during

the impeachment debate because there is redacted materials that

had direct bearing on that impeachment debate, and we didn’t

bring them forth because our side thought that the President lying

about sex with some little girl was more important than getting to

some fundamental things and because there were ongoing investigations.

And this type of frustration to me leads—and I think many

American people are getting frustrated. What we know is, a fact is,

that our national secrets went to China. We don’t know how they

got there. We know decisions were made that were incorrect, and

we don’t know how they got there. We don’t know whether any inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
38

dividual did it, which individuals, which connections of individuals,

but we know that certain things have happened in this country.

And part of our responsibility is not to focus on little bits and

pieces. And this is what some of our side does tend to exaggerate

on individual cases or get overexcited.

During the impeachment process, one Member of the Republican

party said that the Freeh and LaBella memos alleged that it led

to the President of the United States, which then was discredited

because that’s not what the Freeh and LaBella memos said. What

the Freeh and LaBella memos said, which was damning enough,

was that they believed that there had been a deliberate separation

of the campaign finance investigations so that, just like Nixon

asked the Justice Department to do under Watergate, there could

not be an attempt to see what levels this went up to, and it could

have lead to the Vice President or the President, but they didn’t

know because there had been a deliberate attempt to see how all

the pieces fit together.

That is the problem with the 122 people who fled is we don’t

know how the pieces went together. That’s the problem with people

taking the fifth amendment. The fifth amendment says you can’t

incriminate yourself. Well, if you don’t have anything to incriminate yourself, you’re not likely to plead the fifth amendment. Now,

whether it’s the matter we are asking is a different question. But

the fact is if you take the fifth amendment, presumably you have

got something you don’t want to incriminate yourself.

We have had 122 people to do that. It’s been a village that won’t

talk. It has been a very frustrating process to the American people

and to us. Quite frankly, I don’t think that what we are likely to

hear in the next few days is going to lead us to any sweeping conclusions about any of the major questions. It’s just another piece.

What I saw in reading the 120 pages that I have gone through

so far is the seamy side of campaign finance. It is not like other

Members of Congress, other Presidents.

To compare what went on in this White House to other Presidents and what goes on day to day here, which is bad enough, and

I was hoping that these hearings, quite frankly, our committee and

Thompson’s hearings over time would lead to changes in campaign

finance laws, but they didn’t because they were blocked, because

instead we got into partisanship, and there wasn’t—because people

didn’t want to acknowledge that the origination of the year-round

campaign in this administration led to a different approach to campaign finance.

It is like comparing the flu to cancer, because with the yearround campaigns, with the taking of occasional use of the Lincoln

bedroom into a constant hotel, taking occasional breakfasts to constant breakfasts, taking radio broadcasts that occasionally brought

in contributors to a cash event almost every time, to taking a group

of people like the Asians—we are not the racists, it is the people

who told the Asians that the only way they could get positions in

the administration, the only way they could get to a radio address,

the only way they could get to the Lincoln bedroom was to give

money. That is the racist approach. And that we took it from

what—when you can get it in the election year, people are focussed

on the election, but when you go year round, the off year is when

39

it’s hard to raise money. And in the off year when you are raising

money, when you don’t have an election, then you have to ask what

did the people want.

And when we see money coming in from Chinese intelligence officials through some people, through the Riadys and Indonesian interests and other people, through other people who may want a

change in a lower-level decision on Indian casinos, we have every

right in the world to have investigations and say what is happening inside this administration; that all sorts of decisions seem to

be being made for monetary reasons.

And that part of my concern in pursuing this is that there isn’t

an Alex Butterfield who had a tape that was unedited going on. It’s

not clear we would ever learn what happened in Watergate if he

hadn’t popped out at a congressional hearing that there was a tape.

It may be history will have to take until we hear people writing

books for money and coming through, because we are just going at

the edges.

And I think we are going to hear a number of days of very disappointing testimony about how our U.S. Government works, and

it sickens my stomach. And I hope that part of this will clean it

up, and it will be a lesson to future Presidents. Do not let your administration become what this administration became.

I yield back.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, not only for conducting this hearing, but also for granting me the time.

I would tell you that, although having the opportunity to see you

and the distinguished ranking member at yet another fundraising

investigation right before the millennium is a source of great joy.

My excitement is tempered, however. It is tempered for the reasons

that have already been spoken about by you, Mr. Waxman, Mr.

Souder, Mr. Mica, that precious little has been revealed in these

hearings; and I think through no want of trying on behalf of a

number of the members of the committee.

And I would suggest that there are a number of reasons for that

result. I think clearly the fact that there have been so many people

who have expressed a strong desire to be a participant in our political process by funneling cash into campaigns, but have been unwilling participants in our judicial system and have fled the long

arm of the law and have obfuscated, have stonewalled, have chosen

to leave the country, or who have sought refuge under what is certainly permissible, the fifth amendment of the Constitution, has

made this an exceedingly difficult and in many cases a painful

process for people who are interested in finding out what happened

in the last election and the election before that.

Also the pace of the investigations and queries by the Department of Justice, the choices that they have made at the Department of Justice, the timing, the decisions or the nondecisions, I

think, has given at least this Member the impression that Lady

Justice is not only blind, but in some instances deaf and dumb as

well.

And, finally, the conduct of this committee that Mr. Waxman

talked about. I really think that we have missed a golden opportunity to punish a number of people that deserve to be punished

40

for blatantly, blatantly violating the campaign laws of this country.

And I don’t think it’s confined to either side. I listened intently to

Mr. Waxman, and apparently Republicans, and Republicans on this

committee, are bad guys and gals because of what we have done

over the last 3 or 4 years. But I will tell you that there are some

on this side that want to get the President at all costs. Well that’s

stupid. Likewise, there are people on his aisle that want to protect

the President at all costs. That’s likewise as stupid.

The purpose of this investigation is to follow the money, and if

the money goes to the President of the United States, then he and

everybody in his wake should be punished. Likewise, if it stops at

a certain level, it stops at a certain level.

And I think today’s hearing is a perfect example, with all due respect to the distinguished ranking member, of how our priorities

are misguided.

I think that we have a witness before us today who, although a

number of things have been said about him, regardless of whether

he is a good guy, bad guy, the fact of the matter is he has pleaded

guilty to, I believe, about a million seven in conduit contributions

improperly made to political campaigns in this country. He has a

great deal of information, from reviewing his FBI testimony, about

the enlightened way that the Democratic National Committee has

raised money from noncitizens in the last election.

It is my understanding that, rather than having a hearing where

we could ask laser-like questions wherein the answers would be illuminating to not only the U.S. Congress but also the people in this

country, instead we are going to have 4 days of a full deposition

of Mr. Huang, creating great expense and inconvenience to not only

him, but to the committee, when this could have been handled by

a briefing by the competent staff of both Members.

And then, quite frankly, Mr. Waxman, and I will be glad to yield

to you, you made it sound as if our staff, your staff and the majority’s staff, take these folks into a room with a bare light bulb and

rubber hose and beat the snot out of them. That is not the way this

thing happens.

The fact of the matter is that the lawyers that work for you and

Mr. Burton and the majority are competent, professional people,

who I think have done the best that they can.

Since I have used your name, I will be happy to yield to you.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you very much for the courtesy of yielding

to me. Let me tell you how the rules were changed in the depositions. The rules were changed—it used to be the Republicans’ side

would ask questions of a witness in a deposition for a half hour.

Then the Democrats would have a half hour, then the Republicans

a half hour. Well, the rules were changed, and the new rules said

the Democrats have to sit there however long it may take until the

Republicans ask every question they might possibly want to ask,

and that amounted to hours. And then if we had time, Democrats

were permitted to ask questions.

Questions were asked to witnesses that were absolutely improper—about their drug use, their personal lives—that had nothing to do about campaign finance issues. They objected. We objected. And then the chairman said, well, the witness had to answer the question. A witness under those circumstances had to

41

take his or her chance that this committee wouldn’t hold them in

contempt of Congress. It was just far easier to answer whatever

questions were asked. People were abused.

And, again, 161 people went in for depositions. Only 15 ever

came before the committee that had something worthwhile to say

in open hearings.

I think the American people, if you really want to let them know

the truth, let’s have these questions asked in public. And if they’re

abusive questions, let the public see that abusive questions are

being asked.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you, and if I can take back my time

because I only get 5 minutes unlike the other distinguished members of the committee, the ranking member and chairman.

I just want to indicate there were 161 people who went in. They

all came out, to my knowledge. None of them are missing in action,

and all of them have survived. It is also my understanding that the

Democratic side may not have used their time in the travel office

investigation to ask questions.

Last, I think the point I am trying to make is we should be able

to do better than that on both sides of the aisle.

The last thing I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is the notion which

has already come up, and I think will come up rather early in the

witness’s written statement as I reviewed it, is that somehow the

notion that investigating individuals who improperly channel conduit contributions illegally to political campaigns in this country is

responsible for hate crimes in this country is horse dung.

I thank you very much, and I yield back my time.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearings.

And, Mr. Huang, it’s good to have you here.

We had 121 witnesses who have failed to cooperate with the committee based on a number of reasons. They fled the country. They

just simply didn’t answer questions, and we didn’t want to pull

them before the committee. And the vast majority used their fifth

amendment rights not to have self-incriminating testimony. That

was 122. Now we can say we have 121 who are failing to cooperate,

because you’re here, and I think we will learn a lot.

We will learn a lot about our corrupt campaign system. And we

will also learn about how people became corrupt using that system,

and that will be helpful. It will be helpful to hold people accountable if we can, but it will also be important to hold people accountable for changing the system that is corrupt.

I think you may have brought it to a new art form. I don’t consider you a minor player here. You were in the DNC, and you

worked in Commerce, and Commerce became a polluted government agency used in many ways to raise money instead of do its

job for the American people.

Bottom line, it’s been against the law since 1907 for corporate

treasury money to be used in campaigns. It’s been against the law

since 1947 for union dues money to be used in campaigns. It’s been

against the law since 1974 for foreign governments to contribute to

campaigns. And it’s been against the law since God knows when

for people to use Federal buildings to raise money.

42

All four happened under the protection of it being called soft

money, the unlimited sums from corporations, labor unions, foreign

governments, and individuals. And I hope in the process of holding

you and others accountable that we wake up and change this corrupt campaign system.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding these hearings. It hasn’t been easy for you to do this, and I appreciate that

you have persevered. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. May I have unanimous consent to say something?

I don’t believe Mr. Waxman would object.

Mr. SHAYS. I would be happy to have him use the balance of my

time if he would like. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut.

I think it’s important for the record to show, and I think most

of us here would agree with this, that, often, we will get off into

arcane questions about whether money—why corporations can’t

give money. But the reason for the law is the American government and people were concerned that decisions could be compromised by having money, conduits moving in either unforeseen

or enlarged sums. And that is why we have the campaign laws.

This isn’t just some kind of technicality. And it applies to both parties. And I know the gentleman from Connecticut has been a leader

and is concerned with this.

That is really why we are out here. We are not out here to catch

somebody because we want to get them. What we are really concerned about is, OK, we saw the illegalities and what did they impact in our government. And that is why we have to have those

laws.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

Mr. Huang, will you stand to be sworn?

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. BURTON. Be seated.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, shall I proceed with my statement,

please?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, Mr. Huang, you can proceed with your opening

statement.

STATEMENT OF JOHN HUANG

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Waxman, members of

the committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear and address whatever issues may be of interest to you and the American

people. I have long hoped for this opportunity.

Indeed, as you are aware, in 1997, I offered to testify at the commencement of the Senate hearings chaired by Senator Thompson.

At that time, neither the Senate nor the Department of Justice

were willing to immunize my testimony as to political fundraising

for which I subsequently received probation.

As the Department of Justice subsequently acknowledged, I am

not and never was a spy. I was honored to serve this fine Nation

and took my Department of Commerce duty as principal Deputy

Assistant Secretary for International Economic Policy very seriVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
43

ously. I also took my role at the Democratic National Committee

very seriously.

In addition, while things might have gone easier for me were I

able to implicate the President or Vice President in wrongdoing, I

never had a base upon which to do so. In fact, I maintain very high

regard for each of these dedicated men.

The past 3 years have been a terrible ordeal for me and my family and for many Asian Americans. While there are legitimate and

substantive issues to merit inquiry, such as campaign finance reform and ensuring effective access to the political process for minority groups, the focus instead has been on the national origin of

individuals like myself and attempts to tar public servants that I,

like other Americans, believe in and have served. People seeking

publicity have lied about me repeatedly in the press and even before this committee without consequence.

For example, a former Member of this body, Mr. Solomon, in attacking the administration, accused me of economic espionage on

the basis of what I am advised was an anonymous source at a cocktail party with whom, it turned out, did not even mention my name

or do anything other than perpetrate a rumor against an unidentified Asian American, a rumor which Mr. Solomon was only too

eager to embrace and capitalize upon.

It is my hope that in the hearings this week the questioning will

be substantive rather than merely accusatory, purposeful and of assistance to the American people to the extent it contributes to the

accountability of those who both raised and received funds.

As for myself, I have made mistakes. Embarrassed and saddened

though I am by the unfortunate attention my conduct and notoriety

brought upon my community, the dated and isolated offenses,

which I have openly acknowledged, will not deter me from my career-long efforts to promote understanding between the citizens of

the United States and those of China, Taiwan, and the rest of Asia.

While the United States is a participatory democracy, too few of

its citizens participate, and many groups are without sufficient resources to ensure the fair and dispassionate consideration of their

views, needs, and concerns.

Indeed, as the Department of Justice has concluded, my motivation was not personal gain but was instead the integration of Asian

Americans into the political process of their chosen country. This,

of course, is merely an explanation and by no means excuses my

conduct, which, unfortunately, remains largely misunderstood, except by the Department of Justice and the court.

I along with my wife and two sons were deeply moved by the fact

that, after almost 3 years of investigation by the Department of

Justice and based upon the nature of the offenses and my extensive

truthful and complete cooperation, the U.S. District Judge Richard

Paez, after a thorough review of all relevant facts, granted me probation. He did so in conformity with the recommendation of the

prosecutors who assured him of the genuine nature of my remorse.

In addition, based upon weeks of interrogation of an army of law

enforcement agents and the staffs of independent counsel offices,

the Department of Justice advised the court at my sentencing that

it considers me a man of good character and selfless honesty.

44

Moreover, the Department of Justice not only publicly acknowledged my fitness to vote and wrote in support of restoration of my

right to do so, it also commended me to the court as an individual

uniquely qualified to serve Asian Americans and this great country

by building on my demonstrable successes in weaving the Asian

community into the intellectual and political fabric of our collective

society. The court agreed. I am grateful for their confidence and for

the opportunity for continued public service within my community.

Not only am I deeply appreciative of the opportunity provided by

Judge Paez for community service, but, after enduring years of

scurrilous, ill-motivated, and false allegations, I am eager to proceed both with my service and my life. Those who know me well

have honored me with their continued respect and support. Some

who view me only as a means to a questionable end do both themselves and the Nation a disservice and persist in unjustifiably demonizing me and other Asian Americans.

While I am due criticism and am working at atonement, character assassination alone, divorced from legitimate ends, degrades

not me but those who promote themselves not by deeds but by resorting to demagoguery and vitriol.

Americans have nothing to fear from me, but they do have much

to fear from within. Hatemongers, bigots, and, regretfully, even

some of our elected officials continue to tear at America’s greatest

strength, its diversity, in an alarming and escalating pace.

The politics of pitting religious, ethnic, and racial groups against

one another threaten to harm this great country at its foundation,

as evidenced by the recent and unbearable series of hate crimes resulting in the death or injury of a Jewish American, African Americans, and Asian Americans in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Bloomington, IN. Only through the practice of compassionate, inclusive policies can communities and the Nation overcome those who preach

fear and exclusion. And while I am by no means a perfect servant,

it is to this end that I devote my future.

In that effort, I am sustained by my family and friends, whose

love and support have enabled me to survive this 3-year ordeal

during which we have been largely defenseless in the face of an onslaught of unfounded allegations. As a result, and tired as I am

after arriving in D.C. this morning after a long day yesterday of

cooperation with the Department of Justice in Los Angeles, I am

pleased by this opportunity to assist the committee. I am looking

forward over the next few days to purging the misinformation

which currently taints the public’s understanding of my efforts over

time and to the creation of a credible, factual foundation from

which the committee, the American people, and I and my family

can move forward, ideally with dignity.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Huang.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Huang follows:]

45

46

47

48

49

Mr. BURTON. Before I start the questioning, I would like to

make—go ahead and start the clock so this will be on my time. I

would like to respond just briefly to Mr. Waxman’s comments, first

of all, regarding the new system we have here so that, through the

Internet, the American people can watch the proceedings from

gavel to gavel. We are not the first committee to do this. We won’t

be the last. The International Operations Committee is installing

a system like this right now. The Transportation Committee has

had one for some time. And we believe that the American people’s

right to know is extremely important.

One of the great strengths of our society is the openness of our

government and to eliminate the doubt about various things that

happened in committee hearings, we thought it would be a good

idea and a relatively inexpensive idea to make sure that the American people got unvarnished facts from our hearings.

And as I said to Mr. Waxman at the outset, we are going to

make absolutely sure that there is fairness on both sides. His statement today, which was pretty much an attack on me and the way

we have conducted our hearings, the American people saw today

unvarnished. You have a right to say those things. And I, as the

chairman of this committee, have a right to refute those if I can.

And one of the things that I want to say is you made some comments about Mr. Hubbell. I would like to refresh your memory and

tell you that, after the accusations were made, the next day we released all 16 hours of the Hubbell tapes without any change whatsoever. So within 24 hours of the accusations, all Hubbell tapes

were released to the American press and to the American people.

Regarding the bias that we have and the bias that our government has toward people on the Democrat side and people involved

in this campaign finance scandal, Mr. Huang really was not fined

any financial penalty whatsoever, although Mr. Huang and Mr.

Trie were involved in over $2 million, we believe, from illegal conduit contributions that came from foreign sources. And much of

this money, probably 90 percent of it, has been returned. So they

were directly involved, and there is no question about it or else the

DNC would not have returned that.

While, at the same time, the Dole for President Committee got

$120,000, much less than the $2 million, from a man named Simon

Fireman. He was fined $6 million. The Empire Sanitary Landfill,

they gave $129,000. They were fined $8 million. Another Republican who was responsible for much fewer illegal conduit contributions than Mr. Huang had a $5 million fine. And both of the Republicans got terms of detention.

Now, none of that has happened to any of the Democrat conduit

contributors that we know of—a $5 million fine, $8 million fine, $6

million fine. And so as far as the equal application of justice, it

doesn’t appear to me that there has been an equal application of

justice by this Justice Department. And I have talked about that

a number of times.

And I said that I thought the Attorney General was showing a

bias, was blocking our investigations, wasn’t cooperating with this

committee. And I said the same things with the White House.

Now, I stand by what I said in the past. I understand—and much

of what you said today, Mr. Waxman, you have said time and time

50

again. You tried to make a comedy out of our hearings. You tried

to denigrate our hearings. You tried to say we have been on a

witch-hunt. You tried to say all kinds of things, and you said it

again today. And you have a right to say those things. But the fact

of the matter is we are determined, if it’s at all possible, to get to

the bottom there of campaign finance scandal, and we are going to

be vigilant, and we are going to continue.

And I fully expect at future hearings you will say the same

things over and over again. You will attack me over and over

again. But I want you to know, Mr. Waxman, I and this committee

will not be deterred, and now the American people can watch gavel

to gavel and judge for themselves from the questions and answers

of the witnesses whether or not we are being fair. And I think that

they are going to be pretty fair when they judge what we do.

Let me start with the questions, Mr. Huang.

When was the last time that you spoke to James Riady?

Mr. HUANG. I think around May or June this year.

Mr. BURTON. May or June of this year.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURTON. And when was the last time you spoke to Mochtar

Riady?

Mr. HUANG. It was about the same time, sir.

Mr. BURTON. About the same time.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Was that on a long distance call or in person?

Mr. HUANG. No. I was visiting Jakarta.

Mr. BURTON. You were in Jakarta?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Did you speak to any other individuals from

the Lippo Group at that time?

Mr. HUANG. There were some Lippo employees at that time. And

because it was Mr. Mochtar Riady’s 70 years birthday, I was invited to attend.

Mr. BURTON. OK. How much were you in contact with James

Riady during 1997 and 1998?

Mr. HUANG. I’m sorry, sir?

Mr. BURTON. How much were you in contact? How many times,

do you recall? Were you in contact with him a lot during 1997?

Mr. HUANG. No. There was only one occasion I traveled in Asia

in 1987.

Mr. BURTON. 1997.

Mr. HUANG. 1997. I’m sorry. I did visit around August 1997. I

had occasion to meet with Mr. Riady in Singapore.

Mr. BURTON. And in 1998.

Mr. HUANG. That was 199—that was 1998, I’m sorry. 1999, this

year, I went to Jakarta.

Mr. BURTON. Uh-huh. Do you know—do you recall the substance

of the communications you had with Mr. Riady during those visits?

Mr. HUANG. OK. In 1998, that was the first meeting I had after

all these campaign finance matter erupt. So for the last previous

few years, I never had an opportunity. Apparently he read of a lot

of articles and news account, watching on TVs. He expressed some

concern to see how I could hold on on this matter. So, more or less,

it was a concern about me.

51

Mr. BURTON. Did you talk to them on the telephone in addition

to those meetings?

Mr. HUANG. There was a couple phone calls like at Christmas

time, the New Year’s, just saying Happy New Year. That’s about

all.

Mr. Chairman, let me correct my statement and add a little point

in. Both of my trips I went to Asia in 1998 and 1999 were approved

by the Department of Justice.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Did you receive any money from the Riady

family since September 1996?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did. Some gift money.

Mr. BURTON. Some gift money?

Mr. HUANG. Gift money, yes.

Mr. BURTON. How much money was that?

Mr. HUANG. The first time in—I believe is in the Christmas time

around 1997 was around $18,000. The second time during the trips

in 1998, I received $20,000.

Mr. BURTON. So you received $18,000 in 1997 and $20,000 in

1998. And you say that was a Christmas gift?

Mr. HUANG. No, it was gift money.

Mr. BURTON. What was it given for?

Mr. HUANG. As a gift. Because I have not been working for all

these years, you know. I was a friend, so probably he was just

showing a concern about me.

Mr. BURTON. This was during the height of our campaign finance

investigation that they gave you these gifts?

Mr. HUANG. I think that the investigation was still going on, yes.

I don’t know whether it was the height or not, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Were there any stipulations, or did they just give

these to you because they felt like you needed the money?

Mr. HUANG. There is no stipulation, no.

Mr. BURTON. Have you gotten any more money since the $20,000

you received in 1999?

Mr. HUANG. As I indicated, I made a trip in 1999 this year.

There was just a few thousand dollars to cover my travel expenses.

Mr. BURTON. So they paid your travel expenses over there and

back?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. BURTON. But in addition to the $18,000 in 1997 and $20,000

in 1998—or 1998 and 1999, you have received no other funds?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Have you read any of the campaign finance depositions?

Mr. HUANG. About myself, or about the others?

Mr. BURTON. Have you read any of the campaign finance depositions of yourself or anyone else?

Mr. HUANG. I did not.

Mr. BURTON. Are you aware of any of the statements from any

of the witnesses regarding the campaign finance investigation?

Mr. HUANG. I do not.

Mr. BURTON. Have you watched any of the campaign finance

hearings or read any of the transcripts from any of our hearings?

Have you had an opportunity to do that?

52

Mr. HUANG. With all due respect, I don’t have a cable. I really

didn’t have a chance to do that.

Mr. BURTON. So you haven’t heard or read anything of the statements of the witnesses?

Mr. HUANG. No. I read a newspaper occasionally, but I don’t even

subscribe regularly to a newspaper on that, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Have you had any contact with Charlie Trie since

the investigation began?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. On one or two occasions very briefly, because,

sir, his wife was very ill. I believe she was suffering from cancer

while I was traveling in Asia, and people told me about his wife’s

situation. I expressed a concern so I called him just to express my

sympathy on that.

Mr. BURTON. But that is the only contact during the investigation?

Mr. HUANG. That is the only other contact, sir.

Mr. BURTON. How about Maria Hsia?

Mr. HUANG. She did call my home before. My wife answered the

phone, but I did not really speak directly to her.

Mr. BURTON. And when was this?

Mr. HUANG. This was I believe the one time this year. Now there

was some—one occasion at the beginning of the investigation right

after the 1996 matters came out, there were some conversations,

but it was not really detail. That was a little bit—a few more minutes. It was a little bit longer conversation.

Mr. BURTON. Did the conversation relate in any way to the campaign finance problems or investigation?

Mr. HUANG. If I remember vaguely, there was—I am trying to

identify whether there was a copy—copy of checks which some of

her contributors have made, whether I have a copy for that or not.

Mr. BURTON. She wanted to know if you had a copy of the check.

Mr. HUANG. A copy of the check.

Mr. BURTON. Did you have a copy?

Mr. HUANG. Well, I was still at the DNC, though, sir.

Mr. BURTON. You were still at the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. Yeah. But, afterwards, I remember there was also

one conversation. But I cannot recall very extensive what the detail

was about.

Mr. BURTON. Have you talked to Pauline Kanchanalak?

Mr. HUANG. Not with her at all.

Mr. BURTON. And Ted Sioeng and his family?

Mr. HUANG. I had only one meeting with Ted Sioeng at the beginning. It was in 1996. Why my—when my matter erupts, his

matter was not coming out yet.

Mr. BURTON. You said when you would talk to Mr. Riady, he

said, how could you hold on or——

Mr. HUANG. No. He was trying to see how I had held on.

Mr. BURTON. How are you holding up, is that what he meant?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right. That’s right.

Mr. BURTON. So he wasn’t asking any question about whether

you could keep quiet about something?

Mr. HUANG. Oh, no, not in that nature, sir.

53

Mr. BURTON. All right. Did James Riady fly from Indonesia to

the United States to attend the fundraiser with Governor Clinton

on August 14, 1992 in California?

Mr. HUANG. I think 1986 you’re talking about, right?

Mr. BURTON. No, I’m talking about 1992 where James Riady— did he fly from Indonesia to the United States to attend a fundraiser for Governor Clinton in California on August 14, 1992?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, he did.

Mr. BURTON. James Riady entered the country with $24,400 in

cash. Do you remember what he did with that money?

Mr. HUANG. That I don’t know.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t know.

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know with the cash, no.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 15, and do we have that to put up or is it

in the book? I think you have a book, exhibit 15, if you could refer

to that. It is an August 12th, 1992 memo from Melinda Yee to Annette Castro, providing information about Mr. Riady so he could attend an Asian Pacific American Roundtable discussion. Do you recall if James Riady attended the APA Roundtable discussion on

August 12, 1992?

[Exhibit 15 follows:]

54

55

Mr. HUANG. I do not recall there was any roundtable discussion

in August 1992, no.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall being at a meeting like that on August 12th?

Mr. HUANG. No. There was only the fundraising, the event on

August 6, 1992.

Mr. BURTON. So you don’t recall James Riady being at that meeting?

Mr. HUANG. I did not even know there was such a roundtable.

Mr. BURTON. OK.

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. On exhibit 17, there is a memo from Melinda Yee

to Governor Clinton. It has talking points for Governor Clinton for

the August 14, 1992 fundraiser. At the top, it says, the event is

hosted by Fong Eu and John Huang. Did you host that fundraiser

along with Fong Eu?

[Exhibit 17 follows:]

56

57

58

Mr. HUANG. I hope the date of the memo is correct. We did have

a fundraising event I was hosting with March Fong Eu in honor

of then-Governor Clinton, Candidate Clinton at that time in San

Gabriel, CA. That was a luncheon, fundraising.

Mr. BURTON. And how did you become the host or co-host of that

event?

Mr. HUANG. I was very much involved in the community affairs,

and also I was helping out the political causes before.

Mr. BURTON. That was with the Asian Pacific American organization.

Mr. HUANG. Yeah, called Pacific Leadership specifically, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did you pledge to raise or contribute a certain

amount of money to become the host of that hearing or that meeting?

Mr. HUANG. Essentially, yes. It’s about $100,000.

Mr. BURTON. You pledged to raise $100,000?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 18 is a schedule for Governor Clinton for

the August 14, 1992 fundraiser. That is exhibit 18.

[Exhibit 18 follows:]

59

60

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did Mr. Riady, in fact, greet Governor Clinton at

the elevator prior to that event?

Mr. HUANG. With the other people as well, like the Madam

March Fong Eu, the other community leaders, at the same time.

Mr. BURTON. So there was a group of people?

Mr. HUANG. There was a group of people.

Mr. BURTON. So there was nothing specific about the Riady meeting with him at that point?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Were there any discussions at that elevator,

anything of substance, or just a greeting?

Mr. HUANG. It was just a greeting, and then Governor Clinton

was escorted to the main dining room.

Mr. BURTON. OK. On exhibit 19, if you could turn to that, is a

memo from Melinda Yee to Governor Clinton regarding a limousine

ride that Mr. Riady was supposed to take with Governor Clinton

on August 14th. Where did Melinda Yee get that information about

the limousine ride that was to take place with Governor Clinton?

[Exhibit 19 follows:]

61

62

Mr. HUANG. OK. May I read this first, please, sir?

Mr. BURTON. Sure.

Mr. HUANG. That was through the request of Mr. James Riady

through me.

Mr. BURTON. So you were requested by James Riady to set up

a limousine ride where he could talk to Governor Clinton?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. Privately.

Mr. HUANG. Right. Mr. Chairman, I might have made a mistake

on the date. If that August 14 is similar to the date I was thinking

about the fundraising event, then August 14 is probably the correct

date, sir.

Mr. BURTON. OK. How much did the Riadys give for that event

on August 14th; do you recall?

Mr. HUANG. Well, as I mentioned to you, I committed for

$100,000. That is about all we did.

Mr. BURTON. The Riadys gave $90,000 of that; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. With all the companies all together, approximately

that amount, yes.

Mr. BURTON. So it was from the Riady Group?

Mr. HUANG. The group, yes.

Mr. BURTON. And why did Mrs. Yee say that the Riadys gave

$100,000 when they gave $90,000?

Mr. HUANG. I believe probably the other $10,000 is probably coming from me and my wife.

Mr. BURTON. So your wife gave $10,000. Was that her own

money?

Mr. HUANG. Myself and my wife.

Mr. BURTON. It was your own personal funds?

Mr. HUANG. At that time, it was.

Mr. BURTON. Would Melinda Yee have thought that this $10,000

was going to be coming ultimately from the Riadys through you?

Mr. HUANG. No. No, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Since Mr. Riady was not a United States citizen

and since he then permanently resided in Indonesia, did anyone express to him any concerns that it was illegal for him to contribute

money to the—to a U.S. political campaign?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir. If I—if I remember correctly, Mr. Riady at

that time still had the green card status, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Was he living in the United States?

Mr. HUANG. No, he was traveling back to Indonesia. But he still

had the green card status. He maintained a home in the United

States.

Mr. BURTON. But he was living in Indonesia.

Mr. HUANG. He spent a lot of time over there at that time, yes.

Mr. BURTON. All right. How did Melinda Yee know that James

Riady had the potential to give much more? That is a quotation she

used.

Mr. HUANG. I can’t speculate. Maybe just all the impression she

had on the group, the size of the group, the business the Riady

family had.

Mr. BURTON. Did you indicate in any way to her that the Riadys

were capable and willing to give much more?

63

Mr. HUANG. If I did give that impression, I don’t remember at

this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Was Melinda Yee aware, to your knowledge, that

Mr. Riady was going to give much more by funneling it through his

companies and employees?

Mr. HUANG. The detailed parts, no. No. How the money is going

to be funded, no, was not known to any of the other people, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Well, before the limousine ride took place, did you

know that Mr. Riady was going to tell the then-Governor Clinton

that he was going to raise $1 million for him?

Mr. HUANG. I did not, no.

Mr. BURTON. Until after then—right.

Mr. HUANG. But, however, I do know the fact that he did indicate

he really wanted to give something; he ought to give more instead

of less.

Mr. BURTON. I’m not sure I understand. He would give less because he was concerned—— Mr. HUANG. In other words, he would give a large amount and

have a greater impact that way.

Mr. BURTON. I see. Apart from the information in Mrs. Yee’s

memo, did Governor Clinton have any other information to believe

that James Riady lived in Indonesia at that time? I mean, he knew

he flew in from Indonesia to meet at this fundraiser. Did he know,

aside from flying in for the fundraiser, that he was living in Indonesia?

Mr. HUANG. No. I don’t know what Mr. Clinton knows about

that. But I suspect Mr. Clinton would know because the Lippo

Group is quite extensive. They have a position in different parts of

the world.

Mr. BURTON. If you could look at exhibit 20, now, it is a chart

of Lippo-related contributions that were given prior to—before the

August 14, 1992, fundraiser. Were David Yeh’s contributions given

for the August 14, 1992, fundraiser?

[Exhibit 20 follows:]

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

Mr. HUANG. I could not really tie that in it at this point. It could

be at this time, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Are all of these contributions that you see illegal?

And if not, can you identify the ones that are legal and explain why

they are legal?

Mr. HUANG. I am not a lawyer at this time to judge about that,

whether they are legal or not on the surface on that, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Well, as you can see, you have got David Yeh. You

have got Jane Huang. You have got Hip Hing Holdings and the

Riadys, both James and Aileen.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, yeah, let me consult with my lawyers

a little bit, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Sure.

Mr. HUANG. At that particular moment, Mr. Dave Yeh was a

green card holder. At that time, I believe he was legal. He could

legally give. For instance, my wife is an American citizen. She

could give. And the Hip Hing Holdings was the U.S. entity at that

time and also had a U.S. revenue, and I believe at that time they

could give. James Riady and Aileen Riady were green card holders,

so at that time I believe they could give.

But later on when things developed and some of the money, I believe, they were somehow being reimbursed or taken care of.

Mr. BURTON. They were being reimbursed from the Lippo Group

in Indonesia?

Mr. HUANG. Except the Riadys’ money, which I certainly have no

doubt that they were being reimbursed. They were very rich themselves already.

Mr. BURTON. I understand. But the others there, you or your

wife, David Yeh and the others were—to your knowledge, were

they reimbursed by the Lippo Group in Indonesia?

Mr. HUANG. I did not check for sure, but I believe they were

probably taken care of like Mr. David Yeh.

Mr. BURTON. In Indonesia.

Mr. HUANG. No, he was not in Indonesia. He was in Hong Kong,

Mr. Dave Yeh.

Mr. BURTON. But the money was coming from over there, and he

was being reimbursed.

Mr. HUANG. It could be there from there, yeah.

Mr. BURTON. Who was David Yeh?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. David Yeh was the president of the Lippo Bank

California, later on was transferred to Hong Kong as the managing

director of one of the group companies that handled real estate in

Hong Kong.

Mr. BURTON. Where was he living at the time?

Mr. HUANG. At the time, I believe he was just being transferred

to Hong Kong.

Mr. BURTON. So he was living in Hong Kong?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Was David Yeh—well, you said you believe he probably was reimbursed for his contributions.

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know for sure. The reason I speculate there

is because the matter relating to me, I was taken care of. I believe

some of the executives who made a contribution were also being

taken care of.

71

Mr. BURTON. Now, were you and your wife reimbursed for that $10,000 that you contributed through your bonus in 1992.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURTON. And that was from the Lippo Group in Indonesia.

Mr. HUANG. Yes. From the Lippo entity somewhere, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Who was the DNC or Clinton-Gore contact for these

contributions?

Mr. HUANG. In 1992, I believe, was Mary Leslie.

Mr. BURTON. Mary Leslie.

Can you look at exhibit 21 now? It is a DNC donor card for

James Riady’s $5,000 contribution to the California Democrat party

on August 13, 1992. Do you know who filled out that donor card

for Mr. Riady? Do you know who filled it out?

[Exhibit 21 follows:]

72

73

Mr. HUANG. The donor card’s handwriting I don’t know.

Mr. BURTON. It was not your writing?

Mr. HUANG. That was not my handwriting. Excuse me, it does

not appear to me to be Mr. Riady’s handwriting either.

Mr. BURTON. Did anyone tell Mr. Riady to put Lippo Bank U.S.

as his business address even though he lived in Indonesia?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know. I don’t know what happened there. Apparently people might have the impression that he was over there.

Mr. BURTON. Now, the Hip Hing Holdings $50,000 contributions

for August 14, 1992, if you could look at exhibit 22, there is a— it’s an August 17, 1992, memo from you and Agus Setiawan—I

hope I pronounced that correctly—to Mrs. Ong Bwee Eng. Did you request a $50,000 Hip Hing Holdings contribution to be reimbursed?

[Exhibit 22 follows:]

74

75

Mr. HUANG. That memo has my name, but I believe that was

sent by Mr. Agus Setiawan.

Mr. BURTON. Well, now, did he—are you saying that he asked

that the Hip Hing Holdings contribution be reimbursed?

Mr. HUANG. That item was listed there. Mr. Chairman, let me

explain to you, routinely on a very regular basis whatever expenses

incurred in Hip Hing Holdings, the comptroller of the company,

meaning Agus Setiawan, and my colleague at that time, would

send a report back to Indonesia to indicate how much was spent

during that period of time and would request for replenishment of

the money coming back.

Mr. BURTON. So even though your name is on there, you are saying that Mr. Setiawan is the one who initiated that?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, by no means I shirk my responsibility on this part, because my name was there. And also I was more

or less had senior position in that operation. So I take responsibility of that part, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 23, if you can take a look at that, it’s a wire

transfer from the LippoBank Limited to Hip Hing Holdings. Where

is LippoBank Limited located?

[Exhibit 23 follows:]

76

77

Mr. HUANG. It is not really readable on my copy here.

Mr. BURTON. Where is LippoBank Limited located?

Mr. HUANG. That was located in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Mr. BURTON. Jakarta.

Does that $146,500 wire from LippoBank, does that include reimbursement for the $50,000 Hip Hing Holdings contribution?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, it is.

Mr. BURTON. It does?

Mr. HUANG. Uh-huh.

Mr. BURTON. Were you and Mr. Setiawan aware that it was illegal to reimburse a political contribution?

Mr. HUANG. At that time probably it is totally—I did not really

think about that issue at that moment, at that moment.

Mr. BURTON. You did not know it was illegal at that time?

Mr. HUANG. Did not think of it as this was done.

Mr. BURTON. How many times prior to the limousine ride did you

or James Riady speak to Governor Clinton on—in August 1992?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t believe in that year Mr. Riady had ever spoken to Mr. Clinton then. But I did have one or two occasions, because, during the campaign trail, I met with then Governor Clinton. One time I believe is in February, the other time was probably

March. If I am not mistaken, I also had arranged a get-together

session for him to meet with some Chinese-American or AsianAmerican community leaders in Chinatown, Los Angeles in April.

Mr. BURTON. In April of that year?

Mr. HUANG. In that year, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Was the purpose of the limousine ride solely so Mr.

Riady could tell Governor Clinton about his plan to raise $1 million

for his campaign?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know that that was our original intention for

him to tell Mr. Clinton personally that or not. But that was the occasion—because it was a long time since they both had met after

Mr. Riady left Little Rock, AR. So it more or less just get acquaintance on that issue.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know if Mr. Riady wanted to discuss banking issues or international business with Governor Clinton during

that ride in the limousine?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t think those issues came about, Mr. Chairman. The ride was very, very short. It was virtually from point of

the restaurant in San Gabriel to go to another location in the same

town, in San Gabriel, probably no more than 5 minutes or 10 minutes ride, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Why would Mr. Riady want to give $1 million to

then Governor Clinton’s campaign for the President? That is quite

a bit of money. I know they are very wealthy people, but why

would they want to give $1 million? Would they expect anything

in return for that, or what did they want for that?

Mr. HUANG. I really could not really speak of—speak of Mr.

Riady’s mind, but if you want me to speculate, I can do that.

Mr. BURTON. Go ahead.

Mr. HUANG. As I indicated to you earlier, you know if we really

want to contribute, even contribute $10,000 contribution, but may

not create a big impact. If you really want to make an impact, you

78

want to make a very large amount of contribution. It’s a better impression that way.

Mr. BURTON. OK. But if you want to make an impact, for what

reason do you want to make the impact?

Mr. HUANG. So people would notice of you, you know, on that

basis.

Mr. BURTON. They would notice you, so you would have influence

and be able to get things done; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. You would get attention, more or less, I think.

Mr. BURTON. From whom?

Mr. HUANG. From the candidate or from campaign or other people. You know, you have a different status. The larger donors definitely have the better status. Definitely.

Mr. BURTON. So they have more access?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You started off your

half hour time period for asking questions by reacting to some of

the criticisms that you heard in my opening statement, and I want

to point out that if you read the statement over carefully, you will

find the harshest of the comments were not mine, but attributed

to reputable news sources and even Republican staff people and

Members.

And I also want people who may be watching this hearing to

know that notwithstanding the fact that the chairman said we are

going to have free and open coverage of what goes on in these hearings, they are on C–SPAN coverage, gavel-to-gavel complete. In a

sense there is a redundancy to have a committee control its own

gavel-to-gavel coverage.

I just want to point out that we have gavel-to-gavel media coverage, so everyone can see everything that is said at this hearing.

But what the American people won’t see is what is not called before the members of this committee: serious campaign finance violations and allegations of violations that have been ignored by this

committee. The chairman alone has issued subpoenas. So Members

on our side have asked him to pursue an investigation into various

allegations that have come up over the last several years about serious Republican fundraising abuses.

For example, there is a Republican National Committee chairman, Haley Barbour, who worked with a group called the National

Policy Forum, and he got millions of dollars into this National Policy Forum from a noncitizen in Hong Kong named Ambrose Young,

and then he used that money to help Republicans. It appears from

what I have heard of it to be illegal. We asked that it be investigated, and it wasn’t.

There is a group called the Triad Management Services. This is

a group that advised Republicans on how to launder campaign

money and avoid the limits under the law.

There were allegations as well about Republican fundraising on

Federal property. For example, there was a Republican party to

come and meet Senator Dole when he was a Senator for $15,000

in the Senate Caucus Room; or for $45,000, you could have met and

had lunch with then Speaker Newt Gingrich. And we will go into

it again now and then later.

79

The most serious of the allegations is the one made by a fellow

named Peter Cloeren, who said that he was asked by the Majority

Whip Tom DeLay to make a conduit contribution to a Republican

House candidate. Here is the fellow who made the contribution saying how he was told and asked by a Republican leader, a Republican leader, to make this illegal contribution and we can’t get the

chairman to even respond to a letter of the Democrats asking to investigate it.

We asked at one time that this committee in looking at campaign

finance violations try to find out why the Republican leadership in

1997 wanted to give a $50 billion tax break to the tobacco industry.

And, of course, it followed the Republican National Committee receiving $8.8 million from the tobacco industry.

So you who are watching this hearing will see what goes on

today. But what you won’t see is what the chairman doesn’t want

you to know about, and those are serious violations by Republicans.

That is why this whole investigation is not credible. I am not saying there have not been serious violations of the campaign laws by

Democrats and by Mr. Huang. But if this were a legitimate investigation, we wouldn’t be so limited in our ability today to present— or not just today, at any other time—to get to the bottom of things,

to get the facts wherever they may lead us.

Mr. Huang, you have admitted that from 1992 to 1994, while

working for the Lippo Group headquartered in Indonesia, you took

part in a scheme to make illegal conduit campaign contributions.

These are serious offenses. They are felonies. And you have pled

guilty to a felony violation of the campaign finance laws for making

these conduit contributions. No one should minimize these or tolerate these violations. They are serious and deserve punishment. Do

you agree with that?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I do, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. These are the kinds of things that unfortunately

have happened too much in the abuses of our campaign laws. Congressman Shays, as a member of this committee, introduced a bill

which I supported to try to plug up the complete abuse of the campaign finance system. The reality is that all those limits and restrictions, whether they be on corporation contributions or labor

union money, or all these phony organizations that are set up to

receive the money and then spend more than individual candidates

can spend, these are tolerated now and acceptable and have become par for the course.

I think what you did, Mr. Huang, was scandalous, but I think

what is being done every single campaign—and now this coming

year will probably be done in a greater magnitude than what we

saw even in 1996 and 1998—it is just quite scandalous and needs

to be repaired.

You are the central figure in the allegations of campaign finance

abuse during the 1996 Presidential election because of conduit contributions. That is what you pleaded guilty to.

My staff has done a LEXIS–NEXIS search of media records that

mention your name. Since October 1996, there have been over

7,000 articles that mention your name in newspapers around the

country. The reason you have been the center of so much attention

is that Republicans in Congress have repeatedly alleged that you

80

were part of a Chinese conspiracy to influence the United States

elections, that you gave national secrets to the Chinese, and that

you were part of a scheme involving President Clinton and the

DNC to knowingly solicit illegal foreign campaign contributions.

We even heard some of these allegations and innuendo in the

opening statements of some of my colleagues today. These allegations of conspiracy and espionage are extraordinarily serious, extraordinarily serious. And I voted for immunity so that you would

testify today because I wanted to learn whether they were true and

to find out what really did and did not happen during the 1996

Presidential election.

My approach to questioning you is different than the chairman’s.

The chairman has scheduled your testimony for 4 days of hearings

because he wants to conduct this hearing like a deposition. He apparently wants to ask you about virtually everything that you have

done since 1992.

In fact, I was told that he has over 100 pages of questions that

he is intending to ask you. He has told us to be ready to meet here

until late tonight, tomorrow, the next day, maybe the day after.

Three years ago, when we began this investigation, that might

have been appropriate and might have made some sense. But today

we know what the central issues are, and those are what we should

be asking you about. So I am going to ask you about the major allegations that have been made in this investigation, and let’s get

those statements on the record.

You are under oath. You are testifying before us under a grant

of immunity, so you can tell us the truth without fear of prosecution. And you are under oath, and if you do not tell us the truth,

you will be guilty of perjury.

Mr. Huang, do you have any knowledge that would implicate the

President of the United States in any illegal activity?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you have any knowledge that would implicate

the Vice President of the United States in any illegal activity?

Mr. HUANG. No, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you have any knowledge that would implicate

the First Lady in any illegal activity?

Mr. HUANG. No, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you have any knowledge that would implicate

the Democratic National Committee in any illegal activity?

Mr. HUANG. No, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. One of the first allegations about your conduct was

made by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the Wall Street

Journal in October 1996.

According to Speaker Gingrich, the Riady contribution which you

arranged ‘‘makes Watergate look trivial.’’ He went on to allege that

‘‘we have never in American history had an American President

selling pieces of this country to foreigners.’’

[The information referred to follows:]

81

82

83

84

Mr. WAXMAN. In essence, Speaker Gingrich was alleging that

President Clinton was selling U.S. foreign policy in exchange for

campaign contributions that you helped to arrange. That is treason.

Is it true, were you involved in a scheme to buy favorable policy

decisions for foreigners with campaign contributions?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you ever have any conversation with the President or any of his advisors in which the President or his advisors

discussed making a policy decision in order to benefit campaign

contributors?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Are you aware of any evidence of any kind that

supports Speaker Gingrich’s allegation that the President was selling pieces of this country to foreigners?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. One of the major allegations that has been made

is that you were part of a conspiracy involving Charlie Trie and

Johnny Chung to funnel illegal campaign contributions from the

Chinese Government to the President with the President’s knowledge.

Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma was one of the many who

made this allegation, and I want to quote what he said on the Senate floor earlier this year. ‘‘John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, James Riady and others with strong ties to China were deeply involved with the President’s knowledge in raising Chinese-tainted cash for the Clinton

campaign.’’ I want to ask you about the assertions made in this allegation.

Were you part of a fundraising conspiracy involving Charlie Trie

and Johnny Chung, as Senator Inhofe and others have alleged?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Were you part of a conspiracy to raise campaign

contributions from the Chinese Government?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you have any knowledge about any efforts by

the Chinese Government to make illegal campaign contributions to

President Clinton?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Part of Senator Inhofe’s allegation is that President Clinton knew that you and others were raising Chinese-tainted cash. Chairman Burton has made similar allegations about the

President’s knowledge. Is this true?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did President Clinton participate in or have any

knowledge of efforts to raise illegal foreign campaign contributions

as far as you know?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you ever have any discussions with the President about who you were raising campaign contributions from?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Another major allegation is that you were a Chinese spy. Let’s get that on the table. Speaker Gingrich, for example, went on national television in April 1997, to allege that ‘‘John

85

Huang was clearly being given secrets while going to the Chinese

embassy.’’ Chairman Burton made a similar accusation on national television in February 1997 when he said that ‘‘Mr. Huang may very

well have given information that he shouldn’t have to the Chinese

and others.’’ In fact, when Chairman Burton was asked on national television

whether you were a Chinese spy, he alleged, ‘‘that’s a possibility.’’ Let me ask you about this well-publicized possibility. Are you

now or were you ever a Chinese spy?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Have you at any time ever given any classified information, directly or indirectly to the Chinese Government?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did anyone ever ask or suggest that you pass classified information or any other information to which they were not

entitled, to the Chinese Government?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Another accusation is that if you were not a Chinese spy, you were in effect a spy for the Lippo Group.

Former Congressman Jerry Solomon, who was the chairman of

the House Rules Committee and a Member of the Republican leadership, repeatedly made this allegation. For example, he alleged on

national television in June 1997, that you gave national secrets to

the Lippo Group. Specifically, he stated, ‘‘Mr. Huang was passing

on classified information both dealing with economic espionage and

breaches of national security to a foreign corporation with connections to the Chinese Government.’’ These allegations made front-page news, and they were treated

very seriously. Are Mr. Solomon’s allegations true?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Are any part of them true?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. When you were at the Department of Commerce,

were you an agent of the Lippo Group, as Mr. Solomon has alleged?

Mr. HUANG. Would you repeat the question again?

Mr. WAXMAN. When you were at the Department of Commerce,

were you an agent of the Lippo Group, as Mr. Solomon has alleged?

Mr. HUANG. I missed the agent’s name. I was not, no. Definitely

not.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, you have immunity. Did you do anything for

the Lippo Group while you were at the Department of Commerce?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir, no.

Mr. WAXMAN. Have you at any time ever given classified information to the Lippo Group?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did anyone ever ask you to give classified information to the Riadys or Lippo Group?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you ever use your position at the Commerce

Department to help the Riadys or the Lippo Group?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Another major allegation is that you were illegally

laundering campaign contributions while you were employed at the

86

DNC. Here is what the chairman said about these activities in September 1997, to the Associated Press, ‘‘there is no question that

Mr. Huang did this. This is the first time we have found an active

person at the DNC who was involved in money laundering. Mr.

Huang, while he was an executive at the DNC in the finance area,

was laundering money, and we will be able to prove that.’’ Was Mr. Burton right? Did you launder campaign contributions

while at the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that you requested

the Justice Department to provide this committee with the notes

from a number of FBI interviews. Mr. Chairman, may I have your

attention? You asked for the Justice Department to give our committee a number of FBI interviews related to Mr. Huang and the

campaign finance investigation. And I understand the Justice Department agreed to provide these notes, they are called 302s, to the

committee this afternoon. I think we have received some of them.

I would like to request at this time that you also ask the Justice

Department to provide the committee with the notes from the FBI

interview of former Representative Jerry Solomon. Chairman Solomon told the media that he knew of evidence that John Huang

committed economic espionage and breached our national security

by passing classified information to his former employer, the Lippo

Group.

I believe the American people have the right to know what the

evidence was that Mr. Solomon had, if any such evidence actually

existed. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see if you will agree

to ask the Justice Department to provide Mr. Solomon’s 302 along

with all the other 302s to this committee this afternoon.

Mr. BURTON. I have no problem with that. We will request that

from the Justice Department.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Huang, you have said that you facilitated a number of conduit contributions between 1992 and June 1994. In some instances

you identified Lippo employees who could legally make contributions and solicited contributions from them with the understanding

they would be, ‘‘taken care of’’ by James Riady.

In other instances, you made the contributions yourself and expected to be reimbursed in your annual bonus. And you also prepared memos to get reimbursements from overseas for corporate

contributions made by Lippo’s U.S. entities.

This sounds to me like a pretty elaborate plan. It was blatantly

illegal. Didn’t you know that this plan was illegal?

Mr. HUANG. I knew that it was not proper. I was sorry for that,

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield briefly?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Senator Lieberman said in the hearings that were

held in the Senate, ‘‘Non-public evidence presented to the committee demonstrates a continuing business intelligence relationship between the Riadys and the People’s Republic of China Intelligence

Service.’’

Now, that is classified information which we cannot bring out in

this committee. But I suggest that you and I and the committee

87

probably ought to check with the intelligence agencies to take a

look at that because Mr. Lieberman probably had that information.

He is a Democrat Senator.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to join with

you in getting that information. But we have Mr. Huang here and

he is under oath and he is under immunity.

What do you say to the chairman’s quote from Senator

Lieberman?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, would you repeat? I’m sorry about

that.

Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. WAXMAN. Sure.

Mr. BURTON. Senator Lieberman said, ‘‘Non-public evidence,’’ he

is talking about intelligence evidence from FBI or from CIA, ‘‘presented to the committee demonstrates a continuing business intelligence relationship between the Riadys and the People’s Republic

of China Intelligence Service.’’ Mr. WAXMAN. Do you know anything about that?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know whether it is the intelligence service or

not, but the Riady group does have some business partnership with

some Chinese corporations in Hong Kong. I don’t know if that’s

what he related to or not. I don’t know that entity in Hong Kong

or entities in Hong Kong where is the arm of the Chinese, you

know, espionage units or not. At that time, I certainly did not

know. At this moment, I don’t even know.

Mr. WAXMAN. And this scheme that you did know about, because

you engineered it, did you at any time question whether it was

proper to make these conduit contributions?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not.

Mr. WAXMAN. You felt that it might not be proper or legal. Why

did you decide to break the law?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Waxman, in the human life, sometimes you

have to make decisions in a crossroad and sometimes, you know,

you have to make decision. By not making decision is also a decision. By that time I made a decision to continue that. And I certainly regret those things that happened at the time. Maybe it was

anticipation probably it would not be found out.

Mr. WAXMAN. That is usually what people think when they break

the law.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, sir. I definitely regret that.

Mr. WAXMAN. But what you did was a serious violation of the

law, and I think you owe the American people an apology.

Mr. HUANG. Yeah, I do, Mr. Chairman—Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. In August of this year, you reached a plea bargain

with Justice; and I understand that you pleaded guilty to making

illegal conduit contributions. According to the Justice Department’s

announcement of your plea, you were ‘‘responsible for arranging

approximately $156,000 in illegal campaign contributions from

Lippo Group overseas to various Democratic and Republican political committees ‘‘between 1992 and June 1994.’’ So I want to ask you about these activities in some detail.

I understand that the individuals who were involved in these

conduit contributions were primarily James Riady and other Lippo

executives. Is that right?

88

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Was the DNC aware that these contributions were

illegal conduit contributions?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Was the President or Vice President aware that

these contributions were illegal conduit contributions?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. In your statement to the FBI, you indicated that

James Riady told you about a limousine ride he took with thenGovernor Clinton in August 1992 in which Mr. Riady told Mr. Clinton that he would like to raise $1 million for his Presidential campaign. Chairman Burton has said that this conversation proves

that the President was a knowing participant in the illegal conduit

contribution schemes.

Here is what the chairman said on national television on November 2nd of this year. ‘‘Huang said that James Riady told the Presi- dent he would raise $1 million from foreign sources for his campaign. The President knew that James Riady was doing it. He

knew that it was foreign money coming in from the Lippo Group

in Jakarta, Indonesia, and he didn’t decline it. He accepted it.’’ Is the chairman correct? Did the President know that these contributions were illegal?

Mr. HUANG. No, I have no knowledge that the President knows

about it. I don’t believe that the President knew about this.

Mr. WAXMAN. To the best of your knowledge, in their conversation did Mr. Riady in any way indicate to the President the source

of the money that he was going to raise?

Mr. HUANG. No, I have no indication that way.

Mr. WAXMAN. At the time Mr. Riady had the conversation with

the President, he was a legal permanent resident of the United

States. As such, he was legally entitled to make campaign contributions or to raise contributions from others; is that right?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me ask you the bottom-line question. Did you

ever at any point in time have any conversation with President

Clinton where you indicated to him that any foreign or illegal contributions were being made, or did he ever indicate to you that he

had any knowledge of foreign contributions?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Huang, you’ve been accused of soliciting illegal

foreign contributions while working at the DNC in 1996. Let me

ask you a series of questions that cover the entire time period that

you worked at the DNC as a fundraiser. That was from December

1995, to October 1996.

While at the DNC, did you ever knowingly solicit or accept any

foreign political contributions?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. While at the DNC, did you ever knowingly assist

any foreign government or company to funnel money in any form

into the U.S. political system?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did anyone at the DNC or at the White House

ever ask you or suggest to you that you solicit illegal contributions

of any kind?

89

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you ever talk to the President or Vice President about the source of any political contributions you solicited?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did anyone at the DNC know that foreign contributions were being made?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Huang, you are here under oath. You are also

here with a vote for immunity so you cannot be held criminally liable for your conduct except if you lie to us. And if it turns out that

you did lie to this committee, while Mr. Burton and I don’t see eye

to eye on many things, he and I will be working together to ask

that there be a prosecution for perjury against you.

I’ve asked you a series of questions that go to the most serious

allegations that have been made against you for the last 3 years.

I want you to take a moment and reflect on your answers and tell

us if there is anything else you think we ought to know about relating to those questions that I asked you.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Waxman, I’m sorry, I don’t have any reason to

have any knowledge that I answered your questions incorrectly at

this time, sir.

Mr. Waxman, also, I don’t know what the report is about. I did

not have any benefit—— Mr. WAXMAN. You do not have any benefit of—— Mr. HUANG. No. You have the benefit of reading whatever report

is being supplied by—— Mr. WAXMAN. You know the truth of what you know.

Mr. HUANG. I answered the questions truthfully to all those interrogations or investigations.

Mr. WAXMAN. And my questions to you today, you have answered

truthfully?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Huang, our committee has had its share of

blunders and mistakes. In fact, we have been called a parody of

reputable investigations and a case study on how not to do an investigation. And I want to ask you about one of our true lows.

In 1997, we had a hearing we held with a fellow named David

Wang. This hearing was held in October 1997. Prior to the hearing,

the chairman told the Associated Press that the hearing was going

to prove that John Huang laundered illegal campaign contributions

while at the DNC. He said this was, ‘‘the first time in my memory

we have seen evidence of such blatantly illegal activity by a senior

national party member.’’

In the hearing, David Wang testified before this committee under

oath that you, Mr. Huang, came to his place of business in Los Angeles in August 1996 and gave him cash in return for a campaign

contribution. I introduced evidence that showed that this could not

have happened. This evidence included hotel receipts and affidavits

to show that you were in New York, not Los Angeles, on the day

in question.

The Democratic members also suggested that perhaps this was

a case of mistaken identity. In fact, Representative Kanjorski said

that perhaps the person that Mr. Wang met was Charlie Trie, not

John Huang.

90

Now, we had all the receipts showing you were in New York. We

had clear evidence that show that you were in New York on the

day that Mr. Wang said that you went to his place of business in

Los Angeles. And in light of that evidence, I asked the chairman

to retract his allegation. And to this day, however, the chairman

has refused to correct the record.

I’d like to now ask you about what really happened. Mr. Huang,

was David Wang telling the truth when he said that you met with

him in August 1996 while you were at the DNC and gave him cash

to make an illegal conduit contribution?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir, Mr. Wang was not telling the truth.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have additional proof that Mr.

Huang is telling the truth here today. The committee recently received the FBI notes of the FBI interviews with Charlie Trie. In

these notes, Mr. Trie says that it was he, not Mr. Huang, who met

with David Wang. I ask unanimous consent to introduce these FBI

interview notes into the hearing record at this point.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

Just 1 second. Pardon me.

The FBI has asked us not to release those or put those in the

record yet because there is information they would still like to redact, and I have told the FBI Director and the FBI that we would

honor that. So I don’t think we should put it in the record at this

time until they have made the redactions that they think are necessary.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think they should be in the

record. I think you are mistaken. But I will withdraw my request,

and we will talk further about it.

Mr. BURTON. Once the redactions are made, we will check with

the FBI. I have no objection once that happens.

Mr. WAXMAN. But I think once this information comes out, and

I know you share my view, the American people ought to have all

the truth, it will be clear that you were mistaken, we all make mistakes, and you were mistaken about Mr. Wang’s accusation that

Mr. Huang came to his place of business. And if that is true that

you were mistaken, I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will admit that

there was a mistake and that was an allegation, the allegation you

made based on that, that was based on incorrect facts.

Mr. BURTON. If there is a mistake in the record, we will correct

that.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, before I start my 5 minutes, I would

just like to ask a question. We have had 30 minutes from the chairman and the ranking member, and then from this point on we’re

going to be going in 5-minute segments and then continuing to

come back. So we’ll do 5 minutes, the next person, and just keep

going down and doing that; is that correct?

Mr. BURTON. That’s correct, until we are ready to finalize; and

then we will have 30 minutes for staff.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Would you like a break, Mr. Huang?

Mr. HUANG. Please, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. We’ll take about a 10-minute break. We stand in

recess until the call of the gavel.

91

[Recess.]

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Huang, what we were discussing was nothing

of major significance. Since you and your legal counsel flew on the

red eye, we assume that you are kind of tired. So what we are

going to do is go until 6 o’clock today and then we will recess until

tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock rather than go to later in the

evening.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I am supposed to tell the truth. I did

not fly red eye. I did arrive at 1 o’clock. So it is not considered red

eye fully on that basis. But my eyes are red.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Huang, it is good to have you here.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you, Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. And I am going to take your statement as I think you

mean it. It seems somewhat conciliatory. It seems somewhat regretful. But I also want to take what you say to coincide with your

statement. I need to first ask you what you mean by saying, ‘‘I’ve

made some mistakes.’’ What are the mistakes you’ve made?

Mr. HUANG. As far as the illegality, you know, funneling the

funds, campaign contributions.

Mr. SHAYS. So what are the mistakes?

Mr. HUANG. The campaign contributions. Talking about during

1992 through 1994, that period of time when I was with Lippo,

there was a lot of money being handled through me and funneled

through me. Essentially, I meant that, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. You are 1 of 79 people who have exercised their right

to use their fifth amendment privileges for self-incrimination, and

it is a right that is available to all Americans and you had that

right and you exercised it. But you were one of so many. And being

the non-lawyer that I am, you begin to get a feeling when there are

so many that there is something here that people do not want us

to know.

I am going to focus in eventually on security issues because that

is an area that my subcommittee is responsible for. But my understanding is, since 1985 through July 1994, you worked for the

Riadys in various capacities. You worked for them, the Lippo

Group, and so on. You worked for the Riadys. Is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. And then my understanding is that from July 1994

to December 1995 you worked for the Commerce Department.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. And then since then, excuse me, from December 1995

to October-November 1996, you worked for the Democrat National

Committee.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. And you raised money from the Riadys when you

worked for the DNC.

Mr. HUANG. I did not raise from the Riadys, though.

Mr. SHAYS. From someone who gave to the Riadys? I mean, were

the Riadys not involved in any of your campaign fundraising efforts?

Mr. HUANG. Somebody——

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t want to split hairs here. I want you to be accurate.

92

Mr. HUANG. Yes, somebody’s family had partnership with Riady’s

family business.

Mr. SHAYS. So you raised money from the businesses of the

Riadys?

Mr. HUANG. No. No. No. Individuals.

Mr. SHAYS. Individuals who worked for the businesses.

Mr. HUANG. Whose family had partnership with Riady’s family

business.

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough.

Mr. HUANG. But to my knowledge they are green card holders.

Mr. SHAYS. Would it have been illegal for you to raise money

from the Riadys when you worked for the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. I’m sorry, sir?

Mr. SHAYS. Would it have been illegal for you to have raised

money from the Riadys? You seem to want to make clear to me

that somehow during that time while you worked at the DNC you

did not raise money from the Riadys but you raised money from

people who had business acquaintances and agreements with the

Riadys.

Mr. HUANG. Because I had the knowledge at that time Mr. Riady

has relinquished his green card status back to the United States

and he was no longer holding the PR, so-called permanent resident

status in the United States, he was not eligible to take care of any

further.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, you could have raised soft money from them.

That is not a campaign contribution.

Mr. HUANG. But he did not have the status, though.

Mr. SHAYS. The bottom line is you chose not to raise money from

the Riadys but from people who worked for the Riadys in that business relationship. In 1997 you had a gift of $18,000 from the Riady family; and in 1998, $20,000 from the Riady family; and in 1999 they paid your

travel expenses to go to Jakarta, correct?

Mr. HUANG. I paid before. They gave me back the money, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, so the picture I see is a relationship from 1985

to really now, a relationship with the Riady family.

Mr. HUANG. Yes. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And the one distinction you want me to be clear on

is that when you worked at the DNC you chose not to raise any

money from the Riadys?

Mr. HUANG. They could not give either in my mind, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And when you say, ‘‘mistakes,’’ would you define any

of those mistakes as illegal?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, it is.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, tell me the illegal things you did.

Mr. HUANG. The reimbursement part. In other words, although

I was legally able to give money, but I was reimbursed later on by

the Riadys.

Mr. SHAYS. And is that the extent of your testimony before this

committee? That is the extent of your illegal activities?

Mr. HUANG. That’s one part.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Give me the other parts.

Mr. HUANG. Because I have knowledge about at least some of

the——

93

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just say something to you. I’m not going to

be satisfied if you tell me that you didn’t have knowledge at the

time that this was illegal. Let’s just agree that if it was illegal,

whether or not you knew it, it is illegal.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Shays, please clarify the times you you’re talking about.

Mr. SHAYS. I do not want to clarify times. I want to know what

illegal acts you have done. And you regret all of them and you have

immunity for all these illegal acts. I do not want to know the ones

I know. I want to know the ones you know, too.

Mr. HUANG. OK. I was not supposed to be reimbursed for all the

campaign contributions that I made, but somehow I did, or reimbursed through those money.

Mr. SHAYS. And that is your testimony before us? That that is

the extent of any of the illegal acts that you have done?

My time is up. I will come back. Is the answer to the question

yes? Is that the extent of all your illegal acts?

Mr. HUANG. I also knew the other people being reimbursed as

well, that was not proper—that was not illegal—that was illegal,

I’m sorry.

Mr. SHAYS. And that’s the extent of all the illegal acts you have

done?

Mr. HUANG. To the best I can comprehend, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. We will talk some more. Thank you.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, please. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Huang, I wanted to discuss with you some of your participation and some of the events surrounding the Presidential debate

which took place in East Lansing, MI, October 19, 1992. I am going

to be referring first to exhibit 31. And if you have that there, if you

might pull that up and we can put that on the screen.

On a document for the Presidential debate in East Lansing, MI,

on that date, October 19, 1992, James and Aileen Riady are listed

as guests along with Melinda Yee’s name. Again, their names are

listed as guests along with Melinda Yee’s name next to theirs.

By the time of the debate on October 1, 1992, Lippo related contributions topped some $570,000. Is that figure approximately correct to your knowledge?

[Exhibit 31 follows:]

94

95

96

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know for sure, but it’s definitely over a few

hundred thousand dollars, yes.

Mr. MICA. And the Riadys personally contributed—we have

$410,000 of that total. They also contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars at that point?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know exactly the date, but they did make

quite a few hundred thousand dollar contributions approximately

that time, yes.

Mr. MICA. The document listing the guests for the East Lansing

debate lists a James and Aileen Riady. Next to their names is the

name of Melinda Yee, apparently signifying that Yee, a DNC employee detailed to the Clinton-Gore campaign, was the person who

arranged for their invitation. Melinda Yee was also the individual

who informed Governor Clinton about the limousine ride and

James Riady’s $100,000 contribution to the August 14, 1992, fundraiser.

The questions that I have are as follows: The list that is on exhibit 31 is a guest list to the October 19, 1992, Presidential debates

in East Lansing, MI. On the second page it lists James and Aileen

Riady. Did Mr. and Mrs. Riady attend the Presidential debate in

East Lansing to your knowledge?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Mica, they did not attend, to the best of my

knowledge.

Mr. MICA. They did not. Did the Riadys fly in from Indonesia

with the intent of intending to attend the debate?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know if they were in Indonesia or not. But

I do know they did not attend, because I attended it.

Mr. MICA. Did Melinda Yee arrange—was she making arrangements for the Riadys to attend, and then were you substituted in

their place?

Mr. HUANG. I couldn’t quite recall right now for sure, but I did

not know exactly. But I do know that I did attend and my wife did

attend.

Mr. MICA. Well, did you work with Mr. Riady to arrange the contributions so that someone could attend the event? And I guess

originally it had been Mr. Riady who was going to attend.

Mr. HUANG. I was not sure whether it was related to the contribution or not. Apparently, during that period of time, there were

guests on the list by DNC, you know, being recommended to be invited.

Mr. MICA. But did you get there through Mr. Riady’s contribution

or through contributions that you personally had made?

Mr. HUANG. Well, I was actually raising the money at that time

from various people in the group, Lippo Group, so I don’t know the

determination on the invitation list was because the money being

raised was a key factor or not.

Mr. MICA. But, again, I am trying to find out at this juncture in

October, were you the recipient of money that was given for you

to participate in the event or was the money given from the Riadys

for the Riadys to participate in the event?

Mr. HUANG. You know, at that period of time, to my best recollection, I was giving the money, my wife was giving the money, and

certainly at that time part of the money was given by the Riady

family, as well.

97

Mr. MICA. What were you doing at that time?

Mr. HUANG. In 1992, I was still working for Lippo Group in California.

Mr. MICA. And what was your approximate income at that time?

Mr. HUANG. At that time——

Mr. MICA. 1992.

Mr. HUANG. Probably $150,000 in that range.

Mr. MICA. And how much did you give in 1992 to the either the

campaign or the inaugural committee?

Mr. HUANG. Solid campaign, I could not really recall exactly.

Probably over $30,000 or $40,000 at least.

Mr. MICA. Were you reimbursed by Mr. Riady or the Lippo

Group for those funds?

Mr. HUANG. Later on, yes.

Mr. MICA. What about the funds that were—now, I see some

funds in your name and is it Jane? Is that your wife?

Mr. HUANG. That’s my wife, yes.

Mr. MICA. And she was also contributing funds I guess in her

name also?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, when I talk about the total amount, it was including my wife’s contribution also.

Mr. MICA. And was she also reimbursed for those contributions?

Mr. HUANG. I was handling, Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. The money came to you and the checks were written.

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, are we doing double——

Mr. BURTON. We are doing 5-minute rounds right now. So if you

like, we will be back to you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to apologize, Mr. Huang, for the fact that each of us are

taking kind of different lines of questioning and because we could

not get in the rules 10 minutes where you can kind of get an order

to it. You will see I am going to be asking a series of questions regarding Mr. Hubbell, and I’ll come back to that every so often. So

you will kind of see a pattern here, but your mind is going to be

pretty tired because you are going to be moving between different

scenarios because we could not get a longer questioning period.

The first question I would like to ask is, when did you first learn

that Webb Hubbell needed financial help?

Mr. HUANG. Probably in spring of 1994.

Mr. SOUDER. Was this at a reception? I believe your FBI deposition said it was at a reception in the spring.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Souder, can you hold on just a second?

Essentially, the news I’ve learned I believe from Mr. Doug

Buford of the law firm from Little Rock, AR; and, basically, I believe he mentioned to me I was told he was indicating Mr. Hubbell

needs some help, financial help.

Mr. SOUDER. Was that at the reception where you first heard it?

Mr. HUANG. No. That was a phone call separate.

Mr. SOUDER. So you first heard it at a reception. And then Mr.

Buford, was he talking about Mr. Hubbell’s children?

98

Mr. HUANG. No. I believe I heard that through phone call ahead

of time from Mr. Buford. The reception was in Washington, DC,

and I was given a business card later on from Mr. Hubbell.

Mr. SOUDER. I want to go back to the reception where it first

started. Was it at the White House, at the DNC? What kind of reception was it?

Mr. HUANG. I cannot remember the location of the reception. I

do not believe it was in the White House, though.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you believe it was a political reception, or you

don’t remember?

Mr. HUANG. I do not remember.

Mr. SOUDER. You have said before and here on the record that

it was in the spring. Mr. Hubbell called Lippo Bank twice on May

19, 1994. Do you think that was approximately the time that the

reception?

Mr. HUANG. I would believe, if your records indicating the phone

call is made in May, probably that reception was happening before

that already.

Mr. SOUDER. Because it also shows up a little bit later in June

that you have said that Mr. Riady asked you to set up a meeting.

So probably the order here was that you heard at a reception that

he needed help, and clearly he made some calls on May 19 to the

Lippo Bank. And then do you know approximately the date when

Doug Buford would have called you?

Mr. HUANG. I cannot really speculate. I do know for sure it is

prior to that.

Mr. Souder, in terms of the sequencing on that, the best I can

recollect is I learned this information from Mr. Buford through

phone call indicating he was needing the help and also learned

somebody was trying to set up a trust fund for the children. And

then, over time, I had a conversation with Mr. Riady about the fact

and that Mr. Hubbell needed help. And then the reception, probably there was a chance I met with Mr. Hubbell and there was an

indication to Mr. Hubbell saying Mr. Riady might be coming back

to the United States in June sometime.

So I’m pretty sure the main call was pursuing for when might

be the appointment for exactly the time they might be able to meet.

I was trying to arrange the meeting at that time.

Mr. SOUDER. Could you explain for the record who Doug Buford

is?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Buford is an attorney with Wright, Lindsey and

Jennings. It is a law firm in Little Rock, AR. He’s also a friend of

mine and also to the Riady family.

Mr. SOUDER. So it is Bruce Lindsey’s law firm?

Mr. HUANG. Former law firm yes, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. And he was a friend of yours when you were previously with the Bank of Arkansas and others?

Mr. HUANG. I know him not that early.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you know him in Arkansas, or did you know

him only once you came to Washington?

Mr. HUANG. I knew him when I was still with the Lippo Group

in California then.

Mr. SOUDER. When there was any of these contacts to you, when

you first heard he was needing help in or the trust and/or the trust

99

fund regarding the children, was there any mention in the same

discussions about the independent counsel investigation or his cooperation?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not know that.

Mr. SOUDER. In other words, it was not even discussed not necessarily in toto?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. I mean, it seems just to a casual observer that

there have been a lot of concern and a lot of discussion anytime

Webb Hubbell would have been around about what is happening in

the counsel’s office. So you did not hear any kind of concern about

Mr. Hubbell and him feeling persecuted or what these crazy Republicans in the House are going to do next?

Mr. HUANG. To the best of my knowledge, I did not. It did not

register in my mind at that time.

Mr. SOUDER. After you heard that Mr. Hubbell needed help, did

you discuss it with Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

Mr. SOUDER. And when approximately would that have been?

Mr. HUANG. Again during that springtime. Probably April, May,

around that time.

Mr. SOUDER. But before the visit in June?

Mr. HUANG. Definitely, yes, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. Multiple times?

Mr. HUANG. Occasionally Mr. Riady will call and continue on average, like once a week, or checking in what’s going on in our operation in the United States. So we talked about various things.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Riady about Mr.

Hubbell’s problems and why he was having problems, that he was

being investigated and because of that reason he would need

money?

Mr. HUANG. Not in detail.

Mr. SOUDER. What does ‘‘not in detail’’ mean?

Mr. HUANG. My hunch is Mr. Riady probably has the CNN and

overseas he would know about that. I just mention to him he’s really in trouble and he needs help, information to him about somebody

trying to set up a trust fund on that basis. The trust fund’s only

limit—I believe a person can only give up to $15,000 maximum. I

passed those information to Mr. Riady.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I will return later.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Huang, I want to go back to your opening statement for just

a second; and then I want to talk to you about some Presidential

fundraising events that happened back in 1996.

One of the things that struck me in the first paragraph of your

opening is you said, ‘‘in addition, while things might have gone

easier for me and were I able to implicate the President and the

Vice President in wrongdoing, I never had any basis to do so.’’ And

that is what you answered in a question from Mr. Waxman. But

I think that you stand convicted, do you not, of conspiracy to defraud the United States of America that stems from the illegal political contributions that you made and Lippo Group entities made

100

between 1992 and 1994? That’s the crime, basically, that you stand

convicted of, is it not?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And the sentence that you received was 1 year of probation and a $10,000 fine; is that right, too?

Mr. HUANG. And also 500 hours community service.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I was just struck when you said that things

might have gone easier for you. I think, I was a prosecutor for 6

years, and the only thing that could have gone easier is if they had

given you nothing. That is a pretty good sentence. I do not know

if Mr. Cobb and Mr. Keeney were your lawyers, but if they were,

they are excellent lawyers and they are to be commended for negotiating that agreement.

But then when you were talking to Mr. Waxman, and I want to

be real clear about this, that crime to which you stand convicted

today was for activities that occurred between 1992 and 1994; is

that right?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Specifically in response to Mr. Waxman’s series of questions, you indicated that while at the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, that you engaged in no illegal activities

and, likewise, that you are not aware and that you did not participate in the making of any illegal contribution either to the Democratic National Committee or President Clinton’s re-election campaign in 1996. Is that right?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. There was just a television program on recently where they would ask a series of questions and they had

lifelines where you could phone a friend or 50/50. And I would ask

you, is that your final answer, that you did not commit the same

type of conduit scheme to defraud the United States of America in

1996 that you engaged in between 1992 and 1994?

Mr. HUANG. To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Let’s talk, then, about some fundraising

events that took place in 1996. And I want to turn your attention

first to one that occurred on February 19, 1996. You are familiar

with that fundraising event?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, Congressman.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And it is my understanding that that was the

first major fundraising event that you might have been involved in

after you went to the DNC; is that correct, also?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Do you remember what the goal of that

fundraiser was?

Mr. HUANG. Actually, I tried to set $1 million, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And is that a figure you established for the

fundraising event? Was that a figure given to you by the DNC, the

Presidential campaign? How did you come at $1 million?

Mr. HUANG. I set the goal for $1 million, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And do you recall—if this was on February

19th, do you recall when you would have started beginning the

planning for that event?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, ever since I joined in the DNC, starting from

December 1995.

101

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you recall communicating to anyone else that you needed to raise $1 million at that February 19th event in

order to get the President’s attendance at that fundraiser?

Mr. HUANG. Maybe, yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And, in fact, do you recall such a conversation

with Charlie Trie—— Mr. HUANG. Yes, I do.

Mr. LATOURETTE [continuing]. That the $1 million would be required to secure the President of the United States’s attendance at

this fundraising event?

Mr. HUANG. I really cannot, Congressman, equate million dollars

to get the President coming here. Probably lesser amount you can

get the President coming here. So I set my goal, hopefully I can

raise $1 million. That would be the first time the Asian American

community raise that kind of money on record.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You just mentioned ‘‘Asian American community.’’ Was there a target audience or group that you hoped to solicit to attend this event on February 19th, or was it anybody that

was inclined to give President Clinton money to run for re-election?

Mr. HUANG. Primarily the Asian American community, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And the price for this event, my understand- ing, was $12,500 was the cost of a ticket to attend this event; is

that right?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And that included not only the dinner on the

19th but also a breakfast the next morning with the Vice President

of the United States, Mr. Gore?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Was there another requirement as to a different contribution level to be entitled to sit at the head table at

that event?

Mr. HUANG. I did not set that level, but people—some of the people might have given more money. Some of the people might have

historically made supporting Democratic party, which is known to

everybody, and also because of diversity, for the diversity basis, I

try to have a different Asian American community to be represented on the head table as well, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you select the composition of the head

table at that event?

Mr. HUANG. Primarily yes, yes, myself, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you, as you sit here today, and maybe we

can go in the next 5 minutes if you don’t remember, do you remember what the head table was comprised of at the February 19th

fundraiser?

Mr. HUANG. I can remember some of them.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Can you just name them for us?

Mr. HUANG. Pauline Kanchanalak.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Pauline Kanchanalak?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

I think either Mr. Ted Sioeng or Mr. Ted Sioeng’s guests. I just

need to go back to the list to know.

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is fine. We can talk about that in a little

bit. I am not trying to stump you, but we will go over some names

maybe in my next 5 minutes.

102

But specifically, Charlie Trie, and maybe the chairman asked

you, when did you meet Charlie Trie?

Mr. HUANG. The first time probably in the summer of 1994. I

heard of him much earlier, but the first time I met with him was

in summer of 1994.

Mr. LATOURETTE. According to the information that I’ve reviewed, Charlie Trie was a very active donor to the Democratic National Committee, but he was not an active fundraiser, if you understand the distinction, in that he would contribute money on his

own, but until you got to the DNC, based upon what I’ve reviewed,

is the first time he became a solicitor of others. Would you agree

with that observation?

Mr. HUANG. That I would not know, but he was—he was a donor

at that time, already established record in front of DNC before I

arrived at the DNC.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you have conversations with him to encourage him to become not only—continue as a donor, but also be

a solicitor of others?

Mr. HUANG. I did. I did encourage him to do that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. After he got to the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. That is right, because I was trying to set a goal for $1 million. I need everybody’s help. That’s why I asked him.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Huang.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have got 5 minutes now. I basically covered, I think, the essential important questions in this whole investigation, and I appreciate your answers to them, but I’d like to ask some clean-up questions if I might.

Mr. Huang, there have been a lot of allegations about the relationship between the Lippo Group and Webster Hubbell. William

Safire, for example, wrote in July of this year, ‘‘we will never know

if the $100,000 that the Riady family paid Hubbell was, in Thomas

Jefferson’s phrase, ‘hush money’ to keep him from telling prosecutors about the part played by his Rose Law Firm ‘billing partner’

Hillary Clinton in his sham deal.’’ Mr. Huang, that is what Mr.

Safire had to say. You had a role in the payment to Mr. Hubbell.

Was the money paid by the Lippo Group to Mr. Hubbell hush

money?

Mr. HUANG. To the best of my knowledge, it was not.

Mr. WAXMAN. What do you know about the money Mr. Hubbell

received from the Lippo Group?

Mr. HUANG. Basically was a help from a friend, a friend that’s

in trouble.

Mr. WAXMAN. Why do you think Mr. Hubbell was paid this

money?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Riady was just trying to—based on the friendship, would just like to help him.

Mr. WAXMAN. To your knowledge, was the President involved in

any way in the decision of the Riadys to hire Mr. Hubbell?

Mr. HUANG. No, I don’t know about that.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Huang, while working for the DNC, you

played a role in organizing an event at the Hsi Lai Temple in CaliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
103

fornia in April 1996. The event was attended by members of the

local Asian American community, along with Vice President Gore.

Since then there have been allegations that members of the temple

made illegal contributions to the DNC. In fact, one woman, Maria

Hsia, faces trial next year for conspiring with temple leaders to

make conduit contributions.

Now, let me ask you, Mr. Huang, did you know anything about

these alleged conduit contributions?

Mr. HUANG. I did not know.

Mr. SOUDER. Parliamentary inquiry. May I make a parliamentary—at that time, did Mr. Waxman——

Mr. BURTON. Gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SOUDER. We have a lot of redacted material related to that

particular fundraiser. Are we going to be allowed to ask questions

about that? What is the standard going to be in these hearings?

Mr. BURTON. We can ask questions as far as the redacted material is concerned. That has been redacted by the Justice Department and the FBI. But questions can be asked of Mr. Huang.

Mr. SOUDER. Continuing my parliamentary inquiry, then people

should realize that when we get answers, that he may not be able

to say certain things, and we may not be able to put certain things

in the record that would clarify those questions because we are restricted as to what we can talk about.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, I think that’s correct. I think you can stipulate

that in your questions.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the chairman and the gentleman for yielding, and he should get the time. I apologize.

Mr. COBB. May I ask a question in response to Congressman

Souder’s question?

Mr. BURTON. Well, we normally don’t allow counsel to ask questions.

Mr. COBB. I just want to make sure that my client understands

the ground rules because he indicated that Mr. Huang may be

under some restriction as to what he can answer, and I don’t—

that’s not my understanding.

Mr. BURTON. There is no restriction whatsoever on questions

that he may want to answer, and I apologize, but the counsels are

not allowed to answer questions. That’s a very strict rule.

Mr. Waxman, we are going to give you additional time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate Mr. Souder’s point because I think the essential

thing with redacted information is that if we had that information,

we are not permitted to make it public, but we are certainly permitted to ask you questions about what you know about matters

that we may have had some information about, and I asked you

whether you knew anything about these alleged conduit informations at the Hsi Lai Temple.

Mr. HUANG. I do not, I do not know.

Mr. WAXMAN. And did the Vice President know anything about

these alleged conduit contributions, to your knowledge?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t think so. I don’t believe he did.

Mr. WAXMAN. Were you at that event?

Mr. HUANG. I was at that event.

104

Mr. WAXMAN. Was it a Democratic party event, or was it a community event?

Mr. HUANG. I have a misgiving in explaining those things. I don’t

know I should at this particular time or not. Originally, there was

a fundraising event supposed to be in a different location, and

there was supposed to be a community event in the Hsi Lai Temple, but later on the scheduling problems and everything was

planned, so we had to combine everything together. So, so I don’t

know how to answer that. Basically it’s a lot of community people

coming in.

Mr. WAXMAN. A lot of community people from the Asian American community were at this event?

Mr. HUANG. A lot of community people came into the event, yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. And the Vice President was there, but were there

other officerholders there?

Mr. HUANG. Some. I think one of the supervisors in L.A. County,

Don Knabe, he was invited as a guest.

Mr. WAXMAN. I think he’s a Republican, the last time I checked.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. You have admitted soliciting contributions for Bill

Clinton and the DNC in 1992 and 1993, but you also solicited and

contributed money for a variety of national and local candidates,

including Republican Senators such as Al D’Amato, Mitch McConnell and Larry Pressler. I’d like to ask you about those contributions. Did you contribute money to Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senator from Kentucky?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

Mr. WAXMAN. How much money did you contribute?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know if it was $1,000 for myself and another thousand for my wife or not. It could be only $1,000 at this time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Why did you make this contribution?

Mr. HUANG. The reasoning is at that particular moment we were

trying to push the immigration bill. So we can, we can do—get help

from the Democratic side, so we thought we need to get the help

from the Republican side as well. I—so I think that was conscious

decision from then in the PLC, Pacific Leadership Council’s member, we need to do something for the Republican Senators as well.

Mr. WAXMAN. And was that your reasoning in giving to Senator

Pressler and Senator d’Amato as well?

Mr. HUANG. The other minor reason was Elaine Chou Lin was

also introducing Senator—not Senator d’Amato—I am talking

about Mitch McConnell again. She was also there.

Mr. WAXMAN. She was. Was that his wife at the time?

Mr. HUANG. Not then. She was a very distinguished, you know,

Chinese American community leader then. Now, she’s his wife. For

Mr. D’Amato was a—was a different reason. There were more reasons, because I receive a call from Mrs. Elaine Chou because I was

a banker then, was in the banking business, and she was asking

would I support Mr. D’Amato because Mr. D’Amato was coming in

town, indicating Mr. D’Amato was in the Banking Committee. So

with his recommendation I did support Mr. D’Amato.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’m out of time, but these don’t seem like they’re

significant to me. Do they have any significance to you and to the

reason we are holding this hearing? Do you have anything to tell

105

us about it that might show some significance in regard to these

contributions?

Mr. HUANG. The only thing is that these funds were reimbursed

later on.

Mr. WAXMAN. They were reimbursed?

Mr. HUANG. They were reimbursed later on, into one lump sum

group basically, whatever the contribution I made, and I totaled it

up, and in a future date I got reimbursed. So this is a part of that.

Mr. WAXMAN. So these are part of the conduit contributions?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Were the individuals like Senator McConnell ever

made aware of that money being conduit contributions?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Well, we probably ought to tell them about it. They

may want to send some of that back.

Let me ask you about the temple. You had 11 nuns who have taken a vow of poverty that each gave $5,000. To whom did they

give that money?

Mr. HUANG. I believe the check was made out to DNC, if I’m not

mistaken.

Mr. BURTON. Who took the money? Did you take it?

Mr. HUANG. I did not.

Mr. BURTON. Who did?

Mr. HUANG. A stack of checks was handed to me on my way from

Los Angeles to—— Mr. BURTON. So you had the stack of checks in your possession?

Mr. HUANG. No. Through—in an envelope through Maria Hsia.

Mr. BURTON. But you saw the checks?

Mr. HUANG. I did not really examine the checks.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t look at the checks?

Mr. HUANG. Until I get back to——

Mr. BURTON. When you came back to Washington, did you look

at the checks?

Mr. HUANG. I did.

Mr. BURTON. Did you see that they came from the nuns?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I knew they came from nuns, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Where did you think the nuns got that money?

Mr. HUANG. All right. Here’s the understanding, Mr. Chairman.

In our culture, in our society, some nuns or even individual, they

made a lot of money. They may decide—feel their life is still empty,

they gave the money.

Mr. BURTON. You thought the nuns actually gave the money

themselves?

Mr. HUANG. No. They gave the money to the temple, for instance.

They gave every property to the temple. Basically they’re very

wealthy themselves. There are quite a lot of people like that.

Mr. BURTON. I know, but where do you think the nuns got the

$5,000 that they gave to the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. I was told some of these nuns were very wealthy,

it was their money.

Mr. BURTON. So you believed that the 11 nuns gave the $5,000

themselves?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

106

Mr. BURTON. You had no doubt about that?

Mr. HUANG. I did not at the time.

Mr. BURTON. Let me go back to my original line of questioning.

Why did Mr. Riady need to tell President Clinton in the back of

the limousine that he was going to give him $1 million for his campaign?

Mr. HUANG. I do not know.

Mr. BURTON. Who proposed that he ride in that limousine with

President Clinton? Did you have anything to do with that?

Mr. HUANG. I had something to do with that.

Mr. BURTON. Why did you arrange for Mr. Riady to ride in the

back of the limousine?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Riady would like to have chance to have a little

moment with Mr. Clinton.

Mr. BURTON. But you didn’t know anything about the million dollars he was going to talk about?

Mr. HUANG. At that moment, no, in terms of how much amount

he was trying to do.

Mr. BURTON. Were there other people that were involved in asking that Mr. Clinton ride in the limousine, like Melinda Yee or

Bruce Lindsey or Governor Clinton or Rahm Emanuel or Melissa

Moss?

Mr. HUANG. I would not know about that.

Mr. BURTON. But you arranged for him to ride in the back?

Mr. HUANG. The primary persons that I was contacting was

Melinda Yee, because Melinda Yee at that time was working with

the DNC.

Mr. BURTON. But she didn’t say anything about anybody else

asking her about meeting with Mr. Riady in the limousine?

Mr. HUANG. I did not recall there was any other persons were

involved.

Mr. BURTON. When were you told that he was going to be taking

that ride, was it just before, or was it some time before?

Mr. HUANG. It was before.

Mr. BURTON. Just recently or some time before? Was it a day before, a week before?

Mr. HUANG. Very close to the event, because they could not really find out what would be the format for them to meet.

Mr. BURTON. Who told you that?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know if that was Melinda Yee or not. I tend

to think it was Melinda Yee.

Mr. BURTON. It wasn’t Bruce Lindsey or Rahm Emanuel or Melissa Moss?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not know Bruce Lindsey then.

Mr. BURTON. OK. When did James Riady conceive the plan, or

do you know when he conceived the plan to give $1 million to the

President’s campaign?

Mr. HUANG. Probably a few weeks before that.

Mr. BURTON. But you didn’t know about it until the limousine

ride?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not know about the limousine ride.

Mr. BURTON. Did you know about the million dollars that was

going to be offered to him before the ride?

107

Mr. HUANG. I was trying to explain to him, Mr. Chairman, remember when I testified to you, originally tried to mention he was

friends, we need to support him, and I was suggesting something

like that much less amount, if we need to support, maybe we

should support like $100,000. He was thinking about the concept

if he really want to support, why not support a much larger

amount.

Mr. BURTON. So you suggested to Mr. Riady a $100,000 contribution before the limousine ride?

Mr. HUANG. That was way back, a few weeks back already.

Mr. BURTON. But it was well before then?

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. BURTON. Who else besides Mr. Riady knew about this plan

of giving a large amount of money to the President before the limousine ride? Did you convey that to anybody else besides Mr.

Riady?

Mr. HUANG. Oh, no, no.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t tell anybody else that?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. How long did that limousine ride last?

Mr. HUANG. Probably about 5, no more than 10 minutes, if it’s—

the driver drive slowly. As I testified to you earlier, Mr. Chairman,

the two locations was already in the same city, in San Gabriel.

Mr. BURTON. Who was in the car besides the President and Mr.

Riady?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know because everything is under security.

So they all went into the elevator, go all the way downstairs to the

parking lot.

Mr. BURTON. So you don’t know if Bruce Lindsey was in the car

with him?

Mr. HUANG. I would not know, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Were any notes taken of the conversation that you

know of between the President and Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. I would not know, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Following the limousine ride, did you and Mr.

Riady discuss what happened?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. And can you tell me what he told you?

Mr. HUANG. He said he mentioned to—I could not say the exactly

words, but I can paraphrase as close as possible, sir. He said he

would like to help Mr. Clinton for his campaign or fundraising,

whatever, raise $1 million and Mr. Clinton’s—Mr. Riady showed

me the response of Mr. Clinton was very surprised suggestion.

Mr. BURTON. Did Mr. Riady indicate that he wanted anything in

return for the million dollars?

Mr. HUANG. Oh, no, no, sir.

Mr. BURTON. He just wanted to give it out of the goodness of his

heart?

Mr. HUANG. Right. Mr. Chairman, he likes to help friends. They

knew each other.

Mr. BURTON. Well——

Mr. HUANG. And also——

108

Mr. BURTON [continuing]. I wish I knew some friends like that. Just give him $1 million for his campaign out of the goodness of

his heart.

Mr. HUANG. To give a political contribution, certainly you will get

some recognition on political fronts. Mr. Riady probably has multiple purposes in doing so, you know, for his business and also—— Mr. BURTON. So you believe he had some multiple purposes, but

you don’t know what they were at the time?

Mr. HUANG. I can speculate for you right now.

Mr. BURTON. You cannot speculate?

Mr. HUANG. I can.

Mr. BURTON. Can you speculate right now?

Mr. HUANG. For the status, as I mentioned already, you know,

the standing, and also the benefit for the business, later on he

would get recognition, and also can tell the people in Asia he

knows Mr. Clinton, and all these things probably would be part of

the benefits that I think he might be able to get.

Mr. BURTON. But you don’t know whether or not he discussed

anything in particular with Mr. Clinton?

Mr. HUANG. Oh, no, no, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Huang, given the 5-minute process, we are—keep

doing 5 minutes, going to the next, so I am just going to review

where you are with me. Where you are with me is that you made

a statement that said you regretted your mistakes. You didn’t call

them illegal actions, so it is illegal actions plus mistakes. Where

you are with me is basically that—the recognition that you worked

for the Riadys from 1985 to July 1994; you worked for Commerce

from July 1994 to December 1995; and you worked at DNC, Democrat National Committee, from December 1995 to October/November 1996 where you raised money. And where you are with me is

that afterwards your relationship continued with the Riadys. They

gave you a $18,000 gift in 1997, $20,000 gift in 1998, and they paid

for your travel to Jakarta in 1999. So that’s kind of where we are

at.

You then acknowledged that you regretted illegal acts that took

place in 1992. I want you to spell out what those illegal acts were.

What did you plead guilty to?

Mr. HUANG. I get reimbursement for my contributions. I knew

some of my colleagues who were reimbursed, and I also—I forgot

to mention to you in the last round, I just thought of that—and

also I gave some of my colleagues money for them to write checks,

but that was a relative small amount.

Mr. SHAYS. That was money that wasn’t necessarily yours that

you gave to others to write out?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, yeah.

Mr. SHAYS. That was money from whom?

Mr. HUANG. From me first, and later on I also reported that back

to Mr. Riady.

Mr. SHAYS. Not from you first. It was—OK, I am sorry, sorry.

Then you were reimbursed later?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. SHAYS. From whom?

Mr. HUANG. From Mr. Riady.

109

Mr. SHAYS. What was the amount, total amount, of these transactions during the 1992 cycle?

Mr. HUANG. Directly related to me was—I can only go by the report that the government has investigated on that.

Mr. SHAYS. No, you can go by what you did. You’d know what

you did.

Mr. HUANG. I really don’t have exact records right at this moment. Probably I can only think about is based on records, about

$150,000 something.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Well, here is what we are going to do. Tomorrow

when you come back, I want the real number, not the record number. I want to know all of those transactions, not the ones you necessarily pleaded guilty to. So that’s the difference here. The difference is you pleaded guilty to something, you have an agreement,

and that’s what you were guilty of according to the court. But I

want to know what you did that extended beyond that that you

didn’t plead guilty to, and you can provide that information to me

tomorrow.

Mr. HUANG. OK, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Thank you.

Now, my understanding is that you didn’t plead guilty to these

actions, and you may not feel you are guilty, but these are mistakes as well. According to our information, you raised $3.4 million

when you were at the DNC, and that so far $1.6 million had to be

returned. They had to be returned because they were illegal contributions.

Mr. HUANG. I still do not know the real reason behind this, behind the returning of that $1.6 million. I did not really have the

privilege of knowing that. DNC did not really tell me about that.

I don’t know what the true reason on that, but at the time when

I collect those money, I did not have any of those information,

whether it was a decoy or not.

Mr. SHAYS. It would be helpful for you to be prepared tomorrow

when we go through that number, and we will go through each of

the numbers and why they were returned. They were returned because they were illegal contributions. Believe me, the DNC or the

RNC is not going to return money if they, in fact, were raised legally, and with all the ways you can get around the law and be

legal, it’s really significant when you have to return the money because you can raise money from corporations and labor unions and

from foreign governments and have it not be illegal technically

under the law if it’s soft money. So this is money I would like to

have you explain.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, I’d be happy to.

Mr. WAXMAN. I would just like to make a point. He may or may

not know about the source or reason for the return of the contributions by the DNC, but as I understand it, in some cases the DNC

returned money if they did not have sufficient information to know

whether it was a legal contribution, as well as contributions they

knew to be illegal.

Mr. SHAYS. Maybe what you could do is you could come tomorrow

and provide us the information on why they took the $1.6 million

110

and gave it back because they wouldn’t have done it unless they

felt they needed to.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you for giving me the homework assignment. I am simply informing you from the press reports that I have

read that they gave some back and for reasons, but you can ask

the DNC. I have no knowledge myself.

Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, it is just since I yielded to you

and you seem to have an opinion about it, maybe I think then you

can share the information. The bottom line is the DNC, the DNC

returned $1.6 million, and I’d like to know why they returned $1.6

million that you raised, and we will go through that, but I suspect

that’s also a mistake, and you did it while you were at the DNC.

You raised this money while you were at the DNC, correct?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Shays, I really did not know why we returned

that now.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you raise this money while you were at the

DNC?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. It is money returned, some of it illegal, and yet in

response to Mr. Waxman’s question, you said the DNC did not do

anything illegal. You were an employee of the DNC. I want to

make sure that you aren’t splitting hairs here. If you raised money

as an employee of the DNC, the DNC did something illegal.

Mr. HUANG. No. At the time when I raised the money, DNC did

not know those things were illegal.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. And your testimony is that you didn’t know

any of that money was illegal?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, at the time when I raised it.

Mr. SHAYS. Now—but it is also a fact that just because you didn’t

know it doesn’t make it illegal, I mean, we don’t have that convenience, and to be able to say, since I didn’t know it was illegal,

therefore it is not illegal—it was illegal, and I wonder if your answer to Mr. Waxman was as candid as it needed to be. Thank you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to seek my 5-minute round

now.

Mr. BURTON. You had 5 minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN. That was in the last round. If the gentleman would

permit, because I would like to be able to respond to some of the

points that were just made.

Mr. BURTON. The reason we have a limitation of 5 minutes, and

we are just going right down the line, and we’ll come back to you.

Mr. WAXMAN. But point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are in the

second 5-minute round. I have not had a chance to do that. We did

the round, you concluded the first 5-minute round, and then we

started the second 5-minute round, and we are going to Mr. Shays.

Mr. BURTON. We are going in order. Go ahead. Go ahead.

Mr. SHAYS. May I be clear on one thing. I make an assumption

that you said 30 minutes each. So, Mr. Burton, you used your 30

minutes, and you used your 30, so the same thing would apply to

you, I guess, as well.

Mr. BURTON. It would, but we’ll go ahead and let Mr. Waxman

go now. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Before you all applaud yourselves for being so generous, the rules are that when you have a 5-minute round, each

111

Member gets 5 minutes, and it goes back and forth, and you will

hear only from Republicans from here on out in asking questions.

If you receive—if you solicit a contribution working for the DNC,

and you don’t know that it is illegal, and you receive it, and the

DNC doesn’t know it’s illegal, that doesn’t mean you committed

any illegal act or the DNC committed any illegal act; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. But Mr. Shays is correct, it is an illegal contribution because the person who gave it might have given it improperly

or illegally.

Mr. HUANG. That’s after the fact.

Mr. WAXMAN. Is that your understanding? So I have heard—and

I don’t know what the DNC records are, but I am sure this committee has asked for it, and so some way or another maybe we can get

that information out—the DNC after the Presidential election in

1996 found out that some of the contributions that they had received thinking they were legal turned out to have been improperly

made to them, and they gave some of them back. Is that your understanding as well?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. Now, I also understand that some of the contributions they received, they couldn’t figure out whether they were

legal or not, and because they didn’t have sufficient information, it

didn’t make it illegal, they just—because all this turmoil was going

on in the press, and the Republicans were screaming and yelling,

they just returned the money to the contributor and for no particular reason, except the appearance. Is that your understanding?

Mr. HUANG. That is best I can understand, yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. So before Mr. Shays gives you a homework assignment and gives me a homework assignment, he ought to ask the

members of the staff of this committee that subpoenaed over a million documents from the White House and the DNC and everybody

else in sight to give us this information, because I don’t know if you

are going to be able to answer questions you don’t know anything

about, and I am certainly not going to be able to answer questions

that I don’t know anything about.

So I want to put that on the record, and have people understand,

it is the same if Mr. Shays receives a campaign contribution or Mr.

Burton or I, and we don’t know that it came from somebody that

was not entitled to give us a contribution. We try before we receive

it or when we disclose it to make sure that it wasn’t a corporate

contribution, which would be illegal. If we find it is corporate, we

return it. If it were a corporate contribution, it is not illegal unless

the person making the contribution knew that it was illegal to give

it.

Sometimes people give a contribution, they write a check out of

their corporate account, and then we draw their attention to the

matter and return the contribution and say we can’t accept it. If

we knew it were corporate and accepted it and used it, then that’s

a different story.

I wanted also, just because I have the time and a few minutes—

Mr. Burton seemed shocked that anybody would give a million-dollar contribution out of the goodness of their heart. Well, people

112

don’t give contributions out of the goodness of their heart. Maybe

Mr. Riady was doing it because he wanted to impress upon President Clinton that he was giving him or going to raise for him $1

million, and as you indicated, he had a multiplicity of motives; isn’t

that right?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. He wasn’t doing it just out of the goodness of his

heart. I am conjecturing, but he wanted the status of riding in the

limo with the President?

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. WAXMAN. Being able to be someone who could call on the

President as one of his major supporters and friends? There are a

lot of friends people have in politics, and friendships defined under

our crummy campaign finance system as people who give us

money—they become our friends. They’re the ones that get access

to us. They are the ones that are meeting in the congressional offices all the time.

The tobacco industry happens to be a very close friend of the Re- publican party. They gave $8.8 million to the RNC. Now, they got

a tax break, which they couldn’t hold onto when it became public, of $50 billion, and there is an organization called Amway. Their

founder, Richard DeVos, and his wife gave $1 million to the RNC

in April 1997. During the 1997 budget, Speaker Gingrich worked

to secure tax breaks worth more than $200 million for Amway.

Well, I don’t know Mr. DeVos, but I know he’s a very devoted Republican. He probably idealogically likes the Republicans and

wants to help them succeed, but it doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t

come and ask for some assistance from them.

There is a Texas businessman by the name of Harold Simmons, and his family, they gave $1.5 million to Republican candidates

since 1980. The 1997 budget gave them a $60 million tax break.

Now, are these quid pro quos? They didn’t maybe say, ‘‘I will give

you this money and you give me a tax break.’’ They suddenly became friends of the people who were able to write the tax laws because they control the Congress. So, if anything, Mr. Shays ought

to understand, because he said it over and over again, this campaign finance system is disgustingly corrupting because people are

out raising money all the time, and the limits that we used to have,

that try to bring some sense to the laws, are out the window. It

used to be when we ran for Congress, we can get no more than

$1,000 contribution per person. Well, sure, but you can give

$10,000 of corporate money to the Republican or the Democratic

party building organizations, and then they run the commercials.

The American people know this system stinks. Some people have

tried to change it like Mr. Shays, but if you go down the list of the

members on this committee, I don’t know, most of them probably

voted against Mr. Shays’ bill. I voted for it, and the purpose of this

investigation should have been to change the campaign finance system. Instead, as I have said over and over and over again, and will

continue to say, the purpose of this hearing, since it is only looking

at campaign issues relating to Democrats, is to use the taxpayers’

money, $7 million in the last Congress, to try to figure out ways

to make the Democrats and President Clinton look bad while we

all look bad when we have a campaign finance system that we have

113

at the present time where people are out raising money. Even the

chairman is raising money, I am raising money, everybody is raising money. And then our friends who give us money want to come

in and talk to us about things of mutual interest.

My time, I see, is up, but I felt that I really ought to throw this

information out there. Let’s not kid anybody about what’s going on.

We have got a system where everybody is out raising money, and

it invites corruption on the part of people involved in it.

Mr. BURTON. I will take my 5 minutes real quickly here. As time

goes on, we will get back into the Riadys and the Lippo Group ties

to the PRC intelligence agencies. We know through Johnny Chung

that $300,000 was given to him to be given to the President’s reelection committee. He testified under oath about the head of the

Peoples Liberation Army’s intelligence agency, and Mr. Chung,

Johnny Chung, knew that he was subject to perjury charges as well

if he lied. So the People’s Liberation Army intelligence agencies,

during the time that espionage was taking place at Los Alamos and

they were given nuclear secrets, were giving money to the President’s reelection committee, and that’s a fact.

Now, Senator Lieberman said, and I said this earlier, quote, nonpublic evidence presented to the committee, that’s intelligence information, demonstrates a continuing business-intelligence relationship between the Riadys, the Lippo Group, and the PRC intelligence service. So once again you have got the People’s Liberation

Army in Communist China tied to the Riadys because of our intelligence services stating that. Now, we can’t go into details, but

that’s fact.

Now, Mr. Riady, a member of that group, gave $1 million to the

President’s campaign. He knew it was illegal. Now, that’s different

than somebody doing something even though it might be illegal

here in the United States, because we are talking about a foreign

government or a foreign entity that has ties to the People’s Liberation Army and their intelligence apparatus giving $1 million, and

we don’t know what the reason for that was. So there is an awful

lot of things here that we ought to be concerned about.

In addition to that, let me talk about what we were talking about

earlier and what Mr. Shays was talking about. You knew that you

had given or raised money illegally, you have already admitted

that.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. BURTON. When did you know that that money was illegally

raised?

Mr. HUANG. It was starting from 1992.

Mr. BURTON. From 1992. So you went to the DNC as one of the

financial fundraising leaders over there after you knew you had

broken the law, and you had raised money illegally, you knew that.

Now, after you went over there, you raised $3 million, and $1.6

million was returned because it was illegal. Now, you have sworn

under oath here to tell us the truth, and you said that you didn’t

know that money was illegal, but you know it has to raise a question in some of our minds. You knew you were raising money illegally back in 1992, 1993 and 1994, but when you went to the DNC,

you raised $3 million, $1.6 million of which was returned, and you

are saying you did not know that was illegal money?

114

Mr. HUANG. That is correct. At the time when I raised the

money, I did not think the money I raised was illegal, when I was

in DNC.

Mr. BURTON. When you were at the DNC, you did not think it

was illegal?

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. BURTON. But the money you raised prior to that, back in

1992 and 1993 and 1994, you knew that there was illegality involved then?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. So when you went to the DNC and you raised this $3 million, you didn’t continue the practice of raising the money illegally?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. And yet $1.6 million was returned because it was

illegal?

Mr. HUANG. I did not know again, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. I know, but the point is you can understand why

we might be a little bit concerned because you raised money illegally knowing it, and then you come to the DNC and you raised

$3 million plus, and $1.6 million is returned, just like the other

was illegal money, and you are saying you didn’t know that when

you were at the DNC.

Mr. HUANG. The matter, it was illegal during 1992 and 1994, Mr.

Chairman, was related to a very close group which is within the

Lippo Group executive. It was not going outside that group, as you

probably know from the—from the records, but when I was in the

DNC, I did not really go into the practice. I didn’t go to the—you

know, the general public’s basically and—— Mr. BURTON. I think you can see, Mr. Huang, how we have some

concerns and maybe some doubts in the back of our mind, because

if it was illegal here, and you were raising money and you knew

it, and then you go to the DNC and you raise $3 million, and $1.6

million is returned because it is illegal, you would think that you

might have known that because you were doing it previously, it

was a previous mode of operation.

Let me go back to some other questions because I want to stay

on this one theme that—or one issue that we were looking at regarding the limousine ride, because there are a lot of things that

we are going to try to get to regarding that. Did anyone suggest

that Mr. Riady should not give $1 million in contributions to the

President’s committee or to the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. You talking about raise $1 million?

Mr. BURTON. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Did anyone say he should not do that, raising it

from the Lippo?

Mr. HUANG. I have no knowledge on that.

Mr. BURTON. When he told you that, did you say anything to him

about, hey, that might not be the right thing to do because it is

money coming from a foreign corporation?

Mr. HUANG. I did not.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t say anything?

Mr. HUANG. I did not say anything.

115

Mr. BURTON. Are James Riady and President Clinton the only

two people who can say what actually happened in that limousine?

To your knowledge, was there anybody else in the limousine who

could say what happened?

Mr. HUANG. The obvious two person, I don’t know anyone else

who might know.

Mr. BURTON. Maybe you can look at exhibit 24 in your book

there. It is a chart of the Lippo-related contributions after Mr.

Riady made his $1 million promise to President Clinton, if you can

look at that. Were all of these people either Lippo employees or

spouses of Lippo employees?

[Exhibit 24 follows:]

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

Mr. HUANG. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. They were.

Were all of these contributions made to fulfil Mr. Riady’s promise

to raise $1 million?

Mr. HUANG. That would be part of the plan, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Do you recall any more contributions toward Mr.

Riady’s goal that are not listed there? Do you recall any other contributions toward Mr. Riady’s goal that are not listed in that list?

Mr. HUANG. Now, this list, Mr. Chairman, was during the 1992,

that period of time. Later on there was some more names.

Mr. BURTON. Those—that list is from 1992?

Mr. HUANG. 1992 and 1993, around that period of time. All these

things were handled through the hands of—through my hands.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, I understand that.

Were any other contributions that you know of given based upon

the commitment that Mr. Riady made in addition to those? I mean,

is that the only group of people that gave money?

Mr. HUANG. There will be more than that.

Mr. BURTON. There would be more than that?

Mr. HUANG. There would not be too many more on that.

Mr. BURTON. And you were the one that was in charge of soliciting this money for the Riady Group?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In my first part of questioning, Mr. Huang, I went over the contributions prior to the Presidential debate and leading up to the debate, and I think you testified that there were hundreds of thousands of dollars that, before that, went to the Riadys, and then you

said you had also contributed tens of thousands at that point in

1992, and you also received conduit payments and also said your

wife had participated. Actually you had performed that activity for

your wife.

What I’d like to do is to move now into the Asian Pacific Advisory Council [APAC], which was set up by Nora and Gene Lum in

California, and its inaugural event was October 27, 1992, in Los

Angeles. Did you attend that event?

Mr. HUANG. I did attend.

Mr. MICA. In her deposition—and you see, you fit into the bigger

picture of how things took place and who did what in this, and

again, different parts of this scheme to funnel huge amounts of

money into the Presidential campaign and other activities, some of

it, again, from foreign sources. In her deposition, congressional deposition, Melinda Yee denied any involvement with APAC or APAC

Vote apart from the fact that she said she attended the APAC

Vote’s award ceremony in 1992 along with Maria Haley as staffers

from the Clinton-Gore campaign, although Melinda Yee was being

paid by the DNC at that time. Are you aware of that, and she was

at the event?

Mr. HUANG. Melinda Yee was at the event, yes.

150

Mr. MICA. Yee said that APAC Vote was not affiliated with the

DNC in any way. However, their—in their proffer to the committee, the Lums state they opened an office for an organization affiliated with DNC, and that exhibit 33 is dated October 12, 1992. It

says, I authorize Nora Lum, and it’s signed Melinda Yee, director

of constituencies, and she’s setting up that vote project. Is that correct?

[Exhibit 33 follows:]

151

152

Mr. HUANG. I have no knowledge about this arrangement.

Mr. MICA. You have no knowledge, but she was at the organizational thing, and I’d point out for the committee that this is contrary to the information given in her deposition.

Exhibit 32, just before that, is a letter to your wife, I believe,

thanking her for a contribution to this Asian Pacific Advisory

Council [APAC], and it’s signed by Nora Lum. Is that correct?

[Exhibit 32 follows:]

153

154

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, yes.

Mr. MICA. Further, documenting the involvement of Melinda Yee

for the benefit of the committee and the record, I refer to exhibit

34, which shows extensive involvement in a memo from Melinda

Yee to Nora Lum discussing all of the details relating to this fund.

Do you have any knowledge of this particular memo dated September 2, 1992?

[Exhibit 34 follows:]

155

156

Mr. HUANG. Congressman Mica, I do not.

Mr. MICA. You do not?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. MICA. Now, another document here is exhibit 35, which lists

those who would be present on election night produced by Melinda

Yee, and it does list—that’s exhibit 35. It does list, I think, you on

the second page and also the Riadys on the second page. Were you

aware of Melinda Yee’s involvement in preparing this list?

[Exhibit 35 follows:]

157

158

159

160

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know she actually prepared the list or not,

but I was in Little Rock that night, the election night.

Mr. MICA. There is a—now you were involved in the DNC, and

we have had testimony in deposition that—that there was no affiliation between APAC, this Asian Pacific Council, and the DNC. Did

you know if there was a relationship between the two?

Mr. HUANG. At the time I did not know because I—the only

knowledge I knew is that Ms. Lum—Gene Lum was trying to organize something and trying to drum up the vote, you know, from the

Asian community and set up organization like that, and I did attend the kick-off function.

Mr. MICA. And did you or the Lippo Group provide funds to this

organization, and in what amount?

Mr. HUANG. I probably did make contribution to that event,

maybe very small amount, either $1,500 or $2,000. That including

my wife, though.

Mr. MICA. Was any of that money reimbursed to you, or were

those personal funds?

Mr. HUANG. I believe it did get reimbursed later on.

Mr. MICA. You were reimbursed for that.

Let me ask you, too, in closing, and my time is running out, we

have records and the committee has exhibits of showing money

from bank accounts during different periods. Some of that, I guess,

was wire-transferred or entered into the Lippo accounts, and there

was some cash that was brought into the United States and some

cash you received. Did you receive all of your money through

checks or through wire accounts, or did you also receive cash?

Mr. HUANG. In?

Mr. MICA. For reimbursement.

Mr. HUANG. In some period of time in 1992, I did receive some

in cash.

Mr. MICA. In 19——

Mr. HUANG. 1992.

Mr. MICA. Was that given—who gave you that cash?

Mr. HUANG. The cash is the—I believe in final terms as handed

to me through other Lippo coworkers.

Mr. MICA. I am sorry?

Mr. HUANG. Other Lippo coworker who was working closely with

Mr. Riady.

Mr. MICA. Did Mr. Riady give you any cash directly, or this was

from Mr. Riady through one of his employees or workers?

Mr. HUANG. A few incidents. Some of the cases like that I just

explained to you, but some—one case he gave me the cash or traveler’s cash.

Mr. MICA. In what amount?

Mr. HUANG. About $10,000 in aggregate.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. To briefly review, I am back to Webb Hubbell, that

you saw him at a reception, that you have got a call from Doug

Buford about raising—him needing help; you believed that the

phone call from Webb Hubbell to LippoBank were probably to set

up an appointment time. I have a couple of other questions. Did

161

Joe Giroir also contact you about helping or making you aware of

Webb Hubbell’s situation?

Mr. HUANG. I couldn’t quite recall Joe Giroir was involved in

that, in that instance though.

Mr. SOUDER. So Doug Buford was your main contact?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. He was with Bruce Lindsey’s former law firm?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SOUDER. That—when did you first meet Webb Hubbell? Was

that reception the first time?

Mr. HUANG. No. The first time I met Mr. Hubbell was in Inauguration in 1993, Inauguration night or whatever.

Mr. SOUDER. You didn’t know him when he was back in Arkansas?

Mr. HUANG. I knew of his name, but I don’t believe I met him

before.

Mr. SOUDER. How would you have known of his name? Just for

the record, you did Asian bank things related to the Worthen Bank

out of Arkansas. He was with the Rose Law Firm at that time. Did

you know him in any way regarding Arkansas business?

Mr. HUANG. No. My role was basically in Asia first time when

I know joined the Lippo Group in Hong Kong, but Lippo at that

time already took some major interest in Worthen Bank, and I believe Mr. Hubbell was working for the Rose Law Firm, and Rose

Law Firm had some client—business client relationship with either

Worthen or Mr. Riady at that time.

Mr. SOUDER. So you at least knew his name, although you did

not know him?

Mr. HUANG. No, that’s correct.

Mr. SOUDER. And did you know him very well? Would you call

Mr. Hubbell a friend, or would you have called him a friend at the

time they first contacted you in regard to money?

Mr. HUANG. Well, I considered him as a friend since he’s a friend

of my—my employer, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. When did Mr.—now, you said that Mr. Riady, he

may have, when he was at Rose Law Firm, been working with Mr.

Riady way back in Arkansas. Do you know that for a fact?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know for a fact because I do recall there is

conversation that Mr. Riady mentioned to me how he knew Mr.

Webb Hubbell.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know what he would have done with Mr.

Riady at that time?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t quite understand, Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. In other words, what I am trying to establish is

the—did Mr. Riady consider Mr. Hubbell personally a friend?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct. According to Mr. Riady to me, mentioned to me about that.

Mr. SOUDER. Did he refer to him as a longtime friend, or do you

think this was more—in other words, you said you considered

Webb Hubbell a friend in kind of a second degree; he was a friend

of your friend. Did Mr. Riady—business acquaintance, longtime

friend. Or was this because—you made the statements that you believed that he did this, and you felt he should help with the fundVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
162

ing, and you would help because of friendship. What did friendship

mean?

Mr. HUANG. Because he’s been knowing him for a long time.

Mr. SOUDER. And you also said that you had discussed with Mr.

Riady regarding Mr. Hubbell’s pride. So the money was going for

friendship and not for a job, or in other words, the job merely came

because it was less embarrassing for Mr. Hubbell?

Mr. HUANG. To the latter was the answer for that, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. You said earlier in response to a question that you

weren’t sure, but you wondered whether the two phone calls to

Lippo Bank on May 19th may have been to set up an appointment

with Mr. Riady. Did Mr. Riady ask you to set up an appointment

for the June meeting?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, he did.

Mr. BURTON. So, to your knowledge, he hadn’t set one up by

phone because you were the person who actually executed the appointment?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SOUDER. Could there have been another meeting that we

don’t know about here between Mr. Riady and Mr. Hubbell?

Mr. HUANG. Prior to June?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. No. Mr. Riady at that time, I believe, was overseas,

was not in the States.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you believe that Mr. Riady had any contacts

with Mr. Hubbell separate from any contacts through you?

Mr. HUANG. That I would not know, but I don’t believe so,

though.

Mr. SOUDER. Because generally you were considered the point

person in this?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. When Mr. Riady came in in June, he brought

$32,000; $17,500 in traveler’s checks, and, as I also recall from

your other Justice Department testimony, his expenses were largely covered. So what did he do with the money he brought over?

Mr. HUANG. I would not know, I would not know because he had

a whole family coming over in the summer, generally also in the

wintertime for vacations. It is not unusual for him to bring that

kind of sums of money with them.

Mr. SOUDER. To your knowledge, none of that went to Mr. Hubbell?

Mr. HUANG. No, I don’t think so, no, no.

Mr. SOUDER. Could it have gone to Mr. Hubbell?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t think so.

Mr. SOUDER. Why don’t you think so?

Mr. HUANG. I believe that would be their personal spending

money. You know, there was arrangement for later on the

$100,000. That was a very good sum of money already.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you travel to Little Rock, AR, with Mr. Riady

in June?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t quite recall, Mr. Souder, that there was a

trip to Little Rock in June, though.

Mr. SOUDER. What—originally Mr. Riady had appointments in

Washington for the 21st and 22nd. It was then changed, and he

163

was here longer, through the 21st and 25th, but he made a trip

into Little Rock, but you don’t recall whether you were involved

with that. And could—— Mr. HUANG. Mr. Souder, I really don’t have any recollection. He

left town for Little Rock during that week, though. I don’t know.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you travel with Mr. Riady to Washington in

June 1994?

Mr. HUANG. Yeah, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. You didn’t go to Little Rock from Washington, to

your recollection?

Mr. HUANG. I personally, from my recollection, did not leave

town.

Mr. SOUDER. I may try to followup with that tomorrow with some

more documentation.

Do you know why Mr. Riady would have changed from staying

the first 2 days to staying longer? Originally I think the Presidential gala fundraiser was the 22nd, but then additional meetings

were set up. Is that why he lengthened his stay? Was that a surprise?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know if there’s any reason why he changed

that. He did not mention to me he was originally staying there for

2 weeks. He would be available for the whole week there, that’s my

knowledge.

Mr. SOUDER. Did the Justice Department ask you anything about

telephone calls between you and Mr. Riady that week?

Mr. HUANG. In June, the 20ths, in that week?

Mr. SOUDER. June 21 to 25 did the Justice Department ask you

about any telephone calls to Mr. Riady or visits to the White House

with Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. I was with him in Washington, DC. With Mr.

Riady, I mean.

Mr. SOUDER. I am going to ask more questions. What my question is, did the Justice Department in their depositions, because we

don’t see that, did they ask you about your visits to the White

House with Mr. Riady, I believe there were several in the week of

June 21 to 25, and the telephone calls made by you or Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. I believe so, yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. You believe the Justice Department asked you

those questions.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Ms. Norton, did you have any questions?

Ms. NORTON. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Huang, I want to go back to what you and the chairman

were talking about, and I know that it is going to, sadly, consume

a lot of my 5 minutes, but the great thing about this hearing is I

have got 3 more days to go back to the February 19th fundraiser.

I think where you got sideways with the chairman and what does

trouble some Members on this side of the aisle, and I know you can

clear it up, is that when I asked you before what you have pleaded

guilty to is this conspiracy to defraud the United States of America

based upon illegal campaign contributions. And the way that a conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
164

duit scheme works, and I want to make sure it is included in the

record for people who are reading this later or someone who is

watching it on the Internet or C–SPAN, so that they understand, if I take $20 and I give it to Mr. Shays, and I say, give that $20

to Mr. Burton, the contribution came from me. It didn’t come from

Mr. Shays. I have used Mr. Shays as a strawman.

What makes it illegal? Well, there are a couple things that make

it illegal. But if I have already given Mr. Burton more money than

the law allows me to give, then that makes it illegal because it is

really my money. Or if I am a person that can’t contribute or participate in giving money, that can be another example.

And that is the crime of which you stand accused and convicted,

is it not? You were donating money, others were donating money,

and then they were being paid back, so the money wasn’t really

coming from you.

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Because the Riadys were paying for it. That is

the crime to which you pled guilty, right?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. When the chairman was talking to you

about the Vice President’s fundraiser at the Buddhist temple, the

same scheme was going on. The nuns, whether you know about it

or not, the nuns who have taken a vow of poverty have written

checks for $5,000, but you know today that it was not their money.

They were straw people for other people that wanted to make a donation to the Vice President or the President’s campaign. It’s the

same scheme, you grant me that, do you not?

Mr. HUANG. I read out of the newspaper. I do not know the details for a fact, though, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Let’s go to the fundraiser that we were

talking about, then, on February 19th, because we now know today

that at that fundraiser, through the help of Charlie Trie, there

were a number of illegal contributions made using this same

scheme. And in particular, I am talking about contributions made

by Davidson Wu, Ernie Green, Lei Chu, Keshi Zhan, Manlin

Foung, Joe Landon, Yue Chu, Ming Cheng, Charles Chiang,

Zhengwei Cheng, Daihatsu International, and Jack Ho.

As I understand it, you are testifying before this committee that

you did not know when you accepted the money for this February

19th that they were illegal. But we now know today because of the

investigation, because of the testimony of Charlie Trie, because of

things that you know, because the DNC has turned the money

back, that the same thing was happening; that is, that people were

making donations to the campaign to reelect the President, but it

wasn’t their money. It was money that maybe it wasn’t given to

them up front, but somebody said to them, if you write a check of

$12,500 to the Committee to Reelect President Clinton, I will give

you the $12,500. It’s the same scheme for which you stand convicted from 1992 to 1994. Do you grant me that?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you see that’s what makes us suspicious

over here? I don’t know anybody that thinks that you’re a bad guy.

I think that what you have done is not so good. But the fact of the

matter is you stand convicted of this setting up a strawman beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
165

tween you and a campaign. The nuns who took the vow of poverty

are straw people between whoever really wants the President to

have the money and the President’s campaign and this list of people to a fundraiser that you were in charge of on February 19,

1996, have done the same thing.

Now, it is—I mean, people say, well, what a coincidence. I mean,

you seem to be around all this same sort of scandal. That’s what

makes it suspicious. I hope you understand, as we ask you questions, that’s what raises our curiosity. I hope you understand that.

We were talking about this fundraiser, and now I probably have

about 30 seconds left, but did you at any time discuss with Mr.

Riady, James Riady, the event that you were putting together on

February 19, 1996, about their help?

Mr. HUANG. I might have mentioned to him I did an event for

$1 million probably afterwards on some occasion I saw him or—I

saw him, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But specifically requesting his help or anyone

from the Lippo Group to help with that event prior to the event?

Mr. HUANG. Oh, no. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. And what was your understanding, going

back to Charlie Trie, that he did for a living in 1996? Do you know

what he did for a living?

Mr. HUANG. I think he was in the trading business, I think.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. And were you——

Mr. HUANG. Excuse me, or some real estate investments. The

way I understood it, he might have made some money in the real

estate investments in Asia, some very good sum of money. I might

be wrong on that, though.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you have a chance to meet his Macaobased partner, a fellow by the name of Ng Lap Seng?

Mr. HUANG. During that fundraiser period of time, you know, on

February 19th, around that period of time, I did meet with him.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And what did you understand that Mr. Ng’s

business was? What business did you think that he was in?

Mr. HUANG. He was in the real estate investment or also in the

trading business.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you ever have a conversation or discussion

with Mr. Ng as to whether or not he had a relationship with the

Communist Chinese Government?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did Mr. Ng ever indicate to you that he had

ever received money from the Chinese Government?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Before you went to work at the DNC, had you

ever had any direct fundraising—done any direct fundraising work

with Charlie Trie before you went to the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir. As I reported to you earlier, I—the first time

I met with Charlie Trie was June or in the summer of 1994.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And when do you think that—again, the planning for this February 19th event, when do you think your best

recollection was that you would have first discussed Mr. Trie participating or helping you with this February 19, 1996, fundraiser?

Mr. HUANG. It must have been probably in January 1996.

166

Mr. LATOURETTE. And, in that vein, did you ask him to contribute to the event?

Mr. HUANG. No. I said I am doing something for the event, it is

for Asian community, and I would like him to help me.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And did that—did that in your mind mean

that he should write a check and contribute to it, or did it mean

that he should contribute to it and help you identify other donors

to contribute to the event as well?

Mr. HUANG. I did not really discuss about it in detail. And basically as long as he can raise the money or he can give the money,

it doesn’t really make any difference to me at that time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But, again, the money, were you only looking

for $12,500 from him, or were you looking to him to attract more

money than that?

Mr. HUANG. Basically through his connections, you know, and he

can raise more money for my event.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. That is what—so you saw him not only as

a person that could write a check but you were hoping he could get

other people to write checks as well.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, if it is soft money, the person can

write a check for $100,000 himself. It is also OK.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. And I am not trying to trick you even

though I say that. I am just asking, were you saying ‘‘Charlie Trie,

write me the biggest check you can write?’’ Or when you said will

you help with the event, were you hoping that he would not only

make whatever, 12, 5, 100 whatever he wanted to write, but that

he would get others to write checks to participate in the event?

That’s what I wanted to know. Did you see him as one guy to give

money no matter what the amount was, or did you hope that he

would be a guy to give money and get other people to give money?

Mr. HUANG. I did not really discuss one form or the other. Basically, I felt he was a source of help to me. Whatever the format it

ends up is OK to me.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’ll defer to others.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays, did you have questions now or do you

want to pass?

Henry, do you want to——

Mr. WAXMAN. I am entitled to 5 minutes, but I will defer it now

and let others ask questions.

Mr. BURTON. We are getting to the point where we probably

want to end around 6 o’clock.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’m ready to end now.

Mr. BURTON. Well, then, you don’t have any more questions?

Mr. WAXMAN. We are coming back tomorrow.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t have any more questions tonight, then?

Mr. WAXMAN. I’m not giving up my 5-minute round, but I don’t

want to pursue it right now.

Mr. BURTON. Instead of having 5 minutes, you can have 10 this

time.

Mr. WAXMAN. That’s going to take unanimous consent.

Mr. BURTON. He’s getting his extra 5 is what I’m saying.

167

Mr. LATOURETTE. This is the next round, is my understanding.

I am happy to participate in the next round as a courtesy to the

other Members that may want to wait until later.

Did you, as you were talking to Charlie Trie about this event on

February 19, 1996, discuss or ever have a discussion with him as

to what the rules for—in other words, you indicated to me in the

other question that someone can give up to $100,000 in soft money

and it’s OK. Did you ever have a conversation with Charlie Trie as

to what the rules were for donating to an event such as yours?

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, I did not. The reason is, he was quite

established in front of the DNC. He wasn’t the major donor. I

would assume he knew about the rules.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Likewise, I guess I would receive the same

answer if I asked you if you ever discussed the currency transaction reporting requirements with the DNC. I assume you did not

do that either?

Mr. HUANG. I did not do that either.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I want to talk to you next about a fellow by

the name of Antonio Pan. Are you acquainted of this person?

Mr. HUANG. I knew of this person, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And I would ask you when you first knew of

Antonio Pan and what you knew about his professional background.

Mr. HUANG. Antonio Pan used to work for Lippo Group. He had

a background in the trading business. He might have joined the

Lippo Group back in probably the beginning of the 1990’s and later

on the—he was not working for me or directly related to me. I

mean, he was working with the projects in Asia is why he was joining the group. Probably he had some responsibility related to the

real estate portion in China related to Lippo at that time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. It’s my understanding that at one time you

worked for a subsidiary of Lippo called T-A-T-I, TATI. Is that the

correct pronunciation?

Mr. HUANG. That is involving the real estate development in

Fujian Province, far as I know.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So that is a real estate concern of the Lippo

Group?

Mr. HUANG. No, TATI was a specific project to develop a whole

bay area and industrial complex out of the—Mr. Riady’s, you know,

hometown, original ancestor’s town from China.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So, again, the answer to my question is that

this particular project, however, is located within the People’s Republic of China?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. And that is what Mr. Pan did at one point

in time is head it up?

Mr. HUANG. As far as I know, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you aware at any time that Antonio Pan

then came to work for Charlie Trie?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. For whatever reason, the project was under—

the whole project in China was under the reducing scale. Maybe he

was no longer working for the Lippo, and he left.

168

Mr. LATOURETTE. And do you have any understanding of what

he did for Mr. Trie, what work he did for him after he left and

went into Mr. Trie’s employment?

Mr. HUANG. The best I can recollect at this time is trying to— organizing things for Mr. Trie.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do what? I’m sorry.

Mr. HUANG. Organizing things for Mr. Trie.

Mr. LATOURETTE. What sort of things?

Mr. HUANG. You know, the detail parts. You know, Mr. Trie, he

basically—I don’t know him very well. I have to speculate he was

not really organizing. He is a businessman, run around, did not

pay attention to the detail. He needed somebody to help him on

that. More like a personal assistant.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Like a right-hand man?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I don’t know if we can—I certainly don’t want

to catch the staff by surprise—but I would like to refer you to something known as 316. And exhibit 316 is a series of $1,000 travelers checks from the Bank of Central Asia in Jakarta.

Mr. Trie, to our knowledge, used 200 of these travelers checks for

a variety of purposes in 1996, including the reimbursement of political contributions made by Manlin Foung, Joseph Landon, and

Jack Ho.

I think when I was talking to you in my last 5 minutes, I was

indicating that some of the people that Mr. Trie solicited for the

event that you were in charge of on February 19th were determined to be illegal, and they have been determined to be conduit

contributions wherein they made the contribution, but then somebody gave them the money to cover the cost. Specifically, exhibit 316 represents $1,000 travelers checks that

were used by Mr. Trie to pay back these three individuals for contributions that they made to the February 19th event that you

were in charge of for the Democratic National Committee. And I

would ask you, prior to them, you are now looking at them and

we’re looking at them on the screen, are you familiar at all with

these travelers checks?

[Exhibit 316 follows:]

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you ever discuss the idea of travelers

checks with Charlie Trie relative to this event?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you ever discuss the travelers checks with

Antonio Pan?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you have any knowledge as to the source

of these particular travelers checks?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So, specifically, you have no idea as to whether

or not Mr. Trie received these from the Lippo Group or the Riady

family?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you able to make out the signature on the

travelers check?

Mr. HUANG. On exhibit 316?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know the signature appearing. There’s a last

name called Ho, H-O.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. And during the time that you were debriefed by the Justice Department, did they ever inquire or ask you

about these travelers checks and their connection with the February 19, 1996, fundraiser?

Mr. HUANG. No. No, sir. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. At any time during your acquaintance with

Charlie Trie, did you ever discuss with him any travel that he

might have made to Jakarta?

Mr. HUANG. He had some business contact in Jakarta.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And was that the subject of conversations that

you and he might have had?

Mr. HUANG. Oh, he was talking about business contacts, businessmen he knew in Indonesia.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Specifically, are you aware of any relationship

between the Trie family and the Riady family?

Mr. HUANG. No. He had—to the best of my knowledge, he had

no relationship with the Riady family.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you. And I thank Mr. Burton. I yield

back my few seconds.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield to me for one question?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Sure. I would be happy to.

Mr. BURTON. You indicated that Antonio Pan worked for the

Riadys and that the Riadys—there was no connection between the

Riady family and Charlie Trie. So how did Antonio Pan come to

work for Charlie Trie if there was no connection? Who introduced

them to each other? I mean, how did Antonio Pan start working for

Charlie Trie if he didn’t know him and if the only connection Antonio Pan had with Charlie Trie would have been through the

Riadys?

Mr. HUANG. The best I can know, Mr. Chairman, there was another person who used to be Antonio Pan’s boss, happens to be a— I don’t know if it’s a real brother-in-law to Charlie Trie or not. So

that is how the connection between them to know each other, I believe.

205

Mr. BURTON. Well, that’s quite a coincidence.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’ll pass.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Huang, I want to be clear on how you define your terms a

bit just so I make sure that we are both talking the same way here.

And I want to clarify some points.

You pleaded guilty to conspiracy in terms of certain fundraising

activities, and basically you were the conduit for other people’s

money, whether they gave it to you at first and you paid it or

whether you paid it and then they paid you. Bottom line, that was

a major part. And you were also aware of other people who were

doing that as well, and that was part of the conspiracy. Others

were being a conduit for funds; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Now, I’m not clear as to the amount in which

you pleaded guilty to. How much of this kind of activity—what did

it add up to in dollars?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Sorry about that, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. I’m not in a rush. We have time. I’d rather just get

an accurate answer.

Mr. HUANG. During the—Congressman, sorry for the delay.

Mr. SHAYS. You don’t need to apologize.

Mr. HUANG. Right. During the plea agreement, let me explain

that the argument—the government argued for—the amount was

$150 some thousand. And in addition to that—— Mr. SHAYS. $150 or—— Mr. HUANG. $150 some thousand, $156,000 to be exact. But in

addition to that, because of the nature of the conduit of the money,

it probably involved another $700,000 or $800,000 all together.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Now, let me explore the $700,000 to $800,000.

Is this money that you did that you did not have to plead guilty

to? In other words, you were the conduit for $700,000 to $800,000

more, but it wasn’t part of the specific charge?

Mr. HUANG. I need a little time on that.

Mr. BURTON. Can I interrupt for just 1 second? We understand

that the lawyers’ conversations with their client may be going

across the television airways so you should be—if you want to keep

it confidential between you and your client, I am just telling you

this because you have that privilege.

Mr. SHAYS. And I would also like to say I’m sure the chairman

will give me the time requisite. There is no problem with you taking as much time as we need to answer these questions. Because

this is not just an hour’s hearings. We have time, and we want to

be thoughtful.

Mr. COBB. I just want the Congressman to understand there is

a couple of legal issues that make answering this difficult, but I

think we are almost there.

Mr. COBB. Congressman Shays, if I might.

Mr. BURTON. You have to forgive me, only your client can respond. That is the rules of the committee. But if you want to have

him respond.

206

Mr. COBB. He doesn’t know the answer. That is why I was trying

to be helpful and explain the legal point.

Mr. BURTON. What was the question, Mr. Shays?

Mr. SHAYS. The question is, Mr. Huang is acknowledging that he

has $150,000 that bears directly with conspiracy and laundering

the money. And I asked him is that the full extent of it. And then

I was hearing a number of $700,000 to $800,000, and we need that

defined. I don’t know, if he can’t, if Mr. Huang can’t define it, then

I think we need the lawyer to, with unanimous consent——

Mr. BURTON. Is there a unanimous consent to allow the counsel

to——

Mr. WAXMAN. I have no objection.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Go ahead.

Mr. COBB. My only purpose is to be responsive, Congressman.

Under the law that governs what a prosecutor can do, a prosecutor

under these circumstances with a cooperating witness, particularly

one that has cooperated this extensively, can only argue at sentencing for the amount that he could prove independent of the cooperation. So the independent proof was for $156,000. Mr. Huang advised him of another approximately $800,000. I hope that clarifies

this.

Mr. SHAYS. That clarifies it.

Would you define that other $700,000 to $800,000, what kind of

contributions they were, and were they the same type of contributions?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. During that period of time, involving all the executives of the Lippo Group.

Mr. SHAYS. So the Lippo Group, various people contributed, and

we can assume that they were paid back, and that wasn’t actually

their money; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is how I would answer the question, although

I did not directly go to verify whether you received the money from

somebody or not.

Mr. SHAYS. It was your sense, and that is why it is responsive,

it was your sense that that was in fact the case, that this ultimately wasn’t their money.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, sir. That’s correct.

Mr. SHAYS. So that is a sizable amount of money. And let me ask

you this before I—just learn a little more about that. Is there any

other money in addition to this—since you have immunity—during

any time from 1990 to the present that you were a conduit for or

knew others were conduits for, that you had some involvement in?

Mr. HUANG. I cannot quite recall at this particular moment, sir.

I don’t think so.

Mr. SHAYS. Do I have a few more minutes?

Mr. BURTON. Because of the legal counseling, if there is no objection, we will let you have another minute.

Mr. SHAYS. You made it clear to me that—it is not clear to me.

But you said that when you were at the Commerce Department,

you had interactions with—you did not have interactions with the

Riadys; is that correct, you did not?

Mr. HUANG. I should not say that, because sometimes they visit

towns, and as a friend, I just say hello.

207

Mr. SHAYS. So is it your testimony under oath that it was purely

and totally personal and it did not relate to any of their business

activities?

Mr. HUANG. That is basically correct, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. But then you said, then you—— Mr. HUANG. I’m sorry.

Mr. SHAYS. But then you said you had business dealings with— business associates of the Riadys, partners of the Riadys, is that

correct, while you were at Commerce? You mentioned—excuse me,

while you were at the DNC. You didn’t say that, but let me ask

you this: While you were at Commerce, you—your only dealings— it is your testimony under oath your only dealings with the Riadys

was personal in nature and did not involve any business activities.

You did not try to help them financially, you did not try to help

them in their business dealings while you worked at Commerce; is

that your testimony?

Mr. HUANG. The only exception, Mr. Shays, was I introduced Mr.

Joe Gerard to my senior in the Commerce Department, David

Rothcopf, basically just introduced him, that’s all, in the early— probably around August 1994 when I just joined the Commerce Department.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Burton. I will continue when my

time is returned. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’ll pass.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to

put into the record—Mr. Waxman had referred to comments by

William Safire. I think it is only fair that the full article be inserted into the record and also a Washington Post article on the

Hubbell meetings.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

Mr. SOUDER. I wanted to come back to my Hubbell questioning

again. A couple of things to clarify. My last question to you was,

did the Justice Department ask you about visits to the White

House by you and James Riady during the week of June 21st to

25th? You and Mr. Riady, according to records, visited the White

House six times. And your answer to me was that the Justice Department had asked you questions.

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. What did you tell them about the visits? The reason

I ask you that is that the 302s that we have show no questions

from the Justice Department. It could be redacted materials, and

that is why I would like to know what they were asking you about.

Mr. HUANG. If I can recall correctly, the question was relating to

my—the activities when I was—we were in Washington, DC, during that week. I might have it confused that that was the independent counsel’s office.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. So let me then ask the question a different

way. In any of those six visits to the White House that week, in

response to a question from Mr. Waxman, you said Mr. Riady had

a multiplicity of interests. Did he talk about any of those multiplicity of interests in any of those visits to the White House when you

were present?

Mr. HUANG. Not that I know of, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. So you went to the White House six times, mainly

for social and pictures and so on; or were there any policy discussions?

Mr. HUANG. Sorry for the delay, Mr. Souder. The activities over

the years are not always five to six times to see the President. Also

there was some activity meeting with some of the acquaintances,

you know, the other people. Some of the meetings, I did not even

attend myself.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. I’ll have further questions about that probably

into tomorrow morning. The problem with this is we are having to

do deposition-type things. Many of these questions may not yield

much information because we didn’t get any pre-screening, so I am

doing the best I can to get to some points, but I have some

followups with that.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Souder, before you followup with that, I can tell

you there is one event he did meet with the President, which is on

the radio address on Saturday I believe on that week.

Mr. SOUDER. And in the—I’m going to followup. I want to come

back to June, to early June. I mentioned about you going to Little

Rock around—with Mr. Riady earlier than that. If we could put

this—we have redacted the numbers and so on. But your American

Express, I believe it is, or it is a credit card, I don’t know what it

is, shows that you rented a car and were in Little Rock the 19th

through the 21st. But you don’t remember anything about that

visit being in Little Rock? It does not show——

Mr. COBB. Is there an exhibit number?

Mr. SOUDER. No, this was not an exhibit. What happened, I had

a question that asked about you being in Little Rock. Then I asked

staff, why would you have thought he was in Little Rock? And so

they said, well, from the expense records—which was not an exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
218

hibit. I was just trying to establish whether you remember being

in Little Rock that time.

Mr. COBB. We can’t see it from the monitors.

Mr. BURTON. Can we make a copy and give it to Mr. Huang?

[The information referred to follows:]

219

220

Mr. HUANG. Can you give me a time, and maybe I can try to help

out.

Mr. SOUDER. The car rental shows 19th through the 21st. And

Mr. Riady is coming—you head back to Washington the same time

Mr. Riady does. That also shows plane tickets from Mr. Riady coming in from New Orleans. And since you and he arrived at the

same time in Washington, the question is, since you got a rental

car, were you together in that period?

Mr. HUANG. No. He came from different direction. I don’t think

he was in Little Rock. This expense report—no, this American Express charges is my name. Definitely I was in Little Rock. But I

didn’t believe Mr. Riady was in Little Rock at that time.

Mr. SOUDER. When you were in Little Rock at that time? Did you

do anything at that point with Webb Hubbell’s funds?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t remember exactly what I do, but I do remember I did not meet with Mr. Webb Hubbell. In Little Rock I’m talking about.

Mr. SOUDER. And you don’t recall being with Mr. Riady until you

got to Washington?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. In the period in Washington, in exhibit 97, if

exhibit 97 could go up on the screen, it says that John Huang

called at 9:10, wants to arrange a meeting with you tomorrow with

Mark Middleton. Why did you call him for a meeting?

[Exhibit 97 follows:]

221

222

Mr. HUANG. Oh, Mark Middleton was an acquaintance of myself

and also with Mr. Riady. His age group is closer to ours and also

his position is a little junior, so we normally work with him. We

go to see him also first.

Mr. BURTON. See him about what, just do a social call? Or I

mean, presumably Mr. Riady wants to come in and wants to talk

about business, too. I mean was it about Webb Hubbell, was it

about other interests of Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. No, for Mr. Riady’s discussion, I do not know. I do

remember there was a luncheon in the White House that Mr. Riady

had with Mark Middleton which I did not have privilege to attend.

I was sitting in the reception room waiting for them.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know where you were when you called Mark

Middleton that day?

Mr. HUANG. I would assume it was probably in the hotel, in Hay

Adams probably.

Mr. SOUDER. The reason I wonder is, your rental car is in Little

Rock that day you called Mark Middleton. And the reason, when

you try to put this together—and what is confusing, and we don’t

know and that is why I’m asking you the questions—but it appears

you’re in Little Rock, you call for a meeting with Mark Middleton,

you are not with Mr. Riady, so you must be doing some sort of

scheduling for Mr. Riady. And the logical question is, since you’re

in Little Rock, does this have anything to do with Mr. Hubbell? Because you just had a meeting with Mr. Hubbell. You are trying to

set up meetings with Mr. Hubbell. It is a time you are talking to

Mr. Riady about the money with Mr. Hubbell. So we are trying to

establish here what points of contact were made. And could this

have been partly as part of the effort to find out what Mr. Hubbell

needs?

Mr. HUANG. That—to answer that question, it is not. At this moment, I could not really trace my memory what I was doing in Little Rock during that period of time. I was trying to arrange the

various schedule for Mr. Riady when he comes to town during that

week. Maybe one of the meetings was for Mr. Riady to meet with

Mark Middleton and along with the others.

Mr. SOUDER. What other reason would you have to be in Little

Rock at that time?

Mr. HUANG. I cannot.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you go to Little Rock very often?

Mr. HUANG. Occasionally, I do. I do.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you have business interests there?

Mr. HUANG. I did not personally have any business interests over

there.

Mr. SOUDER. Relatives?

Mr. HUANG. No, no.

Mr. SOUDER. I mean, not to say anything negative about Little

Rock, but it is not a place that you probably went to vacation.

Mr. HUANG. It was not a vacation.

Mr. SOUDER. Arkansas is, but not Little Rock. It seems like an

odd place and odd time to suddenly pop in there in between the

meetings. Mr. Riady is in Washington the 13th, he’s in Washington

the 21st. You don’t have business interests, you don’t have relatives, and all of a sudden you’re going into Little Rock.

223

Mr. HUANG. You know, I have to speculate. I don’t know at this

moment. Whether I was seeing Doug Buford or whoever, Joe Giroir

at that time, I don’t know.

Mr. SOUDER. Of course if it was Doug Buford, he had called you

about that money. I know you’re speculating. If you can think

about that a little bit tonight.

Mr. HUANG. Sure. Let me spend some efforts in doing that, sir,

please.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield back.

Mr. BURTON. We’re about to wrap up because I said we would

be out of here at 6 o’clock. Mr. Waxman has passed on his round,

and so I will be the last questioner and then we will start off tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock. We will try to do it as sharply as

possible.

Let me ask just a few questions here, Mr. Huang.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 25, if you can look at that real quickly, it

is a memo of October 20, 1993, from Mary Leslie to Mark Middleton, and it is regarding early California business support for President Clinton. And the memo says, ‘‘Lippo gave one of the most significant single contributions throughout the campaign.’’ Do you know what Ms. Leslie was talking about?

[Exhibit 25 follows:]

224

225

226

227

Mr. HUANG. I’m still trying to find exhibit 25, sir.

Mr. BURTON. It’s exhibit No. 25. It’s at the very end of the tabbed

section.

She says Lippo gave one of the most significant contributions

throughout the campaign. Do you know what she’s talking about?

She wrote that memo to Mark Middleton.

Mr. HUANG. I don’t exactly know what she’s talking about. I can

think because—chairman, you referred me to check with the previous exhibits, there is a list of the Lippo executives making all the

contributions during 1992, that period of time. Maybe they are

talking about that.

Mr. BURTON. What I am trying to find out is was Ms. Leslie or

Mark Middleton aware that this money was being laundered

through conduits?

Mr. HUANG. They did not know.

Mr. BURTON. They did not know.

Mr. HUANG. They did not know.

Mr. BURTON. You’re absolutely certain about that?

Mr. HUANG. I’m absolutely certain.

Mr. BURTON. Let me ask you about your situation. What was

your salary at the LippoBank?

Mr. HUANG. It was about—during that period of time, on the average, probably around 120. That is without bonus.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit No. 4 is a journal entry for Hip Hing Holdings for June 1994. Are these checks to you, which are around

$2,200 twice a month, was that your salary checks from the

LippoBank?

[Exhibit 4 follows:]

228

229

Mr. HUANG. Yes. At that point, with Hip Hing Holdings, that

was my net, after-tax salary at that time. That gross is around

$75,000. As I also reported, I also received a separate income

around $2,500 a month separately. That went into my Hong Kong,

Chinese bank accounts.

Mr. BURTON. What was your bonus for 1992 from Lippo? Do you

recall?

Mr. HUANG. The reporting on taxes, I think it was $100,000 at

that time.

Mr. BURTON. You received a $100,000 bonus.

Mr. HUANG. That is including that, you know, reimbursement for

covering the campaign contributions.

Mr. BURTON. So they did give you reimbursement for the campaign contributions?

Mr. HUANG. Within that $100,000.

Mr. BURTON. So that was the money that you and your wife gave

to the DNC and the DSCC?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. Now what was your bonus for 1993, and did that

include also money like that?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Well, then we don’t need to have the exact

amount.

Exhibit No. 5 is a June 27, 1994, letter to Roy Tirtadji, Managing

Director of Lippo Group, to John Huang. Does this accurately state

the amount of your severance package from Lippo?

[Exhibit 5 follows:]

230

231

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 6 is a Hip Hing Holdings check to you for $284,798 on July 15th. Is this the severance check you received

from Lippo in July 1994?

[Exhibit 6 follows:]

232

233

Mr. HUANG. That is the net amount after the exhibit 5, the figure you were talking about, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. So you had both of those?

Mr. HUANG. Not both, just one.

Mr. BURTON. Just the one. OK.

Mr. HUANG. Because this is net after taxes.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Exhibit No. 7 is a September 1994 ledger entry

from Hip Hing Holdings. What does that amount listed ‘‘tie bonus

to gross’’ represent?

[Exhibit 7 follows:]

234

235

236

Mr. HUANG. I have no idea on that.

Mr. BURTON. Well, this prior balance of $230,000, does that represent part of the money that you received from Lippo for reimbursement for contributions, that $230,000? It says prior balance

of $230,000.

Mr. HUANG. Are you talking about—— Mr. BURTON. Is that a prior balance in his account?

Mr. HUANG. Oh, you are talking about the following page right

now.

Mr. BURTON. Yes. It says, prior balance $230,000. Is that a balance that is left in your account there?

Mr. HUANG. That is not my account, though. That is a Hip Hing

account, right? Am I correct? From the list here, it is a Hip Hing

Holdings account?

Mr. BURTON. Do you know what the $230,000 was?

Mr. HUANG. It could be related to the bonus for the prior year,

sir.

Mr. BURTON. I see. OK. And the $673,125, what does that represent?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know about that, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Did your severance package cover all political contributions by you and your wife for 1994?

Mr. HUANG. It did. It did.

Mr. BURTON. Do all departing employees at Lippo receive a severance package?

Mr. HUANG. I would not know what the other people’s

arrangements—— Mr. BURTON. You don’t have any idea.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. BURTON. How much did it cost a year to maintain your two

homes in California?

Mr. HUANG. Quite a lot.

Mr. BURTON. I know. I understand that. But do you have any

idea how much? I’ll tell you what. Let’s just stop right there, and

we’ll start tomorrow morning and talk about your income and that

sort of thing.

With that, gentlemen I appreciate your tolerance, and I appreciate your staying awake so long, and we will see you tomorrow

morning at 10 o’clock a.m.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth-Hage follows:]

237

238

Mr. BURTON. The committee stands in recess.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 5:51 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

(239)

THE ROLE OF JOHN HUANG AND THE RIADY

FAMILY IN POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Burton, Shays, Souder, LaTourette,

Waxman, and Norton.

Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; James C. Wilson, chief

counsel; David A. Kass, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; Mark

Corallo, director of communications; Kristi Remington, senior counsel; James J. Schumann and Scott Billingsley, counsels, Kimberly

A. Reed, investigative counsel; Renee Becker, deputy press secretary; Robert Briggs, assistant clerk; Robin Butler, office manager;

Michael Canty and Toni Lightle, staff assistants; Nicole Petrosino,

legislative aide; Leneal Scott, computer systems manager; Lisa

Smith Arafune, chief clerk; Maria Tamburri, assistant to the chief

counsel; Corinne Zaccagnini, systems administrator; Phil Schiliro,

minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigative counsel; David Sadkin and

Paul Weinberger, minority counsels; Ellen Rayner, minority chief

clerk; Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant; and Andrew Su, minority

research assistant.

Also present: Ty Cobb and Jack Keeney, counsel to Mr. Huang.

Mr. BURTON. Good morning. A quorum being present, the Committee on Government Reform will come to order.

Mr. Huang, I want to welcome you back, and your counsel. I

want to remind you that you are still under oath and we will resume questioning of Mr. Huang in 5-minute rounds by members of

the committee.

Let me start off by saying that we originally planned to start out

this morning by questioning a witness from the Justice Department. The reason was that they had not complied with our subpoena. Yesterday, they complied with our subpoena, so I excused

the witness. However, I would like to tell you what we discovered

from the Justice Department, and the reason why they didn’t want

to agree to our subpoena. It is very troubling, and I want to take

time to talk about it.

We asked the Justice Department to provide us with copies of

the FBI’s interview summaries. Over the years, they routinely have

given them to congressional committees. We asked for John

240

Huang’s summaries. They gave them to us. We asked for Charlie

Trie’s summaries. They gave them to us. They sent us the Johnny

Chung summaries and we didn’t even ask for those.

Then we asked them to send us the interview summaries of the

President and the Vice President. The Justice Department was required to produce them under our subpoena. That is when the trouble started. We were met with excuse after excuse, delay after

delay.

Suddenly, they came up with a new policy. They weren’t going

to give FBI interview summaries, the 302s, to Congress anymore.

They said we would have to come to the Department and read

them, but we couldn’t have copies.

So I sent my staff over to read the interviews. It became very

clear why they didn’t want us to have those 302s. They interviewed

the President twice, once in 1997 and once in 1998, and I hope you

will understand this, this is very important.

They never asked the President one single question about John

Huang.

They never asked the President a single question about James

Riady.

They never asked the President one single question about Charlie Trie.

How can that be? What kind of an investigation is this? There

aren’t many people in this town who have been tougher critics of

Janet Reno than I have, but I am even stunned by this.

It doesn’t stop there. They interviewed Vice President Gore three

times.

They didn’t ask him a single question about the Hsi Lai Temple

fundraiser.

They didn’t ask him a single question about John Huang or

Maria Hsia.

What is going on here? How could they not ask the President and

the Vice President about John Huang or James Riady? Did they

forget? Did they think it wasn’t important? Did someone tell them

not to?

I am so disillusioned, I don’t have the words to describe my feelings. We asked the Attorney General time and time again to appoint an independent counsel, but she said, ‘‘No. I am the Attorney

General; you can trust me. I will conduct a thorough and vigorous

investigation.’’

I am going to read you what the Attorney General said when she

testified before our committee in 1997, ‘‘In this particular campaign

finance investigation, as in all others entrusted to the Department

of Justice, we are going to follow every lead wherever it goes.’’

Well, it is pretty obvious that she has not done that. We have

seen the evidence over and over. Documents were being destroyed

at Charlie Trie’s house. The FBI was watching his house. They

asked for a search warrant. They couldn’t get a search warrant because Janet Reno said they did not have enough probable cause.

Liu Chao-Ying of China Aerospace wired Johnny Chung

$300,000. The Justice Department never even bothered to check

her bank records.

Johnny Chung was being harassed and threatened. The FBI even

put him in protective custody while he was testifying. They had it

241

all on tape by the man who was doing the threatening and he was

never even indicted.

Charles Intriago was caught red-handed making illegal contributions to the DNC. The case was gift-wrapped for them, and the

Justice Department let the statute of limitations expire.

It is pretty obvious to me that she is blocking for her boss, the

President. We have said that over and over.

I have written a letter to the Attorney General. I have asked her

to explain why this happened. And I have said in the letter that

if she does not give us a satisfactory answer, we will subpoena her

and have her answer the questions before the American people in

this committee room.

I have written a letter to the Attorney General, as I have said,

and I ask unanimous consent to include my letter in the record at

the conclusion of my remarks.

I also intend to ask unanimous consent to release copies of all

the President’s FBI 302s and the Vice President’s 302s. The FBI

has told us that personal information has been redacted, has been

crossed out. I think the American people deserve to see firsthand

how this investigation is being conducted, and how the Attorney

General is being so partisan.

This is a travesty. I don’t know how the American people can

have any confidence in their government when they find these facts

out, when important people like the President and Vice President

are given a free ride when the Justice Department questions them.

They don’t even ask questions about very important figures connected to the President. It only reinforces my determination that

this committee—this committee, be as thorough as possible.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton and the information referred to follow:]

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

Mr. BURTON. With that, Mr. Waxman, do you want to take your

5 minutes?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yesterday I pointed out how this committee has

settled into a very familiar pattern: Very strong accusations are

made and then when the facts come in that don’t corroborate those

accusations, rather than acknowledge the situation, the chairman

has come back consistently with more inflammatory remarks describing how people are not giving him what he wants.

I assume my time is not up, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday, we spent the whole day with Mr. Huang. Nothing

came out of that testimony to, in any way, come close to substantiate the inflammatory charges that have been made by Chairman

Burton and other Republican leaders over the past year. So what

we are seeing is that phase one, phase two, phase three, phase four

scenario that I described yesterday being played out. If you don’t

have the facts to back up your accusations, you quickly move on

to another inflammatory accusation and hope that people won’t pay

attention to the fact that what you said earlier doesn’t hold up.

The other point I would make is the chairman’s challenging the

integrity of the FBI. These were interviews conducted by FBI

agents, and it is a huge leap to attack Janet Reno, the Attorney

General, for interviews by the FBI.

So I don’t know what else to say about the whole matter except

that it is clear that again the chairman is frustrated by not finding

information that he would like to have, not finding the smoking

gun he believes should be there to substantiate all of the accusations that he has already made that haven’t held up in light of

facts that have come out over these last 3 years, and particularly

yesterday, with a very long day of grilling Mr. Huang, who was

supposed to be the crucial witness that would show how there was

a conspiracy to bring in contributions from China to influence the

Presidential elections in exchange for selling out the national security of this Nation.

I yield back the balance of my time. Let’s go on to the questions

of Mr. Huang.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Let me say that I am going to ask unanimous consent that the 302s, which I believe will speak for themselves, be

put in the record and released; and we do not have a quorum here,

so unless the gentleman is prepared to object to the release of these

302s, I will ask unanimous consent.

Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object, I am not going to object to anything going into the record, except I asked yesterday that

the 302s about Congressman Solomon be given to this committee,

and I will only agree to your unanimous consent if we expand it

to put his 302 statements in the record as well.

Mr. BURTON. I think I said yesterday I have no problem with

that, No. 1. And No. 2, Charlie Trie, you also asked that Charlie

Trie’s information be put in the record; and I said once the FBI has

gone through the redaction process, which I think they are entitled

to, we have no problem with that.

So with that, I will agree——

253

Mr. WAXMAN. To be clear then, the unanimous consent is to put

into the record all of the 302s, including Congressman Solomon’s

302s, Mr. Trie’s, and the other 302s relating to Mr. Huang.

Mr. BURTON. With the proviso that the FBI has the right to redact.

Mr. WAXMAN. And furthermore, reserving the right to object, has

the FBI made redactions in these 302s so that we are we are not

in any way——

Mr. BURTON. Any reference to any personal issues regarding the

President have been redacted by the FBI, right.

Mr. WAXMAN. So these 302s have redactions that the FBI has

put into place?

Mr. BURTON. Other than Charlie Trie. Charlie Trie’s have not

been redacted, but they are going to be.

Mr. WAXMAN. In other words, you will put them in the record

after the redactions; is that correct?

Mr. BURTON. That is correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, the 302s will be put into the

record and released.

Mr. Shays.

[NOTE.—The information referred to is printed at the end of the

hearing.]

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, before my time, if we could just clarify the process. My understanding is that we have a round of 5

minutes. I would like to ask unanimous consent that Members be

given 10 minutes rather than 5, and I would make that request.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, I think since we have so few

Members here, that might be easier.

Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. I don’t have extensive questioning because I have

asked Mr. Huang most of what I thought was pertinent to the investigation yesterday, but the rules do provide 5-minute rounds,

and I think we ought to stick with the rules and not change the

rules.

Mr. SHAYS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman from Connecticut is in the middle

of some line of questioning at the end of 5 minutes, I wouldn’t have

an objection at that point, but I don’t want to concede that on the

Republican side, each Member gets 10 minutes and then on the

Democratic side, where I am all alone at this point, we only get—

we have to wait 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 minutes before we get a chance

to correct the record.

So the rules provide for 5-minute rounds, and I am going to stay

with that, but I will be liberal in giving people additional time

when appropriate.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

My understanding is as well, Mr. Chairman, that we will have

a set of rounds and if someone passes and they don’t take their

time during that round, we start the next round. They can’t accumulate passes.

254

Mr. BURTON. Yes. The 5 minutes is not a cumulative thing. If

you don’t use your 5 minutes during that round, then you have 5

minutes in the next round.

What I would suggest to the Members, since we are going to

have a limited number here, if one Member wants to yield to another, we will try to give you 10 minutes if it is necessary for you

to have a continuation and a constancy in your questions.

Mr. SHAYS. I am prepared to yield to other Members under that

basis.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Good morning.

Mr. HUANG. Good morning, Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Huang, it is nice to have you here.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. I do want to say to start with that both your attorney

and you need to be careful when you are talking with each other.

I want to say from the outset that I don’t mind waiting, since I

know that we have unlimited rounds, so you shouldn’t feel rushed,

that we want the accurate questions; since your attorney really

isn’t welcome to speak, we want to make sure that you clearly understand the terms we are using, so you should never be hesitant

to ask him questions.

I also would suggest that you literally turn the mic away from

you because it is a very sensitive mic that picks up conversations

and we don’t want to pick up those conversations.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. Huang, I had asked you yesterday—and I am just going to

summarize, even if I use my 5 minutes now for the summary; and

I want to just verify, and then during the course of the day I won’t

have to keep coming back to it—but you started working for the

Lippo Bank entities from 1985 until July 1994, and your answer

was yes to that?

Mr. HUANG. Lippo Group, though. Group entities, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. And that from July 1994 to December 1995, you

worked at the Commerce Department? And we will get into what

you did at the Commerce Department today.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. And that from December 1995 to October and November 1996, you worked at the DNC and your responsibilities primarily, almost solely, were to raise money; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. It is my understanding that you pleaded guilty to

conspiracy to defraud. You acknowledge raising approximately

$150,000 illegally. You were the conduit for contributions; you were

aware of other people making contributions that wasn’t really their

money; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. While you acknowledged $150,000 of illegal activity,

you also made the Justice Department aware that potentially another $800,000 of laundered money was contributed to whom and

from whom?

255

Mr. HUANG. It is actually to Democratic party of various candidates, Senatorial candidates or congressional candidates, I believe.

Mr. SHAYS. So some went to the DNC, some might have gone to

State parties, some might have gone to candidates, a variety of

candidates primarily on the Democratic side of the aisle, or exclusively?

Mr. HUANG. Primarily on the Democratic side, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, those illegal activities took place in 1992, as

well as 1993 and 1994; or were they limited just to 1992?

Mr. HUANG. 1992, 1993, and 1994.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. And they stopped in 1994?

Mr. HUANG. Stopped in 1994, I believe.

Mr. SHAYS. They ended in 1994, all of those illegal activities that

you made reference to, to the Justice Department, that you were

aware of?

Mr. HUANG. Excuse me 1 second.

Mr. SHAYS. Sure. Turn the mic away, please.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. I am sorry for the interruption.

Mr. SHAYS. Please, no apologies during the course this time.

Mr. HUANG. OK.

There is one more case I am aware of in 1995, but I have no

knowledge, it did not really verify, it could be on that basis.

Mr. SHAYS. And how much did the 1995 case, how much money

are we talking about in 1995?

Mr. HUANG. Probably $12,000.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Now, it is my understanding that—I would like

to just have you—— Mr. HUANG. But, however, all the illegal, so-called illegal activity

was basically stopped in 1994.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Now, the $800,000 that you make reference to, was that money

that ultimately, it is your understanding, the Riadys covered? In

other words, it was their employees and they basically covered this

money? They were the contributors, ultimately? It was their

money?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, through Lippo, Lippo entities.

Mr. SHAYS. Through their Lippo entities, and their entities being

ultimately employees who worked for the Lippo entities?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Does that also include the money from business partners of Mr. Riady, the father, James’s father, Hashim Ning? Does

it include the money that he contributed, or is that in addition?

Mr. HUANG. No, that is not included. I don’t know, any knowledge—I don’t have any knowledge on their part, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. You haven’t even read anything? You have no knowledge, or you have some knowledge?

Mr. HUANG. No, I don’t have knowledge to say where the money

was coming into that, Hashim Ning on that.

Mr. SHAYS. So you had no involvement with Hashim Ning and

any contributions he might have made in the late 1980’s, 1990, or

any of the 1990’s?

Mr. HUANG. I have no knowledge of that, sir.

256

Mr. SHAYS. In addition to the $150,000 and the $800,000, there

were also sums of money that you raised while you were at the

DNC—my time has expired.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, it would be my time, but I will pass

at this point.

Mr. SHAYS. Could I clarify, neither of you used your opening 5

minutes?

Mr. BURTON. We both used our opening 5 minutes.

Mr. SHAYS. So I just appreciate the magnanimous effort, but you

really have no time this round to yield to me.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the

gentleman from Connecticut be given an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for doing that.

I would like you to start to explain to me how you raised money

for the DNC; and if you were raising money for the RNC, I would

be asking you the same questions.

How much money did you raise for the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. I really don’t have an exact figure. Approximately— anywhere from $3 million to $5 million, I think.

Mr. SHAYS. $3 million to $5 million?

Mr. HUANG. When I was there.

Mr. SHAYS. That is a pretty broad range. I would think intuitively that if you were raising this money, you would know every

penny, because frankly, it is to your credit. If you raise money, if

you thought you raised it legally, it is to your credit.

Mr. HUANG. The reason I have the broad range is, I try to include all the Asian communities, whoever gave money. I lump it all

together, may or may not be through my efforts.

Mr. SHAYS. I want to know what you raised through your efforts.

Mr. HUANG. Anywhere between $2.5 to $3 million, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So we have basically a sense that you raised

$3.4 million that we know of, and our sense is that $1.6—that you

raised 424 contributions, and that 88 were basically returned, for

a total of $1,623,350,000.

Now, that money was returned for a variety of reasons, but the

bottom line was, the judgment was, if it was accepted, it would

have been illegal and, therefore, it needed to be returned.

I need to know how you raised your money.

Mr. HUANG. Essentially I raise money through the contact of the

people I know or somebody would refer me, some people might be

of interest in making contributions through the network and

through the contacts which I—all the friends I made over the period of time, in New York, in San Francisco or Los Angeles, primarily.

Mr. SHAYS. And when you raised money, you understood there

were certain legal requirements. What are the legal requirements

that you understood to be true?

Mr. HUANG. The No. 1 is the party has to have at least permanent resident status or green card holder, American citizens. That

is for individual contributions.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. HUANG. Now, in the event it is beyond that amount, beyond

the hard money basis, then the money can come from a corporation

257

and become soft money; and an individual can also give unlimited

amount of money which can be categorized as soft money, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. So if it is hard money, there are certain limits to

what they can contribute, correct?

Mr. SHAYS. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. And soft money, there is no limit?

Mr. HUANG. There is no limit, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you need to know other things? What?

You need to know their occupation, correct?

Mr. HUANG. The record sheets, you had to fill out the party’s

name and address, phone number—phone number, the contact

numbers.

Mr. SHAYS. Who they are employed by?

Mr. HUANG. We have that information, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. That is required, isn’t it?

Mr. HUANG. I am not sure. I strictly, you know, adhere to that

rules.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, I want to know if you knew it.

Mr. HUANG. I am not sure I did that, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t want to split hairs here, and I am not trying

to trick you.

Mr. HUANG. I know you are not, Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Don’t assume that during the course of the day I

won’t, but I am not trying to now. I just want to know what you

knew you were supposed to do, and it seems to be a fairly simple

question.

You were employed by the DNC. They are not going to be stupid

enough not to tell you what the rules are, so you were told the

rules. You were a fundraiser. You need to know the rules. That is

kind of basic.

I want you to explain to me what the rules are.

Mr. HUANG. I just went through, very practical matters. If it is

individual contribution, I did not really figure out what the employment is. I did not even ask for it.

Mr. SHAYS. The fact that you didn’t do it doesn’t make it right.

It also doesn’t mean that you didn’t know you shouldn’t have done

it. The fact that you didn’t do it isn’t the worst crime in the world,

but you were supposed to do it. And you knew that; isn’t that correct?

Mr. HUANG. I am supposed to figure out as much information as

possible about an individual.

Mr. SHAYS. The bottom line is, it is required information, isn’t it?

I mean—and you knew that? You knew—I am not going to let off

this point until I get a definitive answer.

Mr. HUANG. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. It is true that you knew that this information is required in order to be legal; isn’t that true?

Mr. HUANG. That’s true.

Mr. SHAYS. And so we want to know if they are a U.S. citizen.

We want to know if they are not a U.S. citizen, if they have a green

card, that they have the right to work here, because if they are not

here legally, if they are here illegally or they are overseas, they

don’t have a right to contribute. And it is not an ethnic thing, and

258

it is not a discrimination thing, it is the law. You have to be a U.S.

citizen.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Shays, this is not the understanding I have even

at this point. The only understanding I have is a person can work

overseas, but has a green card status, has American citizen status,

the person can still make contributions.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. If they have U.S. status, if they have a green

card; but if they don’t, if they don’t have working status in the

United States, they can’t contribute, if they are not a U.S. citizen.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. I would like to clarify one thing, if the gentleman

would yield to me.

Mr. SHAYS. Happy to yield.

Mr. BURTON. If they have a green card, but they are living overseas, even if they have a green card, I believe the statute is very

clear that they can’t make contributions. They can only make contributions if they have a green card if they are working and residing in the United States.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

So you need to be a citizen, you need to have a green card, you

need to be in the United States.

My time has elapsed. It is Mr. Souder’s time.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Souder.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Souder proceeds, just a

housekeeping matter that I want to raise with you.

Yesterday you agreed to request from the Justice Department

the 302s regarding Mr. Solomon’s testimony. This morning we had

a unanimous consent agreement that that would be in the record.

I understand from the Justice Department that they say that

your staff hasn’t made the request. I wonder if we could just get

that request made. I think they are here right now. You can make

an oral request.

Mr. BURTON. As you speak, it has been done.

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield my 5 minutes to Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. So you have to be a U.S. citizen, you have to have

a green card, you have to be living in the United States if you

don’t, and—— Mr. HUANG. Excuse me. I think the last sentence might not be

correct, versus to my understanding.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. We will leave that as your understanding.

The contributions are limited. In other words, they can’t give

over a certain amount. Why don’t you describe to me some of the

limits that people have when they contribute?

Mr. HUANG. For the Federal campaign for the candidate itself,

for a Senatorial campaign, individually, there is a $1,000 limit for

the general elections and—the primary, and also another $1,000 for

the general. So that would be it.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. How about for the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. If it is for a party, the hard money, the Federal limit

is $20,000. And in the aggregate for the total amount, total contribution to all the candidates, all the committees for the hard

money is $25,000, if I believe—I believe that is correct, that is it.

259

Mr. SHAYS. You also need to know the mailing address of the individual, you need to know their occupation, you need to know who

they are employed by. The reason we want to know who they are

employed by is that we want to be able at the end to be able to

say that I received so much from the insurance industry or so

much from another organization. It is information that we deem

should be in the public domain, and that is what we require. If you

don’t have that information, then you have gotten this money and

not followed the law. And I would concur that there are obviously

different degrees of not following—not getting an employer, sometimes that happens and all of us go back and find out who the employer is; but ultimately if you don’t have all of this required information, you have to send it back.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Shays, the way I understood is that to the best

of my efforts, I should get those information, all right? And then

whatever the forms was required, I filled out, I just pass along.

And basically, that was it, you know.

Mr. SHAYS. But we get to the challenge. I mean, Mr. Waxman

made a point that is so valid. I mean there are going to be some

times that people contribute to your campaign and they didn’t do

it legally and they are ultimately held liable. But it reflects on our

campaigns. I don’t think there is a Member who has run for public

office that hasn’t had a contribution that we find embarrassing or

that, in fact, may not have been done properly; and when that is

found out boy, you just do your best to get it taken care of.

But in your case, we are not talking about, you know, an occa- sional mistake. We are talking about $3.4 million that we know

you raised and $1.6 million of it had to actually be returned.

I want you to explain to me why some of that money was returned.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Shays, I am quite handicapped in a detailed list

of the returning stuff. I did read occasionally from the papers the

amount of total you referred to was returned versus the amount of

money I raised.

Now, based on that, I can give you the best of my account on

these things.

Mr. SHAYS. Give me the best of your account.

Mr. HUANG. OK. The two individual checks over $12,500.

Mr. SHAYS. Each?

Mr. HUANG. $12,000 each, yes, which I raised in a Hay Adams

event that Mr. LaTourette was mentioning yesterday about that

event. I was told at the beginning when I received the check, the

party had been approved for the green card. In other words, the

party had green card status. But later on I found out that it was

just being approved with a number, but actually did not receive the

physical green cards. So subsequently I find out, I return the

checks. I was involved in that one.

The second one was involving Choeng Am, which is a Korean entity. I was involved in that. That was involving about $250,000.

Mr. SHAYS. How much was that?

Mr. HUANG. $250,000 for the checks.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. My time is up. Thank you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the

gentleman from Connecticut be given 5 additional minutes.

260

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

Mr. HUANG. Could I complete the answer, please?

Mr. SHAYS. Sure.

Mr. HUANG. The reason I was involved in the Chong Ann case

later on in September 1996, I virtually answer the question whether the company had the revenue in the United States and the answer was not. To the contrary. From the time when I receive check

was the understanding I had.

The third one would be involving a Mr. Gandhi’s check.

Mr. SHAYS. And how much was that for?

Mr. HUANG. That was $325,000. Now, that was not my solicitation on that in the first place. I don’t know whether that was in

that category you are talking about, the $1.6 million, or not.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. We will check that out. And that was illegal because? Why was that illegal?

Mr. HUANG. The way I understood is that—again, this knowledge

is coming from a newspaper account, it is not coming from the

original knowledge that I have, because at the time my information

that it was his one money, Mr. Gandhi’s own money.

Mr. SHAYS. Now explain to me if it was his own money versus

the company’s money, why would that make a difference?

Mr. HUANG. No, no. That was an individual check.

Mr. SHAYS. You mean it was a hard money contribution?

Mr. HUANG. No. You see, an individual can give both hard money

contribution and also soft money contribution, if the amount was

going over—— Mr. SHAYS. Let me just say something. I am not a fan of newspaper reports in a hearing like this, but what I am interested in

is to try to understand why you think something may be illegal or

not. That interests me. So I need to understand why you think that

may have been illegal.

Mr. HUANG. The understanding when I receive the check that

was his money, but later on, the information evolved from the news

account that the DNC determined through their investigation the

money he contributed was not really his money. That is why it was

returned.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. HUANG. Now, the fourth one.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUANG. The fourth one probably was related to

Wiriadinata’s money, which is around $400 some thousand.

Mr. SHAYS. Riady’s money?

Mr. HUANG. No, no. Wiriadinata. It is a long name.

Mr. SHAYS. How much are we talking about?

Mr. HUANG. That is probably $450,000, I believe, all together.

Mr. SHAYS. And why was that returned?

Mr. HUANG. I couldn’t find any reason that it was returned. The

only way I can think of—the decision was not made by me.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. But it was money raised by you?

Mr. HUANG. It was raised by me, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And it was your understanding that this was their

personal money?

Mr. HUANG. I have no reason to doubt that, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. They had the resources?

261

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. This is a male?

Mr. HUANG. No, husband and wife. In aggregate, $450,000.

Mr. SHAYS. You had every reason to believe they had the resources?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. SHAYS. They were U.S. citizens and so on; they met all the

requirements.

Mr. HUANG. No. The Wiriadinatas were permanent residents.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Permanent residents.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Now, the fifth one probably is related to the Miss Kanchanalak,

Pauline Kanchanalak. That was involving a few hundred thousand

dollars. I don’t know whether it is in this category or not.

Mr. SHAYS. And why do you think that was returned?

Mr. HUANG. Again, that was through the news account that I

learned about this matter. I still at this moment do not know in

real, real detail why the money was returned.

Mr. SHAYS. This was money you raised, though?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. The only amount you say you didn’t raise was the

amount of $325,000?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. Who raised that?

Mr. HUANG. I believe through Mr. Charlie Trie.

Mr. SHAYS. But Charlie Trie gave it to you?

Mr. HUANG. I was handling the main fundraisers.

Mr. SHAYS. Let’s be clear. Charlie Trie didn’t work for DNC. Correct?

Mr. HUANG. No, no.

Mr. SHAYS. You did.

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. So you raised it for the DNC. Correct? I mean, it was

given to you.

Why don’t you talk to your counsel.

Mr. HUANG. No. I was responsible for the DNC, but the solicitor

was Charlie Trie. That is what I am saying.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, but you are told that when the money is raised

and it is given to you, you then assume a responsibility. Clearly,

the DNC would have made that clear to you. Your employer would

have made that clear to you. Correct? You are not going to take the

position that any time someone else gave you money from someone

else, this isn’t your money. Are you going to take that position, or

are you going to take accountable——

Mr. HUANG. I am taking accountable. I am trying to explain to

you the source.

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough. Bottom line, it was your money raised

by Charlie Trie?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. Fine. I yield back.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.

Huang. We were talking about this February 19th fundraiser, and

262

if we can go back to that and sort of keep our eyes on that ball

for just 5 minutes, I guess.

We were talking yesterday about the head table and I think that

I asked you how the head table got to be the head table, who got

to sit with the President of the United States at that particular

function and from my review of things last night—I didn’t get a

homework assignment from Mr. Shays like you did and Mr. Waxman did, but I did some reading anyway, and it looks like there

were tables of 12. Does that sound about right to you?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Let me just run through who I think was at

that head table, and you can tell me whether I am right or not.

Nina Wang, Ted Sioeng, Kwai Fai Li, Pauline Kanchanalak, Richard Park, Sant Chatwal, Kazuhiro Nakagawa, Tju Jin Tan, Andrew

Cherng, Ng Lap Seng, and Charlie Trie, and the President of the

United States. Does that sound about right?

Mr. HUANG. It sounds right, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Now, I think you told me that the way nobody was required to pay more than $12,500, but you had a hand in and

selected who got to sit with the President of the United States; it

was a place of honor at this particular fundraiser and it was based

upon what their prominence, or how much they had contributed in

the past, or how much you thought they could contribute to the

President’s events?

Mr. HUANG. And also the ethnicity of the person.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Am I not—am I correct in saying that of those

11 names, because the 12th seat I guess was sort of reserved for

the President himself, of those 11 names, 5 of them could never

contribute to the President’s campaign because they were noncitizens?

Mr. HUANG. They were the guests of the other country leaders

publicly on that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But am I right about that, that Nina Wang,

Ted Sioeng, Kwai Fai Li, Pauline Kanchanalak, and Ng Lap Seng

are all noncitizens and they are all seated at the President of the

United States’s table and they can’t make a contribution?

Mr. HUANG. I will argue with some of them.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Tell me. I don’t want incorrect information.

Mr. HUANG. Pauline’s situation, to my total surprise, later on I

find out she was not, and because she has been with this political

fundraising matter for a long, long time, I was really surprised that

she was not.

Mr. LATOURETTE. As a matter of fact, at the time I believe that

Pauline Kanchanalak was a managing trustee of the Democratic

National Committee, was she not?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is probably how you knew her. She is a

Thai citizen, a citizen of Thailand, and she is not a citizen, permanent resident, or green card holder at this time, of the United

States of America; is that right?

Mr. HUANG. Unfortunately, that is what I later on find out.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So at the head table at this event on February

19th, out of 11 guests, 5 of them are not even eligible to make legal

263

contributions to the campaign of the DNC or the President of the

United States. I am right about that. Right?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, that’s correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Then let’s go back then to that fundraiser

if I can, and I want to sort of pick up where I left off yesterday.

We were talking about Charlie Trie, Antonio Pan and others. Did

Charlie Trie request that certain people be permitted to sit at that

head table?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And who did he ask to sit at the table?

Mr. HUANG. I think Mr. Ng.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Ng?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Who was his business partner from Macao in

the trading business who we were talking about.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did he make a request that any of the other

four noncitizens that I just mentioned sit at the head table?

Mr. HUANG. The other four partners not related to him at that

time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Now, Mr. Trie at that fundraiser, he also made

a contribution of $12,500, did he not?

Mr. HUANG. I believe so, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And that contribution has subsequently been

termed to be not appropriate, illegal, and returned by the Democratic National Committee; is that right?

Mr. HUANG. Later I learned that, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. If we could have exhibit No. 317, his contribution was on a check from Daihatsu International, which is the business that he shares with Mr. Ng, is that right?

[Exhibit 317 follows:]

264

265

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And that check didn’t come to, even though we

are talking about a fundraiser that is on February 19, 1996, that

check is dated February 29, 1996. Is that not right?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, on the check, it is.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And do you know why? Is this money that he

gave to you after the event?

Mr. HUANG. It is not unusual for people to give me money later,

as long as they have already established as ongoing persons.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But do you have any specific recollection as to

how this check came into your possession and then on to the DNC?

Was this check given to you?

Mr. HUANG. I believe it came to me, but I don’t remember the

exact time when I receive, from the check date, probably around

that time, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did Mr. Trie give you any indication when he

gave you that check as to the origin of the funds used, or that

backed up this check?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You know today, do you not that those funds

came from Mr. Ng who was a noncitizen and hence unable to contribute to a campaign in this country.

Mr. HUANG. Still I don’t know.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You don’t know that.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did Mr. Trie request that he be seated at the

head table himself, aside from the question that Mr. Ng be seated

at the head table?

Mr. HUANG. To me, Mr. Trie should have been, but Mr. Trie will

make that room to Mr. Ng, he request it.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you have any idea as to how many guests

Mr. Trie invited or brought to the event on February 19th?

Mr. HUANG. I have to give you a roughly number, maybe around

between 15 to 20 or something like that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And all of them paying $12,500?

Mr. HUANG. May or may not. Might or might not, I am sorry.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, his time is about to expire and I

want to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given 5 additional minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I appreciate very much your courtesy, Mr.

Waxman.

I want to go through some of Mr. Trie’s guests with you now and

I really appreciate Mr. Waxman’s courtesy because it let’s me have

a little continuity in talking about that subject, because you get

questions from all over and then come back to me on this February

19th business.

I want to show you some photographs that now are exhibits, the

first one is exhibit No. 318 and it is a photograph request of an individual with the President of the United States and a gentleman

by the name of Peter Chen. Do you know Mr. Chen?

[Exhibit 318 follows:]

266

267

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I do.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Can you describe for the committee what the

relationship is, if any, between Charlie Trie and Peter Chen?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I reported to you yesterday, Mr.

Chairman, I have some so-called brother-in-law situation with Mr.

Trie. This is the person.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Does Mr. Chen—— Mr. HUANG. I cannot verify that though. I am sorry.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Does Mr. Chen to your knowledge or has Mr.

Chen worked for the Lippo Group?

Mr. HUANG. He did.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And do you know when?

Mr. HUANG. Starting from—my best recollection, probably early

1980’s.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Chen, to my information, owns a company

called the Sun Union Group. Do you know that to be true? Do you

know that?

Mr. HUANG. I vaguely remember there is some company like

that, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are there any ties between Sun Union and the

Lippo Group to your knowledge?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know about that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And what contact, if any, are you aware of between Mr. Chen and the Riady family, aside from—— Mr. HUANG. He was employed by Lippo Group before.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Any connection other than being an employee

of the Lippo Group that you are aware of?

Mr. HUANG. I was aware of later on he left the Lippo Group but

remained to be a partner of—with the Riady family, especially

Mochtar Riady particularly.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Next I want to show you exhibit No. 319,

which is another photograph, and this depicts to my understanding

another one of Mr. Trie’s guests, a fellow by the name of Santoso

Gunara. Are you familiar with this individual?

Mr. HUANG. I am not familiar with this individual.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Another one of Mr. Trie’s guests at the

event was Dr. Tju Jin Tan, excuse me, which is exhibit No. 320.

Are you familiar with Dr. Tan?

[Exhibit 320 follows:]

268

269

Mr. HUANG. I am not.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Dr. Tan, according to the records that we

have reviewed from the February 19th fundraising event, did not

contribute to the event. Are you aware as to how he came to be in

attendance?

Mr. HUANG. He is a guest of Mr. Trie. Whatever money Mr. Trie

raised, he can designate a guest he would like to invite.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Dr. Tan, I think as I went through the list

with you before at the head table, Dr. Tan was seated at the head

table at that event. Can you tell me, since you were in charge of

arranging who was at the head table how it is that Mr.—Dr. Tan

became at the head table with the President of the United States?

Mr. HUANG. If he was, probably on the recommendation by Mr.

Trie.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Many of Charlie Trie’s guests, and we

went over this list yesterday, like Peter Chen, William Peh,

Santosa Gunara did not pay to attend. In other words, if you match

up who was there, they were there, but there is no check from

them.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Conversely, many people who gave to the

event, Manlin Foung, Joseph Landon, Zie Pan Huang and others

did not attend, but contributed. Now, that is not unusual.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think in the fundraising business as Members, politicians, we are always happy when people send in the

checks but don’t show because we don’t have to pay for the hor

d’oeurves, they are not going to eat them at the event. But did you

ever become concerned, based on this reserves scenario, that you

had people at your fundraising event that you were in charge of in

attendance that weren’t contributing and were invited guests, and

then you had a large list of people that paid but didn’t show up?

Did you ever become concerned and, again, concerned because

you are an individual who is knowledgeable about what a conduit

contribution is. You know from the activities to which you pled

guilty in 1992, 1993 and the other times that one, it is illegal to

give money that is not your money; it is illegal for a noncitizen to

contribute.

Did you ever become concerned that Mr. Trie’s guests—that Mr.

Trie was using conduit contributions to pay for the attendance of

all of these nonpaying guests at the fundraiser on the 19th? And

just while you are thinking about that, if we could put up exhibit

No. 323, which is a chart of the nonpaying guests and nonattending

contributors, just to refresh your memory.

[Exhibit 323 follows:]

270

271

Mr. HUANG. Congressman LaTourette, I have been interviewed

by so many people over periods of times and each time I gain certain knowledge about certain things. The best I can think of right

now, at the time I was concentrating on raising money. You know,

the guests were being invited by people, and then I thought it was

general practice people doing that. I did not really pay attention to

that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I remember in your opening statement you

said that you were dedicated to the Democratic National Committee and you took that job seriously, and I know you did. You were

very successful.

But my specific question—and I guess you are saying no, but I

would like you to say no if that is your answer that you were not

concerned in 1996 that Charlie Trie was using the same sort of

scheme that you used in 1992 and 1993, that is, conduit contributions to get to the Democratic National Committee. Are you telling

me you were not concerned about that?

Mr. HUANG. In that time the things did not come to my mind,

yes, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. When I come back during the next round,

I want to talk to you about specific guests of Mr. Trie’s, people that gave $12,500 to that event, but whose annual salaries were

$20,000 and we will just go through some of those. Because I think

again as I was talking to you yesterday, it begins to stretch credulity that a clerk who works at the clerk of the court’s office in

Maryland making $25,000 a year can give $12,500 to the Democratic National Committee of their own money and for you to be familiar with the idea of conduit contributions as a vice-chair of the

Democratic National Committee, to not have red flags going off or

sky rockets or whatever the alarm bells would need to be, is unusual to me, and I hope we can talk about it and explain it.

Again, Mr. Waxman, I thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, if the gentleman would permit, you are in

the middle of asking questions and I certainly would have no objection if you want to continue and have another 5-minute round.

Mr. LATOURETTE. If my colleagues on this side don’t—— Mr. WAXMAN. I will ask unanimous consent, and if they object,

they can object; but I will ask unanimous consent that you be given

5 additional minutes to pursue questions.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would you yield to me just to ask a question at

this point?

What I am trying to understand, Mr. Huang, is that there was

a dinner; people were sitting at the President’s table who did not

give money. The money was given by Mr. Trie as far as you were

concerned.

Mr. HUANG. Or raised by Mr. Trie.

Mr. WAXMAN. Or raised by Mr. Trie. Is there any way you would

have known that those people that were sitting there—you didn’t

care whether they gave the money or not; you knew that the money

was paid for by their attendance.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct. The guest list of Mr. Trie’s, yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. And would you be suspicious that there was a conduit contribution because they were sitting there?

272

Mr. HUANG. Not at the time, no.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. I think that the only

observation I would make is that is pretty bad luck, if you have a

head table of 11 and half of them are illegal individuals in terms

of giving contributions to the President’s campaign, that is 500—— Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield? They didn’t give contributions to the President’s campaign. They were not legal residents or citizens, but no one has claimed they gave a contribution

to the President of the United States. Someone else gave a contribution who presumably was legally able to give a contribution

and invited these people to be, in effect, at his table, but his table

turned out to be with the President of the United States.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I appreciate that point, and I think we will

find out that Pauline Kanchanalak, in fact, made substantial contributions through this period of time to the DNC and the course

of money from Mr. Ng Lap Seng that Charlie Trie actually wrote

on February 29th was Mr. Seng’s money. But I appreciate your remarks.

Mr. WAXMAN. You may very well be right, but the question is

whether Mr. Huang should have been alert to that at that time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. OK.

I appreciate the distinction. I want to talk about two individuals

who were at the event, guests of Mr. Trie, and I think demonstrate

that even if you were not aware as a vice chair of the Democratic

National Committee in 1996 that conduit contributions were taking

place at the fundraiser that you organized on February 19th, that

in fact the pattern does I think really, if it’s circumstantial it’s

probably the best circumstantial evidence I could think of that it

was going on. And I want to talk to you about a woman by the

name of Lei Chu. Do you know a woman by the name of Lei Chu?

Mr. HUANG. I do not know her.

Mr. LATOURETTE. As we reviewed the records from your fund- raiser on the 19th, Lei Chu made a $12,500 contribution the day

after the event. Also, bank records indicated she deposited a check

for $12,500 into a new account. The check was written the day

after the event to the DNC, was written on a starter check. On the

tracking form that was submitted, Charlie Trie is listed as the solicitor and you are listed as the DNC contact.

Now, again, does it concern you that an individual who is contributing $12,500 is doing so on a starter check? Does that raise

any red flags or concerns to you as a fundraiser for a major political party?

Mr. HUANG. It did not. Did not.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Did you have the occasion to speak with

Lei Chu either at this event, or she also attended the breakfast

with Vice President Gore the next morning—did you talk to her at

all, have any recollection of talking to her?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t have any recollection of talking to her, no.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Did you ever have a conversation with

Charlie Trie that would—wherein he indicated that he had pro- vided Lei Chu with the funds necessary to make the $12,500 contribution?

Mr. HUANG. I did not either.

273

Mr. LATOURETTE. Next, another individual who attended, Keshi

Zhan, also was an attendant and a contributor of $12,500, dated

February 19, 1996. It lists you as the contact and no solicitor is

mentioned on the reporting form. Do you know Keshi Zhan?

Mr. HUANG. I met with her before, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And would you have met with her about the

time of this particular fundraiser?

Mr. HUANG. No. Around that period of time, because she was

also working for Mr. Charlie Trie.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And did you have any idea what it was that

she did employment-wise at that time?

Mr. HUANG. She had a job in some way in Virginia, but I did not

ask the detail as to what she was doing.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Well, in fact, Ms. Zhan had a job as a

clerk for the Arlington County in Virginia and it paid her less than

$25,000 a year. Again, it’s a fundraiser for the Democratic National

Committee. Would it surprise you, unless she had a trust fund or

came from a very wealthy family, wouldn’t it—I guess would that fact pattern surprise you, that someone making less than $25,000

writes a check for $12,500 to a major—unless she really loves the

Democrats and is willing to give half of the money that she would

make in a year to her cause, but don’t you find that to be unusual?

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, I’m not trying to be argumentative.

There are some—a lot of people appear don’t have any money, but

they have a lot of savings in my community. So I did not really ask

this question.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, we know today what you may not have

known in 1996, and that is on the same day that she contributed

$12,500 to your fundraiser, she wrote a check to herself from Charlie Trie’s bank account reimbursing herself for the contribution.

Now, have you been told that today? Do you know that to be so

today?

Mr. HUANG. I’m sorry I was disturbed right here.

Mr. LATOURETTE. That’s OK.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, I did not know that. If that was the

case, that was wrong to do that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I know it’s wrong. I’m asking you if—you say

you didn’t know it in February 1996 and have you been told that

since? I mean, am I telling you that for the first time?

Mr. HUANG. Oh, I read it from the news account to indicate that,

yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And two others, Manlin Foung and Joseph

Landon also wrote checks at that event for $12,500. And I would

ask you—we were talking about Antonio Pan yesterday—are you

aware that shortly after their contributions, Antonio Pan sent

Foung and Landon cashier checks totaling $25,000 to reimburse

them? Do you know that?

Mr. HUANG. I did not know that at that time, no.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The fact of the matter is all those facts which

I believe to be true, and I understand you say you didn’t know

them in 1996, that’s exactly the way that you used to raise money

illegally in 1992 and 1993. You see the problem, right?

Mr. HUANG. Excuse me.

274

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. To the extent of the conduit money, that’s correct.

But the process was not exactly the same on that, as you know

very well, on that. You know what I’m trying to say.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I do know what you’re trying to say. I’ll come

back and we’ll talk some more later. I thank everybody for their

courtesy.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Ose.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield my

time to Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman from California. I appreciate

that. Good to see you again, Mr. Huang. We’re going to—— Mr. HUANG. Morning.

Mr. SOUDER [continuing]. Now go back to some of the Mr. Hubbell discussions that we had yesterday. And I wanted to first review—yesterday I asked you about a Little Rock visit and where

you had a car, and you couldn’t at that time recollect why you were

in Little Rock. You said that you didn’t have business interests

there, personal or family, and probably weren’t vacationing.

I wondered if overnight, I know it’s a number of years ago,

whether you had a chance to review.

Mr. HUANG. I still cannot recall I went to Little Rock. I might

have. All right. From this American Express charge records there

are two car registrations.

Mr. SOUDER. I notice that, too.

Mr. HUANG. The few possibilities there, since I cannot really recall for sure, the family was there, the—James Riady, the whole

family including the children and, I believe, the maid.

Mr. SOUDER. Now, wait. Yesterday we talked about airline flight

records showing that Mr. Riady was in New Orleans, and you

didn’t think that he was in Little Rock.

Mr. HUANG. It was not a case of in New Orleans, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. The flight ticket on the bottom.

Mr. HUANG. The flight ticket on the date on the charges on June

25th. So I believe—after they finish all the Washington event, they

went to Orlando and New Orleans. This is probably visiting Little

Rock was prior to the visit of Washington, DC.

Mr. SOUDER. So let me see if I’ve got this straight. Because yesterday I had asked you whether you were with Mr. Riady in Little

Rock and you couldn’t recall being in Little Rock, but your car registration showed that, but you didn’t think Mr. Riady was. Now,

today Mr. Riady and his family, and/or his family, you believe were

in Little Rock and they could have used your credit card; is that

what you’re saying?

Mr. HUANG. The credit card made—I may have made a reservation and reserved the car for them. Now, if I were in Little Rock,

I—one of the car I was using—there are two cars. One of the better

cars was using for the family, the other one was used by me.

Mr. SOUDER. So one car could have been used by you, you say.

Mr. HUANG. Yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. And one by the Riadys.

Mr. HUANG. By the Riadys. There’s a better one, a larger charge bill of $223.65, that represent a longer period of time and also a

better selection of a car that the other one was——

275

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. That was basically I used my credit card to make

a reservation or travel arrangement for the family.

Mr. SOUDER. So as I understand what you’re saying, the better

car was for Mr. Riady and his family most likely.

Mr. HUANG. I’m speculating on that.

Mr. SOUDER. But it is your credit card.

Mr. HUANG. That was my credit card, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. And there was a second car and you’re speculating

that you were in the second car.

Mr. HUANG. If I——

Mr. SOUDER. If you were there.

Mr. HUANG. If I was there. Because——

Mr. SOUDER. Did you go to Little Rock often?

Mr. HUANG. In that year I visited Little Rock every now and

then, but it’s not very often. Few times, I think, in the 1993, 1994.

Mr. SOUDER. I mean, a few times is two.

Mr. HUANG. Oh, it’s more than two, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. More than two.

Mr. HUANG. Yeah. About three to five times, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. And I mean, did you travel lots of other places, too,

in your job?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, some places; yes, I do.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me—here’s why I keep asking you this question

because I have a series of questions to follow. This is a very critical

time period and something that’s been very much examined around

the United States. Because yesterday—and you correct me if I’m

misstating this, but I think what we established that what you said

was that you met Mr. Hubbell at a reception in the spring. You

didn’t have the precise date. We——

Mr. HUANG. No, did I say the Inauguration of 1993?

Mr. SOUDER. In 1993 you met him at the——

Mr. HUANG. That was the first I met him.

Mr. SOUDER. First you met him.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. SOUDER. But you saw him at a reception in the spring of

1994.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. SOUDER. And he gave you a card.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. SOUDER. And then on May 19th, which may or may not have

been approximately the time of the reception, but he called—what

we know from the records is he called Lippo Bank twice. Yesterday

you speculated that those two phone calls may have been about an

appointment.

Mr. HUANG. No, the appointment——

Mr. SOUDER. Of Mr. Riady.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. SOUDER. And then on June 11th, Mr. Riady comes to Washington.

Mr. HUANG. June.

Mr. SOUDER. 11th—he comes to Washington. That’s when I

asked you about the travelers checks. He brought $32,000 includVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
276

ing $17,500 travelers—when he came to the United States, excuse

me, he came to the United States on June 11th.

Mr. HUANG. I’m not sure to Washington, though.

Mr. SOUDER. I take that back. He came to the United States on

June 11th. That in the—so he came to—he came to the United

States on June 11th. Then you also said during that time period

you talked to Mr. Riady about the support, the help for a friend.

So we’re in this period of time between where Mr. Hubbell has

called the Lippo Bank, you received a card. You also said yesterday

that you talked to Doug Buford, who was with Bruce Lindsey’s law

firm, former law firm, and he talked to you about the need for

money for Mr. Hubbell. That’s where you first learned about the

money. So we have you getting a card from Mr. Hubbell, you talking to Mr. Buford.

Mr. COBB. The Buford conversation was first.

Mr. SOUDER. The Buford conversation was first. You heard

about—— Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me ask unanimous consent, I

notice that Mr. Shays had 15 minutes, Mr. LaTourette had 15 minutes, and Mr. Souder yielded 5 minutes of his time to Mr. Shays.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Souder be given 10 additional

minutes so he will also have 15 minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

Mr. OSE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California. This is my yield to him.

Mr. SOUDER. California is a great State.

So you first got a call from Doug Buford, then you got a card

from Webb Hubbell. Then Mr. Hubbell called to Lippo Bank. But

as I understood you to say that while you thought it might have

been an appointment, the appointment was going to be set up

through you because, generally speaking, Mr. Riady didn’t meet

with Mr. Hubbell except through you, to your knowledge.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. SOUDER. Then you talked with Mr. Riady about the money.

And all this was occurring in this period of time somewhere between May 19th where we have the documented phone calls and

the—and where the money actually went, which was June 24th. In

that period of time it appears, at least from the credit cards, that

you were in Little Rock with the Riadys. At least there’s two cars

rented in Little Rock.

Mr. HUANG. As I——

Mr. SOUDER. In your name.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, it is not—it was my duty to make

travel arrangements, very frequently travel arrangements for Mr.

Riady or Mr. Riady and his family. It’s been the practice for me,

anyway, as reflected by this American Express charge card slips on

that. And as I indicated to you, I do not recall at that time I was

in Little Rock by my own in this political occasion.

Mr. SOUDER. I just—I have to say that even though it’s a number

of years ago, because of the nature of this controversy and the type

of issues that we’re dealing with, I find it extraordinary that you

can’t remember whether you were in Little Rock. It is so much a

part of what we’re doing here, because you need to understand the

277

gravity of this, that you also said yesterday, as I understood this,

that Mr. Riady knew Mr. Hubbell back way before they went to

Washington because—is that because Mr. Hubbell did work for the

Riadys?

Mr. HUANG. Either Riady or Worthen at that time. Mr. Riady

had—Lippo had an interest in the Worthen Bank during the mideighties.

Mr. SOUDER. And that in itself is a sordid tale that most people

will not understand we don’t have a chance to get into with the

Worthen Bank, and it leads us into Stevens and a number of other

things. But you see what a tangled web we weave here. Because

one of the difficulties—and there are many, many millions of Americans who believe that silence was purchased—and that when you

see the tangled web of relationships and the types of discussions

here, it’s disconcerting. But let me move on. Because if you don’t

remember, I’m not going to, by repeating the question, continue to

find that.

So now what we do, I think, agree that by the time we get to

the 21st, they’re both in Washington.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. SOUDER. Now, on June 23rd,—on June—I asked you about

the phone log call on June 20th exhibit 97 yesterday to Mark Middleton, and the meeting was set up and we didn’t establish where

you were because you thought maybe the Hay-Adams, but you

could have been in Little Rock.

Now on June 21st, the call schedule for Bruce Lindsey refers to,

if you can look at exhibit 98 if we could put that up, it refers to

a call schedule for Bruce Lindsey. Did you and Mr. Riady meet

with Mr. Mark Middleton on June 21st?

[Exhibit 98 follows:]

278

279

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know exactly time. We did meet in that week

with Mr. Middleton, yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know who was at that meeting?

Mr. HUANG. Do I——

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know who was at the meeting with Mr. Middleton besides you and Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. I do know one occasion just myself and Mr. Riady

and Mr. Middleton alone.

Mr. SOUDER. And what would the purpose of that meeting have

been?

Mr. HUANG. Because we are all acquaintances, you know, just

friendly chat, because Mr. Riady has not seen Mr. Middleton for

awhile. Just to more a courtesy basis.

Mr. SOUDER. Did—what might you have chatted about? I mean,

the weather or——

Mr. HUANG. I really don’t have any recollection of exactly account, Congressman.

Mr. SOUDER. But since Mr. Riady has just been asked to give a

substantial contribution to Mr. Hubbell by another longtime Arkansas person, and Mark Middleton is a longtime political director

of this administration also from Arkansas, you don’t think it would

have come up in the discussion with Hubbell?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. The chronological thing is, Mr. Souder, as you know

very well, that Mr. Buford was the first one. That was quite an

early time on that basis. And the visit with Middleton, I have no

knowledge of what was—I cannot remember what was talked

about. But I do remember it was not—he and I never talk with Mr.

Hubbell about it.

Mr. SOUDER. So your testimony was that, to your knowledge, Mr.

Middleton didn’t know Webb Hubbell needed help, to your knowledge.

Mr. HUANG. To my knowledge, who?

Mr. SOUDER. You have not discussed with Mr. Middleton that

Webb Hubbell needed help.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SOUDER. And that—who suggested that Bruce Lindsey be

called that shows up in that document that you wanted to meet

with Bruce Lindsey?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. I really don’t know. I really don’t know at this point.

Mr. SOUDER. What’s troubling about this is that in that memo

or the White House notation, they’d—you’d like to see—you’re

going to see Middleton, that you would like to see Lindsey. Doug

Buford, you’ve testified, is the person who notified you that they

needed help. Yesterday you said that that help was basically not

really a job, it was more out of friendship and the need that Mr.

Hubbell had; that, and that Doug Buford is a senior partner in

Bruce Lindsey’s former law firm, which is named Lindsey. Do you

think that Bruce Lindsey was aware that Mr. Riady was going to

give this $100,000 check to Mr. Hubbell?

Mr. HUANG. I do not know.

280

Mr. SOUDER. So, to your knowledge, you never talked with Bruce

Lindsey about whether or not Mr. Riady was going to aid Mr. Hubbell?

Mr. HUANG. I did not, sir; no.

Mr. SOUDER. Did Mr. Riady ever say to you whether he had

talked to Bruce Lindsey or to Mark Middleton about Mr. Hubbell?

Mr. HUANG. No, he did not.

Mr. SOUDER. Would it seem logical to you that Mr. Riady might

have wanted to check out with some of the people he had worked

with in Arkansas about whether to give the money to Mr. Hubbell?

Mr. HUANG. The conversation never occurred on that in the line

you are suggesting, sir. No.

Mr. SOUDER. Exhibit 99 as well as exhibit 100 shows a series of

meetings that I will ask you about, where you and Mr. Riady visited different people from the administration. Did you return to the

White House on June 21st to attend a Business Leadership Forum,

to your recollection?

[Exhibits 99 and 100 follow:]

281

282

283

Mr. HUANG. I believe there was—there was functions in the

White House during that period of time. I believe we left and we

went back to the function in the evening.

Mr. SOUDER. Because if—as you can see from this exhibit, there

were a series of meetings that I want to ask you about; and in fact,

three—looks like three with Mr. Middleton. And your testimony is

that in none of those meetings you talked about Webb Hubbell.

Mr. HUANG. Not with me, no.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you discuss any of these meetings with—I’m

going to—my time is about to run out. I will not startup on another

round. I just find it very difficult because what we’re going to see at the end of this is that Mr. Riady writes a check for $100,000.

You’ve had basically six visits to the White House in a period of

4 days when this is a pending matter. And it’s just hard to believe

there was not a discussion about the Hubbell matter.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. You know, the matters during the week, we did

meet with Mr. Hubbell himself, at least on two occasions we met

with him. And also some of the visit went in, I believe I took the

Riadys to—wife and also children to visit to tour the White House.

Maybe the name who clear us in is Middleton, but actually it was

probably Middleton was not involved. It could be someone else who

cleared us in. So we did visit White House quite a few times, but

my best recollection was I’ve never been aware of there’s any issues

related to Hubbell that I was involved. Because we had a meeting

with Mr. Hubbell personally already; one was in the hotel, one was

in his office at that time.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. My followup questions are going to relate to

the meeting with Alexis Herman, the meeting with Webb Hubbell,

as well as some others. Thank you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. I think it’s my time now. But do you have something you want to ask?

Mr. WAXMAN. I thought Mr. Ose was going to go. Are you going

to take your time now?

Mr. BURTON. I think Mr. Ose yielded.

I would like to go over the chronology real quickly and followup

on what Mr. Souder was talking about.

May 19th, Hubbell calls John Huang at Lippo Bank, 1994. That’s

at 12:25. He called again a minute later at the Lippo Bank.

May 23rd, Huang calls Doug Buford, Buford asks Huang to contribute to the Hubbell children’s education trust fund. That was at

7:03 a.m.

June 7, 1994, 4:17 p.m., Hubbell calls John Huang at the Lippo

Bank.

June 19th through—and Tuesday June 20th, John Huang and

James Riady are in Little Rock. Monday, June 20th, John Huang

calls Mark Middleton. He wants to arrange a meeting with Middleton for June 21st at 3 p.m. That’s the time that’s written in.

Tuesday, June 21st, 3:17 p.m., Huang and Riady call Bruce

Lindsey at the White House and tell him they’re meeting with

Mark Middleton at 4:30 p.m., and ask if they could see him for a

minute either today or sometime this week. Lindsey claims he did

not meet with Huang or Riady, but nevertheless that meeting was

284

set up for 4:30 that day. 4:45 that day, Tuesday June 21st, Huang

and Riady enter the White House for a meeting with Mark Middleton. 6:51, Huang, Riady and his wife Aileen enter the White House

for a Business Leadership Forum. That was later on. Evidently he

went back that day.

June 22nd, 12 noon, John Huang’s expense sheet shows a lunch at the Mayflower for $61.69. 2:37 p.m., John Huang enters the

White House for a meeting with Mark Middleton. 2:57, James

Riady enters the White House for a meeting with Mark Middleton.

6.30 p.m., the Presidential Gala took place, and of course many of

the people were there to visit with President Clinton.

Thursday, June 23rd, Hubbell has James Riady on his schedule.

That’s 2 days later or the next day. 10.10 a.m., Mark Grobmyer enters the White House to see Alexis Herman. Huang and Riady

enter the White House at 10:26 to meet Alexis Herman. 10:32,

Huang exits the White House. Unknown when Riady left. 11:05,

call to the White House chief of staff’s office from James Riady’s

room at the Hay-Adams. 11:10, call to the Democrat Leadership

Council from James Riady’s room at the Hay-Adams. Noon, Hubbell has James Riady, H. Adams, 12, on his schedule. 2 p.m., call

to an unknown White House number from James Riady’s room at

the Hay-Adams.

Friday, June 24th, Middleton schedule reads lunch with James

Riady, Aileen Riady, and children. 12:05, John Huang enters the

White House to see Middleton. This is on the 24th. John and Carolyn Riady, James’ children enter the White House to see Middleton.

James Riady enters the White House to see Middleton. Call to

Debbie Shoen at 2:11 at the OEOB from James Riady’s room at the

Hay-Adams. 2:16, call to unknown White House number from

James Riady’s room at the Hay-Adams. 5, Hubbell schedule says

meet with James Riady. 8:04, call to the residence of the Indonesian ambassador to the United States from James Riady’s room

at the Hay-Adams. 9:50, call to unknown White House number

from James Riady’s room at the Hay-Adams. 10:10, call to the residence of the Indonesian ambassador to the United States from

James Riady’s room at the Hay-Adams.

Saturday, June 5th, John Huang, James and Aileen Riady with

the four children go to the White House for the President’s radio

address. At 3:45 they check out on June 26th at 3:45 p.m. That’s

on Sunday.

The next day, the next day $99,985, $100,000 minus the $15

transfer fee from the Hong Kong Bank, was sent to Webb Hubbell.

June 30th, Hubbell calls the Lippo Bank in Los Angeles, Huang

was in China. 3:17, he calls, same day. Huang was in China.

July 5th, Huang enters the United States.

July 8th, Huang—or Hubbell calls Lippo Bank in Los Angeles;

2:20 Hubbell calls Lippo Bank in Los Angeles.

July 12th, Hubbell calls Lippo Bank in Los Angeles.

July 13th, Hubbell calls the Lippo Bank, and at 2:23 he calls the

Lippo Bank.

When were you appointed to the Department of Commerce, after

that?

To refresh your memory I think it was July 18th.

Mr. HUANG. Oh, I’m sorry, yes.

285

Mr. BURTON. So you were appointed by the President to the

Commerce Department on July 18th?

Mr. HUANG. Monday, right.

Mr. BURTON. I presume you’re going to answer this question in

the negative, but I would like to ask you for the record, all of this

took place between you and the Riadys and all these meetings at

the White House with Middleton; and I don’t know if you met with

the President, but you were in the White House many, many times

with the Riadys.

Does any of that and the $100,000 contribution that Webb Hubbell got from the Riadys have anything to do with you going over

to the Commerce Department being appointed by the President?

Mr. HUANG. No. I was appointed already. I had knowledge way—

you know, at least a month or two ahead of time. That has nothing

to do with this money thing with Mr. Hubbell.

Mr. BURTON. So the $100,000 that was given by the Riadys just

because they liked Mr. Hubbell had nothing to do with all these

meetings at the White House and your appointment to the Commerce?

Mr. HUANG. It’s nothing to do with my appointment, no.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that you be given an additional 10 minutes so you can have

as much time as each of the Republican Members have had.

Mr. BURTON. I appreciate that Mr. Waxman, but I will take a different line of questioning at a subsequent time so I will go ahead

and yield.

Mr. WAXMAN. Maybe we could inquire—maybe Mr. Huang wants

a short break.

Mr. BURTON. Yes. Mr. Huang, would you like a short break right

now, and if so, would you like to have included in that a time to

get a sandwich for lunch since it’s almost noon?

Mr. HUANG. Better ask my counsel. I normally don’t take lunch,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Well, I’ll let you ask your counsel if you guys would

like to take 30 minutes or 40 minutes we can do that.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion to the

counsel? It’s just so—I would certainly prefer that we just move on

and let’s get this questioning so that we can hopefully finish it at

some reasonable point. But there’s no guarantee that if we continue without lunch that we will finish the questioning.

Mr. COBB. If we could have a 10-minute break.

Mr. BURTON. Ten minutes would be fine. Is that OK with everybody? If your stomach starts growling, holler and we will——

Mr. BURTON. Did you have a comment before we break Mr.

Huang?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, he just rattled a list of the chronology of events.

Mr. BURTON. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. I just want to make sure that May 23, that event

related to Mr. Buford’s call, which is not related to what Mr.

Souder is referring, that there is no relations on that.

Mr. BURTON. On the May 23rd call that Huang called—you

called Doug Buford.

286

Mr. HUANG. I don’t recall. But I know for sure this thing says

it’s not related to what Mr. Souder was talking about.

Mr. BURTON. It says here that Buford asked Huang to contribute

to the Hubbell’s children’s education fund at 7:03 that morning; is

that correct?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t recall on that.

Mr. SOUDER. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, I’ll yield.

Mr. SOUDER. My understanding from the questioning is, while

our notes have suggested it was May 23rd, he suggested that date

was earlier before the reception that he had heard from Mr.

Buford.

Mr. BURTON. We’ll double-check our records on that. We’ll stand

in recess for 10, 15 minutes. Then we’ll be right back. Let’s make

it 15, 15 minutes. We’ll be back at 5 till 11.

[Recess.]

Mr. BURTON. In order to expedite things, Mr. Huang, we’ll go

ahead and get started with Mr. Souder.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry. I’m here. I want to yield

my time to Mr. Souder.

Mr. BURTON. We’ll recognize you, Mr. Shays, and you yield to

Mr. Souder then.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank you.

Mr. Huang, I wanted to ask you about the meeting with Mr.

Hubbell and Mr. Riady. The records seem to show it was at 7 a.m.,

on June 23rd. Do you recall that meeting? That’s exhibit 101.

[Exhibit 101 follows:]

287

288

Mr. HUANG. My recollection was not really—let me see the exhibits. Personally, I do not have a recollection if there was a morning

meeting, but I do remember the afternoon meeting.

Mr. SOUDER. I think in the 302s that you told the Justice Department that Mr. Riady met Mr. Hubbell at a breakfast meeting at

Mr. Hubbell’s temporary office.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Souder, as I reported earlier, there were two

meetings between Mr. Riady and Mr. Hubbell. And to a certain degree I was also present. Not all the time. The one was related to

a luncheon, and I did not join the luncheon meeting until, at the

tail end, I joined in. I thought the meeting was over between them.

I just barged into that room. The luncheon meeting was at HayAdams in Mr. Riady’s room. The other one would be in Mr. Hubbell’s office, or temporary office, or wherever Mr. Miller—in Mr.

Miller’s firm.

Mr. SOUDER. So you don’t recall whether the June 23rd meeting

on Mr. Hubbell’s schedule here, exhibit 101, is in fact the breakfast

meeting?

Mr. HUANG. My recollection was that the lunch meeting was the

first in the afternoon.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. So let’s go to the lunch meeting. Is—let me— I’ve—I’ve got these questions in a different order. When we

changed the date, it confused me a little bit.

At what point—let me ask this question. At what point did Mr.

Riady—was it after the lunch meeting he asked you to check on the

bank account information for Mr. Hubbell? Did he ask you after a

meeting with Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. I believe it was all after the whole thing is over.

Mr. SOUDER. After, so this like June 25th?

Mr. HUANG. The week it’s over, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. So he didn’t walk out of any meeting and ask you

about that, that was a separate conversation at the end of the

week?

Mr. HUANG. That’s a separate conversation, right.

Mr. SOUDER. So in—what the record shows is that on June 23rd

there was a meeting with Mr. Hubbell and Mr. Riady in Mr. Hubbell’s log, then—but you don’t—you believe the luncheon meeting

was first. Do you know who was at the breakfast meeting?

Mr. HUANG. My recollection, there wasn’t a breakfast meeting.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me move to, also on June 23rd on exhibits 99

and 100, which we showed earlier, there was a meeting there with

Mr. Riady and you with Alexis Herman, the Labor Secretary. Who

was at that meeting?

Mr. HUANG. I cannot really recall on that incidence. However,

the records indicate there was a meeting with Ms. Herman, probably just as a courtesy visit to Ms. Herman, very simple like that.

Mr. SOUDER. Was this Mark Grobmyer was also shown as being

at that meeting. Was this the only meeting with Mark Grobmyer

that week.

Mr. HUANG. At that period of time, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. For the record could you explain who—Mr.

Grobmyer is—did he do work for Lippo?

Mr. HUANG. He was, he was—at least he was hired as a consultant for Lippo. Probably by that time he was no longer—I’m talking

289

about that time around June 1994—was no longer the consultant

any further.

Mr. SOUDER. He’s another attorney from Little Rock?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SOUDER. Sometimes you wonder if there are any attorneys

left in Little Rock. But that’s another—they seem to mostly be

here.

Why would he have been at the meeting?

Mr. HUANG. Maybe he was trying to introduce, you know—he

might have known Alexis Herman better than Mr. Riady did at

that time.

By the way, Congressman Souder, the records indicate the meeting was very, very short though. It was just a few minutes that we

were seeing Mrs. Herman.

Mr. SOUDER. What would be the point of seeing the Labor Secretary?

Mr. HUANG. She was not Labor Secretary then.

Mr. SOUDER. What was she doing at that point?

Mr. HUANG. I believe she was Director of Public Liaison at that

time for the White House, during that period of time, Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Exhibit 102 shows a telephone call, a receipt to the

White House chief of staff office at 11:05, also on June 23rd.

[Exhibit 102 follows:]

290

291

Mr. HUANG. The item No. 32 you are talking about sir?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. We’ll now yield to Mr. Souder for his 5 minutes.

Mr. SOUDER. Item No. 32 is the White House call. Yeah, it’s the

11:05 call.

Yes, so the item No. 32, do you know why you would have called

the White House chief of staff office that morning?

Mr. HUANG. I wouldn’t know. I would not know. Definitely there

were some calls being made from Mr. Riady’s room to the White

House, and I do not know.

Mr. SOUDER. So you don’t know whether it was—it was to Mr.

Middleton, who was assistant chief of staff?

Mr. HUANG. I do not know.

Mr. SOUDER. Exhibit 103 shows that at 11:10, which would be

the item 35, there’s a telephone call to the Democratic Leadership

Council. Do you know who made that call or for what purpose?

[Exhibit 103 follows:]

292

293

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know what—I cannot recall on that. But if

anybody would call, it would be—I had a relationship with the

DLC, Democratic Leadership Council, with Mr. Al From. I believe

he was executive director for the DLC and more or less it’s just a

courtesy visit to visit Al From. That’s about all, if that was the situation like that.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield real briefly?

Mr. Souder asked why a call from Mr. Riady’s room would go to

the chief of staff’s office and you said you didn’t know. And then

just now there was a call to the Democratic Leadership Council

from James Riady’s room, and you said that you probably would

have made that call; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. No. The only thing is, Mr. Riady did not have any

connections with the DLC.

Mr. BURTON. So there was a call to the Democratic Leadership

Council’s office. Would that have been your call?

Mr. HUANG. The only way—that would be me, yes, maybe me.

Mr. BURTON. So you were in the room at the same time that he

called the chief of staff’s office because that was only 5 minutes before.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. BURTON. Let me just finish.

If you were in the room 5 minutes before you called the Democratic Leadership Council for some reason, why wouldn’t you have

known why he was calling the chief of staff at the White House?

Mr. HUANG. That’s a very good question, Mr. Chairman. I was

really trying to say I did not really remember what was the content

about why he called. I did also some support, and there were quite

a lot of calls being made between Mr. Riady’s hotel room and the

White House, sir.

Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SOUDER. Then at 12 I think the records show in exhibit 101

that you had a meeting with a Mr. Hubbell at the Hay-Adams.

That was the lunch you were referring to earlier at 12 on exhibit

101?

Mr. HUANG. That is luncheon I was referring to that I recalled

to, right.

Mr. SOUDER. So—and what was the purpose of this meeting?

Mr. HUANG. Basically that Mr. Riady wanted to chat with Mr.

Hubbell, and I was not, you know, involving in the luncheon, until

the tail end I came back from outside.

Mr. SOUDER. Yesterday you told me that to your knowledge that

whenever there were meetings between Mr. Riady and Mr. Hubbell

that you set them up. Had they met a number of times before? Had

you set up other meetings?

Mr. HUANG. Prior to this?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t believe so, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. So to your knowledge this, at least in this time period, was the only meeting between——

Mr. HUANG. I believe that was the first meeting, Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. And you don’t know what they chatted about?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know the detail.

294

Mr. SOUDER. What would be some nondetail, kind of general feeling?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Souder, let me offer this way to you. Mr. Riady

did previously have conversation with me, and I did convey the information to him previously about people would like to, you know,

suggest or help Mr. Hubbell. And I remember I mentioned to you

yesterday about the set-up-a-trust-fund situation, the limit was the

$15,000 limit. That was over the phone. He did not really give me

any response about that. All right?

And later on he came over here he asked me the opinion, I said

if you really want to help a person, you want to help people you

need. That’s all I offered on that basis. And I was sort of left everything for him.

Now, if you want me to say what was involved in meeting, I believe that was related to, you know, anything related to this.

Mr. SOUDER. So did Mr. Riady tell you after he came out any

comment that Mr. Hubbell might have made or any impressions?

Did you talk about the meeting with him?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not even ask about that.

Mr. SOUDER. The exhibit 104 shows that then at 2 another phone

call over to the White House. Do you know what the purpose of

that phone call would have been? It was the officer for the number

of White House personnel that’s 456–7510 in the log there.

[Exhibit 104 follows:]

295

296

Mr. HUANG. I cannot recall specifically.

Mr. SOUDER. Right after the lunch was completed.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Souder, did you mention that was related to the

White House personnel?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. OK.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know why you would have called White

House personnel during that time?

Mr. HUANG. Maybe during the slack time and want to go over

the visit with some of the friends.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent Mr.

Souder be given an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

Mr. SOUDER. Then the next day, exhibit 105, shows that there

was a lunch at the White House mess with Mr. Riady, his family

and Mark Middleton. Do you recall that?

[Exhibit 105 follows:]

297

298

Mr. HUANG. I remember there was a luncheon involved, but I

was not attending.

Mr. SOUDER. So you did not attend this lunch?

Mr. HUANG. Right. But I was there though. I was outside waiting

in the reception room, as I reported to you yesterday.

Mr. SOUDER. Was there anyone there besides—it says on the

schedule Mr. and Mrs. Riady and their children, and it’s on Mark

Middleton’s schedule; was anyone else at the luncheon that you

know of or might have stopped by?

Mr. HUANG. Let me retract a little bit. There might be two luncheons involved. One luncheon was involving just Mrs. Riady and the

children and myself in the White House mess. There was a separate luncheon, which I did not attend—I was waiting outside in the

reception room—that involved Mr. Riady and Mr. Middleton, that

in terms of who went to that luncheon I do not know for sure on

that.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you have any idea of what the purpose of this

luncheon was at 12 on June 24th?

Mr. HUANG. Now, if this is the day referring to with the families,

the children, just an experiencing thing for Mrs. Aileen Riady and

the children to be having the opportunity of dining in the mess.

Mr. SOUDER. Just as a casual observer, we’re having a lot of experiential time with Mr. Middleton’s schedule here. I think there

are three different appointments. There’s a lunch. Presumably he

has something—the reason it’s hard not to believe there wasn’t any

substantive discussion is that it isn’t as though they didn’t already

see him a couple of times earlier and seeing him more, and it’s

hard to believe there weren’t any substantive discussions because

there’s only so much socializing you do. It’s not like they were real

buddy-buddy here.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Souder, I can offer this way because he was the

only person that would know better to get us in. So we always call

on the same person to get—let him clear us in on that basis.

Mr. SOUDER. So you don’t think he stayed at the lunch?

Mr. HUANG. Are you talking about staying—in my luncheon, I

didn’t believe, with the children.

Mr. SOUDER. And Mr. Middleton.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Middleton. In my luncheon, he did not.

Mr. SOUDER. He just——

Mr. HUANG. He just book us in, I didn’t believe he was at a

luncheon with us.

But he had a luncheon with Riady on the other luncheon I was

talking about.

Mr. SOUDER. And do you know what was discussed at that luncheon?

Mr. HUANG. No, I don’t know.

Mr. SOUDER. And Mr. Riady didn’t discuss anything with you

about that?

Mr. HUANG. He did not.

Mr. SOUDER. So, in effect, what you were saying is there were

a lot of social calls, but there was one very substantive luncheon

most likely because it was done without you or the children

present.

299

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know whether it was substantive or not,

yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. They had already done their social calls. I mean, in

effect, you testified you have had multiple social calls with him, he

did a social call to get you into the luncheon. So the social call part

is kind of done; then they have another luncheon.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. I really don’t know about that, yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. And I know you weren’t present. On exhibit 106,

there’s a receipt, another phone call over to Debbi Shon at the Executive Office Building—Shon, is it Shon?

[Exhibit 106 follows:]

300

301

Mr. HUANG. Shon.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know what that purpose would have been?

Mr. HUANG. Just a courtesy. Shon is coming from our community. She’s a Korean American, and we knew her before.

Mr. SOUDER. So it was a courtesy call?

Mr. HUANG. It’s basically make a round, yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know who called 456–7510 at 2:16, which

is in exhibit 106 as well?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Souder, you have to help me. What is 7510’s department? Is it personnel?

Mr. SOUDER. Personnel.

Mr. HUANG. Probably that’s—I do remember we met with Maria

Haley, I believe she was also at that time working in the Personnel

Department as also old friends from Arkansas time. You know, just

went over to say hello.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOUDER. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BURTON. Did you discuss with her your future position at the

Department of Commerce when you were in there?

Mr. HUANG. I might have. My position was determined I believe.

Mr. BURTON. I know you said that. But we’re looking at the sequence of events here that led up to Webb Hubbell getting

$100,000 from the Riadys and then a short time later you were appointed to an important position at the Department of Commerce.

On this list, it shows that you met with a lot of people and then

you met with the personnel director there at the White House. Did

you discuss with her your position at the Department of Commerce

that was coming up, or the possibility you would be getting that

job?

Mr. HUANG. I have already got offered it. At that time I mentioned to her that I would be coming to Commerce Department.

Mr. BURTON. So you did talk to her about the job at the Commerce Department?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. In exhibit 107, if we could go to 107, once again

where—I think this is Mr. Hubbell’s schedule again. It shows June

24th at 5 that Mr. Riady met with Mr. Hubbell. Do you remember

that meeting?

[Exhibit 107 follows:]

302

303

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I do.

Mr. SOUDER. And who was at that meeting?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Riady and I went over there. Mr. Riady and Mr.

Hubbell went into the room to discuss. I was sitting outside in a

small conference room.

Mr. SOUDER. Where did it take place, did you say?

Mr. HUANG. I think it’s Mr. Miller’s office on 19th or 20th and

M Street in that corner.

Mr. SOUDER. Who is he?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Miller I believe used to be the Treasury Secretary. I think he was officially in a previous rank in the administration.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman yield to me for a quick question?

You mentioned $100,000 that Mr. Riady gave to Webb Hubbell,

you said because of friendship. But was he expecting some work in

exchange for that or was he simply giving a gift?

Mr. HUANG. I do know some basically trying to answer and do

certain thing, but I don’t know the specific things at that time. You

know, hire him as a consultant type of things.

Mr. WAXMAN. But he was planning to hire him to do something in exchange for the $100,000, you don’t know whether the work

was done; but did you know he was being hired or just given a gift?

Mr. HUANG. No, in other words, we’ll hire him to do whatever

the work he can to help the Lippo situation. More specifically, I did

not know at that time.

Mr. WAXMAN. There was $100,000 to hire him?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Waxman, I’m not very clear what I knew at that time, that the $100,000 was mentioned or not. Normally that would

be an amount of money in practice that Mr. Riady would do. For

instance, on Mark Grobmyer situation was start at like $100,000.

So you could get another consultant probably be logical amount. I

would have to venture to guess on that.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I would like to

yield to Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. I think it’s important to point out for the record

that yesterday, under oath, when I asked you the question, was

this predominantly a job or was this predominantly out of friendship, you said that it was predominantly out of friendship. And

when you raised it to Mr. Riady you raised that we should help

him out of friendship.

So to the degree it was a job, there might have been tasks given,

but you do not recall the specifics of the tasks. In fact, you stated

again today earlier that you felt that this was predominantly to

help out a friend who is in need, not a job.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. SOUDER. I wanted to followup. You do not recall the breakfast meeting, but Mr. Hubbell had a breakfast meeting. We have

discussed the earlier luncheon meeting, and then there was another meeting at 5 with Mr. Hubbell. Why do you believe there

were at least two and possibly three meetings needed?

304

Mr. HUANG. The reason I remember those two is because I was

there.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. But why do you think they needed so much

time together? Because it is clearly beyond courtesy. It is clearly

now beyond the point of even saying, hey, I am in real trouble. I

need the money. These are pretty lengthy time periods now, all in

1 day.

Mr. HUANG. That was different dates.

Mr. SOUDER. The breakfast was on the 23rd, but you did not recall that. You are right. Two were on the 23rd and one was on the

24th.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Souder, I really deep down in my heart did not

think this was a breakfast meeting.

Mr. SOUDER. Let’s say there were two meetings. Why would two

meal meetings be needed here?

Mr. HUANG. As I also mentioned to you, the logical thing is they

had not seen each other for a while and really sit down to chat.

The first one was basis of warming up and chatting. The following

meeting was talking about more detail in his office.

Mr. SOUDER. At what point did Mr. Riady ask you to check into

his bank account?

Mr. HUANG. After those two meetings. Apparently the meeting

was over. Mr. Riady thought there was one item missing maybe out

of his bank account. So I don’t now exactly the date I believe I

called Mr. Hubbell to find out what his bank account was, you

know, to have the accounts being wired. So I passed the number

back to either Lippo or back to Mr. Riady; I don’t remember exactly

whom I did.

Mr. SOUDER. Could you precisely explain to me what ‘‘in his bank

account means?’’ You said you called Mr. Hubbell. Did you ask him

what his assets were, his current cash-flow?

Mr. HUANG. Oh, no. To do that I knew probably the decision was

already being made to offer help to him. The money has to be coming in—— Mr. SOUDER. So you just wanted a number where to send the

money?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, to facilitate the wire for sending the

money.

Mr. SOUDER. In the 302 from the Justice Department, on page

42, the recollection—and it is DOJ H000065—it says, according to

FBI’s recounting of your conversation, ‘‘During the last week of

June 1994, Hubbell and J. Riady had a breakfast meeting in Hubbell’s temporary office at 19th and M in Washington, DC. Huang

was outside the door during the meeting pursuant to Riady’s.’’ Now, you are saying that was actually a lunch?

Mr. HUANG. I think I was referring there was a meeting in Mr.

Miller’s office, I was waiting outside the room.

Mr. SOUDER. But according to this deposition, it starts out by

saying that you recall a breakfast meeting, then you also recall

that they had a lunch meeting. And the breakfast meeting, by the

way, is on Mr. Hubbell’s schedule. And then in the evening, they

had another meeting. And I am confused as to why the FBI is reporting that you said, in effect, three and the records show three

and what the discrepancy is.

305

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, No. 1, that was not really a FBI deposition at the time. All right? And I never review about 302. I want

to testify to you on that. I assume FBI might probably be confused

by Mr. Hubbell’s diary for that. I always asserted that it was two

meetings, for sure that in my mind.

Mr. SOUDER. I mean, is it possible there was a meeting you were

not aware of that shows up in Mr. Hubbell’s diary?

Mr. HUANG. Everything is possible, though. You know, it is very

unlikely at that period of time it is just something I was not aware

of.

Mr. SOUDER. If I could ask for 5 additional minutes, I think I

could finish up with my Hubbell questioning. Is that acceptable?

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

Mr. SOUDER. It also shows that on the evening of June 24th

there was a call made to the Indonesian ambassador at 8:04. That’s

on exhibit 108.

[Exhibit 108 follows:]

306

307

Mr. HUANG. I can generally talk about that. Whenever Mr. Riady

is in town, he tries to make a round to pay a courtesy visit to various people and, you know, renew the friendship. He and the Indonesian ambassador were friends back in Indonesia.

Mr. SOUDER. And then at 9:50 there was a call once again over

to White House personnel.

Mr. HUANG. In the evening?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. That also shows up in exhibit 108. Presumably

that was not a courtesy call. It is the same number as earlier we

determined was 456–7510 was White House personnel. There was

a call to that same number on June 23rd and there was a call in

the afternoon on June 24th and then another call in the night of

June 24th to the same number.

Mr. HUANG. I could not explain to you on that, no.

Mr. SOUDER. Then after that call—— Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield real briefly? We will get

you some more time.

Were you in the Riadys’ room when he made that call at 9:50

that night?

Mr. HUANG. I cannot recall, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUBBELL. You said when you had gone to the White House

personnel office earlier that you had discussed your potential job

over at the Department of Commerce. Now we have a call just a

day or so before Mr. Hubbell gets the $100,000 at 9:50 at night,

again to the personnel office. This obviously was not a courtesy

call. So was Mr. Riady talking to them about your job to make sure

you were getting that job at the Department of Commerce or was

this just another courtesy call?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I really don’t know about that. As I

stated to you before, my appointment has nothing to do with Mr.

Hubbell’s—the money to Mr. Hubbell.

Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SOUDER. There was another call, by the way, to the Indonesian ambassador that night at 10:10. But was that another—you

don’t know any particular business?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t. I don’t.

Mr. SOUDER. Now I’d like to talk a little bit about on June 25th,

did you and Mr. Riady and his family attend the President’s radio

address?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. The White House records do not show an entry

time. Do you know how you got into the White House that day? It

is possible you drove into the White House complex? But, if so, it

would have had to have been specially arranged.

Mr. HUANG. No. I think we went in as routine, went through security, if I remember correctly, just like everyone else was going in.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, that usually would be logged.

Mr. HUANG. It’s very strange. I didn’t recall there was any special arrangement for us to be in there for the radio address, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. I would like to show the videotape on the radio address. If we could show that at this point.

[Videotape played.]

Mr. SOUDER. My question is going to be when the camera goes

off, were you and the Riadys the only ones left with the President?

308

Mr. HUANG. That is correct. Mr. Souder, we were probably the

last. If it is not the last one, it will be the next to the last ones.

Mr. SOUDER. Was it arranged beforehand that that would be the

case?

Mr. HUANG. No. We just purposely stayed late to be the last.

Mr. SOUDER. How long did you stay?

Mr. HUANG. Not very long. But the reason for that is that the

family with the kids were there, they were trying to get a family

photo with the President.

Mr. SOUDER. So there were not any substantive discussions. You

were just posing for photos?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t spot anything on that, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. And to your knowledge, there was—you say there

might have been one other person left?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know. But we were very nearly the last, almost the last, yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. And it is your testimony that this was not any special arrangement for private time or anything regarding that?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir. No, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. Were there any other kids there? I mean, wouldn’t

other people want to hang around, too?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t recall.

Mr. SOUDER. Because usually nobody clears out of the room until

there is a forced clearing out of the room. I hate to admit this, but

I was at a radio address. It was not a radio address here in Washington, but it was at the Summit of the Americas. There was a

large group like that. Nobody really wants to leave. I mean, I

might have but that was beside the point. But most people wanted

to stay. Then they clear them out.

I was not the only Member of Congress present. For example,

now-Speaker Hastert was there, as well. Then there was time before he had the next appointment with which to have a substantive

discussion. That is fairly standard that everybody leaves at the

same time. Or I assume that is what generally happens at events.

But your testimony is that there was no private discussion to

your knowledge; there was no prearranged time after the radio address, that after the camera went off, everybody else cleared out except maybe one but you and the family?

Mr. HUANG. No. No. Actually I was taking a photo, as well. No

special arrangement. No, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. I may have some closing comments, but I

thank you for your patience and your willingness to try to address

these questions.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman want to finish up? If he

wants more time, I would certainly be willing to agree to it.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman is recognized for 5 more minutes

then.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. My concern is that what we have seen

is that, in a period of the 21st to the 25th, that you and Mr. Riady

went to the White House six times, saw the President three times,

you called the White House four times, that we are debating

whether there was a meeting with Mr. Riady and Mr. Hubbell two

or three times; and after all this happened in 1 week, which is a

lot of courtesy calls and in fact repeated courtesy calls, Mr. Riady

309

gave Mr. Hubbell $100,000 not for a particular job, although there

might have been some work with it, but to help a friend. And your

testimony here at this hearing yesterday and today is that, in all

those meetings, other than directly with Mr. Riady and Mr. Hubbell, there was no discussions about support for Mr. Hubbell?

Mr. HUANG. I wasn’t aware of, no.

Mr. SOUDER. You are aware of none. Your testimony is not that

there were none, but that you are aware of none; is that precise?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SOUDER. But your testimony is that it is possible that Mr.

Riady in a number of these meetings could have been talking about

the need to support Mr. Hubbell, but he would not have necessarily

told you?

Mr. HUANG. I could not speculate on that, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. SOUDER. In fact, you did speculate earlier because you said

you—you didn’t speculate. You said you didn’t even ask any questions.

Mr. HUANG. I did not.

Mr. SOUDER. So the fact is that there could have been discussions and you wouldn’t have known because you did not ask any

questions.

Even though you were the point person who was asking Mr.

Riady to give the money to Mr. Hubbell and you were the person

who was setting up these meetings and making a lot of these phone

calls and setting up the radio address, you did not even ask Mr.

Riady whether or not he talked with anybody about it?

Mr. HUANG. Whatever you suggest, Mr. Congressman, it was

possible. But, in my mind, it was not likely. The reason is, the

$100,000 was really not as large amount of money, you know, so

I never really, you know, think that will be, you know, any special

thing he would have to do.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, let me ask you a question about that. I mean,

to me $100,000 is a lot of money and I think to most people. But

it certainly was a lot of money to Mr. Hubbell. Right?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SOUDER. And that it was certainly important to Mr. Hubbell’s friends because they had the law partner, former law partner

of Bruce Lindsey call you and say, look, our friend is in trouble.

He needs some help. His kids need it. It was important to people

who were associated with the White House that there was support.

It is just hard to imagine that there would not have been people

saying, hey, we really hope you will help our friend, he is really

in trouble, that no discussions occurred in all these phone conversations, all these meetings, all these meetings of Mark Middleton. I mean, these people are friends from Little Rock.

What we have heard is we ran into a whole series of attorneys

from Little Rock, friends of Webb Hubbell, Webb Hubbell is in trouble. This is a man who comes into town, has a series of meetings,

and at the end gives him $100,000 to help him. It is just hard to

imagine there were not discussions, I mean the average person

watching this. You may not know. You did not ask any questions

about it. But I think that the evidence kind of suggests that we do

not know the extent of the discussions, whether they were casual

or in depth.

310

But it certainly, without people willing to come forth who were

in the meetings and talk to us, a lot of Americans are looking at

this and saying, boy, this sure looks like hush money. And your

testimony today did not really do anything to prove that, but it did

not do anything to really disprove it either. In fact, I think it would

be a legitimate question to ask those people.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Souder, you know, I am trying to be helpful as

much as I can, but I’m limited to the fact I can only testify what

I know, what I really know about that.

Mr. SOUDER. And I absolutely agree with that. And you should

not, while I might ask you your opinion, that is still different than

a fact and nobody is convicted until there is a fact. But part of our

problem here is a lot of people will not talk to us. And I realize

you are at one level and some people have implied that you are at

a higher level than you probably are because in fact if you don’t

know the answers to some of these questions you cannot be at the

center of a conspiracy, if there is a conspiracy, which has not been

proven. But if there is one, you are clearly at a level that is moving

up here. But you can see, I would hope, at least why we are asking

the questions. Because to the average observer looking at this, this

was a very questionable active week.

I appreciate that you have tried to answer the questions, and I

thank you for your patience.

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOUDER. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. WAXMAN. Just so I understand where things are. You knew

that people wanted to help Webb Hubbell and that you even said

to Mr. Riady, Mr. Hubbell is in trouble. So Mr. Riady gave Hubbell

$100,000.

Is there anything that you know of that would indicate that it

was given as hush money to keep Mr. Hubbell from not saying

something? Or just that they wanted to help him out when he was

down?

Mr. HUANG. The term of ‘‘hush’’ never came to my mind at that

time and at a later date. I always felt it was a friendship, you

know, to help a friend.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. SOUDER. Of course that is partly what hush money is. In

other words, friends usually do not go and turn in other friends

and they support one another in a network. And while it might not

be the case in this case, it could be. And our dilemma in a lot of

these kind of things is that it could be or could not. Our job is to

continue to try to prove that. But we moved along and laid out a

series of events that I think most Americans would have serious

doubts about.

Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman would yield further, I do not

know why you see your job as trying to prove that. It seems to me

our job is trying to find out what the facts are. And some people

speculate and maybe would like to think there was hush money involved and maybe would like you to prove there was hush money

involved, but all we can do is find the evidence that we have before

us. And the witness, who had some knowledge of things that were

going on, can tell us what he knew. And to this point there is no

evidence of any hush money.

311

Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, it is clear that Webb Hubbell

has not talked. It is clear that we have 120-some witnesses who

have either taken the fifth or fled the country to this committee.

I believe that that is what has been proven is that there is obstruction of justice. We do not know what justice has been obstructed,

whether it was secrets of the United States, whether it was political compromises, whether it was multiplicity of interests of Mr.

Riady. There is lots of possibilities. But the goal here was not to

prove that this was hush money.

What we know is that he has been hushed. What we do not know

whether there was any payoffs that did that, whether it was choice

because he is a friend of the President. We do not know what he

is hushed about. But we know they are not talking.

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield? We know that Mr. Hubbell testified before the grand jury; he cooperated with the independent counsel, not to the independent counsel’s satisfaction, obviously. And maybe the problem is he is not saying, not because of

hush money, but he is just not saying what people want him to say

because that is not what he believes.

Maybe people want Webb Hubbell to say what they want him to

say. But he has testified over and over again, and he has not said

what they want him to say. Now that could be for whatever reason,

but it could be also because it is the truth.

Mr. SOUDER. And this will be hopefully the final comment with

this extended red light is that, while I agree that that is possible,

I do not think it is probable because there have been so many— I don’t remember what we discussed at that meeting, I can’t quite

recall, that it stretches plausibility to believe it has been completely open. But I agree that that is a possibility and that, in this

country, you are innocent until proven guilty. Any suggestion that

I have had that it has been proven I try to say over and over, it

has not been proven. But that is why many of us think it is there

even if it has not been proven and nobody is guilty until it is proven.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. I would like to

take some time now.

Mr. Huang, you went into the White House to the personnel of- fice a short time before Mr. Hubbell got the $100,000. You said

that you talked to the personnel people in passing about you were

going to be working over at the Department of Commerce and you

said that that was already a done deal before any of this happened.

But then that night there was another call to the personnel director at 9:50, I believe it was, and you do not know what that call

was about. It was from Riady’s room at the Hay-Adams Hotel, and

you do not remember whether or not you were present.

Do you have any idea why Mr. Riady would be calling the per- sonnel office at the White House just before the $100,000 was given

to Mr. Hubbell?

Mr. HUANG. I have no idea. I don’t have any clue.

Mr. BURTON. You do not know that he was trying to help anybody get a job or anything?

Mr. HUANG. It would be really unlikely, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. So you would have no idea why he would call the

personnel office?

312

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Now, you went to the Commerce Department and

you started working there. During the time that you were at the

Commerce Department, from your home, from your office, and

across the street at the Stephens Co., you made or received 232

contacts from the Lippo Group in Indonesia and here in the United

States and in Hong Kong.

Why did you make calls from the Stephens office across the

street, and why did you send faxes from the Stephens office across

the street to the Lippo Group? Why didn’t you do that either from

your home or from the Commerce Department? Why did you feel

it was necessary to go to an outside office to do that?

Mr. HUANG. Excuse me 1 second.

Mr. Chairman, there are quite a few questions there. I am trying

to answer portion by portion.

Mr. BURTON. Let’s narrow it down to one.

Why did you go across the street to the Stephens office to contact

the Lippo Group with faxes and phone calls when you had a phone

in your office?

Mr. HUANG. I’m not even sure those faxes were sent to Lippo by

me through the Stephens office across the street. I did use the Stephens financial office. Sometimes I made some personal calls which

I did not feel it was proper to use the office phone.

Mr. BURTON. Did you call the Lippo Group or send any faxes

from the Stephens office?

Mr. HUANG. I certainly do not recall. But I do Stephens finance—

Stephens office did send some fax to the Lippo Group. That’s their

only business, though.

Mr. BURTON. You did not send any faxes from Stephens office to

the Lippo Group. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. HUANG. I do not recall.

Mr. BURTON. You do not recall.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. BURTON. You do not remember going across the street to

that office?

Mr. HUANG. I believe I did not.

Mr. BURTON. Did you make any phone calls from across the

street to the Lippo Group from the Stephens office?

Mr. HUANG. You confine Lippo Group is——

Mr. BURTON. Any calls. To Indonesia, to the offices here in the

United States, to Hong Kong.

Mr. HUANG. I really don’t remember I called overseas to Lippo.

Mr. BURTON. So you do not remember?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. Yeah. Why would you go over there and call the

Lippo Group in the United States?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t believe I used the Stephens finance primarily

for——

Mr. BURTON. I want you to think hard about this because you

have your counsel there. You are under oath and we’re going to

check this out very thoroughly.

Do you recall or did you make any phone calls to the Lippo

Group here in the United States or overseas that you recall? Did

313

you send any faxes from the Stephens office to any Lippo entity

while you were at the Department of Commerce?

Mr. HUANG. I did not recall, sir.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall?

Mr. HUANG. I do not recall.

Mr. BURTON. Do you recall going over to their office?

Mr. HUANG. I did.

Mr. BURTON. What did you do when you went to their office.

Mr. HUANG. There are some personal things. For instance, I can

raise the example to you. I was still the member of the Committee

of 100. I used the office sometimes, and I asked them to send faxes

over there.

Mr. BURTON. Well, let’s pursue that. Do you remember the Committee 100? Committee 100 was a financial-raising organization,

wasn’t it? Did they raise money?

Mr. HUANG. No. No. I didn’t think so.

Mr. BURTON. What was the purpose of that organization?

Mr. HUANG. It is organization to just basically promote the mutual understanding, you know, between the Chinese people and

also the American people. That’s one of them as far as I know.

Mr. BURTON. Before you went to the Department of Commerce,

did you ever work with any of them to raise money?

Mr. HUANG. Now, in terms of raising money for the organization

or raising money for other?

Mr. BURTON. For campaigns. Did you ever work with any of

these people in those organizations to raise money?

Mr. HUANG. To the best of my knowledge, I did not.

Mr. BURTON. None of those people were contributors to the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. No, I don’t know for fact. But not for me definitely

true.

Mr. BURTON. When you went to the DNC, did any of those people

contribute? I mean, pretty large contributions?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I take it back. Excuse me. I have to

tell the truth. The one member—that was before I became a member of the Committee of 100 one member, Dr. Ky, did make contribution in August 1992 event.

Mr. BURTON. Well, while you were at the Department of Commerce and you went over to the Stephens office, did you ever ask

anybody for money in phone calls from the Stephens office?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. BURTON. You’re sure?

Mr. HUANG. I’m sure.

Mr. BURTON. OK. So you never made any calls that you recall.

You don’t recall calling the Lippo Group from the Stephens office,

and you don’t recall calling the Lippo Group or sending them faxes

from the Stephens office?

Mr. HUANG. I do not recall.

Mr. BURTON. So if we find that there were phone calls—what is

this here? Can we put this up on the board. Can I ask for 5 additional minutes? Without objection, so ordered. We do not have this

to put it up on the board.

We have here from July 19, 1994, through January 30, 1995,

there must be 30 or 40 faxes going to the Lippo in Hong Kong, diVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
314

rector of the Lippo Bank, Lippo Hong Kong, Lippo Pacific, director

of the Lippo Bank, Lippo Asia, Ltd., Lippo Pacific.

You don’t recall having any involvement with any of these?

Mr. HUANG. I do not recall. Let me stress that Stephens group

has some business. They used to be a partner between Lippo and

Stephens. They might have some business to do.

Mr. BURTON. The man in charge was a man named Vernon Weaver?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. I intend to bring Mr. Weaver before the committee

and put him under oath. Now, Mr. Weaver was there when you

were there, was he not?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. If I ask him if all of these faxes and phone calls

were from him to the Lippo Group, do you think he is going to say

that they were from him or somebody on his staff?

Mr. HUANG. I believe he would tell the truth, yeah.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Well, we’ll find out. We will get in touch with

him. I would like to make a copy of this and have it put on the

record.

[The information referred to follows:]

315

316

317

Mr. BURTON. Now let me ask you a couple of other questions.

You met a number of times with people from the People’s Republic

of China, the Communist Chinese Government, while you were at

the Department of Commerce, did you not? Did you have lunch

with them or dinner with any of them?

Mr. HUANG. I have lunch with some of the Embassy personnel,

yes.

Mr. BURTON. Do you remember how many times?

Mr. HUANG. I can’t recall. Probably it was not too many, no.

Mr. BURTON. Did you go to the Chinese Embassy?

Mr. HUANG. I did.

Mr. BURTON. How many times?

Mr. HUANG. Not too many. Probably on invitation basis for whatever event they had.

Mr. BURTON. Was it one time, five times?

Mr. HUANG. It is definitely more than one time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Do you remember what you talked about?

Mr. HUANG. No. It was a big gathering. Probably just saying

hello, that’s all. Meeting with various people. A lot of people were

there. It was big function.

Mr. BURTON. And you were at the Department of Commerce at

the time?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. On January 19, 1995, your calendar reflects that

you met with the PRC Ambassador, Li Zhaoxing, for dinner. Do

you recall that?

Mr. HUANG. Can I read that, please?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, sure. Do we have that in his book? Where is

that? 167.

Mr. COBB. Mr. Chairman, is that exhibit 167?

[Exhibit 167 follows:]

318

319

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 167, page 17.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, as you indicated list on my calendar,

the secretary kept my calendars. There was a dinner over there.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know what you talked about on January 19,

1995, with the PRC Ambassador, Li Zhaoxing?

Mr. HUANG. If I remember correctly, there was an invitation

working through another Chinese-American community member,

who invited some of the Chinese American government officials to

have a dinner with Mr. Ambassador Li.

Mr. BURTON. Did you go?

Mr. HUANG. I did not go.

Mr. BURTON. You did not go?

Mr. HUANG. I did not go.

Mr. BURTON. On February 14, 1995, did you have a reception

with the People’s Republic of China Minister Counselor named

Ming? Did you go to that?

Mr. HUANG. This is on exhibit—— Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 168. It is February the 15th.

[Exhibit 168 follows:]

320

321

Mr. HUANG. I believe down below it says Wisconsin Avenue

maybe is the address?

Mr. BURTON. It says reception with the PRC Minister Counselor

Ming. Where was that located?

Mr. HUANG. Counselor Ming just opened up a separate office. It

was opening invitation to have a lot of people going over there.

Mr. BURTON. Do you recall what you talked about or anything,

or was it just a social event?

Mr. HUANG. It was a social event.

Mr. BURTON. On April 5th at 10 a.m., your calendar reflects Ms.

Zhu Yang, PRC Deputy Director for UI. I believe that is Far East

relation.

Did you go to that?

Mr. HUANG. I did not go to that. They came to me.

Mr. BURTON. What did you talk about?

Mr. HUANG. No, that was arranged, Mr. Chairman, by, I think,

AID. Some of the people from China, there was touring the United

States, that meeting was arranged by AID to come to visit me. It

was not my initiative, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Well, I see my time has expired. I will come back

to this later.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want you to have the continuity

if you want to continue on. But if you wouldn’t mind, would you

yield to me just for a second or two to make some points for the

record?

Mr. BURTON. Sure.

Mr. WAXMAN. I don’t want to take my 5 minutes, which I’ll do

later.

But the question of this Committee of 100, what is this group

again, Mr. Huang?

Mr. HUANG. It is Committee of 100. The basis is leading distinguished Chinese-Americans who form the groups after the

Tiananmen Square event in 1989, I think.

Mr. WAXMAN. The chairman said that this group is under some

suspicion. But I do want to point out in the Congressional Record

of March 22, 1994, Senator McCain said, and I am quoting from

Senator McCain’s record statement, ‘‘I have long admired the work

of the Committee of 100 and the very distinguished members that

represent it. The members of the Committee represent ChineseAmericans from all over the Nation and across a wide range of political opinions and professions. To give my colleagues an idea of

the caliber of people making up the organization, I commend to

them the biographies of three members who recently visited my office, one of whom, Ms. Ming Shin Chu, is an Arizona resident. The

biographies are somewhat dated but I think they illustrate well the

competence of the Committee of 100 delegation.’’

The second point I want to make is that the chairman said that

he was going to bring Mr. Weaver in to question whether you had

made those calls or not. As I recall, we deposed Mr. Weaver in the

last Congress, and I think we have asked those questions. So we

are checking to see whether we already know whether Mr. Weaver

has testified so we do not have to bring him in if he has already

testified on this subject. We will find out soon what he had to say,

and we will put that in the record. And, without objection, may I

322

ask we put his testimony in the record on those points if you think

it is appropriate.

Mr. BURTON. We may bring Mr. Weaver. In fact, I plan to bring

Mr. Weaver in again because, according to my staff, the information that we have now we did not have at that time and those

questions were not presented to him, especially on these lists of

phone calls and list of faxes that were sent. So we may have to talk

to him again. But I have no objection to putting it in the record.

Mr. WAXMAN. Let’s just withhold it and see what comes up within the transcript.

Mr. BURTON. That will be fine.

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me ask unanimous consent that the chairman

be given 10 minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

Let me just say that, the Committee of 100, I do not want it to

appear as though we have cast aspersions on that organization.

What I was asking was whether or not any of those people, while

you were at the Department of Commerce were solicited and gave

money to the DNC or when you were at the DNC. And I believe

your answer was there was one individual but you did not solicit

any of them. Is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I believe what I was saying is back

in 1992 there was one individual, maybe even more than one individual, at that time I was not even a Committee of 100 member

then, made a contribution to the candidate Clinton campaign at

that time.

Mr. BURTON. While you were at the Department of Commerce?

Mr. HUANG. While I was in Commerce, no. And while I was in

DNC, the answer is yes.

Mr. BURTON. You did?

Mr. HUANG. In DNC the answer is yes, probably about in one

event, maybe around few checks.

Mr. BURTON. Do you have any idea who those people were, how

many there were?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I can give you at least at this time what I remember.

Mr. BURTON. What I would like to do is for the record if you

could give us the names and the amounts if you could recollect

those for us.

Mr. HUANG. Right now I can off my head give you one right now.

The lady Chen did give some money. The amount I don’t remember. That was September 1996 event in L.A.

Mr. BURTON. And you were with the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. I was with the DNC at that time.

Mr. BURTON. In any event, if you could give us those from the

100 group.

I want to followup and ask a question about that.

Mr. HUANG. Sure.

Mr. BURTON. Did you have any responsibility for China issues

when you were at Commerce? I mean, did you have any responsibility or were you charged with the responsibility of dealing with

China on commerce issues, issues of that type?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Why not?

323

Mr. HUANG. Basically the territory was taken away and was

under the umbrella of Mr. Rothkopf, who was the deputy undersecretary.

Mr. BURTON. So they did not want you to be involved in commerce issues with China at that time?

That was not your responsibility, right?

Mr. HUANG. That was not my responsibility, that’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. So you had a number of meetings, and I will go

through these meetings again chronologically, but you had a number of meetings with people from the Chinese Embassy, with people

coming in and out from China. You had those meetings at the Department of Commerce, at the Chinese Embassy and other places.

Why were you meeting with those people?

Mr. HUANG. It was by invitation. Whenever there is a function

or event, I was invited to go, like other officials also receiving invitation as well. I just went.

Mr. BURTON. Well, let’s go through these because some of these

I do not think they were widely attended events. Some of these

were just lunch or dinner with one or two people. Let’s go through

these.

Mr. HUANG. OK.

Mr. BURTON. You reflected a meeting with Ambassador designate

to China, Jim Sasser. Do you remember what that meeting was

about?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. What was that about?

Mr. HUANG. The meeting—at that time it was a designate Ambassador, it was not confirmed.

Mr. BURTON. That’s right.

Mr. HUANG. I had a few of the Committee of 100 members to

visit his temporary office at that time.

Mr. BURTON. So you took them over there?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not. I came with the other members of the

Committee of 100 to go to see Mr. Sasser.

Mr. BURTON. OK. On May 10, 1995, at 7 p.m., your calendar reflects you will had a meeting with Ambassador Li, China meeting.

Do you recall what that one was about?

Mr. HUANG. That is the same name, Ambassador Li, as the thenAmbassador Li for the United States from People’s Republic of

China. That is a different Ambassador Li.

Mr. BURTON. OK. But do you know what that meeting was

about?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I was advised by Committee of 100, Ambassador Li used to be the Ambassador for China to Nepal but temporary at that time was visiting the United States and various

countries. Since he was coming over to Washington they asked me

whether I could just extend the courtesy to meet with him and

have dinner with him.

Mr. BURTON. On September 21st, at 9:30 a.m., your calendar reflects Chinese delegation, Chinese State Planning Commission.

What was that meeting?

Chinese delegation, Chinese State Planning Commission.

324

Mr. HUANG. I could not explain for sure right now. I did meet

with some of the Chinese delegations. People made arrangement to

come over to see me, I offered to meet with them.

Mr. BURTON. I know. But the point is you had no responsibilities

to deal with the Chinese Government or the Chinese people and

here you have an official delegation coming over and you met with

them and you do not recall what it was about?

Mr. HUANG. It was not really an official delegation probably at

that time. Oh, say that again. I’m sorry. Sorry, one more time. Excuse me, I remember now. I’m sorry.

Apparently there was a delegation visit Commerce Department.

They would like to know how the Commerce Department’s organization is. I was not the only one being asked to meet with them.

I believe there was a deputy undersecretary for the economic and

statistics also was there trying to introduce the organization of the

Commerce Department. And it was done in the Commerce large

conference hall and I was there.

Mr. BURTON. On October 12th you took a taxicab to the residence

of the Chinese Ambassador. Do you know what you went over there

for?

Mr. HUANG. I was invited by a friend of mine who is the head

of the United States institute—not United States institute—Asian

Institute to go over there and see what he was doing and he was

inviting a lot of American businessmen to go there to the Ambassador, that Ambassador was actually the deputy of the mission,

was not really the chief at that time, and just had a breakfast

there.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know what you talked about?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I do.

Mr. BURTON. What did you talk about?

Mr. HUANG. I did not really say very much. I was asked questions at that time. Apparently the Ex-Im Bank at that particular

moment disapproved the loan, the financing of the Three Gorge

project in China and I was asked, you know, whether I have any

opinion on that.

Mr. BURTON. And what did you say?

Mr. HUANG. They said off record basis, Mr. Huang, can you express your thoughts on that.

Mr. BURTON. Uh-huh. But you had nothing to do with that issue

at the Commerce Department?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not.

Mr. BURTON. But they were asking your opinion nevertheless?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. While you were at Commerce, you met with Tin

Ming Wang, minister of counselor commercial affairs. Wang stated

that he had known the PRC Minister Wang since 1972. ‘‘Wang

sought out Huang for personal advice, he says. He was retiring and

wanted to know if Huang could give him a job in the private sector.’’

Do you recall that meeting?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I do.

Mr. BURTON. What was that about?

Mr. HUANG. Basically, he was facing retirement age and he

asked me since I came from the private sector and also I know

325

some of the groups in Asia whether I have any idea for him to continue his, you know, career. It’s a personal basis.

Mr. BURTON. At any of these receptions or dinners or anything

did you discuss anything of an official nature at all?

Mr. HUANG. No, except I was, you know, it’s not on official capacity, not a government business.

Mr. BURTON. I am not asking that. Did you discuss anything of

an official nature at all?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Were you ever told specifically that you were to be

walled off from any China issues at the Department of Commerce?

Mr. HUANG. I did not know. I learned later on. I found out from

news account.

Mr. BURTON. Well, Undersecretary Garten stated, ‘‘Well, generally I didn’t want Huang working on anything regarding China,

and since China was such a high priority there was no chance that

with my knowledge he would have gotten close to it.’’

So they expected you to stay away from the Chinese issues at the

Department of Commerce, and yet you met on a regular basis or

frequently with people from the Chinese Government and the Chinese Embassy. Why was that?

Mr. HUANG. No, I visit the Chinese Embassy based on by invitation. OK? The reason I did not have the territory is Mr. Garten

came into the Department of Commerce much earlier and already

took all those functions from Mr. Chuck Meissner, who was my assistant secretary for my unit.

Mr. BURTON. You went to the International Trade Administration. Did you notify anyone at ITA that you would be attending this

event? Let’s see which event we are talking about.

Did you notify anybody at the ITA that you were going do any

of these events?

Mr. HUANG. You’re talking about all the events you were talking

about?

Mr. BURTON. Any of those events, the International Trade Administration. Did you tell them that you were going to these events

over at the Chinese Embassy and meeting with these people?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t believe so.

Mr. BURTON. Weren’t you supposed to do that? Weren’t you required to do that?

Mr. HUANG. I thought many of them was a social invitation.

Every now and then when we would receive those invitation we

were going.

Mr. BURTON. Were you authorized in any way to discuss any

commerce policies relating to China?

Mr. HUANG. I did not discuss any policy with China.

Mr. BURTON. Well, we have a whole list of meetings here with

Ambassador Li and a whole host of people. I have pages and pages

and pages of them. And it appears as though they were not all social events, some of them were lunches or dinners with individuals.

And these were all social?

Mr. HUANG. Principally those are, what you pointed out to me

just now.

326

Mr. BURTON. You had an interview with the task force you described in May 1995, breakfast with Zhou Wen Jong. Mr. Zhou was

an official at the Chinese Embassy; isn’t that right?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. That’s the one you were referring on the taxi

fare?

Mr. BURTON. Uh-huh.

Mr. HUANG. I believe that was related to that.

Mr. BURTON. Did you talk about anything officially at that?

Mr. HUANG. No, except I just reported to you, you know, asked

my comment.

Mr. BURTON. About that project in China?

Mr. HUANG. Yeah, Three Gorge project.

Mr. BURTON. How was that project funded?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know.

Mr. BURTON. Did the Department of Commerce have anything to

do with that project?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t think so.

Mr. BURTON. Did Lippo Group companies or partners have any

interest in the Three Gorge project?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir. Not that I know of, sir. I don’t believe so,

either.

Mr. BURTON. Did you have any other meetings that you have not

reported with Chinese officials other than what we have gone into

here?

Mr. HUANG. Sorry, I don’t recall. If I recall any, I’ll definitely report to you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. I would like to have a list of those if we can get

those.

Mr. HUANG. If I remember.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. I yield my time to Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Huang, there was a movie a couple years ago called

‘‘Groundhog’s Day’’ and there was an actor Bill Murray and I think

Andie McDowell and they kept coming back to this day in February

and revisiting it. And I apologize to you, but we’re just going to finish this business on February 19, 1996, if I can.

I was interested, just as an aside, about what a small world it

is. I had a chance to be in China a few years ago with the Transportation Committee in a visit to the Three Gorges project because

it is an amazing thing not only in what it is going to represent for

hydroelectricity for China, but I was also fascinated with the fact

that a government could forcibly move a million people from one

place to another. But the former Speaker of the House had just

been over in that part of the world and he had made some remarks

that were interpreted to be supportive of Taiwan, and so the Chinese Government canceled our plane from Beijing to Xian, where

I understand we would have seen the project. But I’m sure that it

is coming along nicely and the people have been relocated and it

is going to be a really nice dam some day.

Going back to February 19th, I have two more contributions I

want to talk to you about and then I want to sort of wrap up what

happened on the 19th.

327

There was a $12,500 contribution by an individual by the name

of Charles Chiang again. If we could put up exhibit 337, maybe if

you could refer to that and if we can put it on the screen. I would

ask you first of all are you acquainted with an individual by the

name of Charles Chiang?

[Exhibit 337 follows:]

328

329

Mr. HUANG. May I take a look at it?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Sure.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, if this is the same Charlie Chiang I

know, then I know him. I’m going to say the Charlie Chiang of the

Chinese restaurant owner?

Mr. LATOURETTE. I believe he is associated with Mr. Trie is the

best connection. Do you know of Charles Chiang that is connected

with Mr. Trie?

Mr. HUANG. The only Charles Chiang there is quite a few Chinese restaurant called Charlie Chiang’s restaurant.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, in this particular instance, this $12,500

check that was given for the event of February 19th, Mr. Chiang

has indicated to us that he received $6,500 directly back in a check

from Mr. Trie and then $6,000 in those travelers checks that I

showed you the other day.

Were you aware of that before I just said that?

Mr. HUANG. I was not aware of that, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Likewise, the next exhibit, it would be the

page after, No. 338, is a $25,000 contribution from an individual

by the name of Jack Ho. Were you acquainted with Mr. Ho before

this event?

[Exhibit 338 follows:]

330

331

Mr. HUANG. I was not.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And the contribution actually is from a business called J&M International. Did you know anything about that

business, J&M International, before that day?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. We have—again the information is that

$25,000 contribution was returned to Mr. Ho in these travelers

checks that came from Jakarta. Were you aware of that at any

time before I just said it?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. To wrap up, then, I haven’t been keeping a

running total, but I think that we have talked about the fact that

included in the money, did you raise $1 million on February 19th?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. How much did you raise, do you remember?

Mr. HUANG. My recollection is probably $800 and some thousand

at that time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Of the $800 some thousand, I think that

you and I have gone through over the last couple of days close to

$200,000 of money that is interesting, to say the least, and interesting in its connection to Mr. Charlie Trie. We talked about the

fact that a woman who makes $25,000 gave $12,500; we have

talked about a woman who wrote a check on a starter check. We

have talked about a couple of checks that were drawn on foreign

businesses to the tune of $12,500 in one case and $25,000 in another case.

And I guess at the end of it we know today in the list of names

that I went over with you earlier in the hearing, we know today

that a number of illegal contributions were received for the benefit

of the Democratic National Committee as a result of that February

19, 1996, fundraiser, do we not? Not that you knew that they were

illegal when you accepted them. But I think it’s safe to say, and

we can quibble about whether it is $190,000 or $200,000, but close

to $200,000 of that money, at least, from just what we have been

talking about, were illegal contributions, right?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Now I’m curious as to what sort of debriefing, then, takes place after one of these events you did in 1996.

And I want to ask you if you had a meeting after the event with

a fellow by the name of Joe Sandler?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Who, for the record, is Joe Sandler?

Mr. HUANG. He was general counsel for DNC.

Mr. LATOURETTE. What was the purpose of the meeting?

Mr. HUANG. As you indicated, that was my first fundraising

event and I was told by then the financial director Mr. Sullivan,

Richard Sullivan, to go over and see Mr. Joe Sandler and Mr.

Sandler actually wanted me to bring all the checks I collected and

let him review it.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And did you do that?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. At that meeting did Mr. Sandler ask any questions about the checks?

332

Mr. HUANG. He asked me about individual checks, whether you

know about these people, if he has any questions. For instance, the

question in general, is he a U.S. citizen that you know of? He has

a permanent residency? If it is a corporate check, he says, is it a

U.S. company, has U.S. revenue? Things like that. In many some

instances I did not know and I go back to find out.

Mr. LATOURETTE. How many checks roughly would you say you

collected for this event?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know the exact numbers right now.

Mr. LATOURETTE. It would be less than 1,000, wouldn’t it?

Mr. HUANG. Definitely less than 1,000.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And he went through, as I understand what

you just said, he would go through this pile of checks and if he had

a question he would ask you a question or if you had something

to say you would say something about it?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And the question was focused on whether or

not the contributor was a U.S. citizen or a legal resident?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And also if it was a corporate contributor that

had an address outside of the United States, whether or not this

business had sufficient U.S. profits to cover the cost of the donation? Those would be typical of the questions that were asked?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t specifically recall that he asked the company

has a foreign address on the check.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I never knew the word ‘‘vetting’’ until I came

to Washington, DC, but I think we call that vetting checks. During

this vetting process that you had with Mr. Sandler, were any of the

illegal contributions close to $200,000 in contributions, illegally obtained or given at that event, were any of those identified during

this meeting with you and Mr. Sandler?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir, not in that event.

Mr. LATOURETTE. In response to his questions that he would ask

you, for instance, is this person a U.S. citizen, and you did not

know the answer, what process or steps did you go through to get

the information to get back to him?

Mr. HUANG. If there was a question being asked, if I know for

sure about the contributor, then I would answer directly. If not, I

would find out who actually is the solicitor and I would go to ask

them.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I see that my yielding time has

expired.

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. Mr. Souder, you have the floor.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield my time to Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Souder.

I just want to finish this line of questioning, because I have

heard you say over the last couple of days that you didn’t know

that certain contributions were illegal. I think when Mr. Waxman

was saying what is suspected and what is proven, what is proven

today is that a number of these contributions at this event were

illegal. They were given by people that weren’t qualified to make

contributions to political parties in this country for a variety of reasons.

333

So that, I think, is proven, and if anybody disagrees with me,

they can take it up with us a little bit later.

But this process, there are two ways that you can approach that.

I mean, you can say, I didn’t know, which you have said. You can

also say, nobody ever did anything to try and find out, sort of the

political contributing equivalent of don’t ask, don’t tell. I mean, I

have a check; yep, it looks like a starter check; yep, I know it came

from a woman who only makes $25,000, but if I only ask the questions as to whether or not this person is a U.S. citizen or a corporation or a person that has sufficient U.S. property, then I guess we

will never know whether or not contributions are obtained illegally.

Earlier, when somebody was asking you about, you have to fill

out on some of these FEC forms where a person works, and if you

can’t find it out, for instance, you put—‘‘best efforts’’ is I think

what your lawyer told you, we put best efforts in that instance.

Can you describe to the committee what the best efforts were by

you? And you were what, a vice chair of the finance department of

the Democratic National Committee? What best efforts did you put

forth in vetting these checks from the February 19, 1996, fundraiser as to whether or not these were contributions that could be

legally obtained by a major political party in this country?

Mr. HUANG. I recall that in the event I don’t have any address,

I try to find out the address, because most of these people were individual. That was the information I try to complete, as much as

I could, on a check-tracking form.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. But aside from the address—where these

people lived isn’t the problem; the problem with these contributions

is that they were conduit contributions, they were made by people

that couldn’t make them lawfully. They were made with money

that came from foreign countries in violation of our laws.

What best efforts did you use to determine—today we know that

one-quarter of the money that you raised at least, and maybe I

don’t quite have the stuff down, but just from the questions you

and I have talked about over the last 2 days, 25 percent of the

money that you raised at this event was illegal, couldn’t have been

given. I am interested to know what you did, as a high-ranking official in the Democratic National Committee, to vet these checks,

to determine whether or not what we know today you could have

decided back in 1996 and given the money back.

Just so you don’t think I am picking on the Democratic National

Committee, I think this is an important thing because there needs

to be, as Mr. Shays and Mr. Waxman and the rest of the Congress

looks at our campaign finance laws, obviously we have to punish

and prosecute people, as you have been punished and prosecuted

for violating the laws we have today. But I can’t believe that we

can just have a system in this country where you say, well, we are

going to rake in a bunch of cash at a fundraiser, and if we don’t

ask the right questions, then come catch us to figure out if they

were legal contributions or illegal contributions.

So what responsibility did you take and did this Joe Sandler take

to determine as to one out of every four checks you got was bad.

What did you do about it? What did you try to do about it to find

out if people could give money?

[Discussion off the record.]

334

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, as I reported to you, I did later on

spot two of the checks, as I reported to you, which I find out was

not proper; and I also vetted those checks with the general counsel,

Joe Sandler, you know, whatever the checks I had at the time and

given to me. And I filled out a check-tracking form to the best I

can. I could—afterwards, whatever process I did not know, I did

not really do personally, you know, on that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, one of the checks we talked about that

came from the partnership that Mr. Trie was involved in with Mr.

Ng came in on the 29th, 10 days after the event.

Mr. HUANG. You are talking about the Daihatsu——

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am. Was that particular check, was that

given to you before or after your meeting with Mr. Sandler?

Mr. HUANG. I believe that was after.

Mr. LATOURETTE. There is an example of—I mean, today we

know that Charlie Trie got that money from Mr. Ng. That, again,

is one of those proven things, it is not one of those out there in the

air. It could be; we know that based upon the bank records. We

know that that is an illegal contribution.

I am interested to know, since that came after the vetting meeting that you had with the general counsel of the Democratic National Committee, what did you do, as a vice chair of the DNC, to

check that check out? What did you do?

Mr. HUANG. I did not check out. The Daihatsu was Mr. Charlie

Trie’s business and Mr. Charlie Trie is very established that DNC

was fundraiser before. I did not really do any further checking on

that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much. I appreciate the yielding of time.

Mr. SHAYS. The gentleman has his own time now, if he would

like to use it.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I would be happy to claim my own time and

yield it to my good friend, Mr. Ose.

Mr. OSE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Huang, I am particularly interested in the events surrounding two particular fundraisers, the first being on November 2, 1995

and the second being—pardon me while I turn my page here—the

events surrounding a fundraiser for Congressman Jackson.

The questions I have deal—I just want to run through a couple

of questions I have.

Do you recall the event of November 2, 1995? It is an Asian Pacific American event at the Mayflower Hotel with Vice President

Gore?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I do, sir.

Mr. OSE. Who was the first person to tell you about that event?

Mr. HUANG. I believe was director of the DNC for Asian Pacific

American Affairs of DNC, I think it is Mona Pasquil.

Mr. OSE. And when did that—do you recall when that conversation took place—with you and Ms. Pasquil?

Mr. HUANG. It could be over the phone and also—we also had a

meeting and also had lunch together later on.

Mr. OSE. Generally, would that have been in September 1995?

335

Mr. HUANG. I would tend to think probably even early September

or could be late September. Most likely it would be early October,

I think.

Mr. OSE. The Asian Pacific American event, what was the format

or the context of that event?

Mr. HUANG. Essentially trying to form, if I could best understand

it, is the Asian American community would like—under the DNC

would formalize such a council, so hopefully we can begin working

on Asian Pacific American issues and raising money through the

Asian American community.

Mr. OSE. Was this a lunch and a dinner, or just a lunch or just

a dinner?

Mr. HUANG. I believe that event, Congressman, was a dinner.

Mr. OSE. And the solicitation that was made for attending the

dinner was X number of dollars, or what?

Mr. HUANG. My best recollection was $10,000 a head. At least a

target on that basis, sir.

Mr. OSE. So that the approach was that if you wanted to join the

Asian Pacific Council and attend this dinner, you had to write a

check for $10,000?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, basically.

Mr. OSE. And the beneficiary of the $10,000 contribution was?

Mr. HUANG. I believe was the DNC.

Mr. OSE. OK. And you told me that—well, you suggested and I

want to make sure I understood, who was organizing the event for

the DNC? Was that Mona Pasquil?

Mr. HUANG. She was at least one of them. There were some other

people as well in helping out.

Mr. OSE. Do you recall who they were?

Mr. HUANG. It could be Sam Newman was another one. I think

Mr. Mercer also was helping out.

Mr. OSE. Now, you are familiar with the event. Did you help Ms.

Pasquil at the event in terms of setting it up?

Mr. HUANG. Oh, no, not in terms of setting up. She and I had

lunch and tried to give my opinion how she might be able to work

on that.

Mr. OSE. And what kind of questions was she asking?

Mr. HUANG. She had—that was her first position in doing this.

This was going to be the first event for Asian Pacific Americans at

that time, and I did not want personally—as a member of the

Asian American community, I did not want to see that thing fail

and look very bad; and politically I did not want to see our congressional leader, which is Mr. Matsui, look bad either on that part.

Mr. OSE. What kind of suggestions did you make? I mean, I can

understand the advice that she was seeking from you. I mean, that

is perfectly logical. What type of help did she ask you for?

Mr. HUANG. First, most specifically refer some names to her, you

know, she might be able to contact.

Mr. OSE. Identifying people that she could contact to either attend and/or contribute money to the cause?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. OSE. OK. Was anyone else at the lunch?

Mr. HUANG. No. That was still Mr.——

Mr. OSE. Excuse me. That was lunch or dinner?

336

Mr. HUANG. Sam Newman was there too.

Mr. OSE. Sam Newman was there. And is Mr. Newman a fundraiser for the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. I believe he was at that time, yes.

Mr. OSE. OK. And this is late September or early October 1995?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. OSE. OK. Did you have a private conversation with Ms.

Pasquil at that luncheon where you asked Mr. Newman to excuse

himself?

Mr. HUANG. I did.

Mr. OSE. Why was that?

Mr. HUANG. Ms. Pasquil apparently had some difficulty in working around the Asian Pacific American communities, so that is why

I encourage her, more or less, giving her some general advice in

working with the community.

Mr. OSE. For what purpose was Mr. Newman asked to leave that

particular portion of the conversation?

Mr. HUANG. That was basically very personal matter. That was

also the first—I believe it was the first time that Ms. Pasquil was

able to—was working at the DNC for this political event—political

role, rather.

Mr. OSE. After Mr. Newman left, what did you and she discuss?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know specifically, but basically trying to encourage her, you know, to work around—it is very hard to work

around our community. You know, you lump Asian Pacific American community as one. Actually, there are Japanese; Korean; Chinese, even among Chinese there are different groups, Indo-Chinese;

and Indians—all of these things, getting very complicated.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I see that the time that Mr. LaTourette

yielded—— Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given 5 additional minutes. I don’t

want him to be interrupted in the middle of his questioning.

Mr. OSE. That would be Mr. LaTourette getting the additional 5

minutes? I haven’t yet claimed my own time. Are we on my time

right now?

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. Do you need 5 more minutes right now?

Mr. WAXMAN. Whoever’s time it is, I am asking that you be given

an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. OSE. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.

After Mr. Newman left, you talked with Ms. Pasquil about a

number of things. Did you talk about fundraising specifically?

Mr. HUANG. No. I don’t recall specifically, except I mentioned to

you, you know, along the line I refer some names. But essentially,

Ms. Pasquil was encountering some difficulty in doing the job and

she was at the point of tears. Most of the time I offer some encouragement, you know, to her.

Mr. OSE. Were you in—I am a little bit curious about this. Did

you kind of play a mentor role there with Ms. Pasquil?

Mr. HUANG. I would never take that role, sir. I am unworthy. I

would not claim to be a mentor for anybody. I am learning things

every day, sir.

Mr. OSE. Did David Mercer ask you to help out for this event on

November 2nd?

337

Mr. HUANG. Not at that particular time.

Are you talking about that meeting?

Mr. OSE. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. OSE. He was not at the lunch with Ms. Pasquil or Mr. Newman?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. OSE. OK. But at that time he had not asked you to help with

the event scheduled for November 2nd?

Mr. HUANG. No. At that period of time, no.

Mr. OSE. You suggest that he subsequently did contact you about

it?

Mr. HUANG. When the event is getting very close, the number did

not come with the expectation. I did receive a call from Mr. Mercer.

He said, John, you’ve got to come out and help a little bit, meaning

help out giving some more names or something, give more encouragement to some of the people I know.

Mr. OSE. OK. So Mercer calls you and says, we need your particular expertise here within the Asian Pacific community, further

than what we have to date; and part of that role was to identify

other individuals, for instance, who might be able to attend the

dinner and contribute the money. Is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is basically correct. However, the names already being known to the DNC, is already there. It is just the responses did not come. The positive responses did not come yet.

Mr. OSE. That really leaves—I mean, I found that if you have the

right person asking the right question at the right time, you get

a different answer than having the wrong person asking the right

question at the right time.

And what I am curious about is, from a comparative sense, relative to Ms. Pasquil asking individuals to contribute, was she the

wrong person asking the right question at the right time compared

with you asking the same question of the right person at the right

time, or were you closing these deals, so to speak?

Mr. HUANG. No. That was not the situation, to close deals. She

had made some success already. You know, just need more numbers.

Mr. OSE. And you were brought in to help increase the numbers?

Mr. HUANG. Well, increase the encouragement to more people to

fill up.

Mr. OSE. If I understand correctly, Mr. Mercer—Mr. Newman

concluded separately that Ms. Pasquil’s efforts, however noteworthy, were just not sufficient for this particular event, and then

they approached you for additional assistance?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. I was getting call from him, yes, for this.

Mr. OSE. Did anyone else from the DNC contact you about this

event?

Mr. HUANG. I could not recall right now, Congressman, except to

say Newman, you know, the person I mentioned earlier.

Mr. OSE. Who was at the lunch with Ms. Pasquil?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. OSE. Did you contact anyone about this event?

Mr. HUANG. I did.

Mr. OSE. And who might that have been?

338

Mr. HUANG. The one I can remember more clearly was the lady

called Chong Lo. I believe she was in San Francisco at that time.

Mr. OSE. She is an American citizen?

Mr. HUANG. I believe she was, yes, sir.

Mr. OSE. I mean if she was, I hope she still is, so—— Mr. HUANG. Yes, she is.

Mr. OSE. Did you talk to Charlie Trie about this?

Mr. HUANG. I did, also.

Mr. OSE. And what did you ask Charlie Trie, if anything, to do

regarding this November 2nd—— Mr. HUANG. This is the first one and, hopefully, everybody can

help out, you know.

Mr. OSE. Did you ask Mr. Trie to contact some others regarding

this event? Specific people?

Mr. HUANG. Not specific. Probably—if there were any specific

people I mentioned about, probably would be Charlie Chiang, you

know, the man that was mentioned, the restaurateur, whom I happened to know him because Charlie also graduate from the same

high school as I am, but he was much closer to Charlie Trie. You

know, they have refer to bring some people like Charlie, some other

people to come in.

Mr. OSE. Did you speak with, or did you contact Pauline

Kanchanalak?

Mr. HUANG. I did also.

Mr. OSE. Regarding this event?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Congressman, let me clarify certain things. The event they want

did not really come out with a lot of numbers, but somehow,

around the oval table in the rooms, I recommend to invite some of

the people who already made contribution to DNC in the past to

join for the dinner. And Pauline Kanchanalak was one of them. I

believe Charlie was also one of them.

Mr. OSE. And Mr. Trie did attend the dinner?

Mr. HUANG. I believe he did, yes.

Mr. OSE. OK. Going back to Chong Lo, what did you ask her to

do for the event?

Mr. HUANG. I asked her to support. She was already known as

a good fundraising among Democratic circle in the past.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired.

Mr. WAXMAN. I ask unanimous consent if the gentleman wishes

additional time to pursue his inquiry that he get another 5 minutes.

Mr. OSE. I again thank my good friend from California.

What did you ask Pauline Kanchanalak to do? Just to attend the

dinner?

Mr. HUANG. Just asked her to attend, yes.

Mr. OSE. Did she attend the dinner?

Mr. HUANG. She did.

Mr. OSE. Did she do anything else besides? Did she sell tickets?

Did she identify additional people?

Mr. HUANG. No. For that particular event, she did not. I don’t

know that she did. I don’t think so, no.

Mr. OSE. All right.

Do you know Ramesh Kapur?

339

Mr. HUANG. I know the person is from the Indian community.

Mr. OSE. Regarding this November 2nd event, did you contact

him regarding the event?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t believe so, no, sir.

Mr. OSE. How about George Chiang?

Mr. HUANG. George Chiang is—the one from the Taiwanese community in Virginia is the one we are talking about, sir? If that

same one, I did not. He has been—if I can recollect, he had been

active in the circle also.

Mr. OSE. How about George Chaudry?

Mr. HUANG. George——

Mr. OSE. Dr. and Mrs. George Chaudry, I should say. Were they

part of the people that you talked with about this event?

Mr. HUANG. Someone from New York from the Indian community as well?

Mr. OSE. It is clearly Indian, yes.

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. OSE. How about Paresh Shah?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. OSE. Asha Putli?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. OSE. Teddy Chan, was she on her list?

Mr. HUANG. Is last name C-H-A-N?

Mr. OSE. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. No. Not from me, no.

Mr. OSE. Maeley Tom?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. OSE. Ashok Bhatt?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. OSE. David Kim?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. OSE. Sant Chatwal.

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. OSE. Kaz Nakagawa?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t think so, no. No.

Mr. OSE. How about Howard Hom?

Mr. HUANG. Not from me, although I know Howard, yes.

Mr. OSE. How about Gelli Borromeo?

Mr. HUANG. I know her, but not from me, no.

Mr. OSE. Sharon Singh?

Mr. HUANG. Not from me, no.

Mr. OSE. OK. I want to—I would like to go in a little bit of a

different direction. You were at this point—you were in the Department of Commerce for—when did you—I know someone asked you

this question earlier.

You actually started your employment at the Department of

Commerce when?

Mr. HUANG. July 18, 1994.

Mr. OSE. When I came to Congress, I had a number of briefings

about what I could or couldn’t do as a Member of Congress. Does

the Department of Commerce offer that to their employees relative

to either the Hatch Act, political behavior, or ethics?

Mr. HUANG. There were some memo coming to me for that, yes.

340

Mr. OSE. So you did receive some advisement from the Department of Commerce as to what you could or couldn’t do?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. OSE. Now, I notice that you had a meeting with Harold Ickes

regarding the November 2nd event, is that correct, or am I remembering incorrectly?

Mr. HUANG. I am sorry. Congressman, can you repeat that again,

please, sir?

Mr. OSE. I stand corrected. Let me rephrase my question.

Did you have a discussion with Harold Ickes during the time of

your employment at the Department of Commerce regarding a

campaign by Jesse Jackson, Jr.?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

Mr. OSE. What was the substance of that conversation with Mr.

Ickes?

Mr. HUANG. The key thing, Congressman, the conversation was

purpose for other matter, these things came about during our

phone conversation. I cannot really repeat exact words, but I can

give you the general gist of that.

Mr. OSE. What was the substance of that telephone conversation?

Mr. HUANG. He say, can you—to see if I could do something in the Asian American community to come up with $10,000 or $15,000

for Mr. Jackson’s campaign.

Mr. OSE. At this time—was Mr. Ickes at the DNC at this time?

Mr. HUANG. No. I believe he was at the White House, the deputy

chief of staff.

Mr. OSE. So the deputy chief of staff—well, let me ask the question differently.

Did you call Mr. Ickes or did Mr. Ickes call you?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. That is a call, as I said, that the subject was—the

original purpose was for something else, but this came about during the conversation. I did not call him, but he called me on that.

Mr. OSE. He called you?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. OSE. OK. The thing that I am curious about is that the deputy chief of staff—well, where did he call you from? He called you

from the White House? Is that what I heard you say a few moments ago?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know where he exactly call me from. I assume he call me from the White House.

Mr. OSE. Well, I am not going to make that assumption. I am

kind of curious.

So the deputy chief of staff at the White House calls you during

the term of your employment at the Department of Commerce—did

he call you at your Commerce office?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. OSE. So you were in a Federal position at that time and he

asked you to assist with fundraising in a congressional campaign?

That is a question, I should say. That is not a statement; it is a

question.

Did he ask you to assist at that time with fundraising?

Mr. HUANG. Excuse me 1 second.

[Discussion off the record.]

341

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I notice the gentleman’s time has

expired, and I would like to ask unanimous consent that he be

given an additional 5 minutes to continue his inquiry.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, to answer your question, yes, he did.

Mr. OSE. From your understanding of the briefing when you first

went to work at the Department of Commerce or the ethics memos

that might have otherwise come, is that an allowed activity?

Mr. HUANG. He—my understanding was he was not asking me

to give contribution, he ask me, you know, to find out whether

Asian community can do that. I was willing to help at that time.

Mr. OSE. So he called to ask you to solicit support within the

Asian American community, rather than asked you for a contribution directly?

Mr. HUANG. Not solicit, to find out from the community whether

they can come up with something, because I am from Asian American community. The perception was, I might have known somebody, might be able to do something.

Mr. OSE. I am a little confused now. Let me back up a little bit.

The deputy chief of staff calls you in your Department of Commerce office and asks you to identify, talk to, visit with members

of the Asian Pacific community about fundraising? I mean, I am

unclear on the concept here about what this particular portion of

the discussion was about.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, let me put down to the point where

I did not feel comfortable. I probably know it is wrong to do that.

OK? That is the nutshell for that. I was not sure on that.

Mr. OSE. I appreciate your saying that because I do have a copy

of the Hatch Act here, and unfortunately, I am not going to be able

to ask Mr. Ickes this same question. But I am just trying to understand. I mean, at the congressional level, the sanctions are pretty

severe as to someone in my office or me engaging in that kind of

an activity, which you might say has a rather significantly high

smudge factor; it is kind of indeterminate to do that out of my congressional office.

I am trying to understand how it is that in your case, in this conversation with Mr. Ickes, that you could ever have gotten this far

on the telephone or in person sitting in your Department of Commerce office, especially having had the training from the memos

and the—and what have you from your personal testimony, and

certainly Mr. Ickes having enjoyed the same benefit.

Mr. HUANG. I did not understand you. Could you repeat the

question? I am sorry about that.

Mr. OSE. If somebody calls me up and says, I want you to do this,

that, or the other thing, and it is vague—I mean, I understand

what they are asking me to do, but they are purposely vague about

the specifics; well, frankly, I understand the law from the briefings

and memorandums that have been given to me as a Member of

Congress what I can and can’t do, and clearly, you at least now understand the import of those things.

I am just trying to understand where Mr. Ickes was coming from

and what light you can shed on what his perspective was regarding

that same activity. Because if it is not appropriate for you to do it

342

from your Department of Commerce office, it certainly seems inappropriate for the deputy chief of staff at the White House to ask

you to do something inappropriate.

Mr. HUANG. I express my feeling that it was not proper. I don’t

know what Mr. Ickes was feeling at that time.

Mr. OSE. After the conversation, did you followup on what Mr.

Ickes asked you to do?

Mr. HUANG. I did. I did not really do it immediately, though.

Later on, it did come through, I did do something.

Mr. OSE. And the result of the—we are not going to use the word ‘‘solicitation,’’ because you are not comfortable with that. I might

use that, but you are not comfortable with it.

But the contacts that you made subsequent to that call resulted

in some benefit to Congressman—then Candidate Jackson’s campaign?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. OSE. I have to think about this, Mr. Chairman. Can we come

back on a next round? I yield back.

Mr. BURTON. Well, before you yield back, if you would yield to

me quickly.

Mr. OSE. Certainly.

Mr. BURTON. How much money did you raise for Mr. Jackson’s

campaign?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, the total

amount, including the money from me personally and my wife, is

about $7,000.

Mr. BURTON. $7,000?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURTON. How much was from you and your wife?

Mr. HUANG. In total, about $1,000; $500 each.

Mr. BURTON. About $3,000. So you raised—— Mr. HUANG. No. $1,000, in total. $500 each.

Mr. BURTON. About $1,000. So you raised $6,000 from other

sources?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. Did you collect that money yourself? Did you get

the checks?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

Mr. BURTON. Did you turn them over to the DNC or to Mr. Jackson’s campaign?

Mr. HUANG. I deliver to the office on K Street somewhere. I believe that was related to Mr. Jackson’s.

Mr. BURTON. When you did that, were you aware that you were

violating the Hatch Act or possibly violating the Hatch Act?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I certainly did not feel very comfortable in doing that, but I did not know for sure in that.

Mr. BURTON. When you talked to Mr. Ickes, did you tell Mr.

Ickes that you thought that this was something you should not do?

Mr. HUANG. I did not.

Mr. BURTON. What did Mr. Ickes say to you?

Mr. HUANG. He basically, as I said—— Mr. BURTON. I know, but I want you to be a little bit more specific. What did he say, do you recall?

343

Mr. HUANG. He basically say, can you run up, you know, $10,000

or $15,000 for the Asian community for Mr. Jackson’s campaign;

and he say, you need to be careful about this—something in that

language, ‘‘careful.’’

Mr. BURTON. He said be careful about it?

Mr. HUANG. Be sensitive about it.

Mr. BURTON. What do you think he meant by ‘‘be sensitive about

it?’’

Mr. HUANG. The reason there was a primary election, you know,

there was different candidates running for that seat. I can sense

that probably he didn’t want people to know somebody is siding one

against another among the Democratic candidates.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t think he meant you are treading on the

law and maybe you shouldn’t be doing this?

Mr. HUANG. At least I did not think of it that way.

Mr. BURTON. But he could have meant that, couldn’t he?

Mr. HUANG. I have no reason to believe that was the case

though, sir, no.

Mr. BURTON. OK. The gentleman can continue the next round,

I guess.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the Members won’t mind,

I would like to take some of my 5-minute round.

Mr. OSE. I would yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman is entitled to his 5-minute round,

and if he needs extra time, we can accommodate him.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday I talked about the issue of David Wang. David Wang

was the gentleman to whom we gave immunity. He testified, and

he said after we gave him immunity that Mr. Huang had come and

given him money to pay for a contribution he had given to the

Democrats, and then we at that time established that Mr. Huang

was not in Los Angeles, but in New York. We established it seems

to me, very, very clearly that Mr. Wang was not accurate in his

statement; yet, even though this accusation has turned out to be

false that Mr. Wang made against Mr. Huang, no one seems to be

willing to admit that there was a mistake, that there was an accusation that turned out to be unsubstantiated.

Well, I want to show a video, if I might, from CBS Television.

It was a news show.

[Video shown.]

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, that was from

April 1997. Here it is December 1999. We now have the 302s,

which are the interviews by the FBI checking into some of these

allegations, and I would like to have distributed to other Members

the FBI interview notes with Representative Solomon, who made

these accusations. I think that is going to be distributed.

I want to read from this interview with Mr. Solomon, because the

FBI wanted to find out what Mr. Solomon knew.

He

Began the interview by stating that at no time has he ever been the recipient of

classified information from the Department of Commerce. He tries to avoid receiving

any type of classified information so that he is not hindered when speaking by a

fear of revealing information that is classified. All classified documents received by

the House are directed to the House Committee on Intelligence. If there was someVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00347 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
344

thing that he believed that he needed to review, he would go to that committee and

review the information there.

Then the FBI report said,

At this point, Congressman Solomon advised that he did not have a copy of the

article in question. Therefore, the relevant portion of the article was read to him

as follows,

and then they read back to him:

I have received reports from government sources that say there are electronic

intercepts, electronic intercepts which provide evidence confirming what I suspected

all along, that John Huang committed economic espionage and breached our national security bypassing classified information to his former employer, the Lippo

Group.

Congressman Solomon recalled that a Senate staffer at either a Senate or a House

reception told him that he (the staffer) had received confirmation that a Department

of Commerce employee had passed classified information to a foreign government.

It was Congressman Solomon’s understanding that the staffer meant John Huang

and that the information went to China. However, the staffer did not say that.

Then—that was what he said on August 28, 1997. He also said

that he ‘‘could not recall the staffer’s name, but he might recognize

him if he saw him again.’’ Well, then on February 25, 1998, the FBI further asked Mr. Solomon about this, and Congressman Solomon advised,

He does not know this individual’s name and he has not seen him again. He advised that the statement made by this Senate staffer was something to the effect

that, ‘‘Congressman, you might like to know that you were right, there was someone

at Commerce giving out information.’’

Congressman Solomon described this staffer as a male in his 30’s or early 40’s,

approximately 5 foot, 10 inches tall with brownish hair. This occurred in the hallway of the Rayburn Building while Congressman Solomon was either going to or

returning from a reception.

Now, I know Jerry Solomon and consider him a friend, and I

don’t think he meant to hurt anybody particularly, but when you

have an accusation like this made—it was on national television,

the accusation was on the front page of the L.A. Times—and what

is the basis for this accusation?

The basis appears to be some unidentified person saying something to him at a reception, in or out of a reception in the Capitol.

He doesn’t remember the staffer and he doesn’t have anything specific that ties Mr. Huang into anything along the lines of giving information from the Department of Commerce to China.

I just want to raise this to illustrate the fact that Members of

Congress particularly, and everyone, should feel some restraint in

making allegations that are so inflammatory. The truth never quite

catches up with the headlines.

Mr. Huang has admitted yesterday and today that he committed

what amounted to a felony in terms of giving a conduit campaign

contribution, but he has denied all of these other accusations that

have had such widespread reporting in the major media for the last

3 years.

Where do you go to ever correct the record? Where do you go to

point out that the accusations that were made just turned out not

to have been true, not to have been substantiated? And it just

seems to me that when accusations are made by Members of Congress for whatever reasons—including the fact that they may benefit a particular party politically by attacking President Clinton and

his administration—that when you find out that the allegations

345

have no substantiation, people ought to be willing to say they were

wrong.

I said yesterday if some of these accusations turn out to be true

and we have evidence for them, I will admit that I was wrong, but

I haven’t heard anybody, the chairman or anybody else who has

made these inflammatory accusations, ever admit their error. Mr.

Solomon maybe will want to do something about this now, although

he is not in Congress anymore, but he did talk to the FBI on two

separate occasions, and despite his inflammatory accusations of

what hints at treason by Mr. Huang, pretty serious stuff, it turned

out that it was gossip from somebody he didn’t really know about

somebody that wasn’t clearly identified, from an individual who

was in his 30’s or 40’s that he saw outside going in or out of a cocktail party.

I raise that point, and I think we ought to try to learn from it,

because we are supposed to be responsible people in the Congress

of the United States, and I hope we would recognize our responsibility and take it seriously.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Will the gentleman yield to me for just a second?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much. In the spirit of what

you are saying, I would like to ask a question. Maybe you know

and maybe the chairman knows. I have read the 302 that you are

referring to, Congressman Solomon or Chairman Solomon in the

hallway with a staffer, but in his 302 he talks about the fact that

his information may have also come from an NBC Worldwide

broadcast alert, and then I had the chance to read that while you

were talking.

The thing that is of interest to me is that the allegation I saw

Congressman Solomon make on television was that this was information that was collected by U.S. listening stations. According to

this NBC article, at least, a staffer, again familiar with intelligence

matters, indicates that it was picked up at U.S. electronic eavesdropping sites targeted on trans-Pacific communications.

I remember yesterday when the chairman was making observations about Senator Lieberman as well, who had made some observations about classified information being passed on, concerning intelligence matters that were collected by these listening stations. I

am wondering, were those the same things, or something else?

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I don’t know. We have seen already in the

press, statements that there were intelligence intercepts of discussions by people in the People’s Republic of China talking about how

to try to influence the Congress and get more involved in lobbying

and whatever. We know about that report. But Mr. Solomon said

that he had information from an intercept. That was where his

statements on television came from, from an intercept, an electronic intercept.

Now, Mr. Solomon, he has knowledge that if he were in receipt

of electronic intercepts, it would be a violation of national security

laws to release that information to the press. And he said in this

interview that he didn’t have any classified information from the

Department of Commerce; and then he proudly told the FBI, I

346

don’t—I try ‘‘to avoid receiving any type of classified information so

that he is not hindered when speaking by a fear of revealing information that is classified.’’ He said, if he were going to get classified

information, he would go to the intelligence community.

But the key point here is that Mr. Solomon, who made this allegation, might have been sincere in making it, but he apparently

had no information. He was basing his allegation on gossip, and

that is what is so disturbing to me.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Will the gentleman yield further? I would just

like to make a request of you as the ranking member and also the

chairman.

I think that—I have heard Mr. Huang over the last couple of

days indicate that this didn’t happen. I think it is a very serious

allegation. If there is, in fact, evidence in the control of the U.S.

Government that information was—and it has been picked up by

listening stations or intelligence services or anybody else—that an

official within the Commerce Department was transferring classified information to a foreign entity, I think that is treason, and I

would hope that understanding the issues of national security—but

for crying out loud, if this was in fact happening, as Senator

Lieberman apparently had some observations to make about it,

Congressman Solomon has had some observations about it, I think

that Mr. Huang should either be cleared or not cleared. And I

think that if we have the information, we have the tools and the

ability and the power to get to the bottom of this.

Mr. WAXMAN. If I can just respond to the gentleman, we have

had briefings by the FBI, and they have checked into all of these

allegations, and there is not any evidence that the FBI has reported to us to indicate that these accusations have any basis in

truth. And if there were a basis in truth, if we could establish these

facts, then I would join with you in condemning them and expressing outrage.

But what I am expressing is outrage about the allegations that

are made where there is no basis for those allegations, that take

a man’s reputation—that is not sterling obviously, because he has

committed a campaign finance violation and admitted guilt to a felony—but that doesn’t justify accusing him, based on gossip, of treason, selling out the interests of the United States to the Chinese

Government.

Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman would yield briefly?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes, be happy to yield.

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say that we quoted Senator Lieberman

yesterday, and I would like to refresh everybody’s memory, ‘‘Nonpublic evidence presented to the committee demonstrates a continuing business-intelligence relationship between the Riadys and

the People’s Republic of China Intelligence Service.’’ That does not

mean Mr. Huang necessarily. But the fact is, there may be other

intelligence-gathering agencies that have some information that we

could take a look at.

I will ask the staff to assist me in checking into this to see if

there is any verification. If there isn’t, I agree with you that we

ought to make sure that the record states that there is no evidence

that Mr. Huang did that. But in the meantime, before we take that

step, I will see if we can’t contact the intelligence agencies to see

347

if there is any verification of what Mr. Solomon or what Mr.

Lieberman said.

Mr. WAXMAN. If you will yield to me, I appreciate what you are

saying, and I think—and I will be glad to work with you and have

our staff work with your staff to find out the truth.

Mr. BURTON. Sure.

Mr. WAXMAN. But if there were a connection between Mr. Riady,

who has business in Indonesia and China and I don’t know where

else; and in his business activities over there, he has any contact

with the People’s Republic of China and their intelligence agencies

or anything along those lines, what does that have to do with Mr.

Huang?

Mr. BURTON. Well—— Mr. WAXMAN. Unless you can show that Mr. Huang had some

connection to it, it seems to me grossly unfair to accuse him of treason based on gossip and connections between people he worked for

at one time and other activities that they might have had, which

haven’t been established, but might be in terms of some connection

to the People’s Republic of China and their intelligence agencies.

Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman will yield, we will check that out,

and I will look forward to working with you and our staff to see

if we can’t clarify that as quickly as possible.

Mr. WAXMAN. If you are willing to at that point admit the error

of some of the statements that have been made, I think that is only

fair. And I would hope you would keep in mind the fact that we

did an injustice to Mr. Huang when we had Mr. Wang’s statement

that Mr. Huang went into his office and gave him a conduit contribution, and it turned out that Mr. Huang was in New York and

it was someone else. Mr. Wang was wrong and the accusations we

made based on Mr. Wang’s incorrect testimony should be withdrawn as well. I hope you would take that to heart.

Mr. BURTON. Well, I don’t think Mr. Wang’s testimony should be

withdrawn in toto. If there was a mistake, that mistake should be

corrected. But he was a conduit for at least $10,000, as you know,

in illegal campaign contributions.

Mr. WAXMAN. He, meaning who?

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Wang.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Wang was a conduit, but he said he was a conduit for Mr. Huang.

Mr. BURTON. And the information that you have just stated to

the committee, and I have not yet checked that out, was that instead of it being Mr. Huang, it was Charlie Trie; and you have

stated—and I have not checked it, but we will—that Charlie Trie

has said in his 302s to the FBI that he was the one that laundered

that money through Mr. Wang.

Now, if you want to set the record straight, you will also recall

that your staff tried to get Mr. Wang’s father to say things that

were untrue and that became a fiasco in the investigation as well.

So I don’t know that we want to go through that whole rigmarole

again. All I can say is that we will check that out as well. If Charlie Trie was the one, as we have heard that it is from 302s, we will

set that record straight as well.

Mr. WAXMAN. You have made some allusion to my staff and I

have checked out that accusation, and that is absolutely untrue.

348

Mr. BURTON. Well, not according to the attorney for Mr. Wang

and from Mr. Wang’s father.

Mr. WAXMAN. I will just tell you that it is untrue.

But let us check the record on Mr. Wang. Mr. Huang has denied

that he was there giving Mr. Wang the money. Charlie Trie has

said that he is the one who has done it, so it is clear that Mr.

Wang was mistaken and that mistaken testimony by Mr. Wang became the basis for a very serious accusation by you, Mr. Chairman,

against Mr. Huang that should be admitted as incorrect now that

we have further information.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Given the nature of this debate, I have an article

I would like to submit into the record that relates to this general

point.

Mr. Solomon is not a member of this committee. I am sorry for

any wrong that was done to Mr. Huang from that. If, indeed, the

evidence holds that up, he deserves an apology from Mr. Solomon

and anybody else.

One of the unfortunate by-products of this investigation, because

millions of Americans are enraged that our secrets got to China.

We don’t know who and how; and it is wrong for anybody, which

Mr. Waxman is warning us, to jump to conclusions and say that

about individuals until it is proven.

At the same time, there is kind of an implication here that everybody involved in this has been jumping to conclusions, and the article I want to insert in the record, merely because it makes this

point is by James Adams in the American Spectator, not necessarily known as the most cautious publication in America, in December 1996 that says John Huang was the fall guy in the Indonesian scandal and was merely the errand boy of billionaire Asian

interests with long-standing ties to the Clinton crowd; and it also

says he was more of an errand boy than a prime mover.

It says that he is being punished more than the politicians who

received his illegal money, my point being that even those who

have been very critical of this whole scandal since 1996 have not

all maintained that John Huang was at the center of the universe

with this.

I think it is important for the record to show that people have

been all over the place. What we are trying to do with these hearings today is to find out actual facts.

Mr. BURTON. The purpose of the hearing is to get the facts out

and the truth out to the American people, and we will try to do

that. If the record is incorrect, we will correct it.

Who do we have next on the schedule?

It is the chairman. All right. We will go on to another—Mr.

LaTourette, are you prepared? I understand that you wanted me

to yield to you right now. I can get to my stuff afterwards.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Huang, I want to go into another fundraising event that occurred on September 26, 1996.

But before I do that, I was just—this discussion that we have

just been having with Mr. Waxman sort of jogged a memory, and

that is, during your opening statement, you indicated—you made

349

reference to Mr. Solomon’s interview. I don’t know if it was the one

that we just saw on CBS, but it said you had been advised from

an anonymous source at a cocktail party, who turned out to be the

source of Mr. Solomon’s statements.

I didn’t see, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Solomon’s 302s from the FBI

until they were just distributed, and I guess I am wondering how

you came to be in possession of that information.

How did you know that Mr. Solomon said to the FBI that it was

a person at the cocktail party?

Mr. HUANG. I was advised by my attorney.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Sometime I will ask your lawyer, I guess.

I want to turn to September 26th.

Mr. BURTON. I think that is pretty important, because we have

an FBI 302 that was not yet made public, and if the counsel for

Mr. Huang was giving him information from an FBI 302 that was

not made public, I think it is important to find out how he knew

that.

So with unanimous consent, I would like to ask the counsel, Mr.

Cobb, how he knew about that 302. Is there objection? Objection

not heard.

Mr. Cobb.

Mr. COBB. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer that question. I did not get the information from the 302.

Mr. BURTON. From where did you get it?

Mr. COBB. I got it from the Campaign Finance Task Force.

Mr. BURTON. The Campaign—— Mr. COBB. During the course of Mr. Huang’s interviews, the confusion about Mr. Solomon’s statement was cleared up for us.

Mr. BURTON. In the hearing with the Campaign Finance Task

Force? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. COBB. Yes, in the 20 days of interviews.

Mr. BURTON. So they gave you that information during the interviews?

Mr. COBB. Not in the detail as reflected in the 302.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Cobb.

The other day I was wondering whether you gentlemen represented Mr. Huang in this other stuff, and I saw you on TV, so

you must have. You again are excellent lawyers and you are to be

commended. If I ever get involved in this sort of thing, I will call

you.

On September 26, 1996, Mr. Huang, were you involved in that

event?

Mr. HUANG. Was that referring to the Central City in Los Angeles?

Mr. LATOURETTE. The Sheraton Carlton Hotel in Washington.

There was a fundraiser at the Sheraton Carlton Hotel on September 26, 1996. You attended that, did you not?

Mr. HUANG. I think the date is not correct, if you are talking

about Sheraton Carlton. It was not September 26th.

Mr. LATOURETTE. What day do you think it was?

Mr. HUANG. Are you talking about in May, maybe?

Mr. LATOURETTE. July 13th?

Mr. HUANG. I think it is May 13.

350

Mr. LATOURETTE. May 13th. Well, anyway, you know what, there

was a fundraiser at the Sheraton Carlton sometime in 1996; is that

correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And you attended that event. Did you do work

for that event, help raise money for that event?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I helped organize it.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did Mr. Riady, James Riady, attend that

event?

Mr. HUANG. Not that event, no.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, trying to help you, I am supposed to

help you in any way to the committee.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I appreciate it.

Mr. HUANG. Sheraton Carlton asked me to host quite a lot of

events for fundraising. It could be really referring to one event

probably in Sheraton Carlton, and Mr. James Riady did attend,

and probably not the May 13th one, it could be later on. It could

be the one you are talking about, the July, there is one on that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Specifically, the month of September, do you

recall an event at the Sheraton Carlton in Washington where you

were in attendance and Mr. Riady was also in attendance? The reason I ask you is that David Mercer of the DNC indicates that one

of the last times that he saw Mr. Riady was at this event with you.

Mr. HUANG. OK.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So I am going to try and help you too with

your memory.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you. We are really in line with talking about

specific right now.

Yeah, Mr. Mercer organized and hosted that event that was basically for the African American community.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And that was on September 26, 1996?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, right. At the Sheraton Carlton Hotel,

yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. That took me about 4 minutes to get where we

were going originally.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is still in the middle

of his interrogation. I want to give him by unanimous consent additional time. How about 10 minutes?

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman proceed for another

10 minutes, but Mr. Huang ought to be given an opportunity if he

needs a break to take it now; otherwise, we can keep going.

Mr. HUANG. Personally, I don’t have any objection to continue.

Mr. SOUDER [presiding]. We will continue for these 10 minutes,

and then if you would like, we will take a break then, so you can

have a few minutes just to rest up and then we will come back.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you very much, Congressman.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you sure, Mr. Huang? I am known for my

withering examinations. If you want to take a break ahead of time,

go ahead.

Mr. HUANG. I am totally surrendering to all the lawyers. I am

not a lawyer. As Congressman Shays said, I am really at a disadvantaged position.

351

Mr. LATOURETTE. We’re at September 26, 1996, we are at the

Sheraton Carlton in Washington, DC. It’s a fundraiser organized by

David Mercer, primarily you said was an African American event

was the target audience, and you are there with Mr. Riady.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Was Mr. Trie, Charlie Trie, also in attendance

at this event?

Mr. HUANG. I couldn’t quite recall but I don’t believe he was

there, though.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK.

Mr. HUANG. I could not quite recall.

Mr. LATOURETTE. That’s OK. All I want is your best memory and

no guesses. I want to turn to the exhibit book if you can. In exhibit

501—and maybe if we could put 501 up on the screen as well for

the benefit of everybody else. Exhibit—while it’s being gotten out,

501 is a ticket from the Carey Limousine Co. While I—how I suspected you were in Washington on that day is that it indicates that

you arranged for a limousine on that day to go from the Democratic

National Committee Headquarters to Dulles Airport, then to the

Watergate South Apartment. From there the limousine, according

to the ticket, went on to the Sheraton Carlton, then back to the

Watergate South.

Do you see all that and agree that I have the itinerary right for

where that limousine went on that particular occasion?

[Exhibit 501 follows:]

352

353

Mr. HUANG. Yes, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you able to explain to us—well let me ask

you a series of questions. Did you go in that limousine to pick up

James Riady?

Mr. HUANG. I believe I did.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Would that be the stop at Dulles Airport?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know—wait a minute. Yes, I did.

Mr. LATOURETTE. At Dulles. The Dulles stop on the ticket would

be picking up Mr. Riady.

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. It then went to the Watergate South and the

Watergate South is where Mr. Trie lived, is that correct; Charlie

Trie lived at the Watergate, stayed at the Watergate?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Was the purpose of the limousine on September 26th to go pick up Mr. Trie next?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you recall why it is you went—you directed

the limousine to go to the Watergate South on that day?

Mr. HUANG. I think Mr. Riady was the guest, you know, to be

invited to stay there, and stayed in the hotel by Mr. Trie.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, OK. But the—according to the ticket, it

leaves the Watergate, goes to the Sheraton Carlton. So if you

picked up Mr. Riady at the Dulles Airport, you then go to the Watergate South. I think that you picked up Mr. Trie and he got in

the car then you all went to the Sheraton Carlton. Is that what

happened, or did somebody—why would you—if he’s going to—— Mr. HUANG. I did not quite recall Mr. Trie went for that evening’s event or he came along with a limousine directly go to that

event, though. If he did go, probably he went separately by himself,

yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But it was your recollection that Mr. Riady

had been invited to stay with Mr. Trie at the Watergate?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. So the stop at the Watergate could have

been for Mr. Riady to drop off luggage or freshen up or whatever

before you headed over to the Sheraton Carlton?

Mr. HUANG. If I am not mistaken Mr. Riady also stay overnight.

Mr. LATOURETTE. At the Trie’s apartment?

Mr. HUANG. At Trie’s apartment, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you stay there as well that evening at the

Sheraton Carlton?

Mr. HUANG. I might have, yes. I might have.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You might have but you don’t recall specifically?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t recall specifically.

Mr. LATOURETTE. That same exhibit indicates that the following

morning you arranged for a limousine to pick someone up at the

Watergate South at 7:15 but there was no response. Do you recall

why it is that you made that arrangement; who it was supposed

to pick up, where it was supposed to go?

Mr. HUANG. Are we on the right-hand side of the lower bottom,

sir?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Uh-huh.

354

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. LATOURETTE. I’m at the lower right-hand side; Watergate,

time arrived.

Mr. HUANG. The best recollection, probably everybody overslept.

Mr. LATOURETTE. One more—everybody was gone already.

Mr. HUANG. No, overslept.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Now that we have talked about and you

think that people had overslept, did you have a recollection of

spending the night at the Watergate with Mr. Riady and Mr. Trie

now? I mean, is this refreshing your memory that that’s where you

were?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. Yes, I do.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The three of you spent the evening at Mr.

Trie’s place at the Watergate South Apartments.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. This visit—well, hang on a minute. I want

to go to exhibit No. 502 next, if you look at the next page. It’s another limousine ticket for the 27th. It indicates that someone was

taken from the Watergate to 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, then

to the Democratic National Committee, then to Connecticut and I

Street, then back to 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue. Are you able

to give us a reason as to why you hired a car for this purpose, who

was in it and what was going on?

[Exhibit 502 follows:]

355

356

Mr. HUANG. At this moment I could not.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Let me ask you this: Do you know whether or

not that limousine that we’re now talking about in exhibit 502

picked up anyone other than Charlie Trie at the Watergate?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Riady came in with another executive from the

Lippo as well. So there is only two persons involved in the limo as

best I can recollect.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you know why it went to 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, and specifically the why; was it to pick up Mark

Middleton?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. No, although that I can really not recollect exactly,

you know, it might be to visit Mr. Middleton. Mr. Middleton at that

time already, I think—this is 1996, right?

Mr. LATOURETTE. September 26th.

Mr. HUANG. Right. Mr. Middleton has already left the government. He was a consultant for himself at that time. And—— Mr. LATOURETTE. You mentioned that there was another Lippo

executive besides Mr. Riady. Do you recall who that was?

Mr. HUANG. No, I cannot recall. I never saw him before. But he

came along with Mr. Riady.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did this particular visit that we’re talking

about—September 26, 1996 was after the first news stories about

the campaign finance scandal had broken on television. Do you recall when you and Mr. Trie and Mr. Riady are spending the night

at Mr. Trie’s place at the Watergate South, whether or not those

news stories were the subject of any discussion among the three of

you or among two other people in your presence?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t recall specifically on that. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. And do you recall in all of the 20 days of

interviewing that you had with the Department of Justice, did they

ever talk to you about this series of limousine rides, that you can

recall?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. At any time on the two receipts that I have

shown you, the 502 and 501, was the President of the United

States, Mr. Clinton, either before or after the event that occurred

at the Sheraton Carlton on September 26th, involved with Mr.

Riady on any of these trips that this limousine was taking?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Clinton, you say? No. No, he was not involved.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you aware of any ride, limousine ride

taken by the President of the United States with Mr. Riady during

this visit by Mr. Riady to Washington DC; that is, the day either

before or after the September 26th African American event at the

Sheraton Carlton in Washington DC?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You were there.

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you know how much time I have left, Mr.

Souder? Is there a clock? I don’t want to start a new area. I can

stop here. Why don’t I stop? I tell you what. I yield back my time

and I’ll come back.

Mr. WAXMAN. If you want to go now and want another 10 minutes it’s OK with me. I will give Mr. Huang a break.

357

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Shays would like to ask a few. I’ll yield

back at this moment.

Mr. SOUDER. The committee will stand in recess for 10 minutes.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. The committee will reconvene. Mr.

LaTourette, I think you have the floor.

Mr. SHAYS. If I could ask unanimous consent that he could have

the 10 minutes that Mr. Waxman suggested.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank everyone for their courtesy. I also appreciate the break.

I want to talk next, Mr. Huang, about a document that appears

in your book as exhibit No. 513. And this is a document that was

taken from Charlie Trie by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

And the title of the document is Cooperation Opportunities with

James Riady. The original document, I just want to get it here real

quick, was in Chinese, and it’s been translated and as it appears

now in exhibit 513. And I just want to read it for the benefit of the

record, although it will be submitted into the record.

The text that we received is a translation as follows:

No. 1, Wal-Mart in Shanghai opens a store—and just an editorial comment is

where haven’t they opened a store? Because Lippo has a successful cooperation experience at Lippo Village and received sweet reward at Shenzhen. Actively urged

Lippo to work with them in opening stores in Shanghai and Beijing.

Must obtain retail license and buy local product and imports to sell before we can

consider. Local government may join in but maximum 10 percent. Wal-Mart takes

50 percent. Remaining may be divided by you.

The needed land must be not less than 10,000 square meters. Hopefully it will

be a clear-cut deal. Distance from medium and high-income area cannot exceed 20

minutes driving time.

Buy a hospital in Shanghai and modernize it. The Lippo Village already has

gained high-level hospital experience. Plus, James is a trustee of the Arkansas Medical School. His father is a trustee of USC. They may invite foreign doctors to be

visiting doctors as Shanghai and can send Shanghai doctors for advanced training

in foreign countries. The targets are foreign businessmen and high-income people.

Buy a school in Shanghai or work out a joint venture for an international school.

Lippo Village’s international school may be used as a model for planning.

No. 4 there’s a hotel in San Francisco—the stock should be bought in total or in

part. This hotel is owned by the bank and is worth $7 million. It has a good record

and may get a 60 percent loan. Suggest that you find 6 Chinese accounts to invest

$1 million each. Lippo will retain one-seventh of the stock. These investors instantly

become a partner of Lippo. They can use that to request immigration.

L.A. Bank Stocks: Maybe a part of the L.A. bank stock can be sold to Wang Jun.

Knowing you have good relations with Wang Jun, hoping you can be an intermediary. Proposing that Wang Jung buy the Lippo bank stocks with money as reenforcement to enter the U.S. market. You may also plan to get a part of the stocks

and a director position. James is a fair person. He knows especially the long-term

strategy and advantage of using business partners. He knows you have good relations with China. Hope you may be able to realize the above suggestions. He agrees

with my proposal and is willing to work with you on the above items.

If you are going to Jakarta in October, he may send his helicopter so you can visit

Lippo Village. Thus you may have a clearer picture to push for the above items in

China.

He may wait until you finish meeting on October 9 and hold a detailed talk with

John Huang in New York on October the 10th.’’

First, have you ever seen this document before Mr. Huang?

[Exhibit 513 follows:]

358

359

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Either in its original form or in its translated

form?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. At any time did either Charlie Trie or Ng Lap

Seng ask you for a business help or introductions?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you know if Charlie Trie ever had a relationship, a business relationship with the Lippo Group?

Mr. HUANG. Not prior to that, no.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Prior to what?

Mr. HUANG. Up here what you are saying on this—the memo or

whatever the translation, anything prior to that—this indication

looks like they’re going to go through some business, you know.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You would—— Mr. HUANG. I was not aware of that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You would agree with me that exhibit 513 appears to be a recitation or a proposal that there be further discussions for business between Mr. Trie and the Lippo Group; that’s

what it appears to be?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you have any independent knowledge that

any of the items mentioned there in that document 513 actually

came to pass or are coming to pass? For instance, the first item on

the list is a venture with Wal-Mart in Shanghai. Did you ever discuss that with Charlie Trie.

Mr. HUANG. I did not—— [Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, I know about—around that period of

time I know about some of the matters like Wal-Mart situation.

For instance Wal-Mart had the joint venture with the Lippo in Jakarta, in Lippo Village.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you aware that Charlie Trie has anything

to do with that?

Mr. HUANG. For that Jakarta joint venture between Lippo and

Wal-Mart?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right.

Mr. HUANG. He might have know about it; he had nothing to do

with it as far as I know.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you know anything—let me go back to my

original broad question. Do you know anything about a business relationship between Charlie Trie, whether it’s the items on this

memo that we’re talking about, and the Lippo group?

Mr. HUANG. The only information I had, I believe Mr. Riady had

a conversation with me, maybe around the period of time indicating Charlie Trie visited Mr. James Riady in Jakarta. Mr. Charlie

Trie apparently is looking for business opportunity as well. So it

leads me to believe that’s probably after that, that kind of meeting.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Let me specifically run through the items on

the memo, just so we’re clear. I have understood your answer to

the broad question. But I have asked you about Wal-Mart. The second item is modernizing a hospital in Shanghai. Have you ever had

a discussion concerning this project with either Charlie Trie or

James Riady or anyone else at Lippo?

360

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The third project is a school in Shanghai. Have

you ever had a discussion, again, Trie, Riady, or anyone else at

Lippo?

Mr. HUANG. Before you proceed on this, I don’t know if it will be

helpful or not. It was understood Charlie Trie was going over to

Asia quite a bit, particularly in China. That was known. Apparently he had established some contacts over there. OK. So in the

broader sense, things he knew, China, just in case he want to have

some help, or Charlie Trie might be a help, and probably that

would be subjects of discussion. So what I was trying to answer is

that on specific items, I did not know about it, what you have read.

But on the broader basis, maybe he might be helpful about Chinese

ventures in the future. That I have heard.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, again going back to when we were talking in the previous 10 minutes about the night of September 26,

1996, after the Sheraton Carlton event, apparently Mr. Trie and

Mr. Riady knew each other well enough that Mr. Trie was comfortable having Mr. Riady be a guest in his home on that particular

evening. Is that right?

Mr. HUANG. At that point, yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And at that point—and I think that this memo

talks about a trip to Jakarta on October 9th. I guess I’m thinking

it’s October 9, 1996?

Mr. HUANG. 1996, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Which is right after, within 10, 12 days of this

event at the Sheraton Carlton; is that a fair observation?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The fifth one then, and again I’m not trying to

trip you up, I understood you said you don’t have any knowledge

of the specifics. But the fifth one specifically refers to L.A. bank

stocks. And it says that it may be a part of the L.A. bank stock

can be sold to Wang Jun. Wang Jun, do you know who he is?

Mr. HUANG. I know of this person but I never met with him in

person.

Mr. LATOURETTE. What does he do for a living, do you know?

Mr. HUANG. I’m sorry; what was he doing?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you know what he does for a living?

Mr. HUANG. I think he was a chairman of CITIC, or China International Trust and Investment Corp. at that time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you know if he has any business dealings

that have to do with the selling of arms, firearms? Is he in the gun

business?

Mr. HUANG. At that time I did not know.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you know that today?

Mr. HUANG. Because the news accounts indicated that, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you believe the news accounts? Do you

think he is an arms dealer or you just think like that business that

Mr. Waxman was talking about Mr. Solomon, that they made that

up about him? Do you have reason to believe that he is an arms

dealer?

Mr. HUANG. Again, I don’t know. I never verified that, yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Do you know, as you look at that paragraph, what the paragraph refers to, what bank it’s referring to?

361

Mr. HUANG. The bank is Lippo Bank of California he was referring to.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Located in Los Angeles?

Mr. HUANG. Head office at that time was in Los Angeles, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you ever have a discussion concerning this

paragraph, the L.A. bank stock and Wang Jun, with either Charlie

Trie, James Riady or anyone else at Lippo?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. To your knowledge did Charlie Trie ever

visit with James Riady or other member of the Riady family in Jakarta?

Mr. HUANG. As I indicated to you earlier, they had a meeting

when Mr. Trie visited Indonesia.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And do you believe that to have been on October 9, 1996?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know exactly, but probably around that period of time probably.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Is it fair that it was in 1996, is that your recollection?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you—again, you said that you’ve never

seen this document before now, so I assume that the items contained in this document never were the subject of conversations between you, your lawyers and the Justice Department.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Not in the specific sense as——

Mr. LATOURETTE. Go ahead.

Mr. HUANG. Not in the specific sense as you indicated on this

memo. But I believe the Justice Department would like to know at

the time of the relationship between the Tries and Riadys.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And then the last question I have is, as the

yellow light brightens our hallway, phone records indicate that between September 23, 1996 and October 11, 1996, Charlie Trie

placed calls to James Riady eight times. Are you familiar with the

content of any of those telephone calls? And specifically, since I believe that during some of this time you were actually staying at

Mr. Trie’s home, were you present for any of those telephone calls?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir. I was not even aware he was making a call

to Indonesia at that time.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield real briefly?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Be happy to.

Mr. BURTON. Did the Department of Justice, when you were

being interviewed by them, did they ever ask you about this document?

Mr. HUANG. Not specifically about this document. This is a translation of that.

Mr. BURTON. What do you mean not specifically about this document. Did they ask you about the contents of the document?

Mr. HUANG. No. They were interested in knowing about the relationship between Riady and Trie, Mr. Riady and Mr. Trie, or Lippo

and Mr. Trie. But——

Mr. BURTON. Did they ask about Wang Jun at all?

[Discussion off the record.]

362

Mr. HUANG. I think so. What I knew in the whole thing is, you

know, what was his role, as Congressman was raising a similar

questions today.

Mr. BURTON. But you didn’t have any close dealings with Wang

Jun?

Mr. HUANG. Definitely. I never met with him.

Mr. BURTON. And you didn’t know anything more than what you

said about the relationship between Riadys and Charlie Trie.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Huang, I try to remember that I have an advantage that you don’t. I can ask questions. You’re put in a difficult situation, and I sometimes look back

when I have asked a question, regretted the question, because I

think I have misused the power I have. But I want to ask you some

very blunt questions and I also am going to ask you some questions

about salary, which I want you to know I would have asked or

wanted asked by the committee behind closed doors, but we weren’t

given that opportunity. So I’m going to ask you some questions that

I would have preferred not to have to ask you in public, because

they may be important or they may not. I am just in some cases

going to be checking.

But first, and I don’t mean to keep bringing it up but it’s the

point of this question, you pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud

the U.S. Government for $150,000; then you said there was about

$800,000 that you were aware of that was basically from the Lippo

Group, from the Riadys or their related companies, by employees

that ultimately you suspect was paid by the Riadys. I want to know

if this was your scheme or their scheme.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Riady—well, let me track back. Mr. Riady has

made the commitment to raise the million dollars. That commitment is made.

Mr. SHAYS. He told this to the President, that he would get $1

million to the——

Mr. HUANG. To help raise or whatever, to give, whatever. The

end result is the same anyway.

Mr. SHAYS. You need to get $1 million.

Mr. HUANG. Right. And then the—I was in the United States, I

was the point person to put everything into execution and work

with him and get everything facilitated.

Mr. SHAYS. And you knew this was illegal?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. But was it your idea to him that he should do

this, or was this his idea to you or was it a team effort?

Mr. HUANG. The thought process is coming on a joint basis, but

I implement the whole thing.

Mr. SHAYS. So both of you were involved in this conspiracy to defraud the government and to ignore campaign law. Now, frankly

you probably could have done it by a soft money contribution, because who knows whether that’s illegal since it’s not called campaign money. But at any rate, you went this route. It was clearly

illegal. And I would have said if you did the soft money, it was

wrong but it may not have been illegal.

363

And what I want to know is why would I have confidence that

you were qualified now to work for Commerce, given that you were

involved in a very serious scheme of close to $1 million?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. As I reported to Congressman Waxman’s question

yesterday, you know I would have hope nobody would have caught

up, for longest time had nobody caught up on this matter. So nobody knew about this matter. If anybody knew about it in the processing in my appointment, probably I would not be qualified.

Mr. SHAYS. But the challenge—thank you. The challenge, though,

the question I’m also asking, is why should I have any confidence

that when you basically raised $2 to $5 million, that you weren’t

involved in the same stuff? Why did you all of a sudden decide to

be honest when you worked for the DNC?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, I knew I did wrong during that 1992

and 1994 period of time. I tried very best not to do the same thing

again. When this campaign finance matter erupt in 1996, I think

the Justice Department has made an extensive investigation, and

I have been trying very hard to cooperate with them completely on

that.

Mr. SHAYS. The question mark I have for you is you made

$60,000, well less than you were qualified in the DNC, and you had

a very unique arrangement. You had a bonus arrangement. And

the bonus arrangement was based on what?

Mr. HUANG. Based on the—hopefully based on the performance,

how much I can raise. I was leaving that to the DNC meeting, the

chairman of the Finance Committee, to make a decision later on.

Mr. SHAYS. Could I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman, that

I have 10 more minutes?

Mr. WAXMAN. Do 5 and let’s see what happens after that.

Mr. SHAYS. I’ll need 10, so I’ll come back afterwards.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman, did you have some questions?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yeah, let me take a round of questions.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Huang, I want to ask you about your cooperation with the Department of Justice. I think this follows after what

Mr. Shays was questioning you about. Prior to pleading guilty to

campaign finance violation, you had been cooperating with the Justice Department’s Campaign Finance Task Force; isn’t that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. And according to the Justice Department, the Department contacted your attorney in August 1998 about a possible

preindictment plea agreement; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. And were you willing to talk to them?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. In fact, according to the brief filed with the sentencing court by the prosecutors, ‘‘From the outset of these discussions, Defendant Huang indicated a desire to cooperate with the

government’s investigation.’’ They went on to state, that, ‘‘Defendant Huang never adopted a confrontational posture with respect to

the negotiations.’’

364

I understand that you met with the prosecutors and investigators

approximately 20 times between January and April of this year. Is

that right?

Mr. HUANG. At least. Probably even started earlier than that, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you believe that you provided useful information to the Department of Justice?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. According to the prosecutor’s brief submitted to the

sentencing court, the prosecutor said,

Defendant Huang was deemed to be credible throughout the proffer sessions. His

cooperation was substantial in that it answered many questions which would otherwise remain mysteries and provided incriminating evidence pertinent to numerous

ongoing investigations. Moreover, defendant Huang admitted to wrongful conduct

beyond that which the government would otherwise have been able to prove.

Mr. Huang do you feel badly about your involvement in making

illegal conduit contributions?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, very much sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. The Department of Justice had the same opinion.

According to the prosecutors, Mr. Huang, ‘‘always exhibited bona

fide remorse for his actions.’’

I would like to read for the record what the Justice Department

said about your character.

Defendant Huang appears to have lived an upright life. Moreover, his reputation

in the community and observed behavior have demonstrated to the government that

he is generally a self-effacing and kind individual. During the course of the investigation, the government has interviewed numerous credible witnesses who, without

exception, speak to defendant Huang’s integrity.

These are not my words because I wouldn’t know whether to say

it or not, but these are the prosecutors that you talked to for over

20 separate times. Today is Thursday. You were in this hearing all

day yesterday. I think we started at 1 o’clock. We went until close

to 6. We started at 10, it’s almost 3. So you’ve been here, you alone

as the witness for this hearing. And the day before you came here,

you testified in California, what was the——

Mr. HUANG. The grand jury, yes. In Los Angeles.

Mr. WAXMAN. How long did that grand jury testimony go?

Mr. HUANG. That started something like 10 o’clock through 2:30,

and I’m going again next week I believe.

Mr. WAXMAN. So you go next week again to the grand jury.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. WAXMAN. You flew a red-eye flight to be here with us, not

last night but the night before, to be here with us yesterday.

Mr. HUANG. Not quite. I arrived at 1 o’clock, as I told chairman

and also the committee, not quite exactly the red eye, but I did arrive like 1 o’clock a.m.

Mr. WAXMAN. I see. I was feeling sorry for you because I’ve taken

that red eye. I know how grueling it can be. I know that flight that

gets here at 1 o’clock is also grueling but not quite as grueling.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, I saw you in the flight before. I used

to commute quite a bit before, myself, because my home was in Los

Angeles. I apologize I didn’t come over to speak to you at that time.

Mr. SOUDER. Would the gentleman yield? What conversations did

you have with Mr. Huang on your airplane flights?

365

Mr. WAXMAN. I don’t recall that I have ever met Mr. Huang before today. I might have met him at some party or other. Maybe

going in or out of a cocktail party he might have passed on some

word about somebody’s reputation, but of course I wouldn’t have repeated it.

I just want to put this on the record because, Mr. Shays, you’re

asking why you should believe him. I don’t know if you want to believe him or not. The only way you can see whether a witness is

telling the truth is to get all the facts, ask him the questions, look

at him, look at his demeanor and then rely on other people. And

this is what the Justice Department has said about him. He certainly did a wrong thing. And it was a seriously wrong thing that

he did. It was a felony. It amounted to a felony violation. But there

are times when even though somebody has done something wrong

that they’re not—everything they do can’t be assumed to be

duplicitous or wrong-headed.

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON. Let me just take a couple minutes, then I’ll yield

the balance of my time to you.

At the beginning of our meeting today, I read some information

from the 302’s of the President and the Vice President. And the

Justice Department did not ask any questions of the President or

the Vice President about John Huang, Charlie Trie, Maria Hsia,

Pauline Kanchanalak or anybody involved in the finance scandal.

The Justice Department did fine Mr. Huang. Charlie Trie was not

fined by the Justice Department, but the judge in the case was so

upset, or upset enough, because the Justice Department was just

giving Charlie Trie a slap on the wrist, that he himself imposed a

$5,000 fine on Mr. Trie.

Now, the reason I bring that up is you’re using the statements

from the Justice Department as a reason for us to show credence

to the witness and possibly to others. The Justice Department has

been totally uncooperative with us for the last 3 years. They’ve

kept documents from us. We had to subpoena them. We weren’t

going to get the 302s from the President and the Vice President

until I threatened to subpoena—in fact I did subpoena the Assistant U.S. Attorney from the Justice Department, and he was going

to have to come over here. When they found out he was going to

have to come over here and tell us why he wouldn’t give us the

302s, they finally coughed those things up.

So, I just want to point out that the Justice Department has been

anything but upfront and cooperative with our investigation for the

past 3 years. And for that reason—and regarding Mr. Trie and Mr.

Huang, even the judge in the Trie case was concerned about the

way they handled that. So I don’t think just because people in the

Justice Department make some positive comments about any person, not in particular Mr. Huang, that we should take that as gospel.

And with that, I’ll yield to my colleague.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would you yield to me, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BURTON. I know what you’re going to do. You’re going to respond to what I said.

Mr. WAXMAN. What’s wrong with giving me a chance to respond?

Mr. BURTON. Well, you’ll have—all right. Respond.

366

Mr. WAXMAN. I just want to point out that I know that no one

can say anything to you in the defense of the Justice Department.

Mr. BURTON. Not much.

Mr. WAXMAN. But I will say this: that the Justice Department

was acting at the request of the FBI, because these 302s were the

FBI’s interrogations of the different witnesses. The FBI asked the

Justice Department not to make certain things public. And then

again I talked yesterday about the phases, and phase 5 is whether

the White House, Justice Department, or FBI capitulates and we

usually receive the information.

Well, we did receive the information. In fact, you described yesterday how our staffs had to go and look at the President and Vice

President’s 302s because they wouldn’t release it. Well, now that

they’ve released it, we have it, we’ve agreed to your request that

we make it public, and the people can see what the interview consisted of, by the FBI, not——

Mr. BURTON. I don’t believe the FBI was the ones that was asking those questions, at least in that one interview. They were just

people from the Justice Department.

Mr. WAXMAN. That ought to be on the record, so we’ll see.

Mr. BURTON. It’s in the 302s.

Mr. WAXMAN. We’ll see what the 302s say. The only other thing

I point out is whether it’s FBI or anyone else asking questions of

the President of the United States, they had two specific issues

that they were asking him about. Unlike this committee, I don’t

think they thought they should go on a long fishing expedition and

ask the President of the United States every possible thing that

they might ask him about. There has been no evidence that the

President of the United States ever knew that any of these contributions were illegal, that they were foreign sources——

Mr. BURTON. Let me reclaim my time.

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. And therefore pursue those

questions——

Mr. BURTON. Let me reclaim my time and just say this: You’re

not going to find out what the President knew or when he knew

it unless you ask the questions. They asked absolutely no questions

about John Huang, Charlie Trie, Pauline Kanchanalak, any of

those people when they went over there. And the people that went

over there, some of them felt like they were not supposed to ask

those questions because they might have a problem.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Could I renew my request for unanimous consent for

10 minutes?

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. My question was, given that you had

done these, I had asked why should I have faith that you wouldn’t

continue them. Because you hadn’t yet been caught. You gave me

an answer that you regretted it, and you said you didn’t want to

do it again. But I guess the next question is why should I have any

sense of confidence that the Riadys and their organizations would

want to function in a way that would be honest? What was—what

made them want to change? Should I assume that they have

changed or that they’re continuing to be manipulating the system

367

and defrauding and so on? Why should I have any confidence that

they are like you, have seen the light?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, I agree you’ll be concerned based on

the past records, but at that period of time when I when with the

DNC, I didn’t have any reason to believe that they were going to

do those things.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, it’s your testimony that when you were at the

DNC you did not have—make any effort to raise money from the

Riadys; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you make an effort to raise money from people

who worked with the Riadys, had business deals with the Riadys?

Mr. HUANG. The reason I pause, I have been trying to think, you

know, to the best of my knowledge I did not.

Mr. SHAYS. None of their business partners you didn’t raise any

money from?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, the reason I paused a little bit, because there are instances that could draw some dot-dot line there.

Wiriadinata, the contributions—— Mr. SHAYS. You were what? I’m sorry.

Mr. HUANG. Wiriadinata’s contribution.

Mr. SHAYS. And what about that?

Mr. HUANG. Because the Wiriadinatas, Mrs. Wiriadinata’s father,

Hashim Ning was a partner with the Lippo.

Mr. SHAYS. And your reason for not raising money for the Riadys

was that they no longer had green cards? And no longer worked— why wouldn’t—— Mr. HUANG. Mr. Riady had already at that point had already—— Mr. SHAYS. I mean, there is no logic why you wouldn’t have

asked him for contributions.

Mr. HUANG. He gave up the green card already. He did not have

the status to give any more money.

Mr. SHAYS. Because he no longer had a green card, that was the

reason why you didn’t seek to raise money from him. But he still

had business associates in the United States. Why wouldn’t you

raise money from them?

Mr. HUANG. Well, the only person—that’s what I’m trying to say.

The only person he’s trying to help me is the—on the Wiriadinata,

who he know, you know, that was only links we can control right

now.

Mr. SHAYS. How much money was that?

Mr. HUANG. As I reported to you, the couple made about

$450,000.

Mr. SHAYS. And I should have confidence that that was their

money?

Mr. HUANG. I have no reason to believe it not. They come from

a very substantial family.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, should I feel comfortable that in 1997 and 1998

you received $18,000 from the Riadys and 1997 and 1998 you received $20,000. Why should I feel comfortable about that?

Mr. HUANG. Despite the fact all these things happened in the

Riady family—I worked for Riady family for a period of time. There

368

was still some friendship there. And you know, I was definitely— functionally I was not employable. I’m pretty sure as a friend, or

any friend of any person probably feel concerned about the financial situation, I guess that at the time he was trying to help me

out on that.

Mr. SHAYS. And I understand they were trying to help you out,

Mr. Huang. And this is a difficult kind of question to raise. But it’s

not unlike trying to help Mr. Hubbell out. You are a key witness

and now we have to determine whether your vulnerability financially doesn’t put you at risk.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Shays, in the event what you’re suggesting is

going to play any role, I probably would not implicate the Riady

family. As I reported to you in whatever they’ve done in the past, you know, that was involving, you know, $800 some thousand in

the past. And I was, you know, cooperating fully with the Justice

Department.

Mr. SHAYS. You see, the challenge that we have, and it is really

part of the public record, and that is that the Riadys have deals

in China.

Mr. HUANG. Um-hmm.

Mr. SHAYS. And it is inevitable, frankly, when you have dealings

with the Chinese, that you are going to be dealing with the military and their intelligence community. That’s a reality. And for me

to make a claim like the Senate report does, that they had these

contacts, is really almost a nonstatement. You’re not going to have

that kind of dealing unless you have that kind of communication

with the businesses that are run by the military and the businesses that are run by the Intelligence Committee, which gets us

into this next question. And that is why would you—what did you

do for the Commerce Department? What was your responsibility

there?

Mr. HUANG. The title is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Economic Policy. Actually my role in the end was—when

I joined in, was assisting Assistant Secretary Chuck Meissner. The

primary role in my function is to—mostly will be on the organization side, did not have any territorial functions. As the IEP, the

international economic policy was—say something was in charge of

Japan and somebody in charge of the Asia Pacific, some people in

charge of the Middle East or Europe, I did not have those kind of

role.

Mr. SHAYS. Then why would you have been—why did you need

top security clearance?

Mr. HUANG. The best I can answer that is Mr. Meissner and I

went in Commerce late. In fact, Mr. Meissner went in even earlier

than I am. That historically functions and duty were taken away

from him. I’m pretty sure he was trying to make every effort to reclaim his responsibility back.

Mr. SHAYS. So you had top security clearance and you were provided information on a weekly basis, on a daily basis? And what

kind of information would you have generally been provided? Not

the specifics.

Mr. HUANG. The most of the information given to me, it’s not on

the, as you say, the daily basis. There’s some material coming in.

369

There will be security briefing by the—I believe the CIA’s person

stationed in the Commerce Department on the more regular basis.

Mr. SHAYS. In a lot of cases this was raw data, correct; this was

not—this was pretty raw data that you were given, very sensitive

data, it also gives you sources of where this information came from.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Shays, I will be very honest with you, I don’t

know how to define what is raw data and not raw data. I never

work in the government before.

Mr. SHAYS. But you were provided not only information as to economic secrets, but also potential sources for this information; is

that not correct?

Mr. HUANG. I think you’re correct on that, yeah.

Mr. SHAYS. And I’m still not clear why you needed that information.

Mr. HUANG. That was given to me by Mr. Meissner.

Mr. SHAYS. But why?

Mr. HUANG. I can’t answer that for Mr. Meissner on that.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield real quick? As I understand it, it didn’t take you long to get your security clearance. In

other words, I was told the process was speeded up. How long from

the time you went to the Department of Commerce until you got

your security clearance?

Mr. HUANG. I did not know for sure, Mr. Chairman, at the time,

but the news accounts indicating that I even got that in January

that year, or the end of January or early February that year.

Mr. BURTON. When did you go to work for them?

Mr. HUANG. Before I went to work for Commerce Department. I

did not even request for——

Mr. BURTON. No. No. Before you went to work for the Commerce

Department, you had a security clearance.

Mr. HUANG. According to the news account. I did not know.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t know when?

Mr. HUANG. I do not know for sure, yeah.

Mr. BURTON. I just want you to know that for us to get security

clearance for our staff, sometimes it takes 3, 4, 5, 6 months, and

they do a very thorough FBI background check. To your knowledge,

did they do any kind of background check or FBI check on you?

Mr. HUANG. Again, I have to say I never work in the government

before. They did ask me to fill out all kind of form. I assume they

will check all my data. It’s very thick forms I had to fill out.

Mr. BURTON. But to your knowledge, you had your security clearance before you even went over to Commerce?

Mr. HUANG. I did not know that part.

Mr. BURTON. But from what you heard, and we’ll check on that,

you had your security clearance when you went to Commerce.

Mr. HUANG. No I did not. I have some clearance on that because

somebody had to check my background. I thought that was all

about.

Mr. BURTON. Did anybody ever interview you at the FBI or anybody else about your background or your connections or whether

you beat your wife or anything?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t beat my wife, by the way.

370

Mr. BURTON. I know you don’t beat your wife. But what I’m saying is did anybody ever interview you about anything regarding security interviews with the FBI?

Mr. HUANG. No, not from the FBI, no.

Mr. BURTON. And you got a security clearance. That’s something

we’re going to have to look into.

Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. I have a new category of questions that I would like

to discuss. And I’m a member of the Natural Resources Committee,

relatively new member. I would like to ask you a few questions

about the Riadys and their coal interests.

Mr. HUANG. Coal interests, OK.

Mr. SOUDER. Could you explain a little bit of what your understanding is of what the Riadys own in Indonesia related to the coal

industry?

Mr. HUANG. That was long, long before. I didn’t even know what,

whether he really had any substantial interest in coal. I think they

have some coal mines way early back into late seventies or early

sixties. I know for fact probably they don’t own any coal mine at

the time when this issue was—you know, occurred.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know anything about the P.T. Kitadin Mining Co?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, there was a company under Lippo Group in

early stage. That was—I think that might be related to the coal

mine, coal mining interest that they own.

Mr. SOUDER. You say it was at the early stages of Lippo. And to

your knowledge, at wasn’t functioning during this period, or that

was——

Mr. HUANG. My best guess is that during that period we’re talking about this event in 1996, I don’t—because in the group literature is never mentioned about the company’s name any further.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know where its mines were located or anything about the value of their deposits?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know about those, no.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know anything about the Lippo Group

whether they owned the P.T. Adaro Mining Co?

Mr. HUANG. That I don’t know.

Mr. SOUDER. In your interview with the Justice Department or

the FBI, you stated that Mr. Riady’s coal interests were minimal

and that Indonesia had significant infrastructure problems that

prohibited the development of the country’s coal resources.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did say that. Yeah. I will explain to you further why I thought that. Because Mr. Riady, Sr., in the early

stages he mentioned that the coal mining they did could not even

come out to the big ship. So the ship would have to dock in the

deep water ocean area. They would have to have some kind of

barge, a small boat, and load it back and forth. That’s what I

meant that the facility was not that well.

Mr. SOUDER. Are there other companies in Indonesia that are a

lot bigger than the Riadys’ coal holdings, than P.T. Kitadin or P.T.

Adaro?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know about that. I don’t know about that.

Mr. SOUDER. The reason is, were you aware that Indonesia is the

fourth largest exporter of coal in the world?

371

Mr. HUANG. I’m aware they’re large. I don’t know their ranking

though, yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. And the problem that we’re trying to work through

here is to try to reconcile—yes, they have infrastructure problems,

which of course can be fixed over time, but already they’re the

fourth largest coal exporter in the world; in fact, of low sulfur coal.

That’s its most environmentally, what, appropriate, sensitive.

They’re the second largest holder in the world of this low sulfur

coal. Were you aware of that?

Mr. HUANG. I was not aware of that.

Mr. SOUDER. Your testimony is that you do not know this. But

P.T. Kitadin and P.T. Adaro were two companies that owned and

we are trying to figure out how much of that they own because it

is the second largest resources in the world. And the political problem here and what there has been a lot of debate about is that the

largest resources in the world in Utah were pulled off during this

time period.

I would like to, at least, put in the record some of our concern

and then ask followup. And there is not really any short way to do

it. I would just like to put this in the record. And that is, September 18, 1996, the President unilaterally established a 1.7 million

acre Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in southern

Utah.

Now, we have battled with whether or not this is an appropriate

use of the national monument. The area is a beautiful area. And

you could argue either way whether this should be part of our national monument park wilderness system. And quite frankly, this

President has shown a willingness to take almost any park or area

and turn it into a wilderness area. And furthermore, they had a

great picture that ran in the front page in color in my home newspaper of Vice President Gore doing a signing with the Grand Canyon in the background, so they got a good political hit.

But it appears there was more to it than that. Because a 1997

congressional investigation learned that, for example, Kathleen

McGinty, in correspondence, the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, stated, ‘‘I am increasingly of the view that we

should just drop these Utah ideas. These lands are not really in

danger because they are under the Federal Government control.

They were not in danger. So why did they need to be a national

monument.’’

Then further investigation revealed that it was to protect the

land from coal mining. In fact, at the signing ceremony, the President said it was to protect this from Dutch coal companies. The

mining was conducted by a Dutch coal company, Andalex, and was

strictly of the areas of vast reserve of clean-burning, low sulfur

coal, some of the most environmentally sensitive.

Then, furthermore, this is what ties in because he did not have

a traditional national monument justification. Even his own administration in correspondence said they did not do it. Then he actually went at the signing ceremony and said this is because of the

coal and what in effect he did was pull the largest resource of this

coal mining off the market, which could have been for a number

of reasons, which I grant, but happened to then make the IndoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00375 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
372

nesian holdings the largest holdings in the world of this low sulfur

coal.

This happens to coincide is, after $2.5 million had gone in from

related organizations into the campaign from 1992 to 1996,

$450,000 was given to Clinton immediately after the creation of the

monument. And furthermore, on top of that, we had the money

that we were talking about earlier that went to Webb Hubbell. So

it is at least something that many people wonder about because it

was such an unusual, extraordinary, and not really defensible position and in the normal course of things of why he did it. Although,

it could have been for campaign reasons. I grant it, it could be others. But it looks very suspicious.

Now, what I would like to know is that, at any time with your

work with the Lippo Group, did you hear this type of thing discussed? Was this part of the multiplicity of interests? Earlier you

testified that Mr. Riady had a multiplicity of interests in getting

involved in campaigns and trying to get influence with the government. Was coal mining one of those interests?

Mr. HUANG. No, that subject never came up, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield to me for 10 seconds?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, I yield to you.

Mr. WAXMAN. I just want to report to you that on July 24, 1997,

according to the Washington Times, certainly a conservative newspaper, it says, ‘‘Congress checks Lippo link to clean coal.’’ And they

said, after receiving hundreds of pages of administration documents turned over to congressional investigators, the Washington

Times said they saw no Lippo connection.

Thank you for yielding to me. I just wanted to put that on the

record.

Mr. HUANG. I’m sorry.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you have any further comments on that?

Mr. HUANG. No, coal issue never came up.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you have any discussions at any time about the

Escalante National Monument?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. SOUDER. Were you familiar that that was occurring?

Mr. HUANG. No, I don’t.

Mr. SOUDER. When you were a representative in Asia for, as I

understand the historic record, the Worthen Bank that became

part of the Lippo organizations——

Mr. HUANG. Lippo had some investment interests in the Worthen

Bank jointly with the Stephens, Inc.

Mr. SOUDER. And that Lippo had interests with Stephens. Let

me not get diverted in Stephens for a second. But you represent

their Asian interests.

Did that include Indonesia?

Mr. HUANG. No. I represent for the Worthen Bank as a Far East

representative when I was in Hong Kong.

Mr. SOUDER. Did that include Indonesia?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. SOUDER. Far East. When you say ‘‘Far East’’ in Hong Kong.

Mr. HUANG. I was the representative in the Worthen Bank for

Far East area.

373

Mr. SOUDER. And by Far East, in definition, it would have included Indonesia?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right. Indonesia, Hong Kong, China, whatever.

Mr. SOUDER. And in those Far Eastern interests, at any time was

that related to coal?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. SOUDER. So coal never came up as an interest to any of the

people?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you know or did you ever hear that Mr. Hubbell, who worked at the Rose law firm at that time, and you said

he represented some of Lippo interests, whether he ever had anything to do with the Lippo interests in coal? Because as Mr. Waxman pointed out and you said earlier, it does not appear there were

active coal mining interests at the time of the Escalante decision

but that Lippo had interests that were relevantly, we do not know

whether they were dormant, in other words, they could not get access to their land and they were just a holding company at this

point, or whether they had sold them off it would be interesting to

know.

But what we do know is that in this earlier period when you

worked with Worthen Bank and when Mr. Hubbell did, that there

were interests in coal.

Do you know whether Mr. Hubbell had anything to do with those

interests?

Mr. HUANG. I do not know.

Mr. SOUDER. So this is something that I still find disturbing, but

I appreciated your answering those questions because many Americans were trying and still are trying to figure out how all of a sudden we wind up with this huge national monument, much of which

is clearly environmentally precious area that would be protected,

but a lot of it was pretty marginal and when, in fact, we had major

United States resources pulled off the market and the primary beneficiary is Indonesia. And we would still like to figure out how that

happened. Whether or not it was Mr. Riady, it may have been

other interests, as well. So thank you for your responses.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you, Mr. Souder.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Huang, I have some questions about Pauline Kanchanalak.

Before I ask those questions, I want to report to my friend, Mr.

Waxman, that during one of the breaks I called my office about Mr.

Solomon’s 302s and when I told them staff reception Rayburn, midthirties, dark hair, they said that if he was also wearing a Navy

blue suit they think they know who he is.

I have a couple of observations that I would make about Pauline

Kanchanalak. She was at, as we already established, at the head

table at the event on February 19 that we have talked a lot about.

I want to focus on another date, June 18, 1996, a coffee, one of the

infamous coffees at the White House. And Pauline Kanchanalak

was in fact involved with the coffee on June 18, 1996, at the White

House, was she not?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, sir.

374

Mr. LATOURETTE. And did you arrange and work with her on

June 18th in preparation for that coffee fundraising event?

Mr. HUANG. I did work with her, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Exhibit 441, if you could flip in your programs

to 441, is a briefing paper for the President of the United States

prepared, by I suppose, the Democratic National Committee. It is

dated June 6, 1996. I would ask if you helped prepare this briefing

paper as part of your role at the Democratic National Committee?

[Exhibit 441 follows:]

375

376

377

Mr. HUANG. Exhibit 441, sir?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Exhibit 441, right. I think I have the number

right.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I’m looking at it right now.

Mr. LATOURETTE. That’s fine. Take your time. Did you help prepare that document?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you know who did prepare it?

Mr. HUANG. Excuse me, Congressman. Are you talking about exhibit 441, the following page of 441, the chart, right?

Mr. LATOURETTE. The chart.

Mr. HUANG. I did not prepare 441.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The document 441, regardless of who prepared

it, projects that the coffee to be held on June 18, 1996, would bring

in an estimated $400,000. Do you see that?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you know how that projected figure was determined?

Mr. HUANG. This is not the first coffee event that the DNC had.

DNC had quite a few—I shouldn’t say many—quite a few coffees

previously. Essentially, through those events, they were trying to

inspire some people to come in and have a chance to have a meeting with the Chief Executive of the country or Vice President and

hopefully we can inspire these people to later on make contribution. But generally for those kind of events they would target—the

target, hopefully, after these coffees they can raise approximately

$500,000.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But in particular, when they were talking

about this, and I understand the purpose behind the coffees, but

somebody said, you know, like any fundraising event they say, we

hope to raise $1,000 or $5,000. Somebody thought that you could

raise $400,000 at the June 18th coffee or the $400,000 could be realized for the campaign as a result of the contacts made at the coffee. I am asking you how that figure was determined. Do you

know?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I do.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Why don’t you tell us.

Mr. HUANG. This was Ms. Kanchanalak, she would like to have

a coffee. She said she would like to, you know, raise this amount

of money.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And then so that figure came from Pauline

Kanchanalak?

Mr. HUANG. It is her idea she wanted to have coffee and somehow she knew about roughly doing coffees how much she was willing to raise that kind of money.

Mr. LATOURETTE. As we already established, as a result of her

attendance at the event in February, you had a misimpression as

to her immigration status or citizen status at this period of time,

right?

Mr. HUANG. In fact, the impression was way earlier back in 1992

when first time I met with her.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Today, as we sit here in Washington, you know

that in 1996 she was not a citizen of the United States?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

378

Mr. LATOURETTE. Nor a green card recipient?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Now, Richard Sullivan already testified and he

testified that originally at this coffee there were only eight invitees

or eight people to be in attendance at this coffee on June 18th:

President Clinton; yourself; Donald Fowler, who is the chairman of

the Democratic National Committee; Marvin Rosen, who was the

finance chairman; Pauline Kanchanalak; and then three additional

individuals, Khun Dhanin, Khun Sumet, and Khun Sarasin I believe.

Does that fit with your recollection? Is that true?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is a pretty small group. That was the

original group that was to be present?

Mr. HUANG. That was not original group to be present.

Mr. LATOURETTE. That was?

Mr. HUANG. Was not.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Who else was going to come?

Mr. HUANG. Apparently when we planned this kind of event you

supposedly have a target, potential guest list being presented. So

originally I think few weeks, maybe a couple weeks earlier, maybe

even 3 weeks earlier there was a list. I request Pauline to come up.

I believe she faxed to me. That list of the names is different from

the final names on the list who actually attended that coffee event.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right, more people eventually attended than I

just read to you. But my question was, Mr. Sullivan testified that,

and we are going to get into why more people eventually showed

up, but it was his recollection that this was the group that was

originally going to be there and then some people had some questions and concerns about it when they said, yikes, other than DNC

officials, there is not a U.S. citizen in the batch. And so I am asking you if that is true or not. Is Mr. Sullivan’s recollection correct

based upon your own?

Mr. HUANG. He did not really express that to me. I am going to

go back to why I am saying original list is important. Original list

was involving quite a lot of American businessmen. Ms.

Kanchanalak was also involved in United States-Thai and business

counsel so we had a lot of members coming from American side.

Apparently she had the intention to invite some of those members

on American side to attend. The lists were coming down, some of

the guests you just mentioned, the names are very long, I could not

even pronounced them right at this time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Again, going to Mr. Sullivan, and for the

record, who is Richard Sullivan?

Mr. HUANG. He was the director of finance at DNC.

Mr. LATOURETTE. According to Mr. Sullivan’s deposition that he

delivered over to the Senate, he stated that he grew concerned that

the Kanchanalak coffee, and apparently was it ever known as the

Kanchanalak coffee this June 18th event? Did people start calling

it the Kanchanalak coffee as opposed to the coffee at the White

House?

Mr. HUANG. This is the first time I heard that it called

Kanchanalak coffee.

379

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Well, he indicated in his deposition that

he was concerned, he grew concerned that Kanchanalak intended

to invite only her foreign clients to the June 18 coffee.

Did anyone mention that concern to you?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t recall that, no.

Mr. LATOURETTE. He also indicated to you that he expressed concern to you, this is Mr. Sullivan talking again, about Kanchanalak

using the coffee for an improper purpose by inviting only foreign

businessmen.

Do you recall Mr. Sullivan telling you that?

Mr. HUANG. I do not recall that, no.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Is it true, based upon your remembrance of

this particular fundraising event, that Kanchanalak was in fact

using the coffee for an improper purpose?

Mr. HUANG. At the time, no.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you believe so today based upon what you

know? Or what are you telling, at the time you did not think so

but maybe you do now?

Mr. HUANG. At the time I did not think so.

Mr. LATOURETTE. How do you feel about it today?

Mr. HUANG. The reason, she was not eligible to give, so that’s not

proper already.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Sullivan testified also and I want to read

you part of his deposition,

When John came up with a preliminary list of who she was going to bring, it included—the list was her and the three—the three people from Thailand. I said, John

that’s not—I recall saying, John, that’s not what we’re looking for. I don’t want to

get—I said, I would prefer, you know—I was thinking she was bringing in some people, fellow people, that she would be working with in fundraising, some people that

might be potential donors, American citizens. We wanted potential donors and to

tell her to at least to get some more American citizens, more potential donors, more

people who are of greater use to us down the road.

Did he say that to you?

Mr. HUANG. If he did say that, I could not recall that, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Sullivan indicated that not only did he say

that to you but you said that the coffee was very, very important

to Pauline Kanchanalak and that you and Kanchanalak were adamant about having the coffee and insisted that the CP group

businesspersons be permitted to attend.

Is this true?

Mr. HUANG. Part of the statement what you are saying, the point

you raised is like this, it is important to Pauline. Pauline did indicate to me this is going to be very important to her. But

culturewise, I would not really, you know, go in the confrontational

basis to anybody on that. Especially Pauline, you know, has records

at that time to, you know, what was giving a lot of money in the

past before.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Then that goes to the next point. Again Mr.

Sullivan’s deposition indicated that it is the only time that he can

recall that you expressed some emotion about a particular event.

And according to him you said something about the effect of,

You know, you know, Richard, Pauline has been a big contributor, a big supporter, and it goes back to Vick Rasier and Ron Brown and she is very high maintenance. She has been good to us and she is making—she is going to be good to us

and help us in the fall. This is important to her and I feel strongly about it.

380

Does that pretty much fit with what you were just saying?

Mr. HUANG. May not be the exact language, but the meaning

probably is that I did indicate the importance of Pauline.

Now, what I would like to supplement to the committee is, Pauline has been quoted by the DNC, other members of the finance

committee, to come up with money, without much success. Pauline

to me personally said, these people always want to give money and

I don’t get any benefit on that. So, therefore, that’s how I was approached, she said, John, I want to work with you on that basis.

This is how that happened.

That’s why I was sort of advocating certain points on her behalf.

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Ms. Norton, it is nice to have you here. And you have 5 minutes

and probably more if you would ask for it.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Huang, in the press—there have been indications made in

the press about whether you had any agreement with people to violate or circumvent campaign rules and regulations. I am not sure

I have seen that in any previous statements, so let me ask you

straightforwardly.

Did you, in fact, have any conversation or meeting with Mr.

Riady where the two of you discussed violating or circumventing

campaign rules and regulations?

Mr. HUANG. Congresswoman, just a second, please.

Congresswoman, there was no specific discussion in that kind of

language to say we’re going to violate the rules or not.

Ms. NORTON. Or circumvent the rules?

Mr. HUANG. Or circumvent the rules.

Mr. SHAYS. Would the gentlelady yield just for the benefit of the

gentleman, not to interrupt you.

But given your testimony so far, I just wondered if you want to

reconsider your answer. Do you want time to just talk to your

counsel on this issue? I just think it might give the wrong impression.

Ms. NORTON. If I could clarify my own question. Because much

of what we believe we know about this matter comes from the

press, and I am specifically concerned about whether you had any

agreement with people to violate or circumvent campaign rules or

regulations, as the press has implied.

I have looked at Mr. Huang’s prior statements and I have not

found that, and I want to know whether I have missed it or whether there was indeed any conversation or any meeting where there

was a discussion of circumventing campaign rules and regulations.

You have been admonished to be careful. I am looking to see

whether there was any such agreement between the two of you.

Mr. HUANG. Congresswoman——

Ms. NORTON. Let me make sure you understand. I am aware of

what you have pleaded to. I am aware of your actions. We are trying to ascertain the extent to which Mr. Riady was involved in an

agreement to circumvent campaign rules and regulations.

Mr. HUANG. To answer your question, Congresswoman, I plead

guilty to agreeing to violating the rules. And also, I can do it, you

know, it is about $800 some thousand, maybe around that figure.

381

But there was never explicit use of the terms of what you have

mentioned.

Ms. NORTON. If one looks at the Senate testimony from July

1997, a former Lippo Bank official testified that the Lippo Bank

did not receive any benefits either financially or in the form of regulatory assistance.

Now, when you made political contributions, did you do so with

the intention that the Lippo Bank or any other Lippo entity would

receive favors or benefits as a result?

Mr. HUANG. Congresswoman, the contribution would benefit

Lippo Group in general. Since Lippo Bank California is one of the

units of the Lippo Group, certainly Lippo Bank get some sort of

benefit. But I don’t know. I can’t specifically mention anything at

this point, you know, what the bank was benefited right now.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. Let me just take a couple minutes here

for some questions. You told us that you identified an additional $700,000 or $800,000 in illegal contributions to the Justice Department between 1992 and 1994; is that correct? I think you said it was in

addition to the $156,000 that you pled to, $700,000 to $800,00. Is

that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Do you include in that total the $450,000 that

James and Aileen Riady gave to State parties in 1992?

Mr. HUANG. That is not.

Mr. BURTON. So in addition to $700,000 to $800,000, there is another $450,000 that they gave to State parties?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Those were illegal contributions, as well?

Mr. HUANG. At the time, Mr. Chairman, Mr. James Riady had

the legal status in the United States as a PR, a green card, and

so does Aileen Riady at that time.

Mr. BURTON. It is my information that Mr. Riady had not been

a permanent resident of the United States for a couple of years in

1992, he had abandoned his residence, he was outside the country

for at least 2 years or about 2 years.

Mr. HUANG. The only thing I can report, Mr. Chairman, is the

knowledge I know is that Mr. Riady in 1992 he had a green card

with him.

Mr. BURTON. Was he living in the United States?

Mr. HUANG. He had a residence.

Mr. BURTON. Was he living in the United States? According to

the information we have, he had been living in Indonesia for about

2 years and had abandoned his residence by 1992 and was not living in the United States.

You were working for him. You must have known where he lived.

He was not living in the United States.

Mr. HUANG. He was traveling back and forth. When he was in

the United States, he would use his residence, though. That’s the

only thing I can answer to you.

Mr. BURTON. Where was his family?

Mr. HUANG. His family was traveling with him.

Mr. BURTON. So everybody lived on an airplane.

382

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Where did he spend most of his time?

Mr. HUANG. At that period of time he spent more time in Indonesia.

Mr. BURTON. So he was living in Indonesia, but when he came

here, he was staying at a residence here?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct. But he also had a green card with

him.

Mr. BURTON. I think we are splitting hairs here. The fact is that

he was not a permanent resident of the United States.

Did the Justice Department tell you that they considered this

$450,000 in contributions he made to the State parties illegal?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, to answer your question, they did

ask about it, you know, and we also explained to them. I didn’t believe they expressed an opinion on that.

Mr. BURTON. They did not express an opinion about whether or

not it was illegal or not for him to give them money?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. BURTON. Earlier you said that James Riady could not make

contributions when you were at the DNC because he had abandoned his permanent residence, is that right, here in the United

States?

Mr. HUANG. I did not ask him. He did not have any legal status,

so there is no point.

Mr. BURTON. Did he still have that place he visited and stayed

at when he came to the United States?

Mr. HUANG. I think the residence was still maintained, yes.

Mr. BURTON. So he still had the residence just like he did back

in 1990 and 1991 and so forth when he flew back and forth. But

now, once you are at the DNC, you are saying he did not have legal

status?

Mr. HUANG. He did not have the green card.

Mr. BURTON. He gave his green card back?

Mr. HUANG. I believe so.

Mr. BURTON. I see. So that is the difference, he gave his green

card back. But the fact is he has lived as a permanent resident

since about 1990 in Indonesia, he just traveled back and forth.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. So the $450,000 that he gave to State parties was

given when he had a green card but he was living in Indonesia?

Mr. HUANG. Most of the time, yes.

Mr. BURTON. I want to go into a number of questions, but I think

what I will do now is yield to Mr. Shays because I want to get into

the Hsi Lai Temple and the contributions that took place and that

is going to be quite lengthy. And so I will go to Mr. Shays now.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Huang, I just want to clarify something I did not

think we needed to go over but I want to be somewhat specific. I

mean, the sense I had with you, without going into every bloody

detail, was that you had decided to find a way to have Mr. Riady

carry out on his million dollar contribution effort to the President.

So now I want to ask you some specific questions. Because my view

to the questions I asked was I asked was this a team effort and

you said yes.

383

Did you inform James Riady of every contribution made on behalf of the Lippo Group?

Mr. HUANG. During 1992——

Mr. SHAYS. 1993 and 1994, yeah.

Mr. HUANG. I’m trying to answer. 1994, for instance, there is a

Lippo executive who made a contribution, or I solicited from them

to give a check to me. I did have on occasion to mention to him,

say each and every individual.

Mr. SHAYS. How did you do this?

Mr. HUANG. Through phone.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you provide Mr. Riady with precise information

on each contributor?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you tell the Justice Department that James

Riady had enough time to write down all of the information on

each contribution?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

Mr. SHAYS. Did Mr. Riady record all the information you gave

him?

Mr. HUANG. As far as I understand. But he was on the other side

of the phone and I did not see him.

Mr. SHAYS. Does this apply to all Lippo-related contributions in

1992, 1993, and 1994?

Mr. HUANG. Basically, you’re correct on that, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. So the bottom line is both of you were working together to find a way to have them carry out this pledge and you

worked hand-in-hand in this effort. That is true, isn’t it?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. He was aware of what I was doing, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And he had to implement what you were doing and

he had to make sure those individuals were reimbursed; isn’t that

correct?

Mr. HUANG. To affirmatively answer to some of the people, I

know they were reimbursed. But some of the people I did not know,

but I assumed they were.

Mr. SHAYS. You assumed they were and that was the basis. I

thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. BURTON. Let me ask a couple of questions here, unless are

you ready for more questioning, Mr. Souder?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. But you can go ahead.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, you indicated you had questions

that were going to be somewhat lengthy on the Hsi Lai Temple.

Mr. BURTON. Yes. I think I’ll defer on those until tomorrow.

Mr. WAXMAN. I was going to suggest that if you could ask those

questions now, we can get those questions on the record. Mr.

Huang has been here, I think it has been 11 hours, maybe 12 by

the time you are finished with those questions; and I think he answered almost everything that anybody could think to ask him. But

I am sure there are other questions. Maybe we could then submit

questions in writing and have him respond for the record. He did

say he is testifying next week again in Los Angeles on this matter.

Mr. BURTON. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. But it seems to me that——

384

Mr. BURTON. We have waited 3 years for Mr. Huang and we are

going to complete the questioning tomorrow or Saturday. We are

going to try to get it all done. We need these questions answered

as thoroughly as possible for the record. And then after we get

these answers for the record, we are going to go over them with

a fine-tooth comb and check them against other things. So we do

not want to do it in writing. We want to do it in a very thorough

and meticulous way. So we are going to proceed.

Let me take 5 minutes now, unless there is objection.

Mr. Huang, we were talking about your severance package some

time ago. Did that cover all your political contributions for you and

your wife in 1994? I believe you said yes.

Mr. HUANG. I did say yes.

Mr. BURTON. How much did it cost you to maintain your two

homes in California?

Mr. HUANG. It varies because I had variable mortgage rates.

Mr. BURTON. I know. But give me a rough idea each year how

much you had to pay to maintain those homes in California.

Mr. HUANG. Anywhere from, monthly, probably between $8,000 and $10,000.

Mr. BURTON. Well, the records we have say you said it cost $137,000 per year to maintain the homes. Is that about right?

Mr. HUANG. Including other maintenance and expenses, probably

that’s correct, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Your salary was $127,000 a year. How did you do

that?

Mr. HUANG. To answer the question, you have to give me a little

time to give you some background on this. If you allow me to do

that.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, go ahead.

Mr. HUANG. The two houses actually I had the chance to own in

the concurrent time did not start until the latter part of 1989 and

forwards until last year. To understand that, we have to go back

to how I got involved in those two houses in the first place.

As I reported to the committee, I was working in Hong Kong between 1983, and actually my family stayed all the way through

1987, although in 1986 I was working in the United States. Being

No. 1, being in the United States for all these years, I really appreciate the country offering me the opportunities. I got married and

worked and also had to save some money and also invest some

money in the stock market, have a little savings there before I

went to Hong Kong.

Now, the law allow, if I understand correctly, when people working overseas the income up to, say, $70,000 or $75,000 would be

totally tax exempt. So I enjoyed that kind of benefit. Working during that period of time, virtually the rent for the apartment in

Hong Kong was paid for by the corporate entity and the school expenses for the children also being paid by the corporate entity. And

also there is a car involved. And even that, my wife and I did not

really chose to hire maid, we were working for ourselves.

So, basically, in that period of time, most of the income was captured as a saving basis, did not really go to a lot of expenses, like

most of the time like when we living in the United States, you

know, pay a lot of things.

385

Mr. BURTON. So how much did you save?

Mr. HUANG. Between $70,000 and $75,000. Very easily that amount was paid during that period of time probably go over $200

some thousand. Now, in 1987 when I brought my family back here,

that was the tail end in California of the real estate boom. We have

a Congressman here from California who can probably testify to

that as well. I took the opportunity to take some risks at that time.

For instance, the first home we got was in Cerritos in 1987. I be- lieve I put in something like $70,000 or maybe even $90,000 as a

down, and I borrowed the money for the remaining of the house of

$393,000 plus some closing cost expenses. That’s small relatively.

And in the meantime we found out in the Cerritos area where

we lived, although very nice, but I was working basically in Chinatown, downtown in Los Angeles, and the commuting time was quite

horrendous. So we were looking for someplace a little bit closer to

where I was working at that time. So we had to have a place to

live. So we liked Cerritos, the environment was good, so we bought

a home.

At the same time, my wife and I was using the remaining of the

savings or at least a part of the savings to find out that in the

Glendale location there was a new development over there. We

were talking to the sales agent at one time, and next thing we

know the price had gone up $20,000 or $30,000. So we got a message on that. So we took a very big gamble and say we probably

like to live in the Glendale area because from there to downtown

is only about 15 minutes driving and the area is very near, it is

a mountain area. So we used the money to put a contract to construct two homes in the concurrent time.

One was the city view, the much better. The other one was with

a mountain view. Because we did not know which one in the end

we were going to live in. So by the time the house was finished,

we decided we would put our Cerritos home, which I bought at

about $393,000, on the market and I sold for over $555,000 in less

than 1 year time.

And in the meantime, the two contracts I did put in those two

houses being constructed in Glendale, the contract price, one was

$595,000 and the other one was $599,000. And finally we decide to

sell one of the house and we decide to live in one. And we put that

house on the market. I believe we sold in a few months for about

$840 some thousand.

So through this combination of things, there would be money

stashed away for us and I was very fortunate at the time on that.

Mr. BURTON. So when you went to the Department of Commerce

and you were making around, what, $60,000 or $70,000, how much

were you making at the Department of Commerce?

Mr. HUANG. In the Commerce Department I was making close to

$110,000, $120,000.

Mr. BURTON. $120,000.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. Chairman, I did not really finish what I was trying to say.

Mr. BURTON. I think we have the general idea. But go ahead if

you would like to finish.

Mr. HUANG. Yeah. And I also call the sort of the human nature,

I thought this was going to continue moving forward. I sold one

386

house already. I had more money. They were selling the last lot in

the development area. So my wife said, Why don’t we get that one?

Hopefully, by the time we are finished with that one, we can decide. That one has larger, city view. Also smaller one is city view

was $800 some thousand already. So I want to get into that one.

I will hope when I finish we can sell one of them and get more

profit on that basis.

Then we got caught and the boom ended. With all the intention

of only own one house, but at that time we ended up with two

houses. Now you go into the weakness of human nature. You say,

well next year it is going to be better. Next year it is going to be

better. But next year never came for a period of time.

Yet I was traveling, doing all different things. When I got the

final home when I was working in New York, was traveling back

and forth, I never had time to take care of that. In the meantime,

you always hope the best, next year is going to come better.

So, basically, from that time, all the money I was making I decide to get it back because you have to carry those two houses. As

you mentioned, it is not really cheap to maintain those two houses.

Mr. BURTON. So when you went to the DNC, you were making, what, about $60,000 a year?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. You went from $110,000 down to $60,000. And you have been maintaining two homes at about $137,000 a year. Now

you’re living off the money you made from those previously; is that

what you’re saying?

Mr. HUANG. This is not true. Part of the moneys are being used,

maybe still have residual moneys. But the key point is the help

came in from the severance pay, remember, in 1994 I got from the

Lippo Group?

Mr. BURTON. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. That was about another $240,000 or $250,000 coming in. That gave me the breathing room for the following few

years. So that carried on for a few more years until 1996. Because

I think the campaign at the DNC is only for a short period of time.

Afterwards I either going to find another job or go back to the government or whatever it is. Then my financial condition will be restored on the normal basis and I can carry on on a normal basis.

But this thing erupt, so I was functionally unemployable during

the past few years. The crunch time really came in 1998. And I

have to be very truthful to you, I virtually had to borrow money

from people. And then when you really made a determination, luckily the real estate market start gradually turning around a little

bit.

So in 1998, exactly about a year and month ago, we sold the

house and did not lose money. We were able to get all of our equity

back. And also I sold another investment which my wife and I were

carrying when we were living in D.C. area back in the seventies,

sold one of the rental homes as well. We were using those kind of

money to pay off the debts and pay off my living expenses, legal

expenses. That’s how it become.

Mr. BURTON. All of the bonuses that you received, the $20,000

this year or the money—you got $20,000 from the Riadys, I guess this year in 1999, and $18,000 last year; is that correct?

387

Mr. HUANG. That is not a bonus. That is a gift.

Mr. BURTON. Did you get any other gifts or bonuses like that?

Mr. HUANG. During this couple years, sir?

Mr. BURTON. Well, in the last several years.

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t recall anyone else giving money.

Mr. BURTON. On the bonuses you received from the Lippo Group,

the Riadys, you said sometimes you got money in cash from some

people, the $18,000, $20,000, did you report all of that on your income taxes?

Mr. HUANG. No, that was a gift. It was not a bonus, sir. In other

words, the gifts to—in other words, as far as I learn, you know, I

am entitled to receive gifts of less than $10,000 without even reporting anything.

Mr. BURTON. And you do not pay taxes on that?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. Did you borrow any money from Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not borrow from him.

Mr. BURTON. Those gifts were $20,000, you said, and $18,000?

Mr. HUANG. In different years.

Mr. BURTON. In different years. And you said if it is under

$10,000 you don’t have to report it?

Mr. HUANG. For two persons, one for my wife, for each person.

Actually, the money went to my wife did not come to me, but I am

reporting it because I consider my wife is part of me, and so I just

mention to you, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. As is always true, when people abuse power higher

up and people along the road wind up abusing power, too, there is

really sad family tragedies.

I think one of the things that touched me most in all these hearings, I was talking 1 day to Johnny Chung in between some meetings and he told how he would go down to the pier in San Diego

and always loved to fish there with his son, but after this broke,

he could not go there because the media was there; and one of the

things that he missed most was being able to fish with his son.

He also said that all the people that used to welcome him over

at the White House and Mrs. Clinton’s office and other places, he

said, they don’t consider me a friend anymore.

Those are tough times. It happened in Watergate, too, when

there were tons of people who lost everything they had, some of

whom were marginal players, some of whom were bigger players,

and some of whom really deserved what happened to them.

I do not know for sure where all you fall, but I am sorry for your

personal struggles.

Mr. HUANG. Well, I thank you for bringing up, Mr. Souder. In

fact, my lawyer didn’t even know when this so-called treason thing

came up. And my son received a call. Somebody called and said

something, that apparently treason is death by hanging, you know,

just openly spoke through the phone. And my son told me very

nervously on that basis.

Certain thing it did happen. If I’m allowed to make a few points

here, more personal things, I never proclaimed that life is going to

be fair and people are going to be fair, all life is going to be smooth.

388

If I did not come to work in the government and did not come

to work for DNC, probably I working for other profession. I will

meet other challenges, as well. The key when we face the challenges, we have to honestly to the best of ourselves to face the challenge and then get it over with. That would be one event in your

life. Because the event is not going to last you for life because you

have many more years to go in your life. Hopefully you can get it

over with as quickly as possible.

This is the thing, that’s the attitude I’m taking. Certainly I was

sorry. I made a mistake. I create a lot of notoriety. I caused a lot

of pain for a lot of people. But I did it, so I’m trying to correct it

as much as I can on that basis.

Mr. SOUDER. One of the things that I hope you understand, too,

is that it is not always comfortable being in our position in trying

to get to this. But there are a number of issues that we are at the

edges of here. The most probably significant thing to the United

States of America is the fact that, for whatever reason, incompetence, virtual slobbering over increased trade to China, and possible decisions that were made inside this administration that may

have been influenced by money, have potentially lost every nuclear

secret we have in this country; and my son and my children could

die because of that.

So in addition to whatever problems you have and the individuals that get involved in these investigations, in fact, somewhere

along the line all of our families have been put at risk.

Furthermore, when decisions are unilaterally made by an administration regarding coal policy, and they take other people’s assets

who invested much money in these companies and hoped to do

that; in addition there are many people involved who were following laws on political campaigns and they try to run campaigns and

that leads to employment for different people and they may have

lost their jobs.

There are lots of different stories. But I think, I myself am a

Christian, and I think anybody whose heart does not go out to you

as an individual is insensitive. But there are, I think, larger questions that we need to pursue.

Mr. HUANG. Right. I fully agree with you, you know, Congressman. That’s why I’m here and hopefully can make a satisfactory

conclusion afterwards.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, thank you.

I now have another series of questions and they relate to what

we referred to a couple of times as the Wiriadinata contributions.

And I apologize if I mispronounce it. But I get called at least half

the time Sooder rather than Souder. My name is not as complicated, but we all do that. I will do the best I can. If I make any

errors, please forgive me.

Could you explain how you met them?

Mr. HUANG. I met the—let me call the first name, probably be

easier because the last name is very long. Would you agree? Would

that be OK with you?

I think the man’s name is Arief and the wife’s name is Soraya.

So it is much shorter and easier.

The first time I met with the couple was in the summer of 1994,

not too far after I joined the Commerce Department.

389

Soraya’s father is Mr. Hasjim Ning, as you know very well already. Apparently he travel around the world very, very regularly.

And he has got daughters here in Virginia in addition to Soraya.

I have learned other daughters are coming from different mother

from the other two sisters living in this neighborhood.

The summer Mr. Hasjim Ning suffered a heart attack. So he immediately went to the hospital. So out of that kind of concern, and

I happened to be here in Washington, and so I was contacted indirectly or directly by Mr. Riady, indicating would I could extend

some courtesy to visit to Mr. Hasjim Ning on that basis. Besides,

I met Mr. Hasjim Ning during some kind of group kind of meeting

back in Indonesia.

So in the hospital, that was the first time I met with the couple.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the gentleman

an additional 5 minutes to pursue his investigation.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

Mr. SOUDER. Could you look at exhibit No. 210? This is a letter

from President Clinton to Dr. Ning. Did you request that letter?

[Exhibit 210 follows:]

390

391

Mr. HUANG. I did not request that letter.

Mr. SOUDER. Did Mr. Riady request the letter? Do you know who

requested the letter?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know whether that was Mr. Riady’s suggestion, let me go straightforward—straight suggestion to Mr. Mark

Middleton. Hopefully he might be able to get something like this

to show some gesture to make him feel better on that.

Mr. SOUDER. So you were approached by Mr. Middleton.

On exhibit 211 there is a letter from Dr. Ning to President Clinton. This is dated September 5th.

Do you know how long Dr. Ning took in recovering?

[Exhibit 211 follows:]

392

393

Mr. HUANG. I am not sure he really recovered. He was constantly

a little bit better and then worse, that kind of situation. But he

was here for quite a few months.

Mr. SOUDER. And in the letter it says it thanked the President

for Mr. Middleton’s visit.

Were you with Mr. Middleton when he visited the hospital?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, we did.

Mr. SOUDER. Anyone else with the two of you?

Mr. HUANG. No, just Middleton and himself and myself.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know whether the President requested Mr.

Middleton to go?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t believe that was the case; no, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you or anyone else make an effort to have Vice

President Gore visit the hospital?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. SOUDER. In exhibit 212, it is a November 8, 1995 letter from

President Clinton to Dr. Ning sent to Mark Middleton—do you

know why it was sent to Mr. Middleton?

[Exhibit 212 follows:]

394

395

Mr. HUANG. I do not know. This is the first time I have seen this

letter, though.

Mr. SOUDER. How often did you see Soraya and Arief in between

the time Dr. Ning fell ill and the November 2nd fundraising event?

Did you see them very often?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not. But we met a few times, yes. And occasionally, Congressman, as I mentioned to you, my home was in

L.A., there is a large Indonesian community over there as well. Occasionally I brought in for them some Indonesian food. Because the

family member was here, they flew in, I think wife of Mr. Ning was

here.

Mr. SOUDER. Had you visited their home before?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you know what their careers were or what their

jobs were?

Mr. HUANG. You are talking about Arief? I did not know for sure

his exact job. But he received a master’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania and he was planning to set up a business in

California.

Mr. SOUDER. Did they seem very wealthy?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Or just kind of more middle class?

Mr. HUANG. No, for themself it is not, you can’t really judge from

the outside. But I do know deep down in back of my head the family is very, very wealthy.

Mr. SOUDER. Because of Soraya’s parents, or how would you

know that?

Mr. HUANG. Soraya’s parents, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. But you did not know whether they actually had

that money, you just knew that she was potentially going to inherit

that money?

Mr. HUANG. Sort of over your life you sort of develop some kind

of judgment. Now the real judgment is correct or not correct, that’s

another story. But the impression, the family is very well off. The

kids always have money.

Mr. SOUDER. By ‘‘very well off,’’ do you mean like millionaires?

Mr. HUANG. Definitely in that range, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. But then they were living in a townhouse at the

time. Do you know why they had been living in a townhouse if they

were millionaires?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know. I don’t know. You know, by where they

are living and what kind of car they are driving, really sometimes

it is not much barrier to the wealth of the person, though.

Mr. SOUDER. Because—this is important—because they put a lot

of money into the campaign; and the question was, was that their

money or not their money? And that is kind of where I am headed

with some of my questions. So I am trying to establish what you

knew and what you suspect.

Mr. HUANG. Sure.

Mr. SOUDER. Are you aware of the statements that they made in

the Senate reports on campaign finance?

Mr. HUANG. I am not aware of that, no.

Mr. SOUDER. That they made it clear that you directed all of

their political contributions, and that they—Arief acknowledged

396

that your solicitations began in 1995 when you were still a Commerce official. It goes on to state, ‘‘Arief acknowledged that your solicitations began in 1995, when you were still a Commerce official.’’

It goes on to state, ‘‘Arief recounted that long-solicited November

9, 1995 contributions in connection with the Washington, DC, fundraising event.’’ Do you believe those are accurate statements?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, starting from that time.

Mr. SOUDER. Were you aware that they were given a large

amount of money in early 1995 by Dr. Ning?

Mr. HUANG. By Dr. Ning?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. I was not aware of Dr. Ning ever give money, no.

Mr. SOUDER. No, that the Wiriadinatas were given a large

amount of money from Dr. Ning? You were not aware of that?

Mr. HUANG. I was not aware of that, no.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, may I have additional time to finish?

Mr. BURTON. Without objection. He wants 5 more minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN. OK.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. SOUDER. On November 2, 1995, the day of Vice President

Gore’s fundraiser, they opened up a bank account, and Dr. Ning

wired each of them $250,000 that day for that bank account. Then

they wrote their checks to the Democratic National Committee 6

days later, the day after the wire transfer came in.

So, in other words, he wired them each $250,000, they opened up

a bank account on November 7th. The transfer of $250,000 each

came in on November 7th. On November 8th, they wrote the fundraising check.

Were you aware that they needed to get the funds to contribute

from Mr. Ning?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Congressman Souder, I have seen some of these

records that you mentioned about, but in my mind, you know, I

never had a thought that it was Dr. Ning’s money, you know. I always felt that was their resources.

Mr. SOUDER. Because what they did wasn’t legal.

Did you ever speak to Mr. Riady about their contributions? Did

you ever have any discussions about what the Wiriadinatas were

doing?

Mr. HUANG. Excuse me a second.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, first of all, I did nothing that was illegal for their contribution on that. They were coming to me the

through the recommendation of Mr. Riady on that.

Mr. SOUDER. So after they gave the money, did you ever talk to

him about the contributions? Did you ever discuss how they were

helping and where the money—not necessarily where the money

came from, but just about the contributions?

Mr. HUANG. I believe Mr. Riady knew about—knew that you

know, they were making contributions, so I did not report it and

say well, has made how many thousand-dollar contribution today,

the next day is $25,000. It was not under that kind of a situation.

397

Mr. SOUDER. I probably should have asked this earlier for the

record. Could you explain the relationship between Dr. Ning and

Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. They were—now, first of all, Dr. Ning was supposed

to be categorized with Ford of Indonesia, just like our Ford Motor

Co. here, meaning he is in the automotive business. I think he is

probably a billionaire in my recollection on that. They have a bank,

but I believe they have joint interest in the Lippo Bank in Jakarta.

That is to the extent I know for a fact. For other interests, they

might have other joint interests which I don’t know.

Mr. SOUDER. So at a minimum, they had a joint interest in the

Lippo Bank in that Dr. Ning and Mr. Riady were interrelated in

Lippo?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SOUDER. The Wiriadinatas were not on the list for attend

Vice President Gore’s fundraiser, yet it appears they did attend. Do

you recollect that?

Mr. HUANG. They did attend, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Could you look at exhibit 207, which is a photograph taken at the event, and that is them in the photograph, correct?

[Exhibit 207 follows:]

398

399

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you introduce them to the Vice President?

Mr. HUANG. I did. I was standing right next to the Vice President.

Mr. SOUDER. And you said earlier you contacted them about this

event? You made the contact to them?

Mr. HUANG. To Arief and Soraya, yes, I did.

Mr. SOUDER. To this event. And you solicited them. So it was

through you that they found out about the event. In exhibits 208 and 209, the solicitor of the $15,000 checks is

your wife, is that correct? Because you were at the Department of

Commerce at this time.

[Exhibits 208 and 209 follow:]

400

401

402

Mr. HUANG. Yes. They listed—my wife’s name is on there, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Did she ever talk to them about attending that

event?

Mr. SOUDER. No.

Mr. SOUDER. Were you aware that—why did she get listed then?

Mr. HUANG. I did not—I do not know, but this issue is being discussed so many times over the last few years with various investigations. I did not know at that time.

Mr. SOUDER. The DNC contact is Mercer, correct?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. This says Mercer, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. That is all the questions I have on that particular fundraiser. I have questions on the coffee fundraiser that

will take some time. So at this point I will yield back unless you

want me to continue on this.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OSE [presiding]. Yes, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. If I might be recognized.

Mr. OSE. The Chair recognizes the ranking member.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. I haven’t asked too many questions

today because this is an opportunity for people to go into all of the

issues in the campaign finance investigation. Mr. Burton indicated

that he has been waiting for 3 years to have you here and he wants

to pursue all of these things, and I think it is appropriate to pursue

it. So I haven’t really asked a lot of questions, and I thought that

Mr. Souder’s questions were very pertinent to the investigation.

But just sitting here, I just want to make an observation that is

on my mind. Mr. Souder said, I don’t want to be critical of him,

but he said he is frustrated because the Chinese seem to have all

of our nuclear secrets. There is just no information at all that links

you in any way to the Chinese having nuclear secrets, and I asked

you about those questions yesterday. You have said you have nothing to do with any of that. I know of no evidence that indicates

that. We are looking at campaign finance violations that involve

conduit contributions. A very serious matter, but I hate to say it,

not a very unusual kind of practice among Democrats and Republicans. I wish we could put a stop to it and prosecute people who

have violated the law as you have now had to own up to your violation of the law. That bothered me.

The second thing that sort of bothered me and I just want to say

it is that I don’t think it is the business of anybody to go into your

real estate transactions and your personal life. I just don’t see the

relevance of that to anything. You have been here now almost close

to 12 hours of questioning, and Mr. Burton says he still wants to

continue on, and I gather we are scheduled tomorrow to ask more

questions and you are going to testify next week in Los Angeles.

I am not going to take my full time here; I just want to make these

comments and express my feeling that I am troubled, I am just

troubled to have to hear about things that I just don’t think have

anything to do with anything, whether it be your personal financial

matters, those are personal. That is why they are called personal

financial matters. If there is anything else that anybody has to say

about matters that really genuinely concern the committee, then

we ought to pursue those, and I think Members have generally

403

done that and you have responded well to those questions. But I

am just troubled and wanted to share my feelings about it.

Mr. SHAYS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Sure.

Mr. SHAYS. I know you say it sincerely, but I just want to say

to you that the reason why we are asking questions publicly is that

you felt that it should be done publicly rather than by the committee in private, and then we would focus only on those areas that

seemed the most pertinent. And the reason to check on houses or

anything else is to understand the financial circumstances that

makes this witness a credible witness or not. Is he vulnerable to

gifts? Is he vulnerable to people who then make his testimony more

questionable, and that is the purpose of it.

But in your letter you said, as you know in the past, many Members of our committee have expressed concerns about the practice

of extensive questioning of witnesses in closed sessions. This is a

letter you wrote to Mr. Burton. I share that concern and continue

to believe that the committee and the American people will best be

served by having Mr. Huang appear at a public hearing with no

restrictions to the amount of questions he would face. Yet, you keep

bringing up the number of hours we have been here. We are going

to be here tomorrow. The bottom line is, we are going to fulfill the

request of your letter. We might have had this hearing done in a

day, if we could have had the committee be able to do some of the

ground work first. So, we are here.

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me just comment, because this is on my time.

I wouldn’t want this session to be behind closed doors in a deposition. I don’t want Mr. Huang subjected to all of the hours that

he has had to put himself through here to answer questions without the public having a chance to see the kinds of questions that

are asked, and that is why I objected to the abuse that I thought

has taken place by this committee in these closed-door depositions.

So we have him here, people can ask him questions, let the public, if they want to watch all of this, it is on C–SPAN, it is on the

Internet, it is all public, and if I don’t see the relevancy of Mr.

Huang’s real estate transactions, but if people do, they have a right

to ask exactly those points. I just think that from my observation

of having sat here all day and yesterday as well, and I will be here

as long as we go with this event tomorrow, people have to ask—

stick to what is really at issue. And I think most of the Members

have, and I appreciate that. That is why I have not interrupted

people and given unanimous consents for additional time for Members to pursue every possible lead that might be of some relevancy.

But I just think that—I just think there is such a thing as government intruding in people’s lives, and we are government. And we

are sitting up here on the rafters of a committee room looking

down at Mr. Huang. That is the way we structure the way Congress works. I think we have to be mindful of the fact that he is

an individual whose personal life ought to be respected, unless it

has some real, clear relevancy. Also, even if we are all concerned,

as we are, about China having nuclear secrets, I don’t think we

ought to look at Mr. Huang and assume that he has something to

do with it, just by looking at Mr. Huang.

Mr. SOUDER. Will the gentleman yield?

404

Mr. WAXMAN. I am going to yield back my time.

I will yield to you, sure.

Mr. SOUDER. Before you referred to something that I said earlier,

and I want to make it clear, I am uncomfortable first getting into

some of the financial questions as well, although whenever you

have these kinds of investigations, I mean there was certainly no

reluctance, and I am not known as big defender of our former

speaker, but I tell you, you talk about getting into finances and ripping somebody’s personal record apart and then having it basically

not be true, it has certainly happened. I am not saying the gentleman from California did, but partly, to get to truth, we had to

see what kind of documents his firms were doing and got into his

personal life and on the loans and so on, and that is part of what

happens in an investigation, whether it is fair or not.

The second thing is that I have been very careful in what I have

said today regarding Mr. Huang’s involvement in China, because I

don’t think—we are in the process right now of trying to establish

what he knew, what he heard at different meetings, and where it

might have been, because it is clear that Chinese military money

got to the United States. We don’t know what that accomplished.

And I just—I think it is important to point out, I am not—I don’t

believe we are at the point yet, and we may never get to the point,

because it doesn’t sound like he may have had the knowledge, but

this is the fact. The Congress report, which was a unanimous report of Republicans and Democrats, has four pages with a picture

of Mr. Huang referring to the Lippo Group in other things. It is a— I have not referred to it and others haven’t, and quite frankly, we

are not necessarily even rising to that level; we are trying to get

to lower building blocks, but it is clear that it does have potential

relevance to this, that according to this report, which was unanimous, there was classified information that was gone and that the

concern is not so much what Mr. Huang necessarily did, but what

others who he worked with, Charlie Trie, Mr. Riady and others

who may, in fact, have been conduits with that.

So it isn’t just some kind of a wild-eyed allegation that I made;

I just said as a broad nature, this report, unanimous from both

parties, raises that question.

Mr. WAXMAN. I have the highest regard for you, Mr. Souder, and

I think the questions you have been asking are right on target.

These are the kinds of questions that this kind of a hearing ought

to go into in terms of the campaign finance issues, and I want to

yield back my time to have Members continue their inquiry, although I think at some point we ought to let Mr. Huang have some

time off and maybe, if we are coming back tomorrow—I would have

hoped we would have finished today—we ought to end for the day

at some point and in the not-too-distant timeframe so that we can

give him a break. I think it is the humanitarian thing to do, and

give ourselves a break too.

Mr. OSE. The Chair recognizes Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. SHAYS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATOURETTE. I will yield.

Mr. SHAYS. We planned to end at 5 at your request, so we are

endings at 5, and I would just make a second point. I do have some

gigantic disappointment that tomorrow, Mr. Huang, I am going to

405

have to ask you questions on security issues that I would rather

have had to ask you privately, because I think some of it is unfair

to have to ask you publicly. But this is the only way I am going

to do it. And then I take some exception to then having my ranking

member suggest that maybe this is inappropriate. This is campaign

finance, and it is the question of security of our country. And you

have been linked to it, and we should ask you questions about it,

and you should answer questions about it, and we should give you

every opportunity to respond to them. I suspect that maybe at the

end of the day we will find our concerns were misplaced, and for

you and our country, I hope that is the case. But we are going to

get into that tomorrow. I am just going to say to you up front, I

am sorry that we had to do it publicly, because I would have preferred to ask some of these questions privately because then I may

have determined I didn’t need to ask any of them.

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. SHAYS. No. I don’t have the time. I yield back.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. WAXMAN. The fact is that Mr. Huang is answering these

questions and he would have been posed these questions over the

same length of time, because that is the intention of this committee, the majority of this committee, and if he is going to be subjected to that—it is my view, and we have a disagreement—let’s let

the American people see what kinds of questions he is going to be

subjected to and let Members sit here.

You know, I showed up at some of those depositions. Most Members weren’t there at those depositions. It was staff attorneys hour

after hour after hour asking questions. And I pointed this out earlier, in those depositions, the Democrats weren’t even allowed to

ask any question whatsoever, our lawyers weren’t allowed to ask

any questions whatsoever because the Republican majority, which

included Mr. Shays, voted to change the rules. They used to say

there would be a half-hour on one side and then a half-hour on the

other. They changed the rules to say that the Republicans could

ask questions for 10 hours, and then if there is time left over, the

Democrats could ask. So the rules of the depositions were unfair.

It strikes me that it is also unfair to subject people to almost a

star chamber process where no one really knows what is being

asked of them. Later, some time later depositions are released. But

I think—I have been very impressed by your forthrightness and

your demeanor, and no one would have been able to see that if it

had been in a deposition. Most of the people who have been deposed by our committee lawyers never came before a committee for

a public hearing, yet they went in one case 20 hours. Maybe you

are going to match that, 20 hours of questioning.

Well, I want people who are watching this, and I don’t know who

would watch this long meeting, to think about having the Congress

of the United States bring them in a room and make them answer

questions about their real estate transactions, or their personal

lives, or their drug use at different times in their lives, looking for

something that might be related to an investigation on money that

was given improperly. I don’t want to minimize the business of

abuse of the campaign laws, but I do think that at some point individual Americans can be abused. You are here with two lawyers,

406

you are paying for two lawyers. People who were very minor figures—you were a major figure in the conduit schemes involving the

Democratic party, but I have seen people who had almost nothing

to do with anything have to sit through 5 or 10 hours of questioning in a closed room, taking time off from work, paying for lawyers,

and the public wouldn’t even have the ability to know what was

going on.

So maybe we have a disagreement, and obviously we do, but I

think there is some value in letting the public see—whatever public

may be watching this—this kind of proceeding.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank both Mr. Waxman and Mr. Shays for

their observations on why we are here. Again, of the 161 people

that were deposed, and as I said yesterday, it is my understanding

none of them were part of the freeway in New Jersey or anything,

they are all still with us.

So Mr. Huang, I would like to go back to asking questions——

Mr. WAXMAN. I ask unanimous consent that you be given the full

time to ask questions, because you were so kind to both Mr. Shays

and myself.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you very much.

Mr. WAXMAN. Does the gentleman want 10 minutes?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Ten minutes would be a wonderful thing.

Mr. OSE [presiding]. Actually, Mr. Waxman, I think we only have

9 minutes. Is that agreeable?

Mr. LATOURETTE. You know what? I will take whatever you all

want to give me.

Mr. OSE. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 9 minutes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. This is going to be great. Let’s move back to

some real estate that is within the public domain, and that’s the

White House. We were talking about a coffee that occurred there

on June 18, 1996, and I asked you if it was referred to as the

Kanchanalak coffee and you said you never heard it referred to as

that. I was looking through some exhibits, and it was actually referred to as the John Huang coffee of June 18, 1996, in DNC documents, and so I guess I will call it the Huang coffee.

We were talking about Richard Sullivan from the DNC and the

fact that he had at least indicated to the Senate and expressed

some concerns that there weren’t any U.S. citizens on the list coming to this original coffee. I read you some things that he said and

asked you for reactions to things that he said you said. He indicated to, again, to the Senate that Pauline Kanchanalak reacted to

his concerns that there weren’t any U.S. citizens coming to this coffee by inviting two U.S. citizens to the coffee, Dr. Karl Jackson and

Clarke Wallace.

Were you involved in the extending of an invitation to either of

those gentlemen?

Mr. HUANG. No. That was totally as far as I know through Ms.

Kanchanalak’s initiation.

Mr. LATOURETTE. According to Mr. Wallace, he testified that a

day or two before the coffee, you visited Ms. Kanchanalak at her

office and after that meeting, Kanchanalak asked him, Clarke Wallace, to attend the coffee and told Wallace to inform Karl Jackson

also of the U.S. TBC that he was invited to attend.

407

Were either of these individuals expected to make a contribution

at the coffee, the June 18th coffee?

Mr. HUANG. In my mind, no.

Mr. LATOURETTE. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sullivan said he was

concerned about the propriety, still concerned about the propriety

of the Kanchanalak-Huang coffee, suspecting, correctly, as it

turned out, that neither Karl Jackson nor Clarke Wallace would

contribute to the DNC.

Mr. Sullivan further stated that he was so concerned about the

appearance of this coffee that he invited three additional people to

attend, a Beth Dozoretz, Robert Belfer and Renee Belfer. Were you

aware of or part of this decision?

Mr. HUANG. No. In fact, when the other people show up, Ms.

Kanchanalak said, what happened to them? Who invited them?

Mr. LATOURETTE. And that was Mr. Sullivan as it turns out who

I guess wanted more people who could actually give money to the

DNC there.

At the event itself, according to Karl Jackson and Clarke Wallace, the late invitees to the dance, they indicated that a couple of

people spoke at the coffee. One of them was Mr. Fowler, chairman

of the DNC, and they remember him saying something to the effect

of: It is a pleasure to welcome all of you here to this coffee on behalf of the Democratic National Committee, and these coffees are

important so that the President can maintain contact with people.

Particularly this is important because it is particularly important

in an election year, and this is an election year, arguably the most

important since the one that brought Abraham Lincoln to this

house.

It is interesting that Mr. Fowler would invoke the name of Abraham Lincoln and it might explain why they used his bedroom so

many times during the course of the campaign season if they

thought it was such an important coffee.

How long did the coffee last?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know for sure. Less than 1 hour. Probably

around 40 minutes or so.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And aside from Mr. Fowler speaking, who else

did some speaking that you recall to the assembled group?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t recall. I don’t know whether Mr. Rosen spoke

or not. He was there. And the rest—— Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you speak?

Mr. HUANG. I did not. There was no place for me to speak in that

kind of function.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Again, going to Mr. Jackson and Mr. Wallace, they recall, and I will ask you about this either in my remaining time today or maybe we can pick it up tomorrow, but they recall that you did make some observations about how expensive

elections were in front of the assembled group. Do you recall that

at all?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. I was aware of the testimony from Mr. Karl Jackson.

I was not aware of it—you know, I disagree, I disagree with what

he said.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. That is fine. I want to turn your attention

to exhibit 442, and maybe this is where I can stop today if I can

408

cram this in. Exhibit 442 is 6 pages of notes taken from your diary

that appeared to have been taken at the coffee on June 18th. The

second page of the exhibit has the following notes: China needs

U.S. high-tech auto telecommunications. U.S. should be there.

Are those, first of all, your notes from your diary, and if so, what

were those notes made in reference to, sir?

[Exhibit 442 follows:]

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

Mr. HUANG. First of all, Congressman, these were my notes; it

was my handwriting. Basically, notes—more or less jotted down

notes of the guests that Ms. Kanchanalak was making some points,

so I took down those notes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So you believe that those notes were made simultaneous or contemporaneous with observations that Ms.

Kanchanalak was making at the coffee?

Mr. HUANG. Not her. Her guests.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The foreign nationals that I indicated to you

were—— Mr. HUANG. The head of the CP group.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Who were Taiwanese citizens. Excuse me, Thai

citizens.

Mr. HUANG. Very long Thai names. Skip my mind. Very wellknown person.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Khun Dhanin, Khun Sumet and Khun Sarasin.

Those are the three individuals?

Mr. HUANG. Khun Dhanin made the points in—I don’t know if

it is in Thai or not, but it was translated by the other gentleman.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. The second page also contains a discussion of the poultry industry and there are a number of references

to the Tyson companies. Were those notes also made in reference

to something that Mr. Dhanin, remarks that he might have made

at the coffee?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The bottom of the third page and the fourth

page contain several mentions of the relationship with Taiwan.

There are statements referring to a leadership change and a political change in Taiwan. Were those also notes taken contemporaneous to observations that Mr. Dhanin might have been making?

Mr. HUANG. I believe so.

Mr. LATOURETTE. At the bottom of the page is marked COM 204

and 205. They are mentions of the World Trade Organization,

which we have had a rather interesting meeting recently in Seattle; and China. Who brought that issue up, and if you can recall,

what was said? Was that also Mr. Dhanin?

Mr. HUANG. I believe so.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And last, I guess for today’s purposes, yet

again, you are aware that the committee, the Congress, the Senate

has had testimony from other individuals that you discussed the

need for election funds at this coffee, and I would ask you as my

last question of today, are you absolutely certain, sir, under oath,

under penalty of perjury that you did not discuss the need for election funds to reelect the President of the United States at this coffee on June 18, 1996.

Mr. HUANG. During the coffee you are talking about?

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am talking about at the coffee in the White

House.

Mr. HUANG. I did not.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you, and I yield to the chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Did you discuss with anybody during, before, or

after the coffee any of the people in attendance, during, before or

after the coffee, campaign——

Mr. HUANG. I cannot recall on that, sir.

416

Mr. BURTON. Well, you were pretty definitive when you said no,

you didn’t do it at the coffee, but now you are saying you don’t recall.

Mr. HUANG. The reason I——

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. I did not say in the coffee, period. Your question is

before or after.

Mr. BURTON. Did you say it before or after the coffee? Did you

ask for any money or indicate?

Mr. HUANG. I have to tell the truth. The only time—the reason

I am hesitating a little bit, Mr. Chairman, was the chance during

the beginning of the coffee—not beginning of the coffee, before we

even went in the White House; remember, we all have to sign at

the security gate, they have to check it out, how you are going to

get in. There might be a very small moment there was a conversation talking about I might have mentioned the campaign, you

know, touch upon campaign saying we spent a lot of money, it is

a very costly campaign. That was the only, only thing you can link

to, any inkling to touch upon this issue. That was the only time

that it was mentioned. But definitely was not very bluntly stood up

on the table and say we want everybody to give money and so on

and so on. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, is the green light really still

on? Because I just want to make one more observation.

Mr. BURTON. It is still on.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I just want to tell you, Mr. Huang, as you go

from here tonight, that there is a very specific recollection that you

indicated elections cost money, lots and lots of money, and I am

sure that every person in this room will want to support the reelection of President Clinton. That comes from Karl Jackson, Clarke

Wallace and also two other individuals, R. Roderick Porter and

John Taylor.

So it is not—I think that either these four gentlemen are sadly,

sadly mistaken in what occurred, but we do have a big conflict, and

I think you need to know about it, between their recollection of

that day and your testimony under oath before us today.

With that, if there is anything else you would like to add to it,

fine. Otherwise, I am done and I am happy to be done.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, when this account came out through

news media, I have been aware of this. This is probably one of the

like the other few events that I have been accused of to say really,

deep down in my heart, I did not make any comment in that event,

sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you for your answer, and I thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Huang.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. I think we have exhausted this day. I will see everybody at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. We stand in recess.

[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Friday, December 17, 1999.]

(417)

THE ROLE OF JOHN HUANG AND THE RIADY

FAMILY IN POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Burton, Shays, Souder, LaTourette,

Waxman, Norton, and Cummings.

Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; James C. Wilson, chief

counsel; David A. Kass, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; Mark

Corallo, director of communications; Kristi Remington, senior counsel; James J. Schumann and M. Scott Billingsley, counsels; Kimberly A. Reed, investigative counsel; Nat Weinecke, professional

staff member; Renee Becker, deputy press secretary; Robert Briggs,

assistant clerk; Robin Butler, office manager; Michael Canty and

Toni Lightle, staff assistants; Nicole Petrosino, legislative aide;

Maria Tamburri, assistant to chief counsel; Corinne Zaccagnini,

systems administrator; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil

Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigative counsel; David Sadkin and Paul Weinberger, minority

counsels; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority

staff assistant; and Andrew Su, minority research assistant.

Also present: Ty Cobb and Jack Keeney, counsel to Mr. Huang.

Mr. BURTON. A quorum being present, the Committee on Government Reform will come to order.

Mr. Huang, we want to once again remind you, you are still

under oath.

We will now resume questioning with Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the chairman and welcome you again this

morning.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. SOUDER. Yesterday, in my last round of questioning, I was

talking about the Wiriadinatas, Arief and Soraya, and we had discussed some the evening event that they attended and established

that your testimony is that you didn’t—you thought that they had

a large degree of personal money based presumably on your knowledge that Soraya’s father was Dr. Ning and Dr. Ning was a partner, is that correct, of Dr.—or Mr. Riady——

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. SOUDER [continuing]. In Lippo, and possibly other ventures?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

418

Mr. SOUDER. And that you were not aware that right before they

attended the fundraiser that Dr. Ning had wired each of them

$250,000?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SOUDER. And then they contributed $15,000 each the day

after they received the $250,000 each, but you weren’t aware of

that?

Mr. HUANG. I was not really aware. I was aware of the $15,000

contribution.

Mr. SOUDER. Not the $250,000?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. SOUDER. Now, that was on November 8th, that evening.

On December 15th, there was a coffee, and did you—were you involved in arranging their attendance at the coffee?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

Mr. SOUDER. What was the purpose of their going to the coffee?

They had just been a month ago to a dinner.

Mr. HUANG. See, they were—they were going to help me anyway

from the very outset. So that would be an event they could help

me for that event.

Mr. SOUDER. Help you solicit other contributors?

Mr. HUANG. No, no. Further contributions.

Mr. SOUDER. In other words, they were going to give you multiple contributions?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. SOUDER. Why wouldn’t they have just done that at one time?

Mr. HUANG. Because that coffee event did not require for the—

all the money, more than the—what’s required.

Mr. SOUDER. And then the records indicate that on December

11th and December 13th, December 15th and December 18th they

each gave $25,000, for a total of $200,000.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, from the very outset I believe the couples were willing to help me for a large sum of money in aggregate.

So subsequent with various events—so the different amounts of

money coming in—but they were willing to help me for all the—

much aggregate, higher amount for that.

Mr. SOUDER. But why would you have had a pattern—in other

words, since they were giving on December 11th, December 13th,

December 15th, December 18th, $25,000, four different times, why

just not give $100,000? Was there a reason for that?

Mr. HUANG. I could not answer that.

Mr. SOUDER. And just for the record, that total is $200,000, and

they’d earlier given, as we had established, $30,000, so that at this

point the total is $115,000 each. Now, did you have any discussion

with them about why they were willing to put this much money in?

This is pretty extraordinary given their fairly middle-class means

at this point.

Mr. HUANG. Again, with the assumption they were quite well off

from my point of view, at very outset they were willing to come up

with—up to $500,000 for my effort, for my new job. I really need

that kind of help as well.

Mr. SOUDER. Had they ever given contributions like this before?

Mr. HUANG. Oh, no.

419

Mr. SOUDER. What made you think that they would in this election?

Mr. HUANG. They offered to me.

Mr. SOUDER. And they didn’t tell you any reason why they said

they would at this time—we have never given any money before

but this year we are going to give hundreds of thousands?

Mr. HUANG. Well, the reasons—remember, Dr. Hashim Ning was

ill, in hospital for quite a few months, and then we also learned

my new job is going to be in DNC as a fundraiser, and they more

or less, sort of a kind of appreciation from their own heart. The

type of money they were giving from ordinary purpose, a citizen

basis, that’s quite a lot, but the way I understood the people with

some means, that really was not really that much, in my point of

view.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, there aren’t a lot of $200,000 givers, and how many givers did you have that gave $200,000?

Mr. HUANG. Five, roughly, I think.

Mr. COBB. Him personally?

Mr. SOUDER. Yeah, that you raised.

Mr. HUANG. About four or five.

Mr. SOUDER. So that’s pretty rare, and what you’re in essence

telling me, as I understand this, that because her father was ill

and because they had a visit from Mark Middleton and a thank

you card and because you were now over at the Department of

Commerce and a friend, they suddenly decided, after having never

been in politics before, to put hundreds of thousands of dollars each

in. That’s basically what you’re stating.

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. SOUDER. May I ask—— Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. SOUDER [continuing]. To finish this round of questioning?

My concern here is that we find out from the records, which you

apparently did not know at the time, was that in fact it wasn’t

their money. They received $250,000 from Dr. Ning to do these contributions. Because the pattern was that each received $250,000,

then the contributions started the day after that and were moving

then for a month or two which is illegal, but you’re saying you

weren’t aware of that, which I understand.

Mr. HUANG. Well, the way I understand our culture, some of the

money might be kept by the head of the family but being allocated

to the various children. Dr. Ning, I venture to say right now, since

I said it before, has a few wives, so have different children. I think

being head of a family probably have something planned for themselves as being allocated for their money, but this is not unusual

in our culture.

Mr. SOUDER. I understand what you’re trying to say, and I even

understood yesterday or whatever or day before with Maria Hsia

when you said people at the temple have a communal pool of

money, they took the money in. But the fact is when you’re operating in an American political system, there are laws that have to

be followed. Because, while that sounds somewhat reasonable on

the surface, the fact is this is a way that billionaires and millionaires can alter the face of American politics by having large funds

that they suddenly pass through to their kids when they want to

420

run for office or for a candidate they want to do, they can give it

to their children in large sums. It’s a way to distort our entire political process.

So I’m not arguing that it’s not cultural. What I’m arguing is

that it is illegal because it didn’t come from a trust fund that was

operated by them individually which meant they had control over

the money. It meant that Dr. Ning had the control over the money

because he had the right to check, which therefore becomes his

money, not their money, regardless of whether he intended it for

them at some point or not. This is a fairly standard money laundering thing that happens in congressional races, Senate races, Presidential races long before you got involved and will probably attempt to be done in the future. But these are not small items, and

it’s hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Now, what—so did you discuss Arief’s and Soraya’s contributions

with Mr. Riady at all? Do you know?

Mr. HUANG. About their contribution?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. At that time or now?

Mr. SOUDER. Well, at that time. Because of the size of these contributions coming regularly, I think yesterday you said that in general you had, but I wanted to get that clarified. At this point, rather than just the $15,000 now they’ve each given $115,000. Have

you discussed it after the coffee with Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. On the event-by-event basis, no.

Mr. SOUDER. We are going to—I would like to show a videotape

of the December 15th coffee, if we could.

[Videotape played.]

Mr. SOUDER. This is the December 15th coffee, and we’re going

to have to get the sound up because you should be able to hear Mr.

Wiridinata says James Riady sent me.

Mr. BURTON. Can you run the tape back and turn the sound up?

Mr. SOUDER. And then so at one point Mr. Wiriadinata says

James Riady sent me, and then if you keep listening to the tape,

as he speaks to the President, a voice can be heard saying we

should show tapes of the advertisements to Mr. Riady. This sounds

like Vice President Gore.

[Videotape played.]

Mr. SOUDER. I will turn off the tape.

I heard at the end there we should show tapes of the advertisements. A lot of the voices were blended, but it’s clear if you sort

the voices out that Mr. Wiriadinata says James Riady sent me.

Why would he say that?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know. I thought it just one type of connections he has. He knows James Riady. Maybe referred, yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. Why would then——

Mr. BURTON. You need 5 additional minutes?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. SOUDER. Thanks. Why would the Vice President have said

we should show tapes of the advertisements to Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. I really don’t know, Congressman, no.

421

Mr. SOUDER. Do you think it would be logical and do you think

that the President and/or the Vice President knew that Mr. Ning

was a partner of Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. Again, I don’t know about that.

Mr. SOUDER. Would it seem—did you ever discuss with Mr.

Lindsey, Mr. Middleton or other key friends of the President that

Soraya was the daughter of Dr. Ning who’s a partner in Lippo?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t recall I personally did. Definitely not Mr.

Lindsey.

Mr. SOUDER. Would it be very hard for them to learn of that? In

other words, I know, for example, when I get large contributions,

which I have never gotten a $200,000 because that would be illegal,

but $1,000, I would try to find out what’s this person do? What’s

their background? Would it not seem logical if there aren’t that

many $200,000 contributions that you might try to ask something

about them?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. And why would the Wiriadinatas want to establish

a connection with Mr. Riady? In other words, in the President’s

eyes, were they in a sense saying we are part of a group that’s behind Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. That I don’t know, Congressman.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you counsel them to make any of those kind of

ties to Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. Counsel them? Them being?

Mr. SOUDER. Meaning that, in effect, it strengthens the influence

of Indonesians because they were Indonesian?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not, no.

Mr. BURTON. Because you have testified multiple times that part

of the goal of this was to try to increase Asian American influence

and the influence of the multiplicity of interest because you felt

that their voices weren’t being heard and this was one way for the

voices to be heard. It would seem logical then to try tie up together

that you’re part of a group together.

Mr. HUANG. No. If that was—No. 1, what you stated that that

was my purpose, if we cannot achieve that, we can use different

ways through the different channels to elevate the Asian American

status and identify the community had raised X number of dollars.

That’s sort of a help to the party or the campaign, and the political

side can exercise that kind of way to do that.

Mr. SOUDER. On March 9th in San Francisco there was another

fundraiser, and were you involved in that at the McFarland home

in Hillsborough?

Mr. HUANG. I was asked to join in the last probably a few days.

Mr. SOUDER. Exhibit 378 in our briefing notes has a guest list,

and page 1 indicates that it’s supposed to raise $500,000. Did you

get involved in the amount that was committed for that?

[Exhibit 378 follows:]

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

Mr. HUANG. Not for that event, Congressman.

Mr. SOUDER. In exhibits 379 and 380, there’re two more contributions from Arief and Soraya dated February 18. Did you solicit

those contributions for this event?

[Exhibits 379 and 380 follow:]

429

430

431

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

Mr. SOUDER. How did you receive those checks?

Mr. HUANG. In fact, those checks were in my control, Congressman.

Mr. SOUDER. Meaning they had given them to you earlier?

Mr. HUANG. Earlier, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Were they dated earlier?

Mr. HUANG. No, much earlier. As you know very well from various account already, Dr. Hashim Ning probably passed away earlier in that year or the latter part of the previous year. So the children had to go back to, you know, to—all the family had to get together so they all left. So at the time when they left, although they

had already given that sum of money you just mentioned, but remaining commitment, they made a commitment, they gave me the

checks. I had a control on all those checks. So I have discretion in,

you know, allocate the money into various events. So I was using

that.

Mr. SOUDER. Why did you allocate it to this event?

Mr. HUANG. Because the whole event, the McFarland event apparently, based on my understanding, although that’s the name

for—you mentioned a number of $500,000, probably did not achieve

the goal based on the best estimate. So they need a lot of people

to help. So I was one of them to, you know, answer—to come in

with some contribution.

Mr. SOUDER. So to some degree you were holding Arief’s and

Soraya’s contributions to fill gaps whenever you felt there was a

shortage and it might look bad. You’d just stick checks from them

in and then say, hey, will you go to this event?

Mr. HUANG. It is exactly—you put it better words than I could

find, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. In the—on May 13, 1996, there was another event. They contributed $100,000 in four different checks of $25,000 each.

That is this same—— Mr. HUANG. Same concept yes.

Mr. SOUDER. On June 9th, the Feinstein dinner, that in addition

to yourself, I may not pronounce this name X-I-A.

Mr. HUANG. Xia.

Mr. SOUDER. Xiaoming attended this. He’s the head of Asian securities, and a number—he’s also listed as entering the White

House on the 6th. Now, were you involved in this fundraiser at the

home of Senator Feinstein?

Mr. HUANG. I was not involved in the organizing fundraiser. I

was there just to have Mr. Dai join in—to participate in that event.

Mr. SOUDER. And your testimony is that the same thing here

where there were two contributions of $25,000 each and then another one from Arief attached to the Feinstein event, it was part

of the filling in?

Mr. SOUDER. Right.

Mr. SOUDER. Why was Dai at this event?

Mr. HUANG. He was—I believe was a partner with the Lippo, and

he happened to be in the United States, and I was referred there

might be interest for him to join in on that.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Does anybody have any questions at this time?

432

Mr. SHAYS. I am happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. BURTON. If not, without objection, we will yield you 5 additional minutes.

Mr. SOUDER. Did—was $25,000 the amount of letting somebody

in to the event?

Mr. HUANG. I believe that was. That’s the ticket amount, yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. And so the third ticket was for Mr. Dai?

Mr. HUANG. You talking about the June one?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, June 9th.

Mr. HUANG. I believe so, and myself I think.

Mr. SOUDER. So he didn’t give any money. He used one of

their——

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SOUDER [continuing]. In effect as a pass. The Asian Wall

Street Journal reported in 1994 that the Bank of China bankrolled

his purchase of the Lippo Group share of Asian securities. Do you

know if that’s true?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know about that.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you ever discuss him with the Lippo Group?

Mr. HUANG. Except I mentioned to you he might have been a

partner with the Lippo or purchased some interest from Lippo.

That’s about all to the extent I knew about that.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you discuss his attendance at this event with

anybody from Lippo? Did anybody from Lippo call you and say,

hey, he’s over in the country, we’d like him to come to this event?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. James Riady is indicating he might be in town,

and that’s why I commented on that.

Mr. SOUDER. So Mr. Riady called you and said, we would like

this gentleman.

So did Mr. Riady feel that to some degree—in your opinion, were

you doing this as a favor to Mr. Riady or do you believe Mr. Riady

felt that to some degree, if the Wiriadinata’s money was there, he

could call to have it used for somebody with his organization?

Mr. HUANG. I was doing favor to Mr. Riady.

Mr. SOUDER. And that—did you consider this unusual at all?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. SOUDER. And I know that you’re almost a perfect practitioner

of the administration. They have a frustration with this in other

areas, but clearly, you’re a perfect practitioner of don’t ask, don’t

tell, but still I am going to ask you this question.

Did you ask why he wanted him to come to this event?

Mr. HUANG. I suspect probably it’s going to be good for Mr.

Riady.

Mr. SOUDER. But you don’t know how it was going to be good for

Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. SOUDER. Because this person was bankrolled by the Bank of

China to come into the Lippo Group for their share of Asian securities, but—OK, let me ask you one more.

July 22, 1996, once again, Soraya contributed $25,000 to this

event. I assume it’s the same thing. Did you tell them when you

were putting the money in for the different events or call and invite them to come? How did that pattern work?

433

Mr. HUANG. No. I had a full control over these checks anyway.

As a situation arises, I just use my own discretion to utilize those

funds.

I don’t know what the July 22nd event was about. Congressman,

can you tell me what that would be?

Mr. SOUDER. I don’t know either. Let me ask. Mr. Riady was at

the event apparently, and he sat at the head table on July 22,

1996.

Mr. HUANG. That’s the Los Angeles one?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. It was?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. In Century City?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, I assume.

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. So, once again, because you had control of these

contributions and you viewed—apparently you viewed these contributions as—it is hard for me to understand because they gave

the money, in effect, after Dr. Ning passed away. You said they

went back to Indonesia but they had given you the checks before

they left the country.

Mr. HUANG. Right, with the intention to come back, though.

Mr. SOUDER. Oh, with the intention to come back?

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. SOUDER. But you’re under control of these to be used at your

discretion in the way that you would feel that it would have the

maximum influence for what—to influence the President, to benefit

friends, to benefit Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. The main purpose is because this—this was the first

time I become a fundraiser in DNC; and also, I have personally set

a mission of trying to do something for the Asian—Asian American

community, but when I do event, there’s no assurance that each

event is going to be a successful one.

For instance, there might being a shortfall situation. It is always

nice to have some larger supporter’s money sitting like a reserve

type of thing just in case there’s shortfall, so you can utilize the

funds to come in to make up the numbers. That was a key intention on that. But along the lines, certainly it may come in and a

certain person might be interested in coming; and I had the discretion to say, you’ll become the number. The money is already there.

Mr. SOUDER. I understand the concept that you’re putting forth

on the control of the money, but what it does appear to be a pattern of is not so much a pattern of just helping the Asian community, because the Asian—it appears to be a pattern of helping Mr.

Riady, because we started with the tape where—that Arief and

Soraya are saying Mr. Riady sent us.

Then the Vice President saying, show him the commercials.

Then we have the gentleman from—Mr. Dai, who Bank of China

bankrolled his share of Asian securities from Lippo Group, that— then we have Mr. Riady at a head table. So the continuity that we

see through this is Mr. Riady. Is that because you believe Mr.

Riady was the best way to influence the interests that you were advancing, because he didn’t invite these kinds of random Asian

Americans with the money.

434

Mr. HUANG. It’s not—at least this is not the thoughts I have, he

was not really the best person to influence the President. I would

not question the Riadys probably getting the benefit out of that,

but from very outset this person was referred by Mr. Riady. So in

my mind, in that period of time, the situation arises it just happened that way.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. But it does—the records, looking historically back now, do show that the money wasn’t only that they

were influenced through Mr. Riady. The fact is that the money to

them that was then given for your control came from his partner,

which you did not know at the time, according to your testimony;

but in fact, it does look like money came through, and the way it

followed through fits that.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, in terms of money part, even at this

stage, I still don’t have any reason, you know, to believe that’s not

their money, even at this stage, but——

Mr. SOUDER. We showed yesterday an exhibit that there was——

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, the gentleman will get 5 additional minutes.

Mr. HUANG. I understand what you’re saying.

Mr. SOUDER. In your mind, it’s their money and her father was

just holding it, but that’s not the law.

Mr. HUANG. I understand what you’re saying. Maybe we’re talking from different angle on that basis. At this moment, I did not

know at that stage that was that way.

Talking about the relationship for influencing by the Riady, Mr.

Riady has already known Mr. President ever since the Arkansas

time. So I don’t think that every instance is influencing on that

basis.

Mr. SOUDER. So——

Mr. HUANG. They were friends already.

Mr. SOUDER. But they were—so he was giving him these—well,

he—in other words, it doesn’t particularly comfort me that he was

influencing him from the time he was back in Arkansas, but that

at the same time he rode in the limousine—he wanted the time to

give him $1 million.

We went through with Mr. Hubbell, where he bailed out as a

friend predominantly with some job attachments, that he had multiple meetings with Mark Middleton, several of which were social.

But clearly by the third one where he was separate with more than

just a social visit, because he had multiple visits the day that—

some of it, there’s no doubt that some of this, that anybody is attracted to kind of the power, prestige of an administration. You like

to go visit, bring your family. That’s fairly standard.

But this is beyond that, and you acknowledged at the very beginning that he had a multiplicity of interests. I mean, Mr. Riady was

China Energy at one point, that—when we talked yesterday briefly

about the coal interest, the island where at least one—there’s two

companies there. We know he has interest in one. We don’t know

the other. Appears to be now since Escalante National Monument

off from coal mining appears to be the largest coal reserves in the

world of this nonpolluting coal or not as much polluting coal. So

that’s another interest.

435

We are still sorting through what other kinds of banking interests there are. So while they are friends, you acknowledged at the

beginning he has a multiplicity of interests here, it is not just a

friendship.

Mr. HUANG. You’re absolutely correct, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield briefly?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. BURTON. I don’t think this ought to be fuzzied up. Yesterday

you were asked a question by Eleanor Holmes Norton, and that

question, she asked you whether or not there was influence being

acquired, so to speak, from these—from these contributions, and

you downplayed the benefits to the Lippo Group from the million

dollars in contributions that were made after the limousine ride.

We looked at your 302s, your FBI 302s. I want to read to you

what the FBI said that your statement was. This is on page 5, and

it says,

James Riady was more active than Huang in politics at the time Huang made his

first contribution in approximately 1987. Huang advised that in the banking business it was necessary to establish numerous contacts. Such contacts were important

in order to drum up business for the Lippo bank. The philosophy of the Riady family

was that if people attended functions they would get to know more people, which

would help them personally and in business.

Huang explained that people who do business need political contacts. The U.S.

was a very powerful country and other countries pay attention to what happens in

the U.S. It is important for foreign businessmen to establish contacts or links in the

U.S. Foreign businessmen who maintain political contacts in the U.S. are highly regarded in foreign countries. For instance, a foreign businessman would be highly regarded in his country if he is seen greeting a U.S. senator in a familiar manner.

Although Huang doesn’t recall a specific conversation with James Riady concerning the above, Huang was certain—certain that he had a conversation with James

Riady at some point in time about this.

Now, the impression that you’re giving in the line of questioning

is, you know, that there really weren’t any ties to all of this. The

fact of the matter is, Mr. Huang, they did expect that this was

going to result in some positive results for them because they got

to know great leaders like the President by giving them a lot of

money. Now, isn’t that the case?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I agree 100 percent what you just

read out of the 302, the concept of benefit going to get, but I didn’t

believe what Mr. Souder was referring in the way, you know, you

were characterizing that.

Mr. BURTON. Well, I think——

Mr. HUANG. They are going to get benefit, that’s no doubt. It’s

also multiple interests on that, and they are going to benefit on

that.

Mr. BURTON. So what Mr. Riady and you were trying to achieve

through these large contributions were access, No. 1, and No. 2, to

become very friendly so that if a decision needed to be made, you

would have a very good connection with whoever it was?

Mr. HUANG. No. Through all these events, the other very major

things which you just refer in the 302, by meeting with a lot of

business people, you know, those people can become big donors.

They are also some big businessmen that create opportunity for

them and know them and probably will have joint ventures being

made in the Asia. Those become business benefit, at least conceptually that was done on that.

436

Mr. BURTON. The philosophy of the Riady family was that if people attend functions, they would get to know more people, which

would help themselves personally and in business.

Huang explained that people who do business need political contacts. The U.S.

was a very powerful country and other countries pay attention to what happens in

the U.S. It’s important for foreign businessmen to establish contacts or links in the

U.S. Foreign businessmen who maintain political contacts in the U.S. are highly regarded in foreign countries.

So you expected to benefit and the Riadys expected to benefit

from these contacts?

Mr. HUANG. One of the things I need to—what you did not read

probably is buried in what my thoughts was in what you just read

out of the 302.

The thing about it is, the Riady family, they are Chinese Indonesian, they’re overseas Chinese. You know, looking back in the

histories, many businessmen in those South Asian countries, because of the lack of political ties, whatever routine changes, whatever they have accomplished, however successful they were in the

business side can turn around to nothing on that. So one way to— I assume they were trying to do, if they have some ties with the

United States in a daunting way, that will portray them much better domestically in the various countries they resided in.

That’s the thoughts I really did not mention. That would be the

benefit.

Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we will

grant him 5 additional minutes, but let me go on to the next paragraph then.

It says,

The transition from Huang’s first contribution to the time when he began making

numerous contributions to various campaigns began when Huang became involved

in the community and began working with community leaders. Huang began to receive telephone calls requesting that he raise money for various candidates.

At the time, Huang’s primary goal was to get the 1990 immigration bill passed— to get the 1990 immigration bill passed. However, Huang’s contributions were also

intended to benefit Lippo Group in the long run. Huang used his own money to pay

for the contributions because making such contributions was part of his job at Lippo

Group due to his expected involvement in community relations.

But you told us that you were reimbursed for those.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. BURTON. So that did come from the Lippo Group.

There was an understanding that Huang would support Lippo Group by making

contributions. This understanding was evidenced by the dollar amount Huang received for his bonuses. It was part of Huang’s job performance to make these contributions.

Huang submitted written reports to James Riady perhaps annually listing who

Huang had contributed to and the dollar amounts of such contributions. Sometimes

Huang had discussions with James Riady regarding the candidates who received

contributions. Although Huang and James Riady did not explicitly discuss Huang

being reimbursed for the contributions listed on the report, Huang knew that he

would be taken care of, ‘‘for doing such a good job which was reflected in Huang’s

bonuses.’’

So the fact of the matter is that you were trying to get the immigration bill passed and you felt like and I presume the Riadys felt

like large contributions to the right people would help get this

done.

Mr. HUANG. That’s a part of the interests, you know, the multiple interests in that. That’s one of the interests.

437

Mr. BURTON. I know, but the point is, I think what Mr. Souder

was trying to make and I think he’s made it very well is that there

was a pattern here. You give money, you get access, you give

money to the right people, and things start to move the way you

want them to move, and that was what you were concerned about.

Mr. HUANG. There’s—Mr. Chairman, what you said was true on

that, but there’s some distinction. Mr. Souder was talking about in

1996 that he related to Arief or Soraya.

Mr. BURTON. I understand.

Mr. HUANG. But what you’re talking about was 1992 to 1994

when I was at Lippo at the time. But conceptually, basically that’s

correct.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield back.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Souder yields back the balance of his time.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I’m happy to yield my time to Mr.

LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Shays.

I only need about 5 minutes in this round, I think, to clear up,

Mr. Huang, where we were yesterday and just to refresh your

memory and sort of give myself a reprise, too. We were talking

about the coffee at the White House that we now call the John

Huang coffee at the White House on June 19, 1996; and I think

where I left off and maybe where the hearing closed yesterday was,

there were a few late invitees to the coffee. And specifically, let me

read you again what one of them had to say after the Democratic

National Committee chair, Mr. Fowler, indicated that the 1996

election was just as important as the 1860 election wherein Abraham Lincoln became our 16th President, which—I think that came

as a little surprise to me, and probably to most Americans, that the

election, the re-election of William Jefferson Clinton was as significant in history as the election of Abraham Lincoln.

But be that as it may, they then indicated that you, as the DNC

vice chair for finance, stood up and said, ‘‘Elections cost money, lots

and lots of money, and I’m sure that every person in this room will

want to support the reelection of President Clinton.’’

Now, I understand that—and again I read you the names of not

only Karl Jackson, Clarke Wallace, but also R. Roderick Porter and

John Taylor indicate that that observation was made in the White

House at the time of this function; and I think you understand

what’s troubling about the statement. There’s two things: that

there was nobody at that coffee except for people who worked for

the DNC or people who were invited who you acknowledged yesterday weren’t going to give donations. There was no one who could

lawfully contribute to the President of the United States at that

coffee. That’s the first thing that’s troubling.

The second thing that’s troubling is this whole notion of soliciting

campaign cash at the White House, the White House owned by the

people of the United States.

But I would—you have had over night to think about it and I indicated to you that everybody has filed affidavits, testified under

oath, and in fact, that’s what you did at that occasion, and I ask

438

you again if having reflected on it over the last 8 hours, is there

anything you want to add to your statement?

Mr. HUANG. No, I do not.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Now, we were talking about Pauline

Kanchanalak, and one thing as I was reviewing notes last night,

is apparently Ms. Kanchanalak, her checks say P. Kanchanalak,

and somewhere she’s made the allegation that that is really her

mother whose initial—did you ever see her mother at any of these

functions? Is her mother a donor to your knowledge?

Mr. HUANG. I might have been introduced on one occasion at a

very large fundraising event, being introduced one Thai lady as her

mother-in-law or something like that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Well, understanding that you didn’t say

that campaigns cost lots and lots of money and everybody should

support the President, regardless, the coffee on June 18th did raise

lots and lots of money, at least lots and lots of money was credited

as a result of that coffee, and Pauline Kanchanalak is credited with

giving $135,000 to the DNC at that event, and her sister-in-law— is it Georgie Kronenberg, is that her name?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. All right. Gives $50,000 as a result of that coffee. Where did you—where and when did you receive their checks of $135,000 and $50,000 for the coffee?

Mr. HUANG. There was a series of checks coming in at a different

time. I really could not put into sequence. I do know that some of

the checks I went to the office, her office to pick it up.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And do you know the original sources of where

the funds for these contributions came from?

Mr. HUANG. I do not know.

Mr. LATOURETTE. If you could look in your book, the other thing

that was going on that I think bothers me just as much as this

whole notion of illegal money coming to the Democratic National

Committee is at the same time illegal money is going to Democratic

party organizations in the various States, and directly following

this—well, at about this time, Pauline Kanchanalak and her sisterin-law Georgie Kronenberg are also writing some checks to State

Democratic organizations, are they not?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. If I could turn your attention to exhibits

446 through 450, I think you will find that these are checks made

out by Pauline Kanchanalak to—the first one is to the Florida

Democratic party for $35,000; the Illinois Democratic party for

$25,000; one that I find particularly obnoxious, the Ohio Democratic party for $33,000; and the Pennsylvania Democratic party for

$25,000. Now, do you know was Pauline Kanchanalak just a lover

of the States or how did these—how is it that a major national

donor, who is at a coffee at the White House and is contributing

gobs of money illegally to the President of the United States’ reelection, how does such a person become interested in making a donation of $33,000, for instance, to my home State and to the State

of Ohio Democratic party to be used for—I mean, let’s be clear

about this. This money is to be used for Democratic party building

activities within the State of Ohio, not tied directly to the elections

or reelection of the President of the United States but to be used

439

in races for State representative, Governor, Secretary of State,

Ohio Attorney General. I mean this woman through these illegal

contributions is not only tainting the reelection process of the

President of the United States, but she wants to have a hand in

the election of everything from President to dogcatcher. Now, how

did these checks get written?

[Exhibits 446, 447, 448, 449, and 450 follow:]

440

441

442

443

444

445

Mr. HUANG. OK. First of all, Ms. Kanchanalak expressed to me

she was a bit concerned because she was written in magazine

called—that’s called Mother Jones. There’s a—— Mr. LATOURETTE. I’m familiar with Mother Jones.

Mr. HUANG. So her name was mentioned over there. She did

not—you know, she prefers to keep a little bit lower profile, and

she suddenly have all the money, a very large sum of money appearing on the report. She felt less comfortable, is there any way,

you know, can spread that things out, and I ventured to check with

DNC and so have this money be reallocated to various State party.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. So let me get this straight. So Mother

Jones writes an article and Pauline Kanchanalak shows up as

what, 1 of the top 10 givers to the Democratic party in the country

on some list?

Mr. HUANG. Whatever the ranking will be, yeah, her name was

on the list.

Mr. LATOURETTE. She’s a big player, and so she says how can I

not be so obvious to Mother Jones and other people that are interested in this?

Mr. HUANG. She was concerned about that, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Could I ask unanimous consent for just 2 more

minutes, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman needs additional time?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Just a couple of minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, the gentleman is yielded 5 additional.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So she comes to

you with this problem, she says listen, I don’t like being—I was in

Mother Jones once and I didn’t like it very much either, to tell you

the truth—so she comes to you and says how can I get off this

Mother Jones list?

Mr. HUANG. She expressed concern during conversation with me,

yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And so you then go to the DNC and say Pauline Kanchanalak, who we know is high maintenance already based

upon some things you said yesterday, wants to get off Mother

Jones’ contributor list and how does she do that, and someone says

to you, well, rather than writing one big check for $1 million, she

can write a bunch of little checks to State party organizations. Is

that how that works?

Mr. HUANG. Well, I may even suggest, is there any other avenue

we might be able to accommodate, for instance, the State party on

that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. How did the States get picked? I mean, for instance, did you tell her to write a $33,000 check to my home State

of Ohio?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not. The States name came out from DNC.

Mr. LATOURETTE. How did she know how to make the check out?

Mr. HUANG. Through me. DNC sort of identified what—you can

have a check issued to Florida State Democratic party for whatever

amount, for the other State Democratic party for what amount.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So the Democratic National Committee not

only told you who should she write the check to but—because they

are different amounts. I don’t know whether, you know, she maybe

446

doesn’t like Illinois as much, they only got $25,000. Ohio got $33,0- 00 and Florida gets $35,000, but all those numbers were supplied

by the DNC as suggestions for Pauline Kanchanalak, who we now

know is a Thai citizen, not eligible to participate in any election in

this country, that she should write these checks to those organizations, right?

Mr. HUANG. I believe so, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Around likewise, her sister-in-law Georgie

Kronenberg, the next set of exhibits I think run from 452 to 456,

are checks that Georgie Kronenberg writes to State organizations,

and I think they are pretty much the same, and again, what I find

particularly obnoxious is that among these is another illegal contribution of $20,000 to the Ohio Democratic party, and did that

work the same way?

[Exhibits 452, 453, 454, 455, and 456 follow:]

447

448

449

450

451

452

Mr. HUANG. A similar way, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. That you went to the DNC. Was Georgie

Kronenberg somehow on the list of Mother Jones, too?

Mr. HUANG. I was not sure about her name though, sir.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And this process isn’t unusual, is it? I mean,

this, this isn’t—these aren’t the only two people that this is done

for? In other words, you would go and receive a list of State Democratic organizations and dollar amounts for other large donors, and

the DNC would give you that?

Mr. HUANG. It happened to me a few times. As I report to you,

Mr. Chairman, on Mr. Riady you brought up, remember Mr. Riady

also in 1992 time wrote some checks to the State party. So we had

some precedent. So personally I have some experience on that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Based upon what we now know today and

on the December whatever it is, 1999, about Pauline

Kanchanalak’s immigration status at the time that she was writing

these checks, not only the $135,000 that she gave as a result of the

coffee, the John Huang coffee on June 18th, but also these checks

she wrote to State organizations, all of these contributions are illegal. You do know that, today, they are illegal?

Mr. HUANG. Assuming the reports are accurate. I did not

really——

Mr. LATOURETTE. Assuming the reports are that she isn’t a citizen and was not a citizen?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And I mean, is there some question in your

mind about that?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know because from very outset I thought she

had at least green card status.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Huang.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Could I make a request of the Chair? I know,

Mr. Chairman, during the course of this discussion there was some

talk about the Democratic National Committee returning a million

six or a million eight out of the $3.4 million, but this is a whole

other layer to me of illegal activity that occurred as a result of this

fundraising operation, and I would really appreciate if the counsel

or someone on the committee could report back to the committee

how much of the money that was raised illegally and sent directly

to the State parties to beat Republican State representative candidates, Governor candidates, county commissioner candidates,

Members of Congress, whether or not the Ohio Democratic party,

for instance, returned these illegal contributions, whether or not

the Pennsylvania Democratic party returned these illegal contributions, and I would hope that we could get to the bottom of that and

have a report. I’m sorry, I have a little work but I had some friends

lose in that election, and now we find out that they lost because

people were cheating, and I think that that’s unfortunate, and I’d

be glad to yield to the Chair.

Mr. BURTON. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I will instruct the committee staff to look into that to find out if any of

those contributions were returned. Could I ask that the gentleman

be given an additional 5 minutes. Without objection, we will give

453

the gentleman an additional 5 minutes and I appreciate your yielding to me.

The reason I wanted you to yield to me is that Mr. Huang said

that he did not know Pauline Kanchanalak was a U.S. citizen at

the time and therefore it was illegal for her to give contributions

to State parties. However, and I think you have already alluded to

this, James Riady in 1992 had gone back to Indonesia. He did have

a home here and he did have a green card, but he was living in

Indonesia, and so it was not legal for him, according to the law, as

far as we know, for him to give contributions to State parties or

to candidates for Federal election, and in August 1992, he gave

$5,000 to the California Democrat party. August 13th he gave to

the DNC $15,000. September 30, 1992 he gave $75,000 to the

Michigan Democrat party. October 5th he gave $75,000 to the Ohio

Democrat party. He gave $5,000 to the Arkansas Democrat party

on October 8th. He gave $75,000 again on October 8th to—maybe

it was the 27th to the Arkansas Democrat party. He gave on October 12th $75,000 to the Louisiana Democrat party.

His wife Aileen Riady on August 13th gave $5,000 to the California Democrat party, and on August 17th or 13th to the DNC

$15,000. On August the—or October 8th she gave $5,000 to the Arkansas Democrat party. On October 12th she gave $50,000 to the

Georgia Democrat party, and on October 15th she gave $50,000 to

the North Carolina Democrat party.

Now, I assume, Mr. Huang, he didn’t know which parties, State

parties those money should go to. Whose idea was it to make contributions by Mr. Riady to these State parties?

Mr. HUANG. To the best of my knowledge, at the time I arranged

through the DNC at that time.

Mr. BURTON. Were you involved in any way in that? I mean,

were you helping him with that?

Mr. HUANG. Yeah, I would facilitate through giving the names of

the State party.

Mr. BURTON. So you were talking to the national Democrat party

saying where does he want the money to go?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. Were you talking to the White House as well about

that?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Were you talking to the candidate for President,

Mr. Clinton about that?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. You’re sure about that?

Mr. HUANG. I’m sure about that.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Did you receive instructions directly from

someone at the DNC or elsewhere on where you should direct the

contributions?

Mr. HUANG. I was working with the lady called Mary Leslie at

that time.

Mr. BURTON. Mary Leslie, so was she the one that was directing

where these contributions were going?

Mr. HUANG. Yeah, but I don’t know where she get that information from.

454

Mr. BURTON. But she was telling you where you ought to send

the money?

Mr. HUANG. Yeah.

Mr. BURTON. Did she know that Mr. Riady was living in Indonesia?

Mr. HUANG. She might. I don’t know.

Mr. BURTON. Well, if she knew that Mr. Riady was living in Indonesia then she must have known it was illegal. Did you tell her

Mr. Riady was living in Indonesia?

Mr. HUANG. I suspect she might, might be knowing Mr. Riady

was traveling back and forth, basically, the way I know that Mr.

Riady and Mrs. Riady had the green card at that time.

Mr. BURTON. Did you—but he was living in Indonesia. I mean,

it’s pretty clear, we have checked the records. His permanent residence was Indonesia. He had a house in California, and he did

travel back and forth, and he did have a green card, but the law

is that he was living in Indonesia at the time.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, that may be your conclusion or that

you may be right on that, but I was operating under the situation

is they both have a green card, they were able to give.

Mr. BURTON. Did you give instructions directly to James Riady

after you talked to this lady Ms.—what’s her name again?

Mr. HUANG. Mary Leslie.

Mr. BURTON. Mary Leslie—as to which States to direct the contributions to or did anyone else directly deal with him to tell him

where to send the money?

Mr. HUANG. I did tell Mr. Riady and—about various entity of the

checks to be written.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know where he was when he wrote the

checks? When he wrote the checks where was he?

Mr. HUANG. It’s very hard for me to pin down where—sometimes

he might be over the other side, sometime he might be here.

Mr. BURTON. So sometimes he was in Indonesia when he wrote

the checks?

Mr. HUANG. It’s very possible, yes.

Mr. BURTON. And then sometimes it was when he was here?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. Did you or James Riady directly discuss these contributions or was someone else from the White House or the DNC

involved?

Mr. HUANG. No, no.

Mr. BURTON. It was just between you and the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. And Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. But to your knowledge, nobody from the DNC contacted Mr. Riady directly, it was you?

Mr. HUANG. That was, that was correct, sir.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and Mr. Huang, just

on Mr. Riady, if he had a green card, that means he’s, as I understand, legally able to give a contribution even if he travels and

spends most of his time in another country. Was that your understanding?

455

Mr. HUANG. That was my understanding, yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. And the chairman seems to think otherwise. I

don’t know, you say he may be right, I don’t think he’s correct, but

since we all have a question of opinion on this matter, it’s not hard

for me to see how Mary Leslie—what was her position?

Mr. HUANG. I think she was the finance director at least for California at that time.

Mr. WAXMAN. How she or you or some others might not know

whether the contribution from Mr. Riady was illegal or not. You

presume it’s legal unless you have some indications otherwise.

I was pleased that my colleague Mr. LaTourette raised the issue

of contributions to State parties, and I think we ought to look at

that, but I do want to point out, again, that the issue isn’t just on

the Democratic side. There was a contribution from a Thomas Kramer on July 18, 1997. He was a German national and he was fined

$323,000 by the Federal Election Commission for making illegal

foreign campaign contributions. This was the largest fine ever imposed by the FEC on an individual. Mr. Kramer contributed more

than $400,000 to Federal, State and local campaigns during the

1994 election cycle, including $205,000 to the Florida Republican

party. The Florida Republicans were fined $82,000 by the FEC for

accepting Mr. Kramer’s contribution but still refused to return

$95,000 of the contribution.

We have another instance of a Mr. Kojima, who was called America’s worst deadbeat dad by the LA District attorney’s office. He

contributed $598,777 to the Republican party during the 1992 election cycle, including $500,000 to the President’s dinner, which

bought him a seat at President Bush’s table, and there are a lot

of instances—was he fined? The money for one $100,000 contribution was written on an account that would have had insufficient

funds but for a wire transfer from a foreign corporation that was

received before the check cleared. Mr. Kojima brought five Japanese businessmen to the dinner. It’s been reported that these businessmen paid Mr. Kojima as much as $175,000 each to attend the

event. In return for Mr. Kojima’s contributions the RNC arranged

for 10 meetings between Mr. Kojima and U.S. Embassy personnel

in Asia and wrote at least 15 letters on Mr. Kojima’s behalf. At the

time of the contribution, Mr. Kojima was almost $1 million in debt

for failure to pay child support or his business creditors.

That second example was not particularly an example of a State

party contribution, but both of these are two examples of Republican party fundraising abuses and involved foreign contributions.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield? Was he fined?

Mr. WAXMAN. I don’t think so. I don’t know, but I don’t think so.

If I might continue what I have to say, this committee hasn’t

shown any interest in looking at these Republican foreign contributions into their party. They haven’t shown any interest in looking

at why the Florida Republican party didn’t give back that $95,000.

Mr. LaTourette suggested appropriately that we look at this matter, but if we’re going to look at it, we ought to look at it in a clear,

nonpartisan, fair manner. But this investigation has not been conducted on that basis. What we have today and yesterday and the

day before, now that we have Mr. Huang here, is an interrogation

456

that is really quite unprecedented, going over and over and over

issues on what can’t help but be described as a fishing expedition.

I described a couple of days ago when we started this hearing the

six phases of the investigation—because we settled into a pattern

in this committee of six phases. Phase one is a false accusation and

then there are headlines. And then the accusations are not supported by any facts. Then there’s a claim that there’s a cover-up.

‘‘There’s stonewalling. That’s why we’re not getting the facts.’’ And,

after that, we get information from those who are presumably

stonewalling. They give the information and there’s a clear indication that the facts weren’t there to support the original allegation.

And then we have the next phase which is a new accusation that’s

also false.

I’d like to ask for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. WAXMAN. Usually that plays out over a period of months.

Well, I think we can see that having played out over the course of

just 3 days.

Mr. Huang was accused of being the linchpin of this whole conspiracy to sell United States confidential information to the People’s Republic of China. He was accused of laundering money from

China, and the President knew about it and was part of the conspiracy. The Vice President knew about it and was part of the conspiracy. Mr. Huang was asked these questions directly over the

course of these last couple of days, and he’s clearly said, no, the

President didn’t know anything about it. The Vice President didn’t

know anything about it. He was not an agent of the Chinese Government. He did not engage in any espionage. He didn’t give any

confidential classified information to either the Lippo Group or the

Chinese Government. That meant those accusations turned out to

be inaccurate.

What do we have now? A new inquisition. Yesterday, Chairman

Burton came in. Since the facts didn’t support his original series

of inflammatory allegations, he came back with a new one. The

new one was that Janet Reno refused to ask the President questions about foreign contributions. And he said this is an outrage,

that this didn’t happen, and the press picked it up. Washington

Post: ‘‘Representative Burton criticizes Reno: fundraising probe not

thorough on roles of Clinton and Gore.’’ I don’t criticize the Washington Post for reporting this story. When a Congressman, chairman of the committee, makes an accusation, it’s picked up.

And the story did report at the end how Mr. LaBella, who headed up the task force looking at foreign contributions for the Justice

Department, said that Janet Reno acted appropriately; that in fact

LaBella emphasized that, while he did not agree with Reno’s conclusion about an independent counsel, he said the Attorney General

does not deserve blame for the decision by prosecutors not to ask

questions about foreign contributions prematurely. He said that

they were not looking at foreign contributions. They were looking

at two very specific issues, and they asked questions about those

issues. They had no evidence that the President knew anything

about foreign contributions. They didn’t have it then, and they

don’t have it now.

457

So LaBella said, ‘‘I’m not here to defend her. I’m just not going

to let her get beaten up unfairly.’’

And I can commend Mr. LaBella for that statement, but let’s look

at the rest of the press. Mr. Huang’s been here. He’s been accused

for 3 years of all sorts of terrible things. This is the first chance

he’s had to publicly explain his side. The press didn’t report what

he had to say.

Mr. SHAYS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. No, not yet. The press didn’t report what he had

to say that exonerated him from all those headlines of other Congressmen attacking him. They report the next charge.

Now, I’m pleased to report that one newspaper in this country

did give a report, and that was the L.A. Times. It makes me especially proud because it was the L.A. Times. The L.A. Times headline: ‘‘FBI notes dispel ‘evidence’ of security breach by Huang.’’

They picked up what came out at yesterday’s hearing, which was

that Congressman Solomon made these false accusations about Mr.

Huang turning over classified documents because Solomon said he

had intercepts, confidential intercepts to prove it, and it turned out

in the FBI interview with Solomon that it was all based on gossip.

Well, at least one newspaper picked up a clarification of how an

accusation that was made long ago has now been so clearly refuted.

But we don’t see the accusations that have been refuted. We only

see the new ones made, which is a good strategy. And, again, it’s

the phases of this investigation. You make an accusation. You can’t

prove it. You come back and say somebody’s not giving you the information. They give you the information and then the information

doesn’t substantiate your allegation so you come right back with

another one.

Now, the chairman’s statement was picked up in another newspaper—this one you’d expect to have it as a screaming headline.

This is the Washington Times. ‘‘FBI never probed Clinton, Gore on

key scandal figures. Burton wonders if investigators forgot.’’ Full of

sarcasm.

Now, the charge is that Janet Reno didn’t allow her Justice Department people to question the President about foreign contributions. But it was the FBI which was doing the investigation, and

that wasn’t the purpose of their investigation at that time. Their

questions had to do with whether the President was making calls

out of the office. They had to do with whether the President knew

about the hard money versus the soft money. Those were the matters for which there had been some evidence of potential wrongdoing that the President might have been involved in. Unlike what

we’ve had with Mr. Huang, Mr. LaBella and the FBI didn’t feel

that it was appropriate to go into a long dissertation, questioning

a President of the United States on everything they might think

that he might have done wrong when there’s been no evidence that

he ever did anything wrong.

Let me just say this about Mr. LaBella. Dan Burton said

He has run the task force investigation of foreign money in our elections for the

last 10 months. Janet Reno handpicked Mr. LaBella for this job because of his sparkling credentials and his reputation as an outstanding prosecutor. I can’t think of

anyone in America who is in a better position to know the facts.

458

That’s what the chairman said about Mr. LaBella, and Mr.

LaBella was quoted of course at the tail end of the article in the

Post saying that ‘‘I’m not here to defend’’ Mrs. Reno, but ‘‘I’m just

not going to let her get beaten up unfairly.’’ Mr. BURTON. I’ll take my time now, and I hope the gentleman

will be equally generous as far as me getting additional time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’ve certainly been generous to you and to the

members of this committee.

Mr. BURTON. I know you have, and I hope you will continue to

be.

Mr. WAXMAN. I hope you will also, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. I will.

First of all, let’s start with the last thing first. I think what you

read in the paper was all right, but you left a little bit out. Mr.

LaBella also said, we always figured we’d have other chances to

question the President about his relationship with key fundraisers

after developing cases against him.

They were never given that opportunity. The President and the

Vice President were never asked about their connection to Mr.

Huang, Mr. Trie, Mr. Riady; and Mr. LaBella felt like, as the head

of the task force, that he would get another opportunity to do that;

and he never did.

That particular meeting you’re talking about was limited, but the

reason it was limited was because they thought they were going to

go back and ask him again about these things, and the Justice Department and Janet Reno never allowed that to happen. That’s the

first thing.

The second thing, you started talking—incidentally, the people

who did the questioning at that meeting were not FBI agents. They

were all Justice Department people. Robert Meyer, James Cooper,

Lee Radek, and Charles LaBella and the FBI guys that were there,

all they did was take notes. So the FBI didn’t do any questioning.

It was the Justice Department, and they were limited. They did not

question him about his connection or possible connection with these

people who were raising money illegally.

Now let’s talk about these people like Mr. Kramer and Mr.

Kojima. The FEC found that the Republican party of Florida got

this contribution from Mr. Kramer that you said was illegal. The

Federal Election Commission said it was legal. The money that

came from Mr. Kramer was legal. Now, I thought that was wrong,

and I introduced a bill that was cosponsored by many of my colleagues, including Mr. Shays and Mr. Souder and Mr. LaTourette,

which would say that any foreign contributions coming into this

country would be illegal. And I asked you to be a co-sponsor, and

you said no.

Now Mr. Kramer, because of this loophole, the FEC said it was

legal, but you didn’t want to sponsor or co-sponsor a bill I did that

would kill it and would make sure it would never happen again.

I would like to once again extend my hand to you and say I hope

you will sponsor that bill with me.

Let’s go back to some of these people who gave contributions. The

Republicans that you mentioned, with the exception of Mr. Kramer,

one was fined $325,000; one was fined $5 million; one was fined $8

million; one was fined $6 million; one was fined—I can’t remember

459

all of them. But the Democrats who have given money illegally

have not been fined once that I know of by this Justice Department. Or at least if they have been fined, nobody’s been fined as

much. You show me some that have been fined $8 million, $5 million, $6 million and got time in jail.

Now, there’s a couple of other things I think that are important.

I guess the thing that I want to make clear is that if a Republican

breaks the law in giving campaign contributions, they should be

penalized to the full extent of the law. If a Democrat breaks the

law or a foreign entity breaks the law, they should be penalized to

the full extent of the law. But the Justice Department should apply

the law fairly, justly and equally.

And the Republicans who have broken the law in the Dole campaign have been penalized as far as I know, some extremely severely, whereas people like the Riadys and Mr. Huang and Mr.

Trie have gotten a slap on the wrist. Mr. Huang, who is responsible

for over $3 million in illegal campaign contributions, $1.3 or $4 million that’s been returned, got a $10,000 fine and some community

service time. Mr. Trie was not even going to get a financial fine at

all, and the judge thought that was wrong so he imposed a $5,000

fine himself, and he got community service time. $10,000, $5,000

for two of the major conduits of illegal contributions while people

on the Republican side got an $8 million fine from the Justice Department, a $6 million fine, a $5 million fine and on and on.

So what I’m saying is there ought to be fair application of the

law, and that has not been done. And if you’re going to quote Mr.

LaBella, for whom I do have a great deal of respect, I hope you’ll

always tell the full story. And the full story is—and I’ll reiterate

this one more time—he said, we always figured we’d have other

chances to question the President about his relationship with key

fundraisers after developing cases against him. The cases were developed against Mr. Huang, Mr. Trie and a number of others, and

they never—Janet Reno never sent anybody back over to question

the President or the Vice President.

I’ll yield back my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SHAYS. Could I have you yield to me, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BURTON. I’ll yield to Mr. Shays first and come back to you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. I have let members

on your side go 15, 20 minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays has the time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Cummings is here, and he is seeking recognition and hasn’t had an opportunity at all for his time.

Mr. SHAYS. I just want to put on the record two points.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I’m going to make a point of order.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. WAXMAN. The rules of this committee provide that members

shall have 5-minute rounds each.

Mr. BURTON. Right.

Mr. WAXMAN. And no member should be recognized for a second

round until all members have been recognized for the first round.

460

Mr. SHAYS. I’m not asking to be recognized. I’m asking for the

gentleman’s time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Are you asking for my time?

Mr. SHAYS. No, Mr. Burton’s.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Burton’s time has expired.

Mr. BURTON. I’ll respond to his point of order. We’re already into

the second round. Mr. Cummings has just arrived. I’m going to

yield to Mr. Shays.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Cummings is seeking recognition. He hasn’t

been recognized on the first or the second round.

Mr. BURTON. I will recognize Mr. Cummings as soon as I recognize Mr. Shays.

Mr. WAXMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The rules

provide——

Mr. BURTON. I have ruled on your point of order. Mr. Shays.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I was here before the first round ended. I’m just

trying to figure, does that mean I am denied a right to ask questions in the first round?

Mr. BURTON. You will have——

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ten minutes?

Mr. BURTON. You will be recognized as soon as Mr. Shays completes his questioning.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You didn’t answer my question, Mr. Chairman.

I just asked you one simple question. Do I get to ask my questions

in the first round because I’m going to ask them in the second

round, too, where I’m limited to the second round or are you going

to give me 10 minutes in the second round?

Mr. BURTON. We’ll be liberal with the time. My staff has just apprised—made me aware——

Mr. SHAYS. I’m just curious of one thing.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I wish to be

recognized.

Mr. SHAYS. I want to know who has the time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be recognized on the point

of order.

Mr. BURTON. I have ruled on the point of order.

Mr. WAXMAN. The point of order is still pending, and I want to

bring an argument to the chair.

Mr. BURTON. I have ruled on the point of order.

Mr. WAXMAN. The chairman has not read the rules. The rules

say that each member gets 5 minutes before others get it and we

alternate, one side and then the other. Mr. Cummings has not been

recognized at all.

Mr. SHAYS. Would the gentleman just yield?

Mr. BURTON. You want to yield on his point of order?

Mr. SHAYS. I’m just asking first—I’m not asking for my 5-minute

time, and I’m very happy to have Mr. Cummings have his time. I

just want to know, do you still have the time left or had your time

run out? If your time ran out, I’m not asking for you to yield.

Mr. BURTON. I did have some time left on the clock. According

to the staff, I had 1 minute left on the clock.

461

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Waxman, if you don’t agree, I’m happy to just

drop it. Because, frankly, you want to make a circus out of this.

I don’t intend to. I just intend to ask some questions. I thought my

chairman had the time. If he didn’t have the time, I don’t ask—— Mr. WAXMAN. I don’t think he did. He’s now being told by this

staff he has a minute left, but I looked at the clock, and the red

light came up. I don’t think he has the time.

Mr. SHAYS. I totally withdraw any complaint. I’m happy—I’m

going to be here all day.

Mr. BURTON. I’m the chairman of the committee, and I will say

this. There was 1 minute left on the clock. We will take the 1

minute and I yield to Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I’m happy to yield back.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. We’re certainly are not

trying to make a circus here, Mr. Chairman. We’re just trying to

go by the rules as the ranking member has stated.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I will certainly yield to Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. LaBella said they would go in and ask the

President questions if they developed a case that indicated that he

in any way knew that foreign contributions were involved. The only

way we could ever establish a case that Mr. Clinton knew was if

someone said he knew. Mr. Huang indicated he was the one involved in raising this money, and that the President of the United

States never knew about these foreign contributions.

But I do want to point out somebody who did participate as an

officeholder or has been accused of knowing as an officeholder by

the person involved in giving a conduit contribution. There’s a fellow named Cloeren in Texas. He admits giving a conduit contribution to a Republican House candidate. And then he not only admits

having done it, he said he did it at the request of Congressman

Tom DeLay, the Republican whip.

Now, when you have the man who admitted to giving the conduit

contribution say that the officeholder suggested he give it, you

would think that ought to be investigated. The chairman talked

about everybody being fair. This committee refused to even investigate that matter. Every Democrat wrote a letter to the chairman

requesting an investigation of these very serious charges of campaign violations. To show how serious it is—it’s as serious as Mr.

Huang’s violation of the law, because what Mr. Huang did was a

conduit contribution and what Mr. DeLay is accused of doing is a

conduit contribution as well.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will now tell us you’re going to

investigate that clear indication where someone was involved. And

the distinction again is there’s evidence that Mr. DeLay was involved and knew—not only knew but orchestrated a conduit contribution. There has not been any evidence—a lot of headlines and

charges, but there’s never been any evidence—to indicate the President of the United States knew of any foreign contributions. And

the one that would have been able to give evidence to that effect

and who you described as a linchpin of this whole campaign scandal is Mr. Huang, and he has told us explicitly that the President

didn’t know about it. So I would hope that the chairman will now

462

tell us that he’s going to investigate the charges by Mr. Cloeren

who is an active Republican who gave a conduit contribution he

says at the request of Mr. DeLay.

Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, I’ll yield.

Mr. BURTON. You keep talking about Mr. Cloeren, have been for

some time. His allegations were investigated fully by your Justice

Department, and they found that Mr. Cloeren’s investigations were

baseless, his allegations were baseless.

Now, Mr. Cloeren was convicted of other crimes. He was convicted—he was convicted of other crimes, and it sounds like you’re

accusing Mrs. Reno’s Justice Department of doing something

wrong. The whip of the House, Mr.DeLay, has been exonerated in

effect by the Justice Department.

Now, for you who have complained about us wasting a ton of

time at this committee to want to go back and investigate something that has been fully investigated by the Justice Department

seems ludicrous. I mean, Mr. Cloeren was convicted himself. The

Justice Department found no credence in what he said and they

dropped that investigation.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. That’s an absolutely false statement that the

chairman has made. There has not been a clearance of Mr. DeLay

by the Justice Department. It is just absolutely incorrect. And isn’t

it pretty ironic that Mr. Burton would say we’re not going to investigate a matter because the Justice Department—he thinks—has

already disposed of it. What are we doing here now? We’re questioning Mr. Huang for 3 days and spending $7 million in the last

Congress on this investigation when the Justice Department has

already investigated it and penalized Mr. Huang.

It seems to me that you can’t make these false statements, false

accusations and figure it will never catch up with you. Except it

looks like Mr. Burton is succeeding somewhat, although I don’t

think it has much credibility, because he’s always got another

charge, always another accusation, and then nothing substantiates

his allegation. And that is a flat-out false statement about the

DeLay-Cloeren business.

Thank you for yielding.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time, I think when we sit in this

room, Mr. Huang—there are only a few people here as compared

to some of our hearings, but the things that are stated here are certainly on the record and you are sworn. The things that you say

can have a direct bearing on a lot of people’s lives, including your

own, and so I’ve been following the hearings. I had an opportunity

to read the FBI 302s and just have a few questions, because I think

in taking—in light of what I just said, I just want to make sure

we are all clear because what happens is that you start, you have

a question here, a question there, and it gets muddled. And sometimes we need to stop and pause to be clear, and so I would just

ask you a few questions.

463

Your FBI interviews indicate that you and Mr. Riady discussed

soliciting contributions from the Lippo executives who had substantial means and could afford to make political contributions; is that

correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, by discussing who could give contributions,

it seems that you and Mr. Riady were trying to make sure that you

comply with the law in this regard; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That was an effort, yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You didn’t believe that the plan to raise political

contributions from Lippo executives, who were citizens or green

card holders and who had means, was illegal? Did you believe that

was illegal?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Similarly, you did not believe that soliciting

these people to make contributions was illegal; is that right?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, when you had these discussions with Mr.

Riady, you did not discuss with him the reimbursement of these

Lippo executives for their contributions, did you?

Did you understand the question?

Mr. HUANG. I understand. We did not explicit that information,

no.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you.

Mr. HUANG. We did not explicit mention about reimbursement,

no.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you did have a discussion, but you did not explicitly talk about reimbursement; is that what you’re saying?

Mr. HUANG. I—basically I sensed that all the people probably

will be taken care of.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman from Maryland be given 5 additional minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Now, as to the $50,000 Hip Hing contribution, was it you or was

it Mr. Riady who decided to make this contribution? Who made

that decision?

Mr. HUANG. Congressman Cummings, I did.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You made that decision?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. When you decided to do that, did you think that

it was legal to do it?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What did you base that on?

Mr. HUANG. This is sub of either the U.S. corporation—at least

the sub of—the U.S. corporation is a sub, or the foreign entity has

to generate U.S. revenue.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you felt comfortable that you were doing

something legal?

Mr. HUANG. At that time, yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. In one of your interview memos, I saw that you

said that you first talked to Mr. Riady about the $50,000 contribution only after the fact, after you had made it; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

464

Mr. CUMMINGS. During that discussion, it was Mr. Riady who

asked you if it was OK or legal for Hip Hing to make the contribution?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And as I understand it, you told Mr. Riady that

the contribution was legal because Hip Hing had revenues in the

United States. That is what you told him and I guess based upon

what you—a question that you answered a little bit earlier in this

series of questions, is that accurate?

Mr. HUANG. That is accurate.

Mr. CUMMINGS. At that time, that’s what you truly believed?

Mr. HUANG. That’s what I truly believed, yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Had you talked to a lawyer about it at all?

Mr. HUANG. I did not, no.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you believe that U.S. subsidiaries of foreign

companies could legally make political contributions if they had

revenues in the United States?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Huang, it seems that the reason Mr. Riady

asked you whether it was OK for Hip Hing to make the contribution, just like when he discussed whether citizens and green card

holders could contribute, was that he wanted to make sure that the

law was followed and complied with. Do you believe that?

Mr. HUANG. I do.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Why do you say that?

Mr. HUANG. You just want to make sure that the things was do

right.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, as I understand it, going back to this $1

million contribution, Mr. Riady said that he wanted to raise the

funds.

I’m sorry. If you wanted to followup on that question, you are

certainly welcome. Did you want to followup on the question?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now back to the $1 million contribution. As I understand it, Mr. Riady said he wanted to raise—he wanted to raise

the funds and not give the funds; is that true?

Mr. HUANG. I wasn’t sure exactly words, but to me at that time

it was probably not that much difference anyway.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So—— Mr. HUANG. He had the means to give $1 million himself.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Did he have the means to raise it?

Mr. HUANG. To raise or give himself.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you’re not sure what he meant? Is that what

you’re saying when you first had your discussion with him about

that?

Mr. HUANG. It did not really make that much difference to me,

but the $1 million is the key.

Mr. CUMMINGS. After Mr. Riady told you that he told Governor

Clinton that he would try to raise $1 million, you then talked to

Mr. Riady about who could contribute to the campaign? Did you

have a discussion?

Mr. HUANG. We did.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You did?

Mr. HUANG. Right.

465

Mr. CUMMINGS. About who could contribute?

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Riady discussed only U.S. citizens or green

card holders could make legal contributions; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. We identified the people with those kind of—in that

category.

Mr. CUMMINGS. That fell into that category?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you felt you all were doing something legal;

is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I will yield to Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding.

I just think some things ought to be straightened out on the

record. We checked about this Cloeren-DeLay matter. The chairman is absolutely incorrect, as I pointed out, because we requested

302s’ which are the reports of the FBI investigators, and they’ve

told us it’s an active investigation. It has not been concluded. There

has been no letter to Mr. DeLay clearing him.

Second, I want to put in the record a statement of the cases prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Election

Commission. The chairman said Democrats have never been fined,

everybody is going soft on these Democrats. Sun-Diamond, fined

$1.5 million; Nicholas Rizzo, $1.499 million; the Gephardt for President Committee had an $80,000 fine; Jesse Jackson’s campaign in 1988, $150,000 fine; Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

was fined $75,000.

Statements are made. There’s just absolutely no basis for them,

even the statement that was made about whether the time was

there. On the timer it was incorrect.

I know people may be watching this. It’s just like you can say

whatever you want, but no one ever catches up.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. I don’t have the time, but I would certainly urge

the gentleman to yield.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield.

Mr. BURTON. How much were those fines you were talking

about?

Mr. WAXMAN. $1.5 million, $1.499 million.

Mr. BURTON. What were the dates on them?

Mr. WAXMAN. There’s a 1993, a 1997.

Mr. BURTON. May I see them.

Mr. WAXMAN. Certainly you’re welcome to see it. I would like to

have unanimous consent to put it all in the record.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

466

467

468

469

Mr. BURTON. The fines that we see here are nowhere near the

$6, $8, $5 million ones; they’re much smaller. But I will accede to

the gentleman’s comments that there were some fines there that I

was unaware of. But the fact is the vast majority of the fines and

the huge amounts that have been levied have been levied against

the Republicans.

Mr. WAXMAN. You should have investigated why those fines were

levied because there might have been problems there that were

worthy of a legitimate campaign investigation.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

This is the first time I’ve spoken today, and I want to state that

I’m not going to ask for additional 5 minutes, but I’m going to take

my time as it comes. I’m not going to ask Mr. Waxman to yield to

me. I asked him once today, and he said no. And when I asked you

to yield me time, he objected.

I just want to say I think Mr. Cummings asked more questions

in his one visit than Mr. Waxman has in his 2 days. And for us

to have the incredible amount of dialog about how much time it is

taking to ask you questions, Mr. Huang, when we haven’t even had

the opportunity basically to ask questions because Mr. Waxman

wants to talk about anything but you, and I’m just going to read

the letter that was supposed to start the spirit of these hearings.

And so, Mr. Huang, if you have to be here tomorrow, you have

not me to blame. But in the letter that Mr. Waxman sent to this

committee in denying us an opportunity to basically ask you questions privately so we wouldn’t have to ask so many questions publicly, I will read you the full letter that we got.

Thank you for your recent letter regarding immunity for John Huang. I am glad

we were able to reach an agreement on this matter and I’m looking forward to his

testimony.

As you know, in the past, many members of our committee have expressed concerns about the practice of extensive questioning of witnesses in closed session. I

share that concern and continue to believe that the committee and the American

people will best be served by having Mr. Huang appear at a public hearing with

no restrictions on the amount of questioning he would face.

So I will strongly take exception to Mr. Waxman complaining to

any question I ask and however long and if he gets tired at 2 or

3 today and wants to leave, he may leave. I’m staying.

Then he said, ‘‘I appreciate you sharing a new proposal for dealing with Mr. Huang’s testimony with me, but believe we should

proceed as originally agreed and hold a public hearing with Mr.

Huang.’’

Mr. Huang, I am sorry to say this, but I’m going to say it since

he wants to rehabilitate you before I think you deserve to be. You

are a convicted felon; is that not true?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. SHAYS. You have acknowledged to this committee that in one

way or the other you have been involved with almost $1 million of

illegal contributions with Mr. Riady; is that not true?

Mr. HUANG. That is true.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. You are here only because you were given immunity; is that not true?

Mr. HUANG. That is true.

470

Mr. SHAYS. You had an opportunity to come before this committee many years earlier and set the record straight; is that not true?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. So the fact that you’re here today is basically a decision you made by deciding not to come earlier; is that not correct?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, you know, I left last night having a lot of compassion for you. I think you’re a good man. But I do think good

men sometimes do illegal things. And the purpose of these questions is to find out what you did and what you didn’t do.

Now, I didn’t make these accusations. Mr. Burton didn’t make

these accusations. And in fact I gave you yesterday a copy from the

Cox report. I don’t want to blind-side you. I want you to deal with

it, and I would think you’d want to because it’s really scary stuff

dealing with you. And I was touched by your comments about your

children and the concept that you could in fact have done something contrary to your own country’s best interests and that potentially you could be involved with espionage. Pretty frightening stuff

and something that, frankly, I don’t have a sense that you are, except we have a report.

Now, on this committee are Mr. Cox, a Republican; Norm Dicks,

a Democrat; Porter Goss, a Republican; Doug Bereuter, a Republican; Mr. Hansen, a Republican; John Spratt, a Democrat; Curt

Weldon, a Republican; Lucille Roybal-Allard, a Democrat; Robert

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Democrat. They came out with a unanimous report and this unanimous report mentioned you. And it mentioned

some very serious accusations about you, and I—frankly if they

were said about me, I would be horrified.

Now, it basically says, Huang maintained contact with representatives of Lippo Group while he was at the Department of Commerce. During the 18 months that he was at Commerce, Huang

called Lippo bank 232 times in addition to 29 calls or faxes to

Lippo headquarters in Indonesia.

Huang also contacted Lippo consultant Maeley Tom on 61 occasions during the same period.

Huang’s record shows 72 calls to Lippo joint venture partner C.

Joseph Giroir. During his tenure at the Commerce Department,

Huang used a visitor’s office across the street at the Washington,

DC, branch of Stevens, Inc., an Arkansas based brokerage firm

with significant business ties to the Lippo Group. Stevens employees indicated that these visits were short in duration. Huang used

these offices two, three times a week, most weeks making telephone calls and regularly receiving faxes and packages addressed

to him.

Commerce Department approval—excuse me. No one at the Commerce Department, including Huang’s secretary, knew of this additional office. Huang met with the PRC Embassy officials in Washington, DC, at least nine times—at least nine occasions. Six of

these meetings were at the PRC Embassy, People’s Republic of

China. When informed of these contacts Jeffrey Garten, the Department of Justice Under Secretary for Trade Administration, was

taken aback to learn that Huang ever dealt with anyone at the

PRC Embassy. The proposal of these—the purpose of these contacts

is unknown.

471

My time is up. I don’t choose the additional 5 minutes. I’ll come

back when my time is allowed.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to ask unanimous consent that the

gentleman, Mr. Huang, be able to respond to those statements.

Mr. SHAYS. I’ll go through. He’ll have time. I’m going to have 5

minutes. I’m not going to ask you for 5 minutes and be at your

mercy.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to say

sadly I have to return to Ohio pretty directly. I am on very strict

orders to pick up two Britney Spears Barbies and something called

Wrestle Mania 2000.

I was going to say—before this recent brouhaha, I was going to

commend all of our colleagues for the last 21⁄2 days. I’ve been on

this committee since I was elected in 1994, and from my perspective—and maybe I’m just a dope, but from my perspective, I

thought this was one of the best hearings we’ve ever had in this

committee.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank Mr.

Waxman for the courtesy he’s extended to me and the Members on

this side until, again, this recent brouhaha.

I also want to make an observation about the staff, and this is

the best prepared I’ve ever been for a hearing and the materials

that the staff on the Republican side have prepared for this hearing are exceptional. And I hope you give them all raises and

Christmas off and everything else.

I’m sure—I’ve seen Mr. Waxman’s staff run to him with notes

and things too. I’m sure they’ve done an excellent job too.

During the break, I was talking to some of the staff and some

of your staff didn’t get to go home for Thanksgiving because they

were preparing for this hearing. I want to commend them publicly

for the materials they put together because I think it’s swell.

Mr. Huang, it’s a long time since anybody talked to you, and this

will be the last opportunity I have to chat with you.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I want to tell you last night I couldn’t sleep so

I watched the replay of the hearing yesterday. That is one of the

sad things about being in Congress. You like to watch C–SPAN

more than most people. A couple of things occurred to me. It helped

to refresh my memory of what happened at yesterday’s hearing. I

think—I’m not going to make a wild accusation but I come away

from this hearing with a pretty clear indication that in the years

1992 and 1993 you were in essence a bag man for the Riady family

to make illegal contributions to primarily Democratic campaigns. I

know Mr. Waxman brought up the fact that you contributed to a

couple of Republican Senators. Basically that’s what you did. And

you are asking us to believe that even though you weren’t caught

yet, even though you weren’t prosecuted yet, in the 1996 cycle, the

same kind of conduct was going on and I’ll take you at your word

that you were no longer knowingly engaged in the conduit contributions. I think the evidence before the committee is in 1996

maybe Charlie Trie took your place as the bag man for the Riady

472

family to give illegal contributions to Democratic candidates both

nationally and locally.

The one comment I would say to the distinguished ranking member, I think it’s disgusting that either Republican or Democrat

State parties would receive illegal campaign contributions. I don’t

know how it is in California. In Ohio we have county commissioners. I think you have county supervisors maybe. But we had a

race in my home county. It was decided by 80 votes and to think

that Pauline Kanchanalak selected the county commissioner of the

town where I live is disgusting to me. I would think it would bother Mr. Waxman if an illegal Republican contribution picked his

county supervisor. I think that’s disgusting and I think we have to

do something to change it.

I want to go through some matters after this scandal broke and

talk to you about some entries in your diary and then, as I said,

I’ll be done and I thank you and your lawyers for the courtesies

you’ve extended to me. If you could go to exhibit 525, it is a page

from your diary from early October 1996 and it is after the news

stories about your fundraising had begun. On the left side of the

page your notes say the way I’m able to decipher them, ‘‘principal

not to talk, President, First Lady, Vice President, call these people.’’ Do you see that on the exhibit, sir? Do you find that on the

exhibit?

[Exhibit 525 follows:]

473

474

Mr. HUANG. I do find it, Congressman.

Mr. LATOURETTE. This is your diary and that’s your handwriting

and you wrote that sometime in 1996, right?

Mr. HUANG. It was my writing, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Could you tell us, what does that mean?

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, I don’t at this moment.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I want to make—does it mean, however—I understand you said you don’t know what it means. When I saw it,

to me it sounded like somebody told you not to talk or not to answer questions in response to inquiries on this particular matter,

the fundraising scandal. Does it mean that or you just don’t know?

Mr. HUANG. It well could be that way. The reason is because the

media has been calling me, I recall, so I was not supposed to talk

to media directly. That might be the case.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Would that have been at the advice of your

lawyers or at the advice of someone else?

Mr. HUANG. The advice of just basically DNC’s policy, the person

handling all the communications. I was not the person to do that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I’m wondering if I could ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes, if anyone has a problem with that? Is that

OK with you, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BURTON. I’m next. What I would be happy to do is to yield

to you my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I have no objection to giving the gentleman 5 minutes.

Mr. BURTON. We’re going to stay with the 5-minute rule from

now on. I yield you my time, 5 minutes for right now.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you. I have two other exhibits I want

to talk to you about. 532 is a page from your diary dated October

21, 1996, and it indicates that you received a call from an individual by the name of Ernie Green. Do you have any recollection today

why Ernie Green contacted you by telephone on October 21?

[Exhibit 532 follows:]

475

476

Mr. HUANG. Is this on the left-hand side, sir or right-hand side?

We found it. Basically that was a message, I think.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Maybe. I’m asking you did Ernie Green call

you on October 21 and did you know why and specifically—— Mr. HUANG. The note indicating I took the voice message. I just

took it by time, who call me, say 6:22, 7:22 who called, what’s the

words. Basically the message, not necessarily a conversation I had

with him.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The last document I want to ask you about is

exhibit 537 and it’s a travel reimbursement that you submitted to

the Democratic National Committee. And it has some words on it

that intrigued me again. It says that you traveled between October

11th and October 15, 1996. Under purpose, the purpose of the travel it says stayed away from D.C. That’s an interesting purpose.

Were you directed by the Democratic National Committee to stay

away from the District of Columbia in October 1996?

[Exhibit 537 follows:]

477

478

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, perhaps that was the situation, was

to stay away from DC, because a lot of media is coming over. I

don’t specifically recall right now I returned home back to L.A. to

do what and to get material. I don’t know what kind of material

I was getting.

Mr. LATOURETTE. That’s the second notation. Again this is a

form that you would have submitted to the Democratic National

Committee to be reimbursed for an E ticket to go to Los Angeles

and the stated purpose that you put, you didn’t say you were traveling to raise money, visit friends, do party building activities. You

wrote that the purpose of this trip was to stay away from the District of Columbia and apparently folks at the Democratic—did you

get reimbursed for this? Did they pay you for the E ticket that you

took out to Los Angeles?

Mr. HUANG. The answer probably is no because I still have a lot

of expenses being unpaid by DNC.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But the fact of the matter is that you felt it

was appropriate to request reimbursement when the stated purpose of a trip to Los Angeles was to stay out of Dodge, basically

stay out of the District of Columbia after a series of stories had

broken questioning your involvement of fundraising for the 1996

Presidential race. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. HUANG. That is a fair statement.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Last thing and I truly promise I’ll be done. You

took a trip to Taiwan in 1996, did you not?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, during the—I believe May 1996.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And in particular, if you want to look it up, it’s

exhibit 436, it indicates you were traveling between May 17th and

23, 1996. Did you ask permission from the Democratic National

Committee before you traveled to Taiwan?

Mr. HUANG. I did.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you indicate what the purpose of traveling

to Taiwan on Democratic National Committee business was?

Mr. HUANG. Potential looking for—potential the donors.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You went to a foreign country to look for donors to the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. HUANG. Let me explain to that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I’d like to know.

Mr. HUANG. There are a lot of people having various residencies

although they have a legal status versus citizenships or green card

holder. They’re traveling back and forth. Their business over there,

their business over here more or less is to see what is possibility

on that. Now, this is basically spur out on the information that at

that time the Republican side Mr. Barbour indicating he made

trips over to Asia and some people mentioned to me he might have

been receiving some contributions for the trips to raise a few hundred thousand dollars. So I was just making an attempt scouting

around at that time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you saying someone mentioned to you that

Haley Barbour might have gone over to Taiwan and was raising

money so you thought you could go over to Taiwan and see if you

could do the same thing for the Democrats.

479

Mr. HUANG. It was not Taiwan. He was making trips to Asia.

There were a lot of Democrats living abroad or Republicans living

abroad, things of that nature.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I understand that. I think the only comment

I would make because we are talking about Pauline Kanchanalak

before. You thought in 1992 she could contribute and was a citizen

but she wasn’t. She wasn’t. Her contributions were illegal. I’m just

wondering about the propriety of going over to a foreign country.

I mean, would you ask these people? I mean, OK, Mr. Jones, I’m

meeting you in Taiwan. Do you have a green card? Are you

temporarily—— Mr. HUANG. I would do that, yes. Those things I would do.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I want to believe you but I doubt it.

Mr. HUANG. I also knew some of the people were U.S. citizens.

Congressman, later on there was a fundraising event related to

that fact, sir.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’d be pleased to yield time to Mr. LaTourette if

he has any other issues he wants to pursue.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I’m done and I appreciate your courtesy.

Mr. BURTON. It’s your time, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to say to Mr. LaTourette, I want to express

to him my appreciation for his professionalism and the way he’s

handled these hearings and since he’s indicated to us he has to

leave, I want to wish him a Merry Christmas.

I want to just go back to these inflammatory allegations of espionage relating to Mr. Huang. Yesterday I played a videotape of Representative Solomon, who on national television stated that there

were electronic intercepts showing that Mr. Huang passed classified information to Lippo. I then introduced the FBI 302s, which

are the FBI interviews, with Mr. Solomon where he admitted that

this sensational allegation was based on a piece of unsubstantiated

gossip that he had heard from a stranger at a cocktail party. Some

of my colleagues then suggested that even though Representative

Solomon’s accusation was baseless, there may still be grounds for

suspecting that Mr. Huang was indeed a spy. The chairman indicated his belief that closed door hearings might turn up grounds

for suspecting Mr. Huang engaged in espionage. And I gather, according to Mr. Shays, if we asked these questions of Mr. Huang in

secret so the public couldn’t see what was going on in this inquisition, that we could get statements from Mr. Huang that he

wouldn’t give in public. I find that hard to believe. I think the public ought to see what an American citizen such as Mr. Huang is

being subjected to for 3 days.

The record demonstrates, however, that these allegations that

Mr. Huang committed espionage have been investigated. They have

been investigated and they have been determined to be groundless.

In its plea bargain agreement with Mr. Huang, the Justice Department stated, ‘‘that it is not currently aware of evidence which

would support any charges of violations of the national security or

espionage statutes.’’ David Vicinanzo, head of the campaign financing task force, reaffirmed in a May 1999 letter to Mr. Huang’s atVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00483 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
480

torney ‘‘the lack of evidence that Mr. Huang has engaged in other

illegal conduct.’’ Treason is an incredibly serious charge and I’d like to politely

suggest to my colleagues that unless and until we find evidence of

espionage that is a little stronger than cocktail party gossip, that

we ought not to be throwing them out there in the public domain.

We ought to be treading carefully. Mr. Huang has suffered through

enough, it seems to me, from unsubstantiated and sensational accusations.

Mr. Huang, Mr. Shays made a whole big speech. He talked about

this Cox report which I think you were questioned extensively

about yesterday. You weren’t even given a chance to make any

comments. Do you want to say anything more to these people that

are throwing these charges that maybe there is still some possibility that you’ve been engaged in espionage? And while you’re talking to your attorneys, let me point out that what I just read was

the conclusion of the Justice Department of the Government of the

United States. They have all the facts. They’ve had all the evidence. They’ve been able to talk to all the relevant people and

they’ve reached this conclusion that there’s just no evidence to

make this kind of accusation against Mr. Huang.

It seems to me at some point the press ought to report that fact

and that Members ought to finally accept it until they know something more to raise it again. Mr. Huang, do you want to say anything?

Mr. HUANG. First of all, let me say I’d like to thank Congressman Shays yesterday that passed along this copy to me. This is the

first time I’ve had an opportunity to read that. Certainly I don’t

understand what Mr. Shays actually making an allegation against

me yet, but certainly I’m here trying to help out clear it up. In the

past apparently through my attorney and also reading certain

things the law enforcement that made the investigation basically

they find out—didn’t find anything on me on that basis. But I’d

like to—I didn’t even ask my attorneys’ consent. I’d really like to

take an opportunity to say a few things on a general term basis.

I am an immigrant like any other immigrant coming to this country to either suffer from political pressures from the overseas or the

home country or they are seeking for a better economy opportunities here. Back to 1969 I came over here for graduate schools. At

lowest point of time I only have about $20 in my pocket and I really appreciate the opportunity that this country has afforded me like

many other immigrants in my category to be able to make something and have a family, a decent profession. Given the nature I

understand about human being, we all want to be grateful trying

to reciprocate certain things for whatever we got. So deep down in

our heart we all want to have opportunity to reciprocate either to

society to the degree of our ability. So we have large opportunities,

large ability, we want to do more, the less we do less. It varies

from people to people. So the last thing we want to hurt the country who offered the opportunity to us, will grant us the opportunity

for us to prosper.

I believe that’s the same intention I have. As I grow, being prosper, I try to give a little more back. That was my full intention.

So I just want to make the statement I really did not have any inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00484 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
481

tention to be disloyal to somebody’s been nice to me. I always want

to reciprocate. I might have made mistakes along the way but that

was never my intention.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Mr. Huang, Jerry Solomon isn’t a member of this committee and he’s no longer a Member of Congress and

I am very uncomfortable with any of the allegations he made, especially given how they were made. As one Member of Congress, just

as one Member of Congress, I really feel for you and as a Member

of this institution, I would apologize to you for what Mr. Solomon

said if it was based on the accusations that were made. But I

wouldn’t even think of asking questions based on what Mr. Solomon suggested. I want to ask questions but evidently my colleague

on the other side of the aisle wants to give you that impression,

and it’s not and I thank you for pointing out that I did give you

the report the day before. The Cox report was bipartisan. It wasn’t

partisan. In fact, they left things out of the report if they couldn’t

make it bipartisan. So everything in here was agreed to by my

party and Mr. Waxman’s party and these are honorable people on

both sides.

Now, I will say to you that I went up to look at anything else

that might include you and I want to say to you there’s not much

more there than is here so in that part of it, I don’t even want to

give you the impression that I know something there that doesn’t

exist here, to be fair to you. But even here it’s pretty significant

and I think there can be answers to everyone and so I don’t make

the assumption because I ask these questions you’re going to somehow be proven to have been a spy or in fact even been proven to

have foolishly given information you shouldn’t have.

There may be some gray areas that you and I will have some disagreement on, but first I want to understand that you did work for

the Riadys before you worked as—for the Commerce Department

and you worked for them after you worked for the DNC—excuse

me, you received some payments after you worked for the DNC but

you have maintained a contact with the Riadys that starts in 1985

and continues to this day. You are friends. They are friends to you.

This is true, is it not?

Mr. HUANG. Basically it’s true but the contacts in the last few

years are very, very sparse, but however there was contacts, as Mr.

Chairman asked me yesterday.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Now, is there anything that you want to

respond to based on what I read to start?

Mr. HUANG. Is it possible, Congressman Shays, yesterday Chairman Burton gave a copy of the various faxes, phone calls that I

made in Steven’s office, whether that can be put on the screen or

something like that. Is it possible?

Mr. BURTON. Do we have copies of the faxes and the list of

things? There we have it right there.

Mr. SHAYS. It’s not really going to help you much.

Mr. BURTON. Take a copy down to him, please.

Mr. HUANG. First of all, I can explain this fax first if I may.

Looking at the fax it’s very interesting on 10, 18, there are probably 18 other faxes showing on this sheet here and I sort of believe

that was a bad transmission. It was relayed as only one. Couldn’t

482

get it through, getting, get it through, couldn’t get it through,

again, again, again, again. There was a similar situation it looks

to me like October 5 there was about five of them also sent out on

a similar pattern so that would not be treated, in my personal opinion should not be treated as how many transmission you send. It

would be counted on how many faxes was sent on that basis. That

was trying to explain.

Now, my best recollection, those faxes sent over to Hong Kong,

to Indonesia was not really my—was not mine. I will not deny the

fact I used the office making phone calls to Lippo Bank, California,

in Los Angeles. That one I definitely say yes on that. But certainly

I don’t recall I made—my understanding of the faxes is to Lippo

Bank or not but certainly in more specific about those to Hong

Kong, Indonesia, most likely is not related to me.

Mr. SHAYS. I’ll come back to you.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. Let me ask you, going back for a moment to the $50,000 Hip Hing contribution, when you

decided to make the Hip Hing $50,000 contribution, you thought

that was legal?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What did you base that on?

Mr. HUANG. As I reported to you, Congressman, earlier, No. 1 is

U.S. entity, although it’s a sub of the foreign entity, but the U.S.

entity has a U.S. revenue that led me to make decision Hip Hing

could make contribution.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, did you ever have a conversation with Mr.

Riady where you discussed ways to violate campaign laws?

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, it was not in the terms that you raise,

but we did talk about how to raise money, identify the people who

are eligible, green card holder of citizenship among the executives,

and also talked about being reimbursed later on by myself, myself

as a contribution, and also I had occasion to obtain some bank accounts, at least one from the executives.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am going to go back to one thing just very quickly. When you were discussing the $1 million commitment, the

$1 million commitment now for contributions, did you ever discuss

with Mr. Riady that the reimbursement for political contributions

might be illegal?

Mr. HUANG. The reimbursement issue was never explicitly discussed. As I reported to you earlier in your earlier questions, I sort

of sensed that whoever made it probably would be taken care of.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is that what you told the FBI?

Mr. HUANG. I believe I did.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I was very moved by the comments that you

made a little bit earlier about how you felt about this country and

not wanting to do anything to hurt it. I notice that in the report,

in the Cox report, it talks about how you did not want your clearance status increased. Was there a specific reason for that? In

other words, your secret clearance, things classified so you could

see certain types of classified information, you didn’t seem to be too

anxious to have it increased. Was there any reason for that?

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, as of this day, I don’t even know what

level is clearance. To be very truthful, I didn’t know. In order to

483

do my job, whether I had a clearance or not, it’s not really that important to me. I was working for the Assistant Secretary in my job.

I think it was basically through his efforts trying to get me the

clearance. It really did not matter to me at all.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Looking back on your experience at Commerce

and what you have been through so far, how do you feel today?

Mr. HUANG. When I was in Commerce?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. I really underestimated the culture of this town. It

is very political and very territorial, so it was constantly a battle

trying to gain either more territory or gain more visibility maybe,

responsibility toward that part.

I really have misgivings about a lot of political appointees, because their staying in a job was only a short-term basis. Maybe

coming to work in Washington, DC, they are trying to gain as

much as they can in a short period of time and they went on for

the next level of career. So apparently the responsibility or the title

which translated into the territory later on might be very, very important to some of these people. So without any doubt, during my

tenure in the Commerce Department, and I got caught in between

those kinds of conflicts.

For instance, my Assistant Secretary would not refuse to attend

somebody’s briefing, somebody’s meeting, but I was assistant to my

Assistant Secretary, but my unit has to be represented. So most of

the time I got that job. So whatever briefing, some of the articles

talking about—I attended so many briefings or meetings relating

to China or other places, that was through that kind of format. Because somebody had to be there to represent. Otherwise, nobody

went over from my unit, then our unit would be criticized on that.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. I will now take

my time. Hip Hing Holdings contributed $50,000 in August 1992. The contribution was reimbursed by Lippo. Was that reimbursement legal?

Mr. HUANG. It was not.

Mr. BURTON. It was not legal. Were you aware of that?

Mr. HUANG. At that time, I was not.

Mr. BURTON. You were not aware of that?

Mr. HUANG. No, I was not—remember, Mr. Chairman, there was

an exhibit showing me—there was a reimbursement request with

my name on it, John Huang, and then another person’s name. My

name was there. I take responsibility on that, although the request

for reimbursement—— Mr. BURTON. It was corporate money coming from the Lippo

Group in Indonesia to reimburse the Hip Hing Holdings?

Mr. HUANG. For various expenses.

Mr. BURTON. I have the wire that you sent to Mrs. Ong Bwee

Eng for the money.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. All right. I just wanted to make sure that that was

clear, that it was illegal. It did come from Indonesia. It was reimbursed to Hip Hing, which didn’t have a great deal of money at

that time as I understand it.

Mr. HUANG. Hip Hing was not—it was a relatively slow loan, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays, I yield to you.

484

Mr. SHAYS. I thank you.

Mr. Huang, we left with you having a number of phone calls to

the Lippo Bank. We have down 232 while you were at Commerce.

I’m unclear as to why you would be in contact with the Lippo

Bank.

Mr. HUANG. First of all, Congressman Shays, I’m not sure I really had a contact with the Lippo Bank 232 times.

Mr. SHAYS. We will stipulate that, but it was a large number of

times. But you’re not agreeing necessarily that it was all 232.

Mr. HUANG. I’m trying to explain to you how the number is coming up. Actually, in an ordinary situation, if I am going to call Congressman Shays, I guarantee you I would not get you the first

time. Probably the call is going to come back to me, may not get

to me, which likely happened in ordinary courses. That’s why I’m

saying the real conversation may not be that much.

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough.

Mr. HUANG. Now, I do not remember specifically each conversation, but I will give you roughly the categories what those conversations fall into, and I’m going to report to you on that basis.

As you know very well, I left Lippo on July 14 or 15, that weekend, on Friday. I immediately came on board on the 18th, that

Monday. As Mr. Chairman was mentioning yesterday, at the end

of June, after the 26th, I traveled overseas, following my civic duty,

and went to Taiwan. Also more importantly, on a personal basis,

I even missed my nephew’s wedding 1 day. By the time I came

back, I really did not have the time to inform a lot of people that

I was leaving.

So category No. 1 is a lot of people would send messages to my

old office. There was mail still coming over there. That is the category on that.

The second thing is included in that category. People say, there’s

something coming in. I don’t understand, John, how to handle

those things. So that’s one category.

The second category would be I have been in that institution for

a few years, so a lot of people were employed under me prior to

that. They are still working over there, even though I was gone. A

few of the people, they met with career problems because they were

dealing with a new management, a different management. They

were asking me what to do. They had frustration. That involved

some career consultation on that basis. That’s one category.

It is interesting, the third category is the clients also come in.

They were dealing with different people, saying we were doing

things differently previously. Now everything is changing. What

should I do? They thought I might be able to help on that basis.

That is one.

The fourth category was a situation, as you know, in running a

financial institution. Today you have a loan situation, it doesn’t

guarantee the loan is going to stay forever good because economic

conditions change, that loan becomes relatively slow being paid, becomes delinquent or sometimes you cannot even collect it, you want

to look for somebody.

So, basically, the bank was in the Chinese American community.

A lot of them were Chinese. It might have been coming from Hong

Kong or Taiwan. So the new CEO or new loan officer is going to

485

ask me, do you know this person when you worked there before?

Do you know how to handle this and what would be the proper way

to handle that? If they are slow for 90 days, should we take legal

action against them or how do we handle that? Some were situations like that.

The fifth category is the more personal one. There is a colleague

of mine called Tanyu Yen, Y-e-n, who used to work with me in

Hong Kong in the international department. When I came over to

Lippo Los Angeles, I would sort of pull him in with me to establish

all the rules and procedures of the international problem for the

bank. He and his wife has one only daughter, has apparently

Downs Syndrome status. By having him and his family come over

to work in the United States, we sort of made a commitment to let

him have immigration status in the United States done.

Because of the Downs Syndrome situation for the daughter, she

had already passed the age of 21—in fact, right now she is close

to 30 something already—at that time, Mr. Yen and Mrs. Yen were

able to get the green card status but the daughter could not because of the law saying you have not underage children, already

over the time. At that period of time, the immigration law was in

the midst of changing, at least there was some sentiment to

change, because there were so many immigrants coming into the

United States.

They were very, very concerned, especially Mrs. Yen. She always

has a little nervous—nervous breakdown type of situation, sometimes would be hyped up and very nervous, so worried about the

daughter, in the event she could not get—although the parents got

it already—would be sent back to Hong Kong.

I was in Hong Kong and also working with various Senators before. By making the contributions, I know some of the people. I

took on the job and made quite a few phone calls. For instance, you

might find my phone records, Ms. Nancy Chen, who used to be assistant to Senator Paul Simon, who has responsibility for immigration.

Mr. SHAYS. In my next round, I’ll ask you about the other calls.

Thank you.

Mr. HUANG. Essentially, if I can summarize on that, I would not

rule out a situation. Occasionally, I may call some people and say

how you doing, things like that. Never the case of saying, today I

got a briefing. Here is information on a past deal. Would you relay

this to somebody? It never happened that way.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield my time to Mr.

Shays, but before he starts with his questions, could we give Mr.

Huang and his lawyers a break?

Mr. BURTON. I think it is close to lunchtime. Let’s just break

here for about 30 minutes, and that will give you time to grab a

sandwich or something if you so choose. And we will be back here

just about 5 after 12.

The committee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. BURTON. The committee will reconvene.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. Waxman passes.

486

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Huang, I’m going to have a number of questions.

I’m just going to kind of go through questions relating to your experience at Commerce. I don’t know if they will require long responses. I will come back later to some of the security issues, so

you will get a chance to kind of respond to everything that was in

the report. But let me do that.

Except, excuse me, we did need to just conclude the issue of— you had responded to Lippo, but would you respond to the—and

the 29 calls or faxes, your point to me is that some of those may

have been resubmitted. You’re trying to tell us—you’re not trying

to tell us, you are telling us that some of the 29 calls or faxes to

Lippo headquarters in Jakarta were potentially repeats.

Mr. HUANG. It could be.

Mr. SHAYS. You had 61 contacts with a Lippo consultant Maeley

Tom or 72 calls to Lippo joint venture partner Joseph Giroir. Can

you explain your contacts with Maeley Tom and to Joseph Giroir?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. Maeley Tom, basically—she is a community

leader based in California in our Asian American community. I respect her a lot. A lot of the political sites of wisdom or community

affairs, I resort to her. She and I probably have a lot of phone calls

basically on those subjects alone.

Something again I will reiterate about the number of phone calls,

Congressman Shays, you will understand may not be exactly equal

to the number of actual conversations.

Mr. SHAYS. I do understand that, and the record notes it.

Let me ask you questions since it relates to your seeking employment at Commerce and we’re going to kind of go through that.

Mr. HUANG. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. Did James Riady urge you to work for the government?

Mr. HUANG. He did not. Virtually that was my initiation and

with the urging of my community. Mr. Riady would not object that

I would go.

Mr. SHAYS. Could we be a little tighter on this? Could you think

a second before you respond? Because it is our sense that the task

force at Justice had the impression that he was encouraging you

to apply to some government departments. I don’t want to split

hairs with you. I’m not saying just Commerce, but didn’t he encourage you to work—— Mr. HUANG. In various areas. Various areas would be interesting.

Again, I plead innocent to government-related jobs, never having

worked in the American government before. You more or less just

pull out the phone book, see what might be the area you might be

able to fit.

Mr. SHAYS. We’ve all done that for constituents. So you had dialog with Mr. Riady about that?

Mr. HUANG. Why?

Mr. SHAYS. No. You did have dialog, conversation with Mr.

Riady.

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Did Mr. James Riady encourage you to look into any

jobs at certain agencies?

487

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. What particular agencies did he encourage you to

look into?

Mr. HUANG. If I remember, there are little notes I drafted, sent

it to the State Department, relating to Asian affairs.

Mr. SHAYS. Did James Riady suggest to you that you work at the

National Security Council?

Mr. HUANG. That would be one of a list I was going to report to

you, anyway.

Mr. SHAYS. At that time did you know what the National Security Council was?

Mr. HUANG. It was not really that clear, but certainly I do now.

Mr. SHAYS. Why didn’t you ask Riady? Did you ask him what it

was?

Mr. HUANG. I did not know exactly what he meant. He had an

idea it was some policy-related stuff, advising the President.

Mr. SHAYS. Did Riady explain why he thought you were qualified

to work at the National Security Council?

Mr. HUANG. He didn’t say that, but deep down in my heart, probably I would not get that kind of job anyway myself.

Mr. SHAYS. Did Riady also suggest that you should apply to the

Department of State and your answer was yes?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right. That was one on the list, I believe.

Mr. SHAYS. Did he explain why you should look at the Department of State?

Mr. HUANG. Basically because of my background in Asia.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you keep James Riady updated on the progress

of your appointment process?

Mr. HUANG. I could directly answer by saying yes, but it was not

really with frequency. I think the memo indicated—— Mr. SHAYS. So it wasn’t a recurring update, but periodically you

would update him?

Mr. HUANG. There was some conversation on that, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. You stated in your task force interview, according to

our information, that James Riady was a bit naive about any benefit that he might obtain by your working at the Department of

Commerce.

What benefit did Riady believe that he would get by your working at the Department of Commerce?

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, I think the focus may not even be

narrowed to the Commerce, because our original intention was not

only to go to Commerce or State or NSC.

Mr. SHAYS. Then we won’t limit it to Commerce. Your sense is

that he thought it would be beneficial to him that you work in government. Explain to me what that would be.

Mr. HUANG. I believe what I was saying, the naive portion is in

getting that kind of job.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, can you yield me your time?

Mr. BURTON. I will yield you my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I will be a little clearer.

He obviously thought it would be of benefit, and what do you

think he thought the benefit would be?

Mr. HUANG. My thinking is that because Lippo’s base is in Asia,

because I can get those kind of jobs relating to Asia and Pacific afVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00491 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
488

fairs. So some of the things would be easier, he might be able to

get some information on that.

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough.

Why do you say that he was naive?

Mr. HUANG. No. 1, the information from me, it is going to be

naive. I cannot really freely, if I took the job, I could not get the

information.

Mr. SHAYS. So your sense is he had a sense that you would be

able to be helpful to him in a way that you felt you couldn’t be?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Now, let me inject one more point that probably would be important. I would have to sense that he would have to tell people in

that part of the world that there is somebody used to working with

Lippo now is in the government. That would make him look different.

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough.

I would like to have exhibit 153 put up. For the attorneys, it is

exhibit 153.

This is a letter from Maeley Tom to John Emerson who worked

at the White House Office of Presidential Personnel that recommends you for an appointment.

Now it is going to be not the first page, I’m going to ask you to

turn to page 6. You will see it in the top right corner, page 6.

That’s where she talks about you. I will note, while it is still up

there, and this may sound like a cheap shot, but we all in government have to be concerned about it.

This is a letter from—the State of Connecticut stationery, State

of California. It is the Senate. It’s David Roberti who is President

pro tem pore and Maeley Tom is his administrative director and

she is talking blatant politics in her letter, recommending various

people, why they would be good for the Democratic party and why

it would be good to have Asians work. Not a letter that Republicans wouldn’t write and I hope to gosh they would write, but on

the President pro tem stationery.

The first two sentences, ‘‘John Huang, Executive Vice President

of Lippo Bank, is the political power that advises the Riady family

on issues and where to make contributions. They invested heavily

in the Clinton campaign.’’

That again isn’t a statement that you wouldn’t see in some Republican letters, too, but ‘‘invested heavily in the Clinton campaign’’ is why I want to clean up campaign finance reform.

And then it says, ‘‘John is the Riady family’s top priority for

placement because he is like one of their own.’’ Do you think this

is an accurate description of you?

[Exhibit 153 follows:]

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

Mr. HUANG. I would reluctantly say yes. I would not really boast

myself.

Mr. SHAYS. You’re not boasting. But that’s your position and you

are a political power. You do advise them on issues on where to

make contributions, and that last line, ‘‘John is the Riady family’s

top priority for placement because he is like one of their own,’’ in

other words, you are very close to the Riady family.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you know that Ms. Tom was planning on encouraging your appointment?

Mr. HUANG. In a general sense, probably yes, because she was

one of the more senior persons in our community.

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Tom is contacting James Riady about your interest in obtaining an appointment. Was she in contact with James

Riady about your interest in this appointment?

Mr. HUANG. I really don’t know exactly whether she did or she

did not.

Mr. SHAYS. But you stated in previous——

Mr. HUANG. I believe she probably did, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. She’s pretty close to the Riadys herself, correct?

Mr. HUANG. No, she is not.

Mr. BURTON. She doesn’t work for the Riadys?

Mr. HUANG. She worked for Riady as a consultant at the Lippo

Bank, but it was not very close though.

Mr. SHAYS. I think it’s a good distinction you’re making. I want

to make sure I don’t put words in your mouth.

She has a working relationship with the Riadys. She was employed by them through the Lippo Bank. So they know her and she

knows them?

Mr. HUANG. Not Lippo Bank, but Lippo Group in the United

States.

Mr. SHAYS. The Lippo Group in the United States?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. SHAYS. So they would know each other, but they aren’t necessarily, say, as close as you would be with the family?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. But they have this working relationship?

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, apparently she misstated my position.

I was not an executive vice president for Lippo Bank.

Mr. SHAYS. What were you, just for the record?

Mr. HUANG. If I remember, based on that date I was the vice

chairman and director of the Lippo Bank.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you for clarifying that.

You would be pleased that I am going through many pages of

questions that I’m not asking you, so if you see me doing this, be

grateful.

You got a job working for the Department of Commerce and you

were principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Economic Policy at the International Trade Administration; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That was correct.

Mr. BURTON. Excuse me, Mr. Shays. Mr. Waxman is not here, we

will go to the next round, and it is your time.

497

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Would you please describe your responsibilities as the principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Economic Policy at the International Trade Administration?

Mr. HUANG. To put it very bluntly and directly, whatever the Assistant Secretary does not want to do. So most of the work is like

organizational, personnel-related, budgetary and coordination

among various units in the International Economic Policy.

Mr. SHAYS. How large is IEP at ITA?

Mr. HUANG. It was one of the smallest units. I may misquote the

number for you.

Mr. SHAYS. Give me a range. I have no range. How many personnel might you be dealing with?

Mr. HUANG. Maybe a number like 100, something.

Mr. SHAYS. That’s still a lot of people.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. SHAYS. When you worked in this position, were you ever told

that you were specifically walled off from working on China issues?

Mr. HUANG. I was not. But I learned that later on. In reality,

Congressman Shays, I knew I was not going to work on the China

issues.

Mr. SHAYS. You learned later on that you weren’t to work on Chinese issues by whom? What did you learn later on? Was it through

contacts or through the media?

Mr. HUANG. Through the media, I believe either Mr. Garten’s

testimony——

Mr. SHAYS. He’s the Under Secretary of Commerce?

Mr. HUANG. Under Secretary.

Mr. SHAYS. Usually their responsibility is all the administration

of the department and so on. But he seemed surprised that you

were working on Chinese issues?

Mr. HUANG. That’s what I heard, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. In terms of policy areas, where do you get—did you

get involved in Indonesia? Did you get involved in Taiwan? And did

you get involved in China? Tell me in each of those areas, on policy.

Mr. HUANG. Basically IEP is involving territorial, which is in the

whole world, divided into probably four or five areas. So whatever

the commercial policies, generally is coming from the IEP. That’s

how it is. There is an area called Asia Pacific area which has its

own Deputy Assistant Secretary.

Mr. SHAYS. You worked for the Lippo Group, and I think you

know there were some who were concerned that you had these ties

to a fairly powerful family in Indonesia. Were you walled off from

dealing with Indonesia?

Mr. HUANG. I did not have a direct responsibility for those areas

anyway. I tried to stay away from it myself.

Mr. SHAYS. You made a conscious effort to stay away?

Mr. HUANG. I did not think anybody would stop me from doing

that. My concept for that is, if I had any knowledge, I could be

helpful to everybody. Because of my past experience, I would be

glad to help; that was my position. But nobody advised me in saying, John, don’t touch Indonesia, don’t touch China.

498

Mr. SHAYS. There was no understanding when you worked with

the department that, given your involvement with the Lippo

Group, you needed to stay away from Indonesian issues?

Mr. HUANG. At least at that time I did not understand. But I’m

trying to consciously stay away, yes, as much as I could.

Mr. SHAYS. We need to nail this down a little better. Let me be

clear on the question. I just need to know whether in your hiring

you were told that certain areas were off bounds, given your relationships with a powerful economic and political family in Indonesia who also had significant relations to China.

Mr. HUANG. Not necessarily a geographic area, but I did discuss

trying to stay away from the Lippo.

Mr. SHAYS. Who was that discussion with?

Mr. HUANG. I think it was the general counsel of the Commerce

Department, Ginger Lew. She was the person who advised me that,

yes.

Mr. SHAYS. It was her responsibility to give ethics advice, and

she said not as much Indonesia, but in terms of the Lippo Group,

you needed to stay away from that?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

If I could also expand, Lippo has interest in other areas, whatever Lippo’s involvement was, to try to stay away.

Mr. SHAYS. Your own calendar indicates that you had had several meetings with Indonesian officials. I’m not saying the Lippo

Group. Your testimony is that Indonesia was not part of your responsibility. Was any country part of your responsibility? Is it your

testimony that no country is part of your responsibility?

Mr. HUANG. That’s not true. In the beginning it was that, but

later on I was assigned to Taiwan. The reason is because of my

background. I grew up in Taiwan and spent about 20 years there.

I served in the Chinese Air Force in Taiwan as a reserve officer.

The reason I got that area is, China was responsible, was taken

over by another unit, somebody should be spearheading on Taiwan,

so you have two separate teams.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Would you like me to do a little questioning here

for a while?

Mr. SHAYS. That would be fine.

Mr. BURTON. Let me followup, Mr. Huang, on Mr. LaTourette’s

questions. You went to Taiwan. Who did you meet with during that

Taiwan trip?

Mr. HUANG. Basically private businessmen, in particular the person called—excuse me. It will come to me in a second. Mr. Kenneth

Hsui.

Mr. BURTON. What was the purpose of that meeting?

Mr. HUANG. During my role for the Democratic party in trying

to see whether it would be interesting, I understand he is an American citizen, although he lived in Taiwan; and he and I knew each

other, and I was trying to see whether he would be interested in

making a contribution to the Democratic party.

Mr. BURTON. Did you ask him to solicit other contributions?

Mr. HUANG. No. The reason is that he himself was very well off.

He would be the only one I needed at that time.

Mr. BURTON. How much were you expecting him to give?

499

Mr. HUANG. Approximately half a million dollars.

Mr. BURTON. Half a million dollars?

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. BURTON. Can you broaden your answer there to tell us, you

were in Taiwan for some time. I have been over there myself many

times, and there is a whole bunch of people that you meet with.

Were there any other people that you met with that were interested in contributing and did you mention it to anybody else? And

who all did you meet with? I know you probably won’t recall all of

them but you know the significant ones.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, during that period of time, you know

President Lee was first being elected as the President of Taiwan,

and there was an inauguration event over there. A lot of people

were coming from overseas there. A lot of people coming from Taiwan were there, also. For instance—— Mr. BURTON. You were interested in raising money for the Democrat party and so you talked to this one gentleman and were hoping that he would give a half a million dollars and you’re saying

he was a U.S. citizen so he would have been legally entitled to contribute?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. Is he the only person you talked to about raising

money over there?

Mr. HUANG. No. No, I was more or less exploring the opportunities through some friends who might be able to introduce me to

more people.

Mr. BURTON. Those people that you talked to over there, were

they American citizens?

Mr. HUANG. They were American citizens, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did you talk to anybody that were not American

citizens about contributing?

Mr. HUANG. No. If they were not an American, I did not ask for

a contribution or a donation to the party.

Mr. BURTON. Did you talk to them in any way about giving

money?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. BURTON. In late 1996 did you stay in Charlie Trie’s Watergate apartment for a period of time?

Mr. HUANG. As I testified yesterday I believe—— Mr. BURTON. You did stay in his apartment?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. How long did you stay there?

Mr. HUANG. Maybe around a week or two at the most.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know why you were staying there?

Mr. HUANG. I think the—during that period of time there was a

subpoena being served on me by Judicial Watch in trying to find

out the full situation for the Commerce Department, and I was

really staying around different places.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t want to be served with a subpoena?

Mr. HUANG. No, I was really wondering why I was being served

with a subpoena at the beginning and why I got involved.

Mr. BURTON. You were staying there in order to not be served?

Mr. HUANG. I was not trying to avoid being served. Actually my

counsel, legal counsel had already received it, was doing that for

500

me. But basically the media was hounding me. If I continued staying at my father-in-law’s place in Silver Spring, people were going

to continue to harass that place. Basically I was avoiding that part,

not on the legal requirements.

Mr. BURTON. You weren’t trying to hide out so you wouldn’t get

served?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir, I was not.

Mr. BURTON. Did you stay with any other friends or acquaintances during that period, during the finance scandal when it first

became public?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I also stayed with my brother-in-law for a few

days.

Mr. BURTON. That was for the same reason, that you didn’t

want—— Mr. HUANG. That was the same reason and also my father’s

friends, in I think Potomac or Rockville, MD.

Mr. BURTON. You were moving around to different locations?

Mr. HUANG. A few days here, a few days there. I regret I did that

but I really had no choice at that time. I did not want to have my

family and relatives being harassed by the media. I did not really

try to go around to avoid a subpoena, no.

Mr. BURTON. It was because of the media and not because you

didn’t want to be served?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. In late October and early November, there is a

large volume of telephone contact between you and Charlie Trie. At

this point Trie had not been identified as a part of the campaign

fundraising scandal. For example, on October 28, Trie called you

five times. On the 29th, Trie called you twice. On the 30th, Trie

called you once. On the 31st, he called you five times. On November 9, he called you. On December 24th he called you three times.

Do you recall what you were talking to Mr. Trie about?

Mr. HUANG. Was that a call to my home in Los Angeles? I just

want to be specific on that, sir.

Mr. BURTON. I’m not sure whether they were to your home but

they were to you, wherever you were.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I’m happy to yield you my time if Mr.

Waxman is passing.

Mr. BURTON. They were different phone numbers, I have been

told by my staff.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure I had that many conversations with him. Even though I had some conversations with

him.

Mr. BURTON. Do you recall any of those conversations?

Mr. HUANG. It would not be any significant. Probably emphasizing my manners.

Mr. BURTON. That seems strange to me, Mr. Huang, because he

called you 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 17 times in that timeframe; 17 times.

There must have been some reason for him to call you, and you

don’t recall at all?

Mr. HUANG. I really don’t know. I can’t give you any answer for

that.

Mr. BURTON. What were you and Charlie Trie—what would you

talk about? What were you talking about? Did you talk about

501

friends or relatives? Campaign fundraising, what, when you did

talk to him?

Mr. HUANG. I really need to look at those lists, maybe I can give

you a better answer for that.

Mr. BURTON. I’m not even talking about those calls. When you

did talk to Mr. Trie, you were not a close personal friend. You were

an associate as far as raising campaign funds, were you not?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct. Also he subscribed to my idea, trying

to work on something for the Asian American community as well.

We had similar goals in helping Asia Pacific Americans.

Mr. BURTON. Were you in telephone contact with anyone from

the Lippo Group during that period of time when these 17 phone

calls took place?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, it is possible. I don’t recall at this

time.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall that, either? You don’t recall any

of these 17 phone calls, and you don’t recall whether or not you

talked about the Lippo Group.

Mr. HUANG. At this moment, no.

Mr. BURTON. Let me go on to the next question. We’ll come back

to that. Did you ever discuss with Charlie Trie whether you were

going to mention his name to the media or to investigators? Did

you ever talk to him about or did he ever ask you about, are you

going to talk to the media about me or are you going to talk to the

investigators about me?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t think so, no. To mention about Mr. Trie’s

name.

Mr. BURTON. Did you ever talk about, did Charlie say, hey, John,

don’t mention me, or are you going to mention me to the media?

Mr. HUANG. That answer is no.

Mr. BURTON. You never talked to him about that.

Mr. HUANG. At that time, no.

Mr. BURTON. Well, at any time.

Mr. HUANG. No, not that I recall, no.

Mr. BURTON. Not that you recall?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Did you discuss any contributions that Charlie Trie

had made?

Mr. HUANG. At any time, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BURTON. We’re talking about after the campaign finance

scandal started.

Mr. HUANG. I do remember there was one occasion he talked to

me, more or less in a general sense trying to clarify the campaign

contributions, the rule situation. More specifically, if I remember

correctly, he said is the money coming from him go to a third party

and then being given, was that OK or not.

Mr. BURTON. That’s the only time that you can recall?

Mr. HUANG. That time, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Let me go back to the phone calls. On October 10,

you talked to Mr. Trie for 13 minutes. On October 10th, you talked

to him again for 10 minutes. On October 28, you talked to him for

11 minutes twice. On October 29 you talked to him for 19 minutes.

On October 30, you talked to him for 7 minutes. On October 31,

you talked to him for 11 minutes, 15 minutes, both times. On OctoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00505 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
502

ber 31, you talked to him for 7 minutes and 5 minutes. And on November 22, you talked to him for 9 minutes. And you don’t remember any of those calls? These weren’t just little bitty calls. They

were pretty lengthy.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I did say I don’t recall what I was

talking to him. I did not say I did not talk to him on that. First

of all, some of the conversation probably, I can respond to you. I

was receiving the Judicial Watch subpoena. The media was trying

to hound me. Maybe there was some conversation talking to him,

can I stay there, when am I coming there, can he pick me up from

certain places and come to his place. Actually he did take me from

a certain area to a certain area. He was very helpful to me on that

part. Within that timeframe, I’m pretty sure certain conversations

that related to that direction.

Mr. BURTON. They are pretty lengthy phone conversations not to

be more recalled. Let me ask you this. Did you ever talk to Charlie

Trie about whether or not he should leave the country?

Mr. HUANG. That, I did not.

Mr. BURTON. You did not talk to him about that, in any of these

phone calls?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Since there is no one here, I will yield myself 5

more minutes. Since the meeting began and we started asking you

questions, we were told that you weren’t very close to Charlie Trie.

I mean, if he was chauffeuring you around and you were on the

phone with him this much, it sounds like you were pretty close,

and you said he was very helpful to you and you appreciated that.

What do you mean by you weren’t very close to him and you

weren’t his friend?

Mr. HUANG. Relatively speaking compared to some of the friends.

I’m not saying he was not my friend. He was my friend. I believe

he would consider me as his friend, since 1994, June 1994. But I

knew him a little better because in 1996, my career with the DNC.

I knew him much better that way, a little closer.

Mr. BURTON. When you would call him and talk to him for 15

minutes and 15 more minutes, you can’t recall what you talked to

him about then but when he picked you up and drove you around

to these different places, like your brother-in-law’s, his apartment,

your father-in-law’s, whatever it was, what did you guys talk

about? If you can give me a rough idea. How much time did you

spend together?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, if I can best recollect on this, the

topic of conversation all centered, the event happened on me at

that time.

Mr. BURTON. Let me go on to the Hsi Lai Temple. Did you see

Don Fowler at the temple on the morning of the event?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, he was there.

Mr. BURTON. He was the head of the DNC at the time?

Mr. HUANG. At Hsi Lai Temple, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did he express any concerns to you about the location of the event?

Mr. HUANG. He did not.

Mr. BURTON. He didn’t say that he was concerned about it?

Mr. HUANG. Not that I remember on that.

503

Mr. BURTON. Please give me a general description of the event.

What did it look like, how did it take place? When did Vice President Gore arrive? What did he do, what did he say and that sort

of thing?

Mr. HUANG. I will try my best. Hopefully I don’t omit a key part

to you. The temple is quite large, as you might have known already. There were a lot of followers in that temple. There were welcoming teams right outside the front gate of the temple. A high

school band was there also in welcoming the Vice President’s entourage at that time. Once he was escorted in, they would go to a

small room first, like a holding room, and would follow inside the

courtyard, doing a hosting, a welcoming session. Then he was more

or less touring the whole compound. The compound looks like at

least a few basketball courtyards on that.

Mr. BURTON. Do you recall the remarks, what kind of remarks

he gave, what he said?

Mr. HUANG. During that tour and welcoming session, he did not

really make any comments. More or less people were welcoming

him. He was going through the temple to pay respects to the temple.

Mr. BURTON. Did the meal take place right after the tour and

then before he spoke?

Mr. HUANG. The lunch? The lunch was afterwards, yes. The

luncheon place, which is in the underground of the main temple.

Mr. BURTON. After the meal in the temple dining hall, there were

a number of people who said a few words, right?

Mr. HUANG. Are you talking about at the meal?

Mr. BURTON. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did Congressman Matsui speak at the event?

Mr. HUANG. He did.

Mr. BURTON. Did he make any mention of how much money was

going to be raised or would be raised at the event?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t recall him mentioning that, sir.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall that?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t recall that.

Mr. BURTON. Did he make any statement to the effect that they

had checked with the lawyers and that it was OK to have the event

at the temple?

Mr. HUANG. I certainly don’t remember he said something like

that.

Mr. BURTON. Are you aware that several of the attendees at the

event said that one of the speakers made comments to the effect,

a number of people who were there said that one of the speakers

said it was OK to have it there and that a lot of money had been

raised. You don’t recall anybody saying that?

Mr. HUANG. Certainly I don’t recall anybody saying that.

Mr. BURTON. If someone said that, would they be incorrect or you

just don’t recall?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t say they were. I just don’t recall that, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Did the Hsi Lai Temple pay for all the costs of the

event?

504

Mr. HUANG. My best recollection is they were paying for all the

costs for the event. But they were supposed to submit a cost breakdown. But somehow that thing did not come through in time.

Mr. BURTON. They in effect did pay for all of it?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. Did you arrange for the temple to be paid for their

expenses? Were you trying to arrange for them to be repaid for the

expenses?

Mr. HUANG. I cannot remember exactly what I did, but as I just

said, there is communication with them saying come up with a cost

of the event, but that cost somehow was never—never came

through to us.

Mr. BURTON. I see my time is expired. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will pass on this round of questions.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman passes.

Let me read this here.

At the conclusion of the event on April 29, how much money had

they raised?

Mr. HUANG. On that particular day, I do not really know.

Mr. BURTON. According to our records, it was around $45,000.

Mr. HUANG. It was a small amount, yes.

Mr. BURTON. After the event, did you talk to Richard Sullivan

about how much the event had raised?

Mr. HUANG. I did not remember I talked to him for the exact

amount that had been raised.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t talk to him about how much money had

been raised?

Mr. HUANG. However, he did expect me to conclude that and

bring some money back.

Mr. BURTON. What did Mr. Sullivan say?

Mr. HUANG. To try to wrap it up, he needed me to go back, bring

some money back. There was no specific amount at that time.

Mr. BURTON. But he said he wanted more money than that?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not even mention to him about $45,000 yet

at that moment, I don’t believe.

Mr. BURTON. Did you talk to anybody about how much had been

raised?

Mr. HUANG. Not to anybody in the DNC, no.

Mr. BURTON. Anybody at all? I mean, did you talk to anybody besides people at the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. I, sir, don’t recall. However, Mr. Chairman, there is

a target goal for the fundraising for Vice President Gore’s visit in

southern California, L.A.

Mr. BURTON. What was the target goal?

Mr. HUANG. Somewhere around $200,000, $250,000.

Mr. BURTON. Did Sullivan tell you he was disappointed with the

amount that you had raised at that event?

Mr. HUANG. Certainly he did not tell me in person. If I remember

he made—I said, that’s all I raised. He said, that’s OK, you know.

Mr. BURTON. He did not tell you that he was disappointed?

Mr. HUANG. Not that I recall he ever said that, sir, in that language.

505

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Sullivan gave us a deposition, and he says—

did he tell you that he was disappointed? You just don’t recall that?

Mr. HUANG. I just don’t recall that, sir.

Mr. BURTON. That’s strange. Because, I mean, you were in

charge of the event, and he was one of the key people at the finance department there. If he said he was disappointed, he

wouldn’t want to lose face, wouldn’t you say something to him? You

just don’t remember.

Mr. HUANG. I still don’t remember that, yeah.

Mr. BURTON. Did Sullivan tell you that he had expected more

money from the event considering the trouble that you had had in

arranging it at the temple?

Mr. HUANG. No, as I indicated, Mr. Chairman, there’s target

goals set it up earlier about $200,000, $250,000.

Mr. BURTON. Did he tell you that he wanted to make the DNC’s

end-of-the-month fundraising numbers look good and he wanted

more money out of the event? And did he tell you that he expected

more money from the event?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. I sir, don’t recall. I would assume I myself was not

quite happy with the amount being raised.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Sullivan said once again that he did tell you

that. In his deposition he told us that. And he also said that in

April he wanted to hit the ball out of the ballpark, so to speak, by

raising a lot of money. Did Sullivan ask you if you had any contributions that had not yet come in that were outstanding and did

he ask you to raise more? Did he say, is there more money coming

in or——

Mr. HUANG. I believe I already raised—testified I would raise

more money anyway.

Mr. BURTON. Did you do that at the temple? Did you tell him

that at the temple?

Mr. HUANG. Not from the temple, no.

Mr. BURTON. So you didn’t say anything to him at the temple

about you would raise more money because it didn’t reach what

you wanted.

Mr. HUANG. Not that I recall. Mr. Sullivan was not there, by the

way.

Mr. BURTON. Did you have a telephone conversation with him?

Mr. HUANG. I had a telephone conversation. That’s afterwards,

though.

Mr. BURTON. Was that from the temple?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t believe so. It probably could have been from

my home.

Mr. BURTON. As I understand it, according to Mr. Sullivan’s testimony right after the event there was a telephone call and you two

talked. You don’t recall that?

Mr. HUANG. I do recall I talked to him, but I cannot place the

time right at this moment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall talking to him about the amount

of money or the disappointment or any of that?

Mr. HUANG. Not in the exactly words you’re saying, Mr. Chairman.

506

Mr. BURTON. Did Sullivan ask you to get some California money

in and, if so, what did that mean to you? In other words, did he

say get some money in from California? And, if he did, what did

that mean to you?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know whether he did it or not, but what he

means is try to bring as much money as possible back.

Mr. BURTON. Did he mean from Lippo connections in California

or Asian Americans from California or do you know what he

meant?

Mr. HUANG. Whatever the event I—transpired at that time, you

know, whatever you can collect from the group over there.

Mr. BURTON. How did your discussion with Mr. Sullivan end on

the telephone? Did you promise him on the telephone you would

raise more money?

Mr. HUANG. I did say I’ll bring a good sum of money back this

time.

Mr. BURTON. Well, if you said that, why wouldn’t you remember

that he was disappointed in the amount of money that was raised?

Mr. HUANG. No, I just did not say—I didn’t say that way, Mr.

Chairman. I did not remember exactly what he was saying that

way. But I do know all—for all intent and purpose we want to raise

as much money as possible.

Mr. BURTON. OK. You’ll have to excuse me. We have—I have to

take about a 3-minute break here. I have to make an emergency

phone call.

Would you care to take the Chair?

Mr. SHAYS. I would be happy to take the Chair.

Mr. BURTON. I’ll let Mr. Shays take the Chair.

Mr. SHAYS. Just give me the gavel.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays, it’s your round.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman. I have a couple.

Mr. SHAYS. It is Mr. Waxman’s time. I would be happy to give

him time.

Mr. BURTON. I thought he had passed, but Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. At the previous round. I won’t take much time. I’ll

let you get back to your questions. I want to clean up a few things.

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. Do you want to hit the clock?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Huang, on this Hsi Lai Temple event, did you

look at it in terms of what’s called a maintenance event? Have you

ever heard that term, maintenance event? Community event to—— Mr. HUANG. The community event, yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. By a community event—or I have even heard this

term maintenance event. It’s an event not to raise money but to develop good will and reach out to the community, maybe in the

hopes later of raising money from members there by establishing

some positive contacts. Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. HUANG. That’s accurate, yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. The other thing I wanted to mention, these conversations you had with Mr. Trie and Mr. Sullivan, those were over

3 years ago, weren’t they?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. You were being asked to remember details of those

conversations. Mr. Trie was not a social friend of yours, as I believe

you testified, is that right?

507

Mr. HUANG. However, he was—that time in 1996, you know, I

was in D.C. working for the DNC. Certainly I have some more contact with him occasionally, many, many years prior.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much.

I just wanted to get those clarifications in there. Yield back the

balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

I recognize myself for 5 minutes.

On September 26, 1994, you were working for the Commerce Department; and you were scheduled to meet with Miss Kristoff.

Records indicate that you entered the White House compound at

5:42. Does Kristoff refer to Sandy Kristoff at the NSC?

Let me—maybe what we do is put up exhibit 174, which is just

the White House visits. This would be 1 of the 43 times I’m assuming that you while employed with the Department of Commerce

you met with the—in the White House. And it’s on page 4 I think

we want to put up. Could you get that for me. The question is, who

is Kristoff?

[Exhibit 174 follows:]

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

Mr. HUANG. That Kristoff could be Sandy Kristoff.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Now tell me, did you meet with Sandy Kristoff

on or about September 26, 1994?

Mr. HUANG. I’m quite surprised that name was there. I’m trying

to trace my memory. I certainly don’t recall I met with her personally on that occasion. However, Congressman Shays——

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just say that we can turn the chart over to

the next page 5, and you are marked down at 2:00 and 5:00, but

it looks like you didn’t actually get there. But I would like to know

if you did or not, whether the reports are not accurate or not.

Mr. HUANG. Before I answer this question, I’m trying to make a

further explanations on that. There might be an interdepartment

meeting with the White House during that period of time. The reason, if my name was mentioned over there, was because the person

was in charge of the Asian Pacific affairs in IEP, namely Nancy

Linn Patton, who is a director also, Deputy Assistant Secretary.

She might not be able to go there.

Mr. SHAYS. What we have is we have three meetings, two of

which are not marked down as having attended. But the one on

September 26th, you’re marked down as attending. So I’m assuming you were there.

Mr. HUANG. I was there. I was trying to explain to you probably

it related to the interdepartment meeting. I was late also one occasion.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. OK. But, yeah, you were there. I just want to

establish that. You’re answering a question I haven’t asked yet.

You’ll get a chance.

What was the purpose of your meeting now?

Mr. HUANG. Again, it was interdepartment meeting. I could not

specifically remember what was it about now.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you discuss the United States-Thai Business

Council with Miss Kristoff?

Mr. HUANG. Definitely not, no.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, did you represent on what basis you were having—that you were there? Was it clear as to why you were there?

Mr. HUANG. Congressman Shays, the only thing—the only time

I have very strong impression is that one time is rainy day in late

afternoon I was there very late. That’s related to the interdepartmental meeting. People was already at the meeting. I came in very

late. Probably the meeting was over. I really did not have any

recollection have any more than one occasion met with Ms. Sandy

Kristoff except—except in the State Department.

Mr. SHAYS. And when was that? Before or after?

Mr. HUANG. I couldn’t specify. The reason I’m trying to say that

is, at that time, the Assistant Secretary for the Asian Pacific Affairs for the State Department was—who was it? Sorry. He has

regular meeting for interdepartment agencies. Any department has

Asian Pacific Affairs units will have a routinely meeting with him.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you tell Pauline Kanchanalak—let me ask you—

she was organizing the United States-Thai Business Council meeting. There was some meeting that was going to take place. You

want to talk about that at all?

Mr. HUANG. It was taking place in the White House I think.

520

Mr. SHAYS. Now, Miss Kanchanalak was calling you at the Department of Commerce, but I want to focus the timeframe on September 1994. Around that time she was working on establishing

the United States-Thai Business Council, is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. Did she discuss with you her plan to hold an inaugural meeting with the United States-Thai Business Council on October 6, 1994?

Mr. HUANG. I believe all about that time, that period of time.

Mr. SHAYS. But she talked to you about it.

Mr. HUANG. She did.

Mr. SHAYS. Was she planning to have the Prime Minister of

Thailand attend the inaugural meeting?

Mr. HUANG. She did indicate that.

Mr. SHAYS. Was she also planning to have the President of the

United States attend the meeting?

Mr. HUANG. She would like to have, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Did she express to you any problems she was having

in organizing the meeting?

Mr. HUANG. She couldn’t get things done.

Mr. SHAYS. Pardon me?

Mr. HUANG. She could not get that done, at least at that period

of time.

Mr. SHAYS. Get what done?

Mr. HUANG. Get this meeting accomplished.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. My time has run out.

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. Would you like some more time right

now? I would be glad to yield to you 5 minutes.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

I want you to be more specific as to what type of problems she

had.

Mr. HUANG. She had some difficulty in getting things done. In

other words, there’s apparently political battles over there. I can

only speak on the outside. I cannot really get into the detail for

that.

Mr. SHAYS. Yeah.

Mr. HUANG. I understood the—Sandy Kristoff was the opponent,

would not agree to have such an arrangement.

Mr. SHAYS. Arrangement meaning the President.

Mr. HUANG. That’s right. To have in the White House.

Mr. SHAYS. Did she ask your help?

Mr. HUANG. She did.

Mr. SHAYS. What did she ask you to do?

Mr. HUANG. She expressed, you know, the dismay that this could

not be done, you know. She asked me whether—anything I could

do on that basis.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. HUANG. But I did not really promise her and say I will do

one, two, three, four. I did not. But I believe I—subsequently, I

have a memo to Deputy Undersecretary Rothkopf.

Mr. SHAYS. So you did do something, and you expressed it in a

memo.

521

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. SHAYS. Why don’t we look at that? That’s exhibit 192.

Now, Mr. Rothkopf is the—was Deputy Undersecretary when you

were there. He was your superior. That’s correct?

[Exhibit 192 follows:]

522

523

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. Had you spoken with Mr. Rothkopf about the United

States-Thai Business Council prior to writing this memorandum?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t believe I spoke to him directly. I just have

the memo to send it to him.

Mr. SHAYS. Did Mr. Rothkopf express any concerns about this

proposed United States-Thai Business Council event?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t believe that I have a direct conversation on— face to face on these issues. I thought I would just send a memo.

That was it.

Mr. SHAYS. In the first paragraph of your memorandum to Ms.

Rothkopf you suggest that you and Mr. Rothkopf contact Sandy

Kristoff of NSC to find out what is going on before we do anything

else. What did you mean by ‘‘find out what is going on?’’ Mr. HUANG. As I indicated to you, Congressman, earlier, apparently there was some battle going on as to this proposed meeting,

whether it could take place or not. Now, when I say we, doesn’t

mean Mr. Rothkopf and myself. Because Mr. Rothkopf is in a higher level than I do. I did not have any direct contact with Ms.

Kristoff in any level. And Mr. Rothkopf has. We meaning probably

from the Department of Commerce point of view or ITA’s point of

view.

Mr. SHAYS. In this memo, you expressed numerous concerns and

troubles with hosting the launch to the United States-Thai Business Council. First, you stated a matter of this sort presents risks

and opportunities. What were the risks and what were the opportunities?

Mr. HUANG. OK. Again, I want to thank you, Congressman

Shays, to point out this thing in the memo. I have not read this,

seen this.

Mr. SHAYS. I am happy to have you read it and take your time.

Mr. HUANG. The risks in my mind—at that particular moment,

the Prime Minister from Thailand was coming over. And also to

find out this thing was not done it may endanger some of the business opportunity or future relationship between United States and

Thailand. Now, there was if this can be done then it could be bring

up more opportunity for both countries. I guess that that was basically what I meant.

Mr. SHAYS. You also stated, we at the DOC, including the Secretary, can look good and gain benefits if we could get this matter

squared away. But we may not want to risk relationship with

Sandy slash NSC especially if she, Sandy, strongly objects doing

the launch for this Council in the White House. How did you know

that Sandy Kristoff would object to doing the inaugural meeting?

Who spoke to her about it? Did Pauline Kanchanalak speak to her?

Mr. HUANG. This I learned from Ms. Kanchanalak.

Mr. SHAYS. So you’re getting this from Ms. Kanchanalak?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. What were the NSC objections?

Mr. HUANG. I learned again indirectly here.

Mr. SHAYS. Her, from Ms. Kanchanalak.

Mr. HUANG. The basic objection is coming from Mr. Driscoll. Mr.

Driscoll is executive director for U.S. ASEAN Council. Now here,

as you know very well, Thailand is one of a member of ASEAN naVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00527 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
524

tions. So here is another person who coming out to set up United

States-Thai Business Council. Apparently it’s going to draw more

members away. Maybe that was the politics behind that.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you mean that the Commerce Department was

a neutral party?

Mr. HUANG. We were not involved for these direct contact.

Mr. SHAYS. Who were the parties involved?

Mr. HUANG. I believe it was NSC. Or Sandy Kristoff directly,

yeah.

Mr. SHAYS. You also stated, ‘‘Quite a few members of this proposed council from Arkansas may want to utilize their contacts to

get this matter squared away directly from the top even if they offend Sandy and the NSC.’’ What did you mean by getting this matter squared away directly

from the top?

Mr. HUANG. The best I learned is that when the United StatesThai Business Council have some members, members coming from

Arkansas, what I was trying to say—these people also was friends

with Pauline Kanchanalak—maybe Pauline would be able to ask

these people, go directly to the President to get that, that things

done.

Mr. SHAYS. Who has time now, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman. He’s not here. Would you care to go

forward?

Mr. SHAYS. A few more.

Mr. BURTON. We’ll yield to the gentleman. It’s your time.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. ‘‘Squared away at the top,’’ does not mean the President of the

United States?

Mr. HUANG. It could be directly with the President.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you tell—did someone tell you that the United

States-Thai Business Council members were planning on contacting Clinton, and did you speak with any of the members?

Mr. HUANG. I did not speak to any of the members, no.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just conclude by saying, just this area, you

also stated, ‘‘My personal observation is that President Clinton will

be very upset if he finds out what’s going on behind the scene.’’ Mr. HUANG. I’m sorry, I need to correct the statement to say

would I contact any member on that. Pauline definitely was the

member. Excluding her, I did not speak to anyone else.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, Pauline was the individual who gave $268,000

that was from foreign sources that was basically declared illegal?

Mr. HUANG. That was the same person, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Were you acting on her behalf because of the

$268,000?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t believe at that time she was giving that

much. I did not, even though she gave that kind of money. I

thought you mentioned the figure; it was a much later date when

I was at DNC.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Happy to have that clarified.

Just to conclude here, how did you know the President might be

upset? Or why did you think he might be?

Mr. HUANG. Just my personal judgment on that, because the turf

battle underneath. And just in case it would ruin the relationship

525

on the top, if that happen, I would assume the President might be

upset. Still, I did not talk to President on this matter.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.

Mr. BURTON. If you don’t mind, I’ll use the rest of your time;

then I’ll use mine.

I want to go back to these phone calls that you made. We’ve

talked about them a number of times. These are calls to Lippo organizations either in Indonesia or Los Angeles. On the 17th—or

July 19th, you made two calls; the 27th, one; the 28th, one; August

8th, two; August 30th, one; October 4th, one; October 5th, two; October 6th, you made five; the 11th, one; 12th, one.

And then on the 18th you made 19 calls or 19 faxes, rather; 19

times you faxed to Lippo Pacific. These are from the Stevens Co.

across the street. But if you look at all these faxes, there were

never over four or five sent except on 1 day, October 18th.

Do you attach any significance to that?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. BURTON. That was all the way to Lippo Pacific.

Mr. HUANG. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe that was

sent by me, No. 1. No. 2—— Mr. BURTON. But you did go across the street to the Stevens office on a regular basis to make phone calls and things like that?

Mr. HUANG. Yeah, I do not deny that. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. But you don’t believe these faxes are yours.

Mr. HUANG. By the way, the second answer is—let me finish, Mr.

Chairman.

I believe there was attempt to sending a fax did not go through,

it just constantly resend and resend and resend.

Mr. BURTON. Nineteen times?

Mr. HUANG. Probably that was it. My personal experience in the

past, the line to Indonesia may not be there as easily getting

through.

Mr. BURTON. I know. That’s why we go from July all the way

through May of the next year. So for 10 months the most times

they ever tried to fax something over there was five times; most of

the time it was two or one. In fact, there were only two occasions

when they tried five times.

But this 1 day there were 19, and you don’t recall anything about

that?

Mr. HUANG. No. Not on this one, no.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Let me go back to the temple.

Now, at the end of your conversation on the phone with Mr. Sullivan, you said you would raise more money.

Mr. HUANG. I try to bring more money, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Yeah. What did you do after your conversation with

Mr. Sullivan? Did you speak to Maria Hsia?

Mr. HUANG. I did.

Mr. BURTON. What did you tell her?

Mr. HUANG. Basically I said I only get this much money, and

then also Vice President were here in the event. I really need to

bring back some money to Washington, DC, on this trip back.

Mr. BURTON. How much money did you tell her you needed to

get?

526

Mr. HUANG. I needed to get about $100,000. At least this trip bring back $100,000.

Mr. BURTON. You raised $45,000, so you needed $55,000 more.

Mr. HUANG. In my mind was that—was that—my setting was

that.

Mr. BURTON. Uh-huh.

Mr. HUANG. OK.

Mr. BURTON. According to the testimony from the monks who

have been immunized and the nuns at the Buddhist temple, the

day after the event Maria Hsia called Man Ho and told her that

you needed $55,000 and needed it before you left for Washington

that evening. Is that what you told Maria Hsia?

Mr. HUANG. That’s her exact language, but the concept is the

same, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know if Maria Hsia told this to Hsing Yun?

Mr. HUANG. That I don’t know. I left it to her.

Mr. BURTON. According to the testimony of the immunized

monks and nuns from the temple, Man Ho then met with Yi Chu,

the bookkeeper for the temple, and told her that they needed to

make $55,000 in contributions very quickly. Yi Chu then asked the

first 11 monks that she saw to write a $5,000 contribution to the

DNC. All 11 of these monks were reimbursed for their contributions by the temple.

Did you have any knowledge that Maria Hsia had asked the monks to make $55,000 in contributions by the time that you came

to the temple on that evening?

Mr. HUANG. I did not, sir.

Mr. BURTON. She didn’t mention anything to you about that?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Did she give you the checks?

Mr. HUANG. She did.

Mr. BURTON. Didn’t you ask her where those checks came from?

Mr. HUANG. I did not. I thanked her.

Mr. BURTON. She gave you $55,000 in $5,000 checks and you

didn’t ask her a thing?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. It’s my turn now, so I yield myself 5 minutes.

Go ahead.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, the step-by-step situation, I went to

the temple on the way to airport. And Maria Hsia was there, she

hand me an envelope indicating there was about 100,000 there.

And I thank her for it.

Mr. BURTON. I know. The night before or right after the temple

event, you got $45,000. You were concerned about that. You talked

to Mr. Sullivan. And you told him you would try to get more

money.

You then talked to Maria Hsia and said, hey, we’re $55,000

short, we ought to get $100,000 from this event. I’m not putting

words in your mouth, but that’s the gist of what you said. You

leave.

The next day she talks to the head of the monastery and says

we’ve got to get $55,000 more. She’s a member of the temple. She gets 11 monks or nuns to write checks for $5,000 each, and they’re

527

reimbursed by the temple. You come back on your way to the airport to get the $100,000 which is in an envelope, and you don’t

even ask her where the extra $55,000 came from?

I mean, she got that in just a matter of hours. Weren’t you even

curious?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not. Because she was the main person that

maintain contact on the other side. And I just mentioned to her I

would like to have a chance to bring back $100,000 this trip with

me in Washington, DC.

I did not really ask her. I thank her for it. That’s it.

Mr. BURTON. So you walked into the temple the day before it was $45,000, she gives you an envelope says here’s $100,000 and you

just say thanks.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct. I even thank—later on Man Ho

came out; I said thank you very much.

Mr. BURTON. Why did you say thank you to Man Ho?

Mr. HUANG. For all the events this time she will put out, because

she was handling general affairs.

Mr. BURTON. She was the one that was in charge of the finances

for the temple, wasn’t she?

Mr. HUANG. That I did not—didn’t know. I do know she was in

charge of the general affairs to arranging everything.

Mr. BURTON. Uh-huh.

See, Man Ho met with Yi Chu, who was the bookkeeper, and asked her to get the $55,000 out through the monks. And so you

said you thanked Man Ho for her help. But you didn’t thank her

for the $55,000.

Mr. HUANG. No. She came out; as a courtesy I say, thank you.

I just say that.

Mr. BURTON. But you didn’t know the money came from the temple?

Mr. HUANG. I did not.

Mr. BURTON. What time did you arrive at the temple on the

evening of April 30th? Do you know what time it was? You said

you were on the way to the airport.

Mr. HUANG. I normally take the red eye back, so must be around

7, 8, around that time, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Uh-huh. And the only two you met with were Maria

Hsia and Man Ho? Did you meet with any of the monks?

Mr. HUANG. I couldn’t quite recall it was additional persons in

that room or not. There might be a person was there reading newspaper, I don’t know who that person was.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t see other monks or nuns?

Mr. HUANG. I did not.

Mr. BURTON. So the only two that you recall are Man Ho and

Maria Hsia?

Mr. HUANG. Right. In sequence, Maria came out first and then

Man Ho later.

Mr. BURTON. Did someone give you the 11 checks that had been

written—well, I’ve already asked you that and you said that was already in the envelope with the other, all the $100,000 was in one

envelope.

Mr. HUANG. That’s all combined.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t open the envelope or look in it at all?

528

Mr. HUANG. No, I just had to dash to the airport.

Mr. BURTON. Ten of the 11 checks are exhibits 403 to 412. Did

you know that these checks were—you did not know, you said, that

they were written by monks or nuns?

[Exhibits 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, and 412 follow:]

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

Mr. HUANG. I did not.

Mr. BURTON. And you never questioned where she got the extra $55,000 in a few short hours.

Mr. HUANG. I did not question that either, no.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t have any questions in your mind about

where the money came from, you just took it and left.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t question where the extra $55,000 came

from.

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not, sir.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Well, obviously this event you know has received a lot of public scrutiny. But now that you’re cooperating, it’s

worth reviewing some of the public statements that you’ve made

about the event. Right after news of this event became public,

Maria Hsia’s then-lawyer, Peter Kelly, stated that this event was

a Huang show, and that all that Maria Hsia did was make a few

phone calls.

Is that right? He said it was your event and all Maria Hsia did

was just make a few phone calls, but it was Huang’s show.

Mr. HUANG. I was with the DNC, you know. I certainly work

with Maria Hsia in getting things done. I did not have any direct

contact with the temple. I’m not even a Buddhist follower.

Mr. BURTON. So that statement would not be true, then? It was

totally your event?

Mr. HUANG. I was part of a coordination on the DNC side. The

other side basically all through—— Mr. BURTON. But she’s the one that did all the fundraising?

Mr. HUANG. No, no, I didn’t say that she did the fundraising. I

also did some too myself.

Mr. BURTON. For the event?

Mr. HUANG. For the event.

Mr. BURTON. For people other than members who were the temple?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. All right. Another Vice President Gore aide is cited

in the press as saying that the event was intended to raise the Vice

President’s profile in the Asian American community and not to

raise money. Was that true? I mean, was this specifically supposed

to be to raise his profile with Asian Americans or was it to raise

money?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. I really need to spend a little time to explain to you,

Mr. Chairman and also members of this committee, about these

things. As I alluded yesterday, there was supposed to be two separate functions. One is really a fundraising at the Harbor Village

Hotel in Monterey Park, originally set for that. And basically on

the Hsi Lai Temple was really geared to the community function

so people will come over—Vice President will come over to the largest Buddhist temple in the West Coast, and in fact the head of the

temple, you know, whom he met prior in prior years. So basically

that was supposed to be in the Hsi Lai Temple a community type

of event. But due to the scheduling issues and also the distance between the Monterey Park and the Hacienda Heights, the schedule

just basically would not allow to have a Vice President going from

540

one place to the other. So the event of fundraising event was totally

basically canceled in the Monterey Park, that restaurant. But however the motion in try to raising money started going. So some people were being contacted, so some people might be interested in

coming in and knew about Vice President coming in over there. So

in light of that situation, we were sort of more or less put both

things together on that.

So the whole thing, the community event was carried on as original planned as well, and people were welcoming the Vice President

coming in. Afterwards then the luncheon will be follow on that.

Mr. BURTON. So you just added them together at the temple.

Mr. HUANG. All together in temple. You know to fit into that

schedule. Now, during that luncheon event, I didn’t believe anybody was speaking, say we’re going to raise the money to do that.

I didn’t believe I collect any checks or anybody’s sitting in the front

collect the money. In terms of these participants quite a lot of people are just there as honored guests coming over. Without any

doubt some people had made a commitment prior to that switching

of the places. They were coming in, they were making certain kind

of commitments. So some of the money might have been collected

ahead of time, but some of the money probably being collected

afterwards. So that’s how they came about for this events, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. I will come back to this in my next round because

I want to ask you a couple questions about it.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Huang, I asked you about—this seems like

yesterday but it might have even been the day before—with regard

to the Hsi Lai Temple. Vice President Gore has claimed that he

didn’t know this was a fundraising event. And in fact, as I understand it his speech was not a request for money but more of a generic speech about everybody being able to participate in government. You now know and had a chance to look at everything about

the Hsi Lai Temple—things you knew about then, things you know

about now. Do you have any information that would say that Vice

President Gore did anything wrong?

Mr. HUANG. From my point of view, Asian American was very

grateful, a person with that kind of status the first time coming

over to our community, in particular coming to a religious group

which is not a majority. Basically this country is a Christian basically. In fact, Mr. Waxman, I was asked by Vice President’s staff

members to the question is what Vice President should speak about

during the luncheon. And I said well, maybe your Vice President

was a major in religion in Harvard University, he will be very

qualified to talk about religious tolerance and things in that direction. I believe most of the speech he was talking about is inclusiveness and the participation, about religious tolerance, things in that

nature.

Mr. WAXMAN. The other part of my question to you is not just

what he had to say, but now that you know everything that he

did—he said he was there, he didn’t know it was a fundraiser, he

gave a speech to reach out to the Asian American community—do

you think that Vice President Gore did anything wrong?

Mr. HUANG. No, I didn’t. Absolutely not, no.

541

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays, do you want to go now or would you——

Mr. SHAYS. Do you want to finish?

Mr. BURTON. If you wouldn’t mind I would like to while I still

have got this fresh in my mind.

If you received checks in advance and I believe you did, and this

was the only event, how could it not be called a fundraiser? Didn’t

you get checks in advance?

Mr. HUANG. I did receive checks in advance.

Mr. BURTON. So you knew that it was a fundraiser because you

already had checks in your hand.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. As I report to you, Mr. Chairman, I had the plan

as a fundraiser in the restaurant earlier. That motion was going.

So any checks I had received—I didn’t remember how many of

them, very probably few. I did receive the checks.

Mr. BURTON. You knew the two were going to be consolidated

into one event because of the timeframe so you knew there was

going to be a fundraiser at the temple, is that not correct? I mean

you’ve already said you knew they were going to be combined into

one event.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, the original plan fundraising event was canceled. And I didn’t recall anybody at that

luncheon as raising money and collecting money. I do know with

such opportunity later on I would be able to inspire more people

to give me more money.

Mr. BURTON. Did any of the people that gave you money get special seating at the event? Did they sit up front?

Mr. HUANG. Some of the people willing to making a more commitment, yes, they were.

Mr. BURTON. So this definitely was known as a fundraiser because you were giving them preferential seating; you did not give

the checks back so you knew this was what was going on.

Now, the—after the meal in the temple dining hall I’m going

back to that, there were some statements made by some people

that there was actual discussion by some of the speakers about

raising money. And we’ve got people who said, testified to that

event, that, you know, there were there that said yeah we heard

people say yeah we want to raise some money for the Vice President. You don’t recall that?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, you were saying right after that

luncheon?

Mr. BURTON. That’s what it says, yes.

Mr. HUANG. OK. The reason for that is my dash off to the airport

to go to San Jose right away.

Mr. BURTON. You know, I know you know you’re under oath and

everything. But you said that this was not really a fundraiser. You

did say that they were combined and then you said that these people got special treatment by sitting up in front where the Vice

President was going to be. I mean you knew this was going to be

a fundraiser at the temple.

[Discussion off the record.]

542

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I know your characterization about

the event but I repeat I did plan the fundraising in different places.

Some people did give money but people were invited for that event.

But I did not really collect the money in that event.

Mr. BURTON. But they did get special seating and everything.

OK. I see my time has expired. Let me take 5 minutes since I’m

next on the list. Mr. Waxman is not here. Then I’ll yield to my colleague because I have to rush out and make a phone call and I’ll

be right back.

Another Vice President Gore aide is cited in the press as saying

that the event was intended to raise the Vice President’s profile in

the American community. I think I already asked that question.

But was that the purpose at the temple originally just to raise his

profile with the Asian American community?

Mr. HUANG. That’s one of the purposes.

Mr. BURTON. What was the other purpose?

Mr. HUANG. As I indicate to you earlier, Mr. Chairman, this is

the first time a very high ranking government official is Vice President coming to our community. And also can inspire a lot of religious following in the Buddhist sect, you know, to recognize the

fact that somebody is really paying attention to us. Certainly that

will raise the profile of Mr. Gore.

Mr. BURTON. In an interview the Vice President said, ‘‘I did not

know that the money was being contributed at the time. The people

with me did not know. Obviously something, someone did not handle it right.’’ Now, is that true? Did none of the people that were

accompanying the President like Don Fowler or David Strauss,

did—or yourself, I mean, did any of them know that money was

being collected?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. To answer your question it’s not true. I believe Mr.

Fowler knows about that. And also Mr. Strauss probably knew

about that as well.

Mr. BURTON. So they knew it was a fundraiser, you knew it was

a fundraiser, Maria Hsia knew it was a fundraiser, Don Fowler

knew it was a fundraiser, but the Vice President who was with all

of you did not know it was a fundraiser.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I can only state that Mr. Fowler

knows about it, knew about it and Mr. Strauss knew about it. I

really can’t say anything further about what more than that.

Mr. BURTON. When you talked to the Justice Department did

they ask you if any of the contributors got special treatment at the

temple? Did they ask you if they got special seating, did the Justice

Department ask you that?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I do remember I went over the seating charts with the Justice Department for the detail.

Mr. BURTON. Did they ask you if the people who contributed got

special seating?

Mr. HUANG. I think they asked everyone I could identify.

Mr. BURTON. But did they ask you if people who contributed got

special seating?

[Discussion off the record.]

543

Mr. HUANG. Some yes, but some of the people did not even contribute was also there.

Mr. BURTON. But the Justice Department did ask you if the

people——

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. BURTON. But the Justice Department did ask you if there

was special seating for the contributors?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, might not be exactly words that

you’re saying but I was asked who are these people, why they were

sitting there.

Mr. BURTON. What did you tell them? What did you tell the Justice Department?

Mr. HUANG. Whatever the truth was is—for instance some of the

guests—all the guests is not necessarily sitting on the table were

designated by me.

Mr. BURTON. What I want to ask you is this: When the Justice

Department asked you who these people were there and why they

were there, did you say these people in the front row or these people were contributors, did you tell them that? What did you tell the

Justice Department?

Mr. HUANG. Not all of them. Some of them were.

Mr. BURTON. Did you tell the Justice Department that?

Mr. HUANG. I believe I did.

Mr. BURTON. You did tell the Justice Department that?

Mr. HUANG. I believe I did.

Mr. BURTON. That some of the people listed when they asked you

about it were——

Mr. HUANG. Contributors or potential contributors.

Mr. BURTON. If I might ask one followup question real quickly.

Was that in the 302’s? We’ll check that out. Thank you.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Huang, you’ve been asked this over and over

again. There was a fundraising event that was canceled and then

there was the community event at the temple. And as much as the

chairman would like to make you say it was a fundraising event,

it’s your testimony that it wasn’t a fundraising event. He may not

believe you, but it just seems to me to ask the question over and

over again to try to make you say something that you don’t want

to say, is going too far. It’s asking the question over and over and

over again.

Now, I don’t know what to make of the fact that if people were

going to contribute to go to a fundraiser that was canceled but they

contributed for that fundraiser when they went to the community

event—why they shouldn’t be given any kind of prominent attention. Were people given prominent attention as you indicated who

didn’t give any money?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t think Mr. Knabe, Don Knabe the supervisor,

gave any money. He was a very prominent figure sitting on the

head table as well.

Mr. WAXMAN. He also happens to be a Republican as best I

know.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

544

Mr. WAXMAN. So I don’t see what the—what we’re getting into

by having the chairman ask you this question over and over again.

It seems to me almost to the point of—certainly redundancy but almost harassment. Your testimony is that there was a community

event at the Hsi Lai Temple and there was another fundraising

event but the fundraising event was canceled, is that an accurate

statement?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Waxman, through all these exercises we just did

a little bit earlier, to be fair, I would not deny there was some

checks being collected, you know, through such a process there. I

mean through this event I’m talking about afterwards or before

event we certainly did not collect any money right at that site.

Mr. WAXMAN. By the way, the chairman asked you about the

questions from the Justice Department. These were FBI inquiries,

weren’t they?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. Largely related to that, yeah.

Mr. WAXMAN. Because as I understand that you were interviewed by the FBI about all these questions and the chairman

asked you were you asked by the Justice Department whether

some of the contributors were at the head table, that question

would have come from the FBI agents that interviewed you,

wouldn’t it?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Not necessarily though.

Mr. WAXMAN. Because you were interviewed by both FBI and

Justice.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, yes. Simultaneously.

Mr. WAXMAN. Simultaneously. So different people at the questioning would be FBI and others were Justice and they would take

turns asking you questions or they were all asking you questions

at the same time.

Mr. HUANG. I think mostly they were coming from the FBI

though.

Mr. WAXMAN. It was one meeting.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, all sitting at one table.

Mr. WAXMAN. And different people there were asking questions.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. And you didn’t ask now that question is from the

man from the Justice Department or that question is from the employee of the FBI.

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. You responded to the question.

Mr. HUANG. That’s right, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I just wanted to clarify that point. I have

some time left over. I would be pleased to yield to Mr. Shays. He’s

here to pursue questions and he can add it on to his round.

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. Thank the gentleman. Actually I’ll take

my own time. I appreciate that. But I’ll take my own 5 minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Then I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. It’s just that this way I control the time

and I appreciate that. And it relates to this issue. I don’t think the

chairman was badgering you at all. I think he was trying to underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00548 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
545

stand something. I learned something new that I didn’t know before and I’m happy he asked the question. What I learned was that

some money was collected before and some money was collected

after. I also learned that you told Mr. Gore’s people, the people that

were with him, that there was going to be a certain area in which

financial contributors or potential financial contributors were going

to sit. Isn’t that true?

Mr. HUANG. That’s true.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So you weren’t badgered, you told us something

that I didn’t know and I don’t think the committee knew and

maybe the public didn’t know. See, I have two ways to view Mr.

Gore’s issue. I can view him that he is extrodinarily incompetent

and so are his people to have him go to an event that’s a major

fundraising event and he didn’t know it, or that he knew it and

found himself in a very awkward situation, maybe he wasn’t happy

about it at the end but it was in fact an event.

It’s kind of like when Mr. Gore made calls from public buildings

and he said well there’s no controlling authority. It was an embarrassing event. He knew it shouldn’t have happened. And by saying

no controlling authority he was probably implying it was soft

money, therefore it might be legal because soft money is not called

campaign money. But then the DNC and others rerouted the funds

to hard money contributions that then did make it illegal.

Now, there was an article in the New York Times of June 12th

and the article, what I want to read to you says,

And White House aides are now upset that the reimbursement scheme will be a

central point of the prolonged criminal investigation and prevent Mr. Gore from putting the episode behind him. Officials at the Democrat National Committee said this

week that they also felt betrayed by Mr. Huang’s varying accounts of the event, especially after questions were first raised about its propriety last fall. He kept insisting it was just community outreach and that he had never ever billed it as a fundraiser, said one Democrat official who insisted on anonymity. And of course, that

is far from the truth. We just feel completely mislead by him.

Evidently Republicans aren’t allowed to criticize you but Democrats are. Was this a fair criticism of you?

Mr. HUANG. The answer is no.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. Because in fact if you had mislead them you

would have been breaking the law and you would have been disagreeing with the very thing that you told us you hadn’t. You had

stopped breaking the law after 1994. So I’m going to—as you know

my distinguished ranking member is willing to give you the credibility to say you’re under oath and you’re telling us the truth. And

you’ve told us the truth. They were informed. They knew it.

Mr. HUANG. [Witness nodded.]

Mr. SHAYS. So the only thing we have going now is you didn’t

directly tell the President, Vice President, directly, is that true?

You didn’t speak to the Vice President?

Mr. HUANG. Absolutely not.

Mr. SHAYS. So you didn’t tell the Vice President but you told his

people. Is that true?

Mr. HUANG. Or his people knew about it, yes. The same, yeah.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. SHAYS. Happy to yield.

546

Mr. WAXMAN. The point that I think you’re missing is Mr. Huang

said the event was not a fundraising event. And I wanted to point

that out to you. So I yield back.

Mr. SHAYS. Is that what you said, it is not a fundraiser?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Huang, I just want to say to you, I don’t want

to put words in your mouth. I don’t want Mr. Waxman to put the

words in your mouth. But I am going to demand that we be precise

in this in every instance.

Mr. HUANG. I will try to say—thank you very much, Mr. Shays.

At the time because I planned a fundraiser, the fundraising event

was canceled. The place was canceled. So trying to—the event over

there in my mind was not really a fundraiser. We did not really

collect the money, did not even have people stay in the front to collect the money. However, with all these months, years going on, I

was not really, you know, sure, you know, that—— Mr. SHAYS. I’m uneasy by your response. I feel uneasy about

your response. I feel you have given us two answers.

I would ask the chairman, my time has run out. Could I have

a little more time to pursue this?

Mr. BURTON. Am I next?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes. When that’s over with.

Mr. BURTON. I will yield to Mr. Shays. You may have my time

when yours is over.

Mr. HUANG. You know, it is getting to a legal definition on that.

At the time, it was not really my thinking. Right now, I’m not really sure how it’s being categorized. It has to be done through legal

terms.

Mr. SHAYS. Let’s be real clear. I was really eager to go on to

something else, but you testified to the chairman that money was

raised before the event and after the event, correct?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. SHAYS. You also testified to the chairman that you let people

know in the Vice President’s entourage that there was a certain

area where contributors were sitting, and both who had contributed

and potential contributors, is that not correct?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. SHAYS. And it would be unfair for anyone in the President’s

entourage—Vice President’s entourage to mischaracterize that confusion. You did do that?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And this in fact was a fundraising event? Money was

raised?

Mr. HUANG. Well, I had difficulty, you know, in drawing lines,

Mr. Shays, on that.

Mr. SHAYS. But it in fact was a fundraising event; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. There was money, whether before or after it, being

raised, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. I go to fundraising events. The money comes in before, it comes in after, but while I’m speaking they don’t hand out

the money.

Before you answer, Mr. Huang, I also want to say, your job at

the DNC was fundraising?

Mr. HUANG. Absolutely, yes.

547

Mr. SHAYS. That was your job, and you were doing your job.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. Some are criticizing you, Democrats, for this confusion. I think you might have been criticized unfairly. What is your

answer?

Mr. HUANG. To your earlier questions?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes. Was this a fundraiser event?

Mr. HUANG. I’m not really in a position try to argue with you,

your points, Congressman Shays. I wanted to state there was some

money being collected prior to the event and also the money being

collected after the event, but there’s no—based on my knowledge,

there’s no money collected at the event. At the time I think—the

whole event, the—mostly happened was in the front part, a lot of

people coming to welcome him. It was in my view it was a community, basically, event.

Mr. SHAYS. Is it true that some people came to the event expecting that they should make a contribution?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much.

I want to ask you this. Has anyone prior to your testimony asked

you to not characterize this as a campaign event or a fundraising

event?

Mr. HUANG. Nobody, nobody.

Mr. SHAYS. You know what I’m going to do? I have another line

of questioning, but I’ll yield back my time on this.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Just to put this whole thing to rest, there was a

fundraising event scheduled. Money was being collected for that

fundraising event. That fundraising event—without a doubt a fundraising event—it was an event to raise money exclusively—was

canceled. And some of the people who were going to come to the

first event joined with other people in the Hsi Lai Temple community event. Is that exactly where things are?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. So now whether the Hsi Lai event was a fundraising event seems to me something that Mr. Shays and Mr. Burton

are trying to put into your mouth. If an event is an event for the

purposes of raising money, that’s a fundraising event, as was the

event that you were working on that was canceled. People can go

to a community event and when they go to the community event

you as a fundraiser or any of us as candidates trying to raise

money might talk to people before the event and after the event

and urge them to give money. But it doesn’t make it an event, a

community event—a community meeting doesn’t become a fundraising event because there may be fundraising before and after

that event.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. I just want to pin that down, and I hope we’ve put

this issue to rest. I have no other questions so I’m going to yield

back the balance of my time and maybe we can move on and get

into other areas and complete this very, very lengthy interrogation

of you.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, could you just yield to me for a second?

548

Mr. BURTON. I would be glad to yield to my colleague.

Mr. SHAYS. We want to put it to rest. I don’t understand why you

said yes. He said it doesn’t make it a fundraising event. Doesn’t the

fact that you raise money at the event make it a fundraising event?

It may mean that you for some reason didn’t think of it as a fundraising event, but the dang thing was a fundraising event. He just

didn’t know—the President is saying he didn’t know it was a fundraising event.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Shays, it’s very, very difficult for me to answer

that.

Mr. SHAYS. It wasn’t difficult for you to answer Mr. Waxman.

You seemed very quick to answer that. That’s what concerned me.

If you had hesitated and said, well, Mr. Waxman, this part is true,

this isn’t. But you were really willing to say yes to his entire statement, and that’s what concerns me. It seems like you’re—you have

conflicting testimony before us.

Mr. HUANG. As the time goes on, you thinking back on the thing.

I wasn’t sure about my state of mind at that particular time. That’s

what I want—really want to stay.

Mr. SHAYS. We weren’t talking about your state of mind. He was

talking about whether it was a fundraising event or not. It turned

out it was. The question is, did he know it or not? Then Mr. Burton

gave every indication that you should have known because you had

people sitting at the event who had contributed for this event and

others who were going to contribute because of the event. That’s

about as big an example of a fundraiser you can get.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman Shays, I can understand the different

perspective people view this as a fundraiser or not fundraiser event

on that. In my mind at that time basically it was a community

event because Mr. Gore was so much welcomed by the community

people and going in.

Mr. SHAYS. I have this time, and I’ll just say to you it is true

you testified that you let the White House know you wanted a section of people to sit who were contributors and potential contributors to this event.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, absolutely right, Mr. Shays.

Mr. BURTON. I don’t want to prolong this. I think the record will

speak for itself. But I want to make sure that we nail one point

down and that is that the people with Vice President Gore clearly

knew that money was being contributed. Mr. Fowler did, you said.

Mr. Strauss did, you said. You did, and Maria Hsia did. And you

stated that very clearly, and I just wanted to make sure that’s

clearly stated for the record.

Mr. HUANG. I believe they knew the money had been contributed

prior to the event, and I also knew the money being collected after

the event. That’s the statement I want to address to Mr. Chairman

on that.

Mr. BURTON. Now, during the Senate hearings on this matter

there was testimony that a number of the temple nuns and monks

destroyed and altered records once news stories about the event became public. Do you have any knowledge of this beyond the press

reports? Did you—anybody talk to you about them destroying documents?

Mr. HUANG. No, Mr. Chairman.

549

Mr. BURTON. Had nothing to do—— Mr. HUANG. Nothing to do with this.

Mr. BURTON. Didn’t know anything about it?

Mr. HUANG. I did not know anything about it, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Did you ever talk to Maria Hsia about that, about

those documents being destroyed or should she talk to the people

at the temple about having them destroyed?

Mr. HUANG. No, not on that subject, no.

Mr. BURTON. Were you ever in contact with Maria Hsia or staff

on how to respond to press inquiries about the Hsi Lai Temple

event?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Were you ever in contact with Maria Hsia’s staff or

anyone from the Hsi Lai Temple about destroying or altering evidence? I think you already answered that. You said no.

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. BURTON. On June 10, 1996, there was a fundraiser at the

home of Lew Wasserman in California. Did you help organize that

event?

Mr. HUANG. June 10, 1996.

Mr. BURTON. Yes. It was at Lew Wasserman’s home.

Mr. HUANG. I do know Mr. Wasserman, but I don’t remember I

ever set foot in that one.

Mr. BURTON. So you don’t recall soliciting any money for that

event?

Mr. HUANG. Let me see. I just need to have a little more information to make sure.

Mr. BURTON. Why don’t you look at exhibit 439?

[Exhibit 439 follows:]

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

Mr. HUANG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 439.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you for allowing me to read the things.

I did not plan that event. It was not hosted by me. I believe I

was there.

Mr. BURTON. You were there?

Mr. HUANG. I was there, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did you solicit any money for that event?

Mr. HUANG. I think there might be some checks being contributed to there. I think Congressman LaTourette or Congressman

Souder was talking about a number of the several checks I had

control in my hand. Some—part—might have a part of those money

going to DNC.

Mr. BURTON. Did you solicit that money or were you just the recipient of it? Did you just receive it?

Mr. HUANG. No, the checks basically was in my control. Whoever

went to that event, I just, you know, executed and give the money

to the DNC.

Mr. BURTON. But did you solicit the money? Did you ask for the

money?

Mr. HUANG. From other people?

Mr. BURTON. Uh-huh. Did you ask people to contribute to the

event?

Mr. HUANG. Except that particular item, no.

Mr. BURTON. You and the Riadys were there; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. Why were the Riadys at that event in the United

States and did they travel to the event with Xiaoming Dai?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. They came by themselves?

Mr. HUANG. They came by themselves, I believe.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 440, which is right next to that, is a commit

list for the June 10 event. On page 2 of the exhibit, you’re listed

as pledging $10,000 for the event. Is that accurate? And if so, did

you pledge to raise that or did you just contribute it yourself?

[Exhibit 440 follows:]

559

560

561

562

563

564

Mr. HUANG. I was not contributing myself. I just used the money

that I had control—remember the checks I told you, used that as

a contribution.

Mr. BURTON. I see.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. Waxman passes.

Let me go ahead and conclude, and then I’ll come back to you,

Mr. Shays.

On page 4 of that exhibit, it lists the Riadys as having pledged

$15,000 for that event. Did the Riadys pledge to give money to that

event?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. They did not pledge to give money to that event?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Why does it say that?

Mr. HUANG. I wouldn’t know because the—Mr. Chairman, I mentioned to you there is a $25,000 check probably was given for that

event. That probably explain to you one is $10,000 the other is

$15,000. Total is $25,000.

Mr. BURTON. So $10,000 was coming from you and $15,000—but

where did the $25,000 come from? Who did that come from?

Mr. HUANG. From Arief. Remember Arief, Soraya. Remember I

have control of the checks in hand.

Mr. BURTON. So you attributed that to you and to the Riadys.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. But you didn’t give and the Riadys didn’t give?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. So it was somebody else’s money, but it was given

in their name?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. Staff just informed me that the Wiriadinatas’

money was pledged the day before at another event and not for this

event. So where did the $10,000 and $15,000 come from if it was

not from——

Mr. HUANG. My recollection is I did not have any other control

of the money except the Soraya and Arief.

Mr. BURTON. We’ll have to check that because——

Mr. HUANG. I’d like to know. I certainly would like to explain to

your question as well and fully. If there is information I’d be glad

to explain this.

Mr. BURTON. We’ll look it up.

So it’s—well, I think——

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. BURTON. Just 1 second, please.

Here we have an event for Dianne Feinstein for Senator, and the

check from the Wiriadinatas was June 15 for $25,000, and it shows

that money going to the Diane Feinstein event. So the event at

Lew Wasserman which was the next day or—this was—this check

was dated the 5th, and the event was the 9th, so the next day on

the 10th there was another fundraiser at the home of Mr.

Wasserman’s. The $25,000 from the Wiriadinatas went to Diane

Feinstein’s event. So where did the $10,000 from you and the

$15,000 from the Riadys come from at Wasserman’s?

565

Mr. HUANG. My best recollection is I did not give the money, $10,000 or $15,000. Mr. Riady did not give that money either. My

best recollection there was Wiriadinatas’ money, whether Soraya or

Arief’s, because both of them were giving the checks in my control.

Could be one from Arief, the other one coming from Soraya on that

basis.

Mr. BURTON. So they each gave $25,000, and what you’re saying

is it may have been his money that was given at this other one instead of hers, right?

Mr. HUANG. My best recollection, that might have been the case

right now.

Mr. BURTON. We’ll check that. Why was Riady’s name on anybody’s list? Why did you show that the Riadys gave $15,000 because they weren’t eligible to give at all? Even if it wasn’t their

money, why would you put the money in their name if they were

not eligible?

Mr. HUANG. I think the list is indicating is the Riadys attended.

I don’t know why you interpreted as that they were giving the

money, though.

Mr. BURTON. I’ll get back to that later. We’re going to talk this

over. I don’t want to bother you with it at this point.

Would you like to take a break for about 10 minutes? Would you

feel that you need that?

Mr. HUANG. No, I’m OK, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Anybody else need a break? If not, we’ll press

ahead.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. I think it’s Mr. Waxman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays, did you want to go ahead? I yield you

the rest of my time, and then you can have yours.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. We’re not at the temple now. We’re back

at—we’re back trying to understand the United States-Thai Business Council meeting. And Mr. Rothkopf, either in a deposition or

testimony before the Thompson Committee, testified that neither

he nor Under Secretary Garten nor Sandy Kristoff, who is national

Security Council, supported launching the United States-Thai Business Council from the White House with the President attending.

Yet the event did in fact take place in the White House and the

President did attend; isn’t that correct?

Mr. HUANG. My recollection, it probably happened just briefly,

yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And the President did attend that event?

Mr. HUANG. My recollection, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you attribute the success of that event, in part,

to your efforts?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t think so.

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t mean it sarcastically; I mean it sincerely.

Mr. HUANG. No, I don’t think so.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you keep Pauline Kanchanalak apprised of your

efforts during that—— Mr. HUANG. If I did, the most I just sent a memo to Mr.

Rothkopf. That’s all I did.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. But you were in contact with her. That part

is true?

566

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you know if Ms. Kanchanalak was in contact with

anyone at the DNC regarding this event?

Mr. HUANG. She might have, but I don’t know who she did.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, the event took place on October 6. Do you think

it’s a coincidence——

Mr. BURTON. I yield you my time, Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you think it’s a coincidence that Ms.

Kanchanalak’s sister-in-law, Georgie Kronenberg, contributed

$12,500 to the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. I would have no knowledge on that.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you think it would be a coincidence that 14 days

later Mrs. Kanchanalak contributed $32,500 to the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. Again, I would not know.

Mr. SHAYS. Are you aware of any government official, beside

yourself, who thought this was a smart thing for the President to

do?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know about anybody else beside myself who

wrote the memo.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me get to questions on security which we kind

of touched on. I’d asked you yesterday and I’m going to say to you

again, I did go to the committee, the Cox committee, and I didn’t

find anything that would have been more damning than their

statement; and frankly there wasn’t a lot of support material as it

relates to—everything is a coincidence.

It’s speculation on what—you had clearance, you were friends

with the Riadys, and you had contacts; that’s the extent of it. We

have no damning memos there, nothing that would—could be used,

to my knowledge. I didn’t see any material.

But what was of interest to me was that you had stated that you

really didn’t have any interest in having a clearance; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. The clearance to get my job, that clearance has to

be done, though.

Mr. SHAYS. You had an interest because you had to do it for your

job. So you got it because that’s what the job required you to have.

You needed the clearance to do your job; is that what your testimony is?

Mr. HUANG. That’s what I understood, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. You were given an interim Top Secret and then you

were given a full Top Secret and you did not ask for the SCI, the

compartmentalized aspect of security. It’s of interest to me that you

were briefed 37 times by Dickerson, and he estimates that you saw

between 10 and 15 pieces of intelligence per briefing, or what he

refers to as 370 to 500 separate pieces of intelligence, and we attributed—it’s called—the great bulk of material that you saw was

what we call ‘‘field reporting,’’ and I use the words ‘‘raw intelligence,’’ and this type of intelligence is considered extremely sensitive, mostly because it contains sources and methods.

Now, the feeling I get, to date, is you had these briefings, but

they didn’t interest you all that much; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. I shouldn’t say I was not interested in it. That’s part

of my job and I have to read them.

567

Mr. SHAYS. You got your Top Secret briefing on October 25, 1994.

You had been working there for how long by then?

Mr. HUANG. October 24, 1994, that would be around 3 months.

Mr. SHAYS. It was the 25th. But October 1994?

Mr. HUANG. About 3 months, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. You already testified before this committee the SCI

clearance you declined. I speculated that you might have declined

because there might have been further investigation of your background and you might have been concerned that they might look

at the illegal contributions to the Riadys. Is that a fact, sir?

Mr. HUANG. That is not a fact, no.

Mr. SHAYS. And you were briefed regularly? About every 2 weeks

you received a briefing? That’s what it amounted to?

Mr. HUANG. Approximately. By—mainly by Mr. Dickerson, I believe.

Mr. SHAYS. That’s the Office of Intelligence Liaison?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you ever sit down with Charles Meissner or any

of your superiors at ITA and discuss what your intelligence briefings should cover?

Mr. HUANG. Commissioner Shays, basically the way it went Mr.

Meissner would process the clearance for me, and later on Mr.

Dickerson was asking me what area you’ll be interested to know.

Mr. SHAYS. Wouldn’t he have tried to tell you the kind of areas

that you should know, based on your job responsibilities?

Mr. HUANG. The areas I’d be interested in, yes. When I say the

areas interested in, Mr. Meissner basically have some informal, not

an assignment of division in certain territory with—his background

basically was in Europe, South America, and particularly in Japan,

and he was working with World Bank before working on Japan. He

used to be a banker and also State Department official previously.

He thought I have quite a few years in Asia and he and I will

cover Asia so we both will be able to have a—cover most, if not all,

the territory in the world. So the Asia basically, except probably

Japan, was assigned to me.

Mr. SHAYS. I’ll go through these questions when my time comes

back.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Huang, did you have any ulterior motive in

getting a clearance or not getting a clearance?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you do anything improper with any information you received as a result of getting it, because you had a clearance?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. That’s really what we want to know. I asked and

you answered it.

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. WAXMAN. What we’re doing now is going through a lot of

elaboration.

Mr. SHAYS. I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the gentleman.

Mr. WAXMAN. That’s the essential question we want to know, and

I’ve asked it and he’s answered it, and everything else seems to be

dancing around that issue.

568

Mr. SHAYS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. You want me to yield to you? Sure.

Mr. SHAYS. Are you suggesting I shouldn’t be asking these questions?

Mr. WAXMAN. I’m not making any suggestion. I wanted to get

this on the record. That’s my question of Mr. Huang.

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will further yield, I know a person

can say yes or no. I just want to know the particulars to be able

to judge the validity of his answer.

He is a convicted felon in front of us. Just because he said he

didn’t do something illegal doesn’t mean I should say OK.

I happen to think you’re a very good man, but I want to ask

these particular questions, and I thank the gentleman for letting

me make that point.

Mr. WAXMAN. I want the gentleman from Connecticut to know

I’m not questioning his motives. I wanted to get this question on

the record and answered on the record. That’s exactly what we’ve

done, and I think that’s the essential question that we need to

know about, did he get a security clearance because of some ulterior motive? His answer is no.

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. And did he get some information because of the

clearance that he acted improperly with, and his answer is no.

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON. Let me just followup on that real briefly.

I think all of us have had staff members try to get clearances,

because it’s very important that we keep government secrets and

classified information classified; and it takes 3, 4, 5, 6 months. I’ve

had some people go 7 months and longer because you have—the

FBI has to question them. They have to go out in the hinterlands

and ask their neighbors, find out what their background is, all

kinds of things.

Mr. Huang didn’t go through any of that. Zippo. And I think

that’s why Mr. Shays is asking those questions, why was there special treatment given for the security clearance for Mr. Huang?

Now, let me go on to this Riady thing real quickly. The

Wiriadinatas who were not well off, at least from the appearances

here in the United States, did have a wealthy father, at least Ms.

Wiriadinata did, Hashim Ning.

He wired illegally $450,000 to them to give to the DNC. They

gave that money through you, Mr. Huang, much of it to the DNC.

Now, in the DNC records, and I bring your attention—I’d like to

call your attention to—what page is that? Exhibit 440, it says

clearly that Aileen and James Riady pledged $15,000. Now, this

was under your watch and you no longer were, you say, taking illegal contributions; but it does show that they made that kind of a

pledge, and you’re saying that the Wiriadinatas gave that money

and you just divvied it up between the $10,000 that was attributed

to you and the $15,000 attributed to them.

The records don’t show that. The records show that the Riadys

pledged and gave $15,000. Now, that needs to be clarified. That

needs to be clarified because they were not legally entitled to give

that money.

569

So the burden of proof is on you to show that they didn’t give

that money. You said the money came from the Wiriadinatas,

which is illegal in the first place.

Mr. HUANG. Again, the report, Mr. Chairman, was not my report,

No. 1. And then the report, if I can read the report, it say they did

not really give money, nothing being received by them, though.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, that’s right. It says it was pledged.

Mr. HUANG. There’s no money being received. They didn’t contribute money, though.

Mr. BURTON. This document is dated June 3 before the event. We

don’t have the documents after that. We’ll check that.

Let me go on to another subject.

Did you take part in a DNC trip to Asia and Hawaii in December

1991?

Mr. HUANG. I did go to Taiwan and Hong Kong, but I did not

go to Hawaii.

Mr. BURTON. Did the Justice Department ask you any questions

about that trip when they interviewed you?

Mr. HUANG. We’re talking about 1991?

Mr. BURTON. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. They did not. Do you know who asked you to participate in that trip?

Mr. HUANG. I believe I was invited by—to come along by Melinda

Yee at that time.

Mr. BURTON. She was over at the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. She was over at DNC.

Mr. BURTON. Do you remember what the purpose of that DNC

trip was to Asia?

Mr. HUANG. I think it—Chairman Ron Brown was making a trip

over to Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 11 shows the DNC’s budget for the trip. It

says the Lippo Bank is paying for the DNC’s hotels, meals, and

transportation in Hong Kong. Did you arrange for the Lippo Bank

to pay for that?

[Exhibit 11 follows:]

570

571

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, the Lippo Group is not Lippo Bank

by the way.

Mr. BURTON. It was the Lippo Group.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did arrange for that.

Mr. BURTON. You arranged for him to pay for that?

Mr. HUANG. To take care of the hotel, yeah, and transportation.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays has the time now. He would like to take

a 10 to 15-minute break, so we’ll take a break now and be back

in about 15 minutes.

The Chair stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. BURTON. We’ll recall the committee to order. Mr. Shays and,

I’m sure, Mr. Waxman will be back shortly. Let me go ahead and

start.

When you went to Hong Kong, you said you arranged for the

Lippo Bank to pay for the hotels and meals and transportation for

the DNC’s group, right?

Mr. HUANG. Lippo Group, yes, in 1991.

Mr. BURTON. Did you agree to raise money for the DNC while in

Hong Kong?

Mr. HUANG. I did not promise that, no.

Mr. BURTON. You did not promise that. Were you asked about it?

Mr. HUANG. I would ask my colleague to, you know, invite some

businessmen. I was not asked to—I did not promise that.

Mr. BURTON. Did you ask anybody to raise money?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t ask for any contributions?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit No. 109. That exhibit is a memo from

Melinda Yee to DNC Chairman Ron Brown. Ms. Yee said you offered to host an event in Hong Kong with a goal of $50,000; is that

correct?

[Exhibit 109 follows:]

572

573

Mr. HUANG. The memo indicated that way. I did not really offer

that $50,000.

Mr. BURTON. Why would she say that, I wonder?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know.

Mr. BURTON. She was an official at the DNC at the time, wasn’t

she?

Mr. HUANG. I believe she was working on Asian American—

Asian Pacific American affairs for DNC.

Mr. BURTON. For the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. She was involved in fundraising?

Mr. HUANG. I’m not sure she was or not. At least on the political

side she was.

Mr. BURTON. But that memo to Ron Brown from Melinda Yee

says that you offered to host an event in Hong Kong for $50,000,

and you’re saying that’s not true?

Mr. HUANG. I never promised that.

Mr. BURTON. You never promised that. Did you say that you

would consider it? Did you say you would do it?

Mr. HUANG. She has proposed that I could do that.

Mr. BURTON. What did you say?

Mr. HUANG. I said, no, I could not promise you on that, and I

would round up some businessmen to welcome Chairman Brown at

that time to come over and have a lunch and dinner meeting with

the people, having speak at this event. That’s all. I could not

promise——

Mr. BURTON. Did you say anything like, well, I can’t promise I’ll

raise $50,000, but I’ll get a group of men together that you can talk

to?

Mr. HUANG. Something in that line, yes.

Mr. BURTON. But the indication was that you might be able to

raise some money from them?

Mr. HUANG. I believe that’s her interpretation, but deep down in

my mind I was never, never committed.

Mr. BURTON. You did not commit, but you did get the people together?

Mr. HUANG. I did arrange it because the chairman of the Democratic party was there, yes.

Mr. BURTON. When you arranged it, did they raise any money at

that event?

Mr. HUANG. Not that I know of, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Not what?

Mr. HUANG. Not that I know of. I don’t think in Hong Kong they

raised any money.

Mr. BURTON. So no money was raised. They got the people together that you said you would get together and she wanted to

raise $50,000 but to your knowledge no money was raised?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t even think there was any words of raising

money in Hong Kong that happened.

Mr. BURTON. But you did get them together?

574

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 13 is an itinerary for the DNC while in

Hong Kong. Did the Lippo Group host a lunch and dinner for the

DNC in Hong Kong?

[Exhibit 13 follows:]

575

576

Mr. HUANG. For lunch and dinner for Chairman Brown in Hong

Kong, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know why the lunch and dinner by the

Lippo Group have money signs next to them? There’s money signs

next to them. What does that mean?

Mr. HUANG. I have no idea. That was not my memo at that time.

If you want to ask what I mean, Mr. Chairman, is what I say.

Mr. BURTON. But it did have dollar signs by it, didn’t it?

Mr. HUANG. It did. It did.

Mr. BURTON. I wonder why those were there.

Mr. BURTON. Were those lunches and dinners fundraisers?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Even though there were dollar signs beside the notations?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. BURTON. How much money did you raise, if any, in Hong

Kong?

Mr. HUANG. Zero.

Mr. BURTON. Did the Riadys give any money in Hong Kong?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. You’re sure about that?

Mr. HUANG. I’m very sure about that.

Mr. BURTON. You’re fairly sure of that.

Mr. HUANG. I’m very sure.

Mr. BURTON. Oh, you’re very sure.

Mr. HUANG. I’m very sure on that.

Mr. BURTON. Did any Lippo employees or Lippo companies give

any money?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. BURTON. So there was no money that was given that you

know of?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Did Maria Hsia raise any money while in Taiwan

on that trip?

Mr. HUANG. I do not know for sure. At least she was trying to

but I don’t know whether she did or not.

Mr. BURTON. She was trying to?

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. BURTON. How did you know that?

Mr. HUANG. She was getting a lot of businessmen together. I was

with her on the trip. I don’t know if she did anything or not.

Mr. BURTON. But you knew she was trying to raise money and

she told you that?

Mr. HUANG. I believe she was asked by Melinda to do so.

Mr. BURTON. Were any funds—you weren’t in Hawaii. You didn’t

go to the Hawaii part of that trip?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I did not go to Hawaii, no.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know if any money was raised during the

Hawaii part of that trip?

Mr. HUANG. From the news account in recent years talking about

that episode, the news accounts indicated it might be what;

$100,000 being raised? That’s to what extent I know.

Mr. BURTON. But you didn’t know at that time?

Mr. HUANG. I did not know at that time, no.

577

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman, I think I’ll go ahead and yield to you

if you’re ready. You want to pass?

Mr. WAXMAN. I’ll pass.

Mr. BURTON. We’ll go ahead. Did you attend a September 27,

1993, fundraising event with Vice President Gore in Los Angeles?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

Mr. BURTON. Did you bring the chairman of China Resources

Shen Jueren and his assistant to the Gore dinner?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

Mr. BURTON. Who is Shen Jueren?

Mr. HUANG. He was the chairman of the Chinese resources at

that time in Hong Kong.

Mr. BURTON. Is China Resources an equal partner in the Hong

Kong Chinese Bank with the Riady family?

Mr. HUANG. I’m not sure exactly percentage ownership when you

say the—— Mr. BURTON. Very close though.

Mr. HUANG. Very close to 50—I don’t know the detail at that

time. Could be even less than that.

Mr. BURTON. But they both owned stock and owned part of the

bank?

Mr. HUANG. The China Resources had invested in Hong Kong

Chinese Bank, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know if he Riadys are still partners with

China Resources?

Mr. HUANG. Well, since they have a joint ownership in the bank,

yes, the answer is yes.

Mr. BURTON. Were you aware that China Resources has been

identified as an intelligence gathering operation with ties to the

People’s Liberation Army?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I was not aware then but in recent

event of going through all these investigations being told by the authorities.

Mr. BURTON. You know that now but you didn’t know it then?

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. BURTON. Did you arrange any meetings for Mr. Shen while

he was here in the United States?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. What kind of meetings were those?

Mr. HUANG. I think I brought him and his assistant visit the

White House and tour the White House. I believe through Mr.

Mark Grobmyer arranged a meeting for them to meet with Mr.

Jack Quinn. I think he was the chief of staff there and was with

the Vice President.

Mr. BURTON. Did you meet with the Vice President?

Mr. HUANG. Only in the fundraising event. No, excuse me. I take

it back. During the meeting we had with Mr. Jack Quinn, apparently there was separate meeting that Mr. Ron Brown and also Mr.

Gore was in another bigger room. They came out just to shake

hand. That was the first encounters.

Mr. BURTON. So you met him in the White House with Jack

Quinn and Ron Brown. Did you meet with him later that day?

Mr. HUANG. Not in that day. The second encounter will be in Los

Angeles.

578

Mr. BURTON. Well, I guess the records must be incorrect. They

said you met with Vice President Gore twice on September 27. You

don’t recall that?

Mr. HUANG. Not separate occasions. Only in—the Vice President’s office is one room. Jack Quinn. The other is bigger room.

There’s only once at that time.

Mr. BURTON. Now, you had a fundraiser. I guess there was a

fundraiser that day for the Vice President; is that right?

Mr. HUANG. No. Mr. Chairman, let me come back a little bit.

When the 27th—was the 27th the date in Los Angeles?

Mr. BURTON. The 27th of September.

Mr. HUANG. Was Los Angeles or in Washington, DC?

Mr. BURTON. In Los Angeles.

Mr. HUANG. Los Angeles two times.

Mr. BURTON. You did meet with him twice.

Mr. HUANG. But in Washington, DC, only once.

Mr. BURTON. How much money did you raise at that event in Los

Angeles?

Mr. HUANG. The event was partially participated by my effort. In

aggregate probably around $100,000, $105,000.

Mr. BURTON. Were all of these contributions from Lippo employees or Lippo companies?

Mr. HUANG. I believe so, yes.

Mr. BURTON. So this was money that came from Lippo employees

that was ultimately reimbursed from the Lippo companies in Indonesia?

Mr. HUANG. I believe so, yes.

Mr. BURTON. You told the Justice Department that you were

asked to help in a bigger way for that event; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. As early stage, right.

Mr. BURTON. How much more did you raise after being asked to

help in a bigger way?

Mr. BURTON. I was first being approached by the representative

of DNC to raise something like $300,000.

Mr. BURTON. Did you make any extra contributions so Mr. Shen

and his assistant could attend the event?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Did Mr. Shen or China Resources pay or reimburse

any of these contributions?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. You sure about that?

Mr. HUANG. At least not to me, no.

Mr. BURTON. You told the Justice Department that you did not

discuss reimbursements for this event with Mr. Riady; is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, may I trouble you to repeat it.

Mr. BURTON. Sure. You told the Justice Department that you did

not discuss reimbursements for this event with Mr. Riady; is that

right?

Mr. HUANG. I did not discuss with Mr. Riady on the reimbursement for that particular event, no.

Mr. BURTON. How did you get the money from the Lippo Group

in Indonesia to come into the country to——

579

Mr. HUANG. Except the routine replenishment request which we

do almost monthly or—— Mr. BURTON. So this was just a routine thing that would come

in?

Mr. HUANG. Right. Whatever checks we pay went, sent it back

as a report and then money coming in.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t have to talk to James or—— Mr. HUANG. We did not have to talk to them, no.

Mr. BURTON. Just the standard operating procedure.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’ll pass.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays, would you like me to continue on this?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, please continue.

Mr. BURTON. How do you know that Mr. Shen did not reimburse

or pay for any of the contributions?

Mr. HUANG. I said it did not go through me.

Mr. BURTON. But he could have through another source but

you’re not aware of it?

Mr. HUANG. I’m not aware of it, no.

Mr. BURTON. Let me make sure—I don’t want you to make a

misstatement here. It did not come through you. Do you know of

any other source that money came through?

Mr. HUANG. I do not know.

Mr. BURTON. Any source?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Did you serve as the head of a fundraising committee in Los Angeles in 1993?

Mr. HUANG. For that particular event?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, for that event.

Mr. HUANG. As I said, the DNC’s representative earlier tried to

do—asked me to host event to raise $300,000. I could not quite do

that.

Mr. BURTON. But you were the head of the event there or you

did not host an event?

Mr. HUANG. I was not really the main host of the event. There

were some other mainstream people were host. I just join in.

Mr. BURTON. Can you look at exhibit No. 64. It’s a memo from

Vida Benavides to Laura Hartigan at the DNC.

[Exhibit 64 follows:]

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. On page 2 of that memo, if you’ll read it, it says that you originally pledged to raise $200,000 for that event; is that

correct?

Mr. HUANG. At least—— Mr. HUANG. Maybe that’s the amount. I’m not sure about that

amount. I reported to, Mr. Chairman, earlier their representative

did come to me, ask me whether I could raise $300,000 and I could

not really commit that.

Mr. BURTON. It says here on page 2 that you pledged to raise $200,000. Did you say you’d do that?

Mr. HUANG. I couldn’t really be sure whether I did or did not to

pledge that.

Mr. BURTON. Do you recall a second meeting with Darius Anderson on August 30, 1993.

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know whether the second meeting but Darius

Anderson was a person initially contacted me.

Mr. BURTON. Did you present Mr. Anderson with a list of demands at that meeting?

Mr. HUANG. A list of?

Mr. BURTON. Demands, asking him for something?

Mr. HUANG. I certainly don’t recall that, no.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t recall I gave him any demand on that.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit No. 65, if you could look at that, is another memo from Vida Benavides. It says you committed $100,000 if Vice

President Gore met with local business and political leaders. Is

that true? Said if he would meet with local business and political

leaders, that you would raise $100,000. Is that true?

[Exhibit 65 follows:]

589

590

591

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, probably I made a commitment for

that but this is tied in to the evening fundraising event together,

this additional request I want to make on behalf of the community.

Mr. BURTON. So you said I think I can raise $100,000 if you’ll

meet with some business and political leaders.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct from our community.

Mr. BURTON. Did you get a small—did you get a small reception

with the Vice President in addition to that fundraiser? Did you

have a small reception in addition to the fundraiser?

Mr. HUANG. There was not a reception, just a group meeting in

the round table, probably 30 or 35 of Asian Pacific American community business leaders was having opportunity to meet with Vice

President Gore.

Mr. BURTON. Was Mr. Shen a part of that meeting?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. The memo also says you committed to raising $300,000 to $400,000 more for the DNC if significant appointments

are made. Is that true?

Mr. HUANG. I cannot be very specific about a number but the

general direction is I want to get message across from community

point of view cannot really continuously give money without having

anything coming back to the community.

Mr. BURTON. Well, that’s pretty important. It sounds like there’s

a quid pro quo where you’re saying look, if you’ll give some appointments to some people and maybe you had some specific people

in mind in the Asian American community, we’ll raise $300,000 to

$400,000. Is that about what it was?

Mr. HUANG. No, my—the concept basically is Asian community

has been let down for so many years, just being constantly being

tapped on the money. The community, political people, they have

little concern about—one hand of the people, the business side continues giving money. Then political side will complain saying the

issue is never addressed.

Mr. BURTON. You were not getting anything for the hard working

money you were giving as a community.

Mr. HUANG. From community point of view, as a whole.

Mr. BURTON. The schedule says I’m next so I guess I’ll go ahead.

Were you talking about a possible appointment for yourself

there?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. BURTON. But you were later appointed to the Department of

Commerce.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, yes.

Mr. BURTON. The memo says since John Huang himself is up for

an appointment, his early commitment of $200,000 would be perceived as a buyoff. Did you tell the DNC that?

Mr. HUANG. Definitely not.

Mr. BURTON. But it does say that in the memo? You have the

memo there in front of you?

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. BURTON. So they may have thought if the money was given,

it might look like you were trying to buy a position?

Mr. HUANG. If what the memo says that way, they are totally

misunderstood my intention.

592

Mr. BURTON. I see. The memo also says these fundraisers would

look foolish if they themselves commit to give without a guarantee

of a possible appointment. Let me go through that again. The

memo also says these fundraisers would look foolish if they themselves commit to give money without a guarantee of a possible appointment. Did you say anything like that to the DNC?

Mr. HUANG. As I said already, something has to come to the community I believe I said along the line but I don’t know exactly

words what it says here.

Mr. BURTON. That was their interpretation evidently. Exhibit No.

67 if you could look at that. Do you have that in front of you, sir?

[Exhibit 67 follows:]

593

594

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. It’s a letter from March Fong Eu to you, John

Huang. This letter is dated 4 days before the September 27 fundraiser and it says, ‘‘White House sources have confirmed that I will

be nominated as United States Ambassador to Micronesia.’’ Was

this a type of action that you were expecting from the administration?

Mr. HUANG. I was hoping to at least something in that nature,

yes.

Mr. BURTON. So that is accurate?

Mr. HUANG. In terms of getting appointment for Asian American

community people, that was accurate.

Mr. BURTON. It’s a letter from March Fong Eu to you saying this

letter—it says the White House sources have confirmed I will be

nominated. Ms. Eu will be nominated as Ambassador to Micronesia. That’s essentially the kind of thing you were talking about. I’m

sorry.

Mr. HUANG. Seems to be good news to me, yes.

Mr. BURTON. On the top of the letter it reads copy to JTR. Is that

James Riady?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. That is correct?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Was James Riady getting his friends appointed to

the administration in positions, was he involved in that in any

way?

Mr. HUANG. My best recollection is probably Ambassador March

Fong Eu was trying to lobby everybody possible to get things done.

I would not be surprised that Mr. Riady was contacted as well.

Mr. BURTON. Now, James Riady met with then Governor of Arkansas in the back of the limousine in California when he pledged

to give $1 million. We don’t know what the conversation was but

did you ever hear anything like that he was asking to get more appointments for people in the Asian American community appointed

to positions if he was elected President?

Mr. HUANG. During 1992, sir?

Mr. BURTON. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. I did not, no.

I did not.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t know whether that was brought up or

not?

Mr. HUANG. No, I don’t.

Mr. BURTON. Was James Riady in any way involved in the two

events with Vice President Gore on September 27?

Mr. HUANG. He was not. I was.

Mr. BURTON. You were involved in those?

Mr. HUANG. I was involved, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Let me come back to one other issue real quick. As

I understood just a minute ago, you said that March Fong Eu kind

of lobbied Riady for an appointment. You think he may have

lobbied——

Mr. HUANG. He was trying to get everybody in the community,

for instance, writing letters, making calls for that process.

595

Mr. BURTON. Do you know if James Riady did write a letter to

the President trying to get him appointed?

Mr. HUANG. I would not know, sir. I would not know.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know if he talked to the President or the

Vice President or anybody about getting Ms. Eu appointed?

Mr. HUANG. The reason I hesitate, I’m trying to search my long

memory, Mr. Chairman.

I’m not quite certain whether he did direct me to Mr. Clinton or

not, but I do know he did not talk to Mr. Gore.

Mr. BURTON. He did not talk to Mr. Gore.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. BURTON. But he may have talked to the President?

Mr. HUANG. I’m saying it is possible he talked to Mr. Clinton but

I’m more sure he might have talked to Mr. Clinton’s staff member,

if he talked to anybody.

Mr. BURTON. Are you talking about Mr. Riady now?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Riady, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Riady at that time had been out of the country

for 3 years. He wasn’t a permanent resident, didn’t even have a

green card. But he may have talked to one of the assistants to the

President. Do you have any idea who that assistant might have

been?

Mr. HUANG. First of all, Mr. Riady did not really be out for 3

years. He was continually in and out, in and out for the latter part

of 1992, beginning of 1993.

Mr. BURTON. I know we’re splitting hairs here. He had a home

in California but he was living, as you said before, almost entirely

in Indonesia. Anyhow, go ahead.

Mr. HUANG. The reason why I’m hesitating was I believe I

learned that Dr. March Fong Eu has asked probably Mr. James

Riady to help out, like she would try to ask a lot of other people,

including myself, to do that. I don’t know where I get the information, Mr. Chairman, and I learned that Dr. March Fong Eu indicated she has talked to James Riady to solicit his help as well.

Mr. BURTON. I will come back to this in a minute. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, maybe we can avoid having to come

back to it. As I understand the testimony, and I want to have it

clarified, you don’t know whether March Fong Eu talked to Mr.

Riady; you are speculating that she might have because she talked

to a lot of other people?

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. WAXMAN. You don’t know whether she talked to him and you

don’t know whether Mr. Riady actually talked to Mr. Clinton or

Mr. Clinton’s staff person about her appointment; is that accurate?

Mr. HUANG. That’s basically a fair statement on that. I don’t

know for sure. But as I reported to Mr. Chairman earlier, from Dr.

March Fong Eu, she indicated she has contacted Mr. Riady whether he might be able to help.

Mr. WAXMAN. But to your knowledge—all you can do is testify

about your knowledge—you don’t know whether she talked to Mr.

Riady or Mr. Riady talked to President Clinton or one of his staff?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, basically.

Mr. WAXMAN. I have known March Fong Eu for many, many

years and I know that she was talking to a lot of people about her

596

interest in that appointment which she eventually got. So I

wouldn’t be surprised if she talked to you or other people as well.

But I don’t know, and so I could not tell you that she did or didn’t,

and I gather what you’re saying is you can’t tell us whether she

did or didn’t.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. But we both know her well enough to speculate

that she probably did because she was pretty thorough.

Mr. HUANG. That’s right.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield back.

Mr. BURTON. If my colleague will bear with me, I just have a couple of more.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I’m happy to let you do what you

need to and then I will do what I need to.

Mr. BURTON. Let me conclude with this. You talked to her and

she talked to you about an appointment, a possible appointment.

You think she talked to a lot of other people and she indicated that

she had talked to Riady as well.

Mr. HUANG. I think so, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did anybody, did she or James Riady or anybody

that you know indicate that Mr. Riady contacted anybody at the

White House about her appointment? Anybody?

Mr. HUANG. I really can’t recall any specifics on that, sir.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t know of anybody that Mr. Riady talked

to by Mr. Riady about her appointment?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t. By the way, Mr. Chairman, this is really a

lower appointment.

Mr. BURTON. I understand.

Mr. HUANG. From a community point of view. Actually Dr.

March Fong Eu would like to have a much higher regional place.

Mr. BURTON. We all would like to have higher appointments.

Let’s go back to these events. Was James Riady involved in getting any of his friends appointments to the administration that you

know of, any appointments whatsoever?

Mr. HUANG. If there is any connection with myself and other persons from the Lippo Group——

Mr. BURTON. Or anybody.

Mr. HUANG. Possibly there was another person who asked me to

submit certain things to the White House personnel but nothing

ever materialized. If anything ever materialized related to the

Lippo Group, it is myself and also the other person is called

Charles De Queljoe who was appointed to an advisory committee

in the U.S. Trade Representative, one of the advisory committees.

Not on a full-time basis, on a regular meeting type.

Mr. BURTON. Was that along with Charlie Trie? Wasn’t Charlie

Trie appointed to that too?

Mr. HUANG. No, that’s a separate committee, definitely separate

and also at a different time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Could you look at exhibit 68? On page 2, No. 39.

It says, James Riady working with John Huang on an Asian event.

If that is not September 27, do you know what Asian event that

refers to?

[Exhibit 68 follows:]

597

598

599

600

Mr. HUANG. There was no Asian events. The only Asian event

around that time would probably be a September 1.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know if James Riady was involved in getting Charlie Trie appointed to the committee he served on?

Mr. HUANG. That would be a surprise to me.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t know about that?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Huang, I’m going to read to you some statements made in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee campaign fundraising report. These statements are based on classified,

secret information that we cannot talk about here. However, the information is a distillation or a condensation of a variety of sources

that the committee was authorized to make public. The report

states, ‘‘A single piece of unverified information shared with the

committee indicates that Huang himself may possibly have had a

direct financial relationship with the PRC Government.’’

Is that true? Did you have a direct financial relationship with

the PRC government?

Mr. HUANG. Absolutely not.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Huang, you worked for the Riady family for

nearly 10 years, right?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Even after you stopped working for them, you have

remained in contact with them, correct?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. In fact, over the last several years while you have

not been working, you haven’t been working for them, they gave

you close to $40,000, $18,000 one time and $20,000 another time

as a gift?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. So you would consider yourself a close friend of the

Riady family?

Mr. HUANG. The friendship remains, yes.

Mr. BURTON. The Senate report stated the following relating to

Mr. Riady. The committee has learned from recently acquired information that James and Mochtar Riady have had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency. The relationship is

based on mutual benefit, with the Riadys receiving assistance in

finding business opportunities in exchange for large sums of money

and other help. Although the relationship appears based on business interests, the committee understands that the Chinese intelligence agency seeks to locate and develop relationships with information collectors, particularly persons with close connections to the

U.S. Government.

Is that true?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, despite the fact I implicated Mr.

Riady during this process, I personally really have a very high regards for the Riady family, in particular Mr. Mochtar Riady. I have

no reason to believe they would do things of that nature, sir.

Mr. BURTON. They do have very close ties with many entities

within the Chinese Government.

Mr. HUANG. Yes. But for different reasons.

601

Mr. BURTON. Then you would say the findings of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee would be incorrect? I will read to you

again what it says.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, based on my relationship or the

working relationship with the Riady family, and also understanding the visionary philosophy of Mr. Mochtar Riady, the family has

been so evangelical, I seriously doubt—I don’t have any reason to

believe that.

Mr. BURTON. Let me end up with this and then I will yield to

my colleagues. Oh, I am next? Then I will go ahead. Here is a

quote that I have used a couple of times in the hearings already

by Senator Lieberman from the Democrat party. It says, ‘‘Nonpublic evidence presented to the committee demonstrates a continuing

business intelligence relationship between the Riadys and the People’s Republic of China Intelligence Service.’’ That is consistent with what they had in their report, but you

still don’t believe that is the case?

Mr. HUANG. Sir, I don’t.

Mr. BURTON. Do you have any explanation of where this information could have come from? For instance, do the Riadys have business relationships with the Government of the People’s Republic of

China? They do have business relationships with the People’s Republic of China, don’t they?

Mr. HUANG. No, I don’t know where the information is coming

from, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. China Resources Holding.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, could you yield to me?

Mr. BURTON. Sure I will yield to you.

Mr. WAXMAN. We did go over all of this within the last several

days. He has been asked and he has answered to his knowledge

about all of these points. I don’t know what interest it serves to go

over them all again. You may not agree with his answers but those

are his answers and they are on the record. We have already put

them on the record.

Mr. BURTON. There is a reason why we’re doing this, Mr. Waxman, I assure you.

China Resources Holding associated with the Peoples Liberation

Army owns a 50 percent interest in a Hong Kong Chinese bank

with the Riadys. So there is a connection there financially with

government entities. You worked closely with both the Riadys. Do

you have any information that would show that the Riady family

has any relationship with the PRC intelligence gathering agency?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. BURTON. In any of the 232 phone call contacts that you had

with the Lippo entities while you were working at the Department

of Commerce, did you ever discuss your work at the Department

of Commerce with them?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe I had 232 phone calls

with the Lippo Group on that, but the number indicated from the

report was, to answer your question, I don’t believe I have anything

to do with those things.

Mr. BURTON. If it is all right with you, Mr. Shays, I am going

to yield the balance of my time and I will come back to this later

in the day. I have an emergency phone call. I will yield to you.

602

Mr. HUANG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. I want to say where I come down on this

issue and I realize we all can disagree. But when I read the Cox

report, it is kind of guilt by association in one sense. Because whoever does business in China is going to deal with some government

entity, and in order to do business in China, you have to participate with some business entity in China which in most cases is

governmental. It could be they are security people, it could be they

are military people, because they all seem to own businesses there.

So I am just more comfortable being on the record by saying that

it just suggests tremendous need for vigilance, but I probably could

take almost any U.S. Government business that does something in

China and then connect them somehow to the military or intelligence.

I am not going to say that as a result of that, it means that we

don’t have to be concerned. I just want to say that I have made a

determination that I can’t on the face of it feel comfortable saying

because there is this relationship, therefore, they are somehow tied

with the military or the intelligence.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. SHAYS. But I do want to say, it requires tremendous vigilance, because the fact is those government—every business, almost every business has a government relation, and the government then gets involved in intelligence and military and so on.

I want to get back to just concluding the issue of your security

clearance, and I am going to introduce it by saying to you that Ike

Skelton, probably one of the most respected, not probably, one of

the most respected Members of Congress on the Armed Services

Committee asked GAO to do a report. It was entitled Inadequate

Personnel Security Investigations Pose National Security Risk. In

this report to Mr. Skelton it says, at the end of fiscal year 1998,

about 2.4 million DOD active duty military, civilian and contract

employees held personnel security clearances; 96,000 employees

held confidential clearances; 1.8 million held secret clearances; and

524,000 held top secret clearances.

From 1982 through September 1999, 80 Federal employee contract personnel, 68 of whom were employeed, were convicted of

committing espionage against the United States. The point is a

whole host of people have a security clearance. We have learned

that there are approximately 700,000 people who have clearance

who are past due for review that haven’t been looked at. Over

700,000. In this report, we learned that duty personnel security investigations are incomplete and not conducted in a timely manner.

As a result, they pose a risk to national security by making DOD—

I’m sorry, the time has ended. Mr. Waxman, you have the floor.

Mr. WAXMAN. Go ahead and complete your sentence.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Mr. Waxman passes and I’ll take the

time.

Mr. WAXMAN. No, I’m yielding you—— Mr. SHAYS. No, I don’t want to be yielded.

Mr. WAXMAN. Then I’ll just pass.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I mean no disrespect, Mr. Waxman, it

just means that you can reclaim the time if you don’t like something I’m saying.

603

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Shays, it is all yours.

Mr. SHAYS. You’re passing.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’m giving it all to you.

Mr. SHAYS. You’re passing and I’m claiming the time, my time.

Thank you.

In the 530 cases we reviewed, DOD granted clearance notwithstanding that 92 percent of the 530 investigations were deficient in

that they did not contain the information in at least one of the nine

investigative areas required by the Federal standards for granting

clearance, which include confirming that subjects’ residency, birth,

citizenship and employment records, check-in records for prior

criminal history, divorce and financial problems, and interviewing

character references. Seventy-seven percent of the investigations

were deficient in meeting Federal standards in two or more areas

and 16 percent of the investigations identified issues that the Defense Security Service did not pursue pertaining to individuals’

prior criminal history, alcohol and drug use, financial difficulties

and other problems that could be cause to deny a security clearance.

You were given an interim clearance, and we learned from—and

this isn’t a complaint against you, it is a complaint against the system, but I want to understand why you—I want to understand

your view of your responsibilities. Scott Kaminsky, a former investigator reviewer at OPM looked at your case, before the committee.

It says Kaminsky told the committee that when he learned Huang

still traveled frequently to Asia and had a number of contacts

there, including at least one bank account, he made a character

level E notation on his reviewer action sheet for Huang. The E notation signified a potential security problem and was used to alert

Commerce OS officials who nevertheless failed to act upon it. After

the OPM report was forwarded to Congress, neither Burns nor

Busker returned the file to OPM to request an overseas check.

Hence the overseas check did not happen and Huang was granted

a final top secret clearance on October 25, 1994.

Based on records of your travel overseas, not any potential national background but your travel overseas, that notation was not

followed through.

I would like to just know some questions in regards to classification. Without going into any classified information, would you tell

us what types of information you were briefed on?

Mr. HUANG. Congressman Shays, I hope you can appreciate a lot

of these things probably I cannot disclose on that. But the only

general direction basically will be largely public involving economics or some of the potential business projects on that basis, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. What regional areas were you briefed on?

Mr. HUANG. Basically I was briefed on Taiwan, the big China region, which is including Taiwan, Hong Kong and China.

Mr. SHAYS. It has been suggested in some of the documents I

have looked at that you had a particular interest in China. Can you

explain your particular interest in China?

Mr. HUANG. I haven’t finished that. Also maybe some of the material relating to South Korea and also maybe Southeast Asia on

that.

604

Now I am going to answer the question of particular reasons on

China. It may take a few minutes to do that. Am I OK?

Mr. SHAYS. You have the time.

Mr. HUANG. The knowledge I learned from the schooling and all

the experience is that the whole world is based on the division of

labor concept. In other words, in the free enterprise system, whoever has ability to do a certain thing the best should be able to do

that, or should be allowed to do that. It should not be a person,

say, like a jack of all trades. You have got to be a barber, a banker,

a doctor or be a seamstress. If any person starts doing that, nothing is going to be done right.

So the situation is, you will find out after the Second World War,

maybe around 50 percent of the manufacturing, the goods certainly

around the world were made in the U.S.A. And nowadays probably

it is around 15 percent. That doesn’t mean the United States is

going backward, it is just a matter of the pie is becoming larger.

I’m not talking about geographic area is larger, but the economy,

the size is becoming bigger, the GNP of various countries becomes

larger, and the back world countries become more prosperous and

moving forward on that basis.

Over that process, some of the things, for instance, we did in the

1960’s, in the textile industries, we gradually had to give it up. So

Japan started picking it up. Gradually you find our steel industry,

they are going to pick it up. Then gradually going downwards,

Japan could not hold onto the textile and steel industries, it has

gradually gone to Southeast Asia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and gradually gone to Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Burma, all these.

Do you want to switch your light off first?

Mr. SHAYS. Who has the time? Mr. Burton. He passes. Mr. Waxman?

Mr. WAXMAN. Let him finish his sentence.

Mr. HUANG. May I?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. During this transition, it becomes a challenging situation for the country or region holding on the top position. You are

facing a country with a top-notch position, facing are we going to

carry off the textile industry and how are we going to replace that

with something better that the other people did not do in order to

maintain No. 1 in the world. This is my concept behind this thing.

However, during the process in giving up, how do you handle with

the people in those kind of industries, so-called gradually going to

sunset an industry, you cannot have people say, here are the pink

slips, go home and—because you are dealing with a social issue.

Afterwards if they go home, they don’t find a job, they don’t get

skilled, who is paying for it? The taxpayer is still going to pay for

it. The government is going to give them unemployment compensation. They are going to fall into the welfare line. All these things

are going to happen.

My concept was Americans should identify a certain industry we

can do best and always trying to do the best so the rest of the

world is always going to come to us. If they want that kind of

thing, they have to buy from us or secure from us or they have to

pay a good, decent price, a value for those things. But in the meantime, whatever we can produce, invent it, our ingenuity——

605

Mr. SHAYS. Whatever we can produce?

Mr. HUANG. Whatever we do best, the product we command at

the top, very soon can be duplicated by the other people.

Mr. SHAYS. Overseas?

Mr. HUANG. Overseas, or the other economies. For instance, as

I have said, the steel industry was No. 1 and gradually shifting

over to the developing country, go to South Korea, go to Korea,

South Korea, in Brazil. Right now Russia and China are going over

there. Now, as you know very well, in light of that sector, despite

we are developing new things, trying to be No. 1, for instance right

now we go to high tech, if we go to the film industry, not necessarily has to be high tech in the film industry, nobody is making

the best film as we do here in the United States. If you want to

enjoy a movie, they have to get it from the United States. For those

industries being imitated or duplicated from us, that becomes the

biggest threat to us because they are going to take that business

away from us.

Then how do we handle that, especially on those industries has

a tremendous amount of employment impact to our economy. For

instance, let me mention the automobile industry. I think virtually

it is about 20 percent of our economy, I hope I am right, is tied in

somewhat with the automobile industry. Assuming this automobile

industry being totally shifting over to a foreign nation, how do we

handle the employment situation here in this country? On one

hand, you have capital investment into this industry already which

is set, and then you have a labor industry. You cannot have the

labor and say in order for all of us to compete with Japan making

automobiles, Koreans making automobiles, you guys have to lower

your wages.

Mr. SHAYS. Tell me what you are attempting to ultimately answer in my question.

Mr. HUANG. What I am trying to say is in order to continue,

maintain this very large sector of the people continuing to enjoy a

high standard of living, the only way is to expand your market

shares overseas. Because your unit cost for your investment for

that kind of industry, by selling more cars overseas will gradually

go down. So people in the United States can continue to enjoy the

continued high wages, high living standard. So China becomes one

of the emerging markets, which is the Asia Pacific American region. India is another one. Korea is another one. These are the

markets I would be very interested in seeing what they would do.

Mr. SHAYS. You were responding to the question, why was your

focus more on China?

Mr. HUANG. China is one of the potential largest markets. I like

to see any projects being given by China to somebody, a joint venture—I like to see there is a chance of giving it to the Americans.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Waxman, you have the floor.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’m going to pass, because I want those who are

holding this hearing to complete their interrogation because we

have been here a long time. But I thought that was an excellent

statement of free trade as a way to improve the economy not only

of the United States but other places in the world. I was going to

suggest you should go to the Department of Commerce, but you

have already worked there and it looks like you have a pretty solid

606

grasp of what you think our international interests are in terms of

trade as it relates to us and other places in the world as well. I

thank you for that response.

I don’t want us to get into a philosophical discussion because this

interrogation ought to be about whatever the Republicans want to

ask you, I hope not more than five or six times—get it pinned

down, get your answers, get the record—and then we should let

you go home, because you have been here an extraordinary, almost

20 hours. I don’t think I have ever in 25 years in the U.S. Congress

sat through a hearing with one person being put thorugh so many

detailed questions and answers for this long a period of time. I

commend you for your stamina. I yield back the balance of my

time.

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman yields back the balance of the time,

I claim 5 minutes. Interrogation is a strong word. I think we have

been very respectful of you. We will be here tomorrow if we don’t

finish tonight, so we hope we finish tonight, but we don’t want you

to go longer than you want to and you will need to let us know

when that time comes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I assume you’re acting as the chairman at the moment. Why don’t we narrow the questions down and

get to new areas instead of repeating old areas, rather than threatening this witness that he is going to be here tomorrow, because

I don’t think it would be fair to ask him to be here tomorrow and

have to answer over and over and over again questions that have

already been asked, and questions—maybe you believe it is respectful, I don’t think it has been disrespectful, but these are certainly

questions that I would call a fishing expedition, over and over and

over again.

Mr. SHAYS. Does the gentleman yield back his time? Can we

start over again?

I will take the time. That is the fact, we will be here and we will

try to be very respectful of your time. I just would love that we had

been able to do this, ask all our questions after our committee had

asked you questions and then we could have asked more targeted,

but that is not the way it is so we’ll just deal with it and we will

go on with it.

The question I had is Ronald Reagan would have been proud of

that answer and I mean that sincerely, but it doesn’t explain why

you were focused on China when your superiors didn’t believe

China was your area of attention.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman Shays, as I alluded to here this morning or yesterday, there are some political turf battles going on in

the Commerce Department. My direct superior was Mr. Meissner,

the Assistant Secretary who has all the responsibility for the geographic areas for the whole Commerce Department in the historical

sense. But his territory was taken away. Under his guidance, he

is trying very hard to gain those things back. So he has asked me

to look into these areas. That’s what I fulfilled my duty to do that.

Mr. SHAYS. The sad thing is we have 1.8 million who hold secret

clearance and a half a million who hold top secret clearance. That

is a lot of people. And to justify your basically getting involved over

a turf battle to make sure—it is not a complaint on you, Mr.

Huang, but it sure is a complaint of the system. I think your anVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:53 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00610 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\66496.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
607

swer to the question what type of information you requested was

basically economic. Once you signed—my understanding is that besides having 34 briefings, that you received cables from 25 to 100

that were delivered daily to you. Is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. Congressman Shays, I think by the notes here, I received 37 briefings. It is not by my recollection.

Mr. SHAYS. Thirty-seven. You are right. Thank you.

Mr. HUANG. And also from the report indicating I had access to

25 to 100 classified cables on a daily basis. That doesn’t mean I

would go into the 100. I don’t know exactly how I did.

Mr. SHAYS. When you got secret classified documents, did you

sign for them?

Mr. HUANG. I did.

Mr. SHAYS. Where did you keep these documents?

Mr. HUANG. If I had to keep it over, then there is a safe in the

office that has a combination. I only had it.

Mr. SHAYS. Were you the only one with that combination?

Mr. HUANG. I was the only one who had a combination. If I turn

it back, I would give it to the Secretary. The Secretary would handle those things.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you ever take classified documents out of the Department of Commerce?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t mean—and I want to be clear on this—I don’t

mean because you had some grand design to take them out, I don’t

mean because you were a spy. I’m not suggesting that. I’m just

asking if as an employee you ever took these out. I see your counsel

saying no, but I want to know what you know.

Mr. COBB. Actually I was asking him whether he ever took them

on a trip.

Mr. HUANG. I definitely don’t recall on that. The only thing I

want to qualify for that it might be one of the very rare occasions

I had to go to the State Department for the meeting with Secretary

Winston Lor—remember I alluded to earlier, he has an interdepartmental meeting, whoever has responsibility for Asian American—

I might have had a chance to put it in the special envelope, to

carry it with me and then bring it back. That’s about all.

Mr. SHAYS. And you didn’t take it out and you were allowed to

take it out of the Department of Commerce; that was allowed or

not? Were you in that instance doing something you shouldn’t have

done?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t recall exactly what the rule was. I vaguely

remember it might have been a situation, a special situation.

You’re testing my memory. I really don’t remember.

Mr. SHAYS. Your testimony, though, under oath is that you only

took one document out and you took it to the State Department?

Mr. HUANG. I might have had one chance in doing that. I don’t

know for sure at this moment even. I’m not even sure I did it even

on that one occasion or not.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

I have one last area, and I want to make sure that I’m not being

redundant to the chairman, but let me go and ask these questions

and say, I am convinced that the Riadys are your friends and you

are their friends and James Riady, the son of Mochtar?

608

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. But you were friends with both. And you maintain

that friendship. So I am going to tell you, it is very plausible to me

that you will maintain close relationships while you were at the

Department of Commerce.

My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I would love—it is your

turn now, but if you would yield to me.

Mr. BURTON. Are you finished?

Mr. SHAYS. I would love to ask some more questions just to finish

up. I am getting toward the end.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, go ahead.

Mr. SHAYS. So I am using your time, Mr. Burton. Thank you.

I would like to know how often you met with the Riadys during

your stint between July 1994 and December 1995, basically 18

months. These I would think would be fairly memorable events because they are close friends and kind of your patrons.

Mr. HUANG. The more exact number is the number of times they

visited the United States, Mr. Riady visited the United States,

Washington, normally as a courtesy basically just to meet with

him. It would be safe to say, probably four or five.

Mr. SHAYS. Four or five only?

Mr. HUANG. Approximately like that.

Mr. SHAYS. It wouldn’t be something like 10 or 15? It wouldn’t

be that number?

Mr. HUANG. In that 18 months’ time?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes. You are more comfortable with that four or five?

Mr. HUANG. It probably would be every time that he was in the

United States, to be safe. So I don’t know how many.

Mr. SHAYS. Your recollection is it was only four or five times?

Mr. HUANG. The number probably would be increased a little

more because we are covering 18 months’ time now. The original

four or five times, maybe within a year or so.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you accompany James Riady to any meetings

during his stay in Washington?

Mr. HUANG. Yes, there is one I can distinctly remember.

Mr. SHAYS. Was it only one?

Mr. HUANG. Probably more. I can only remember one distinctly

right now.

Mr. SHAYS. What was that meeting regarding?

Mr. HUANG. The one I distinctly remember is the one we visited

the White House.

Mr. SHAYS. Which you have talked about. This is the one where

you went to the radio? Another one. I’m sorry. What was that one,

then? Tell me what it was.

Mr. HUANG. The one I distinctly remember was in around September 1995. We visited the White House and had a chance to

meet with Mr. Clinton.

Mr. SHAYS. In September 1995?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. While you were employed at the Department of Commerce, did you continue to arrange things for Mr. Riady when he

came to town? Whether or not you met with him, were you a

facilitator for him in any way? Did you call up people? You get the

609

gist of my question. Did you continue to be—and I’m not suggesting

that that is illegal—I’m just wanting to know what happened.

Mr. HUANG. It may have happened. The most likely, probably, is

if it happened, probably it is a hotel or the limousine situation.

Mr. Shays, there might be another case I just thought of involving a radio address situation, I also went with.

Mr. SHAYS. That was the second time, when you were in the

White House when he was there for the President’s address?

Mr. HUANG. Right. But I don’t know whether it was that or not.

I can’t remember.

Mr. SHAYS. I would like to just conclude by asking, on September

9, 1994, James Riady entered the White House at 9:38 a.m., and

did not leave until 2:30 p.m. He was scheduled to visit with Mark

Middleton. Were you at the White House with Mr. Riady at all on

Friday, September 9, 1994? It was a 41⁄2 hour meeting.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Shays, I don’t recall. One of the ways to look

at would be my Commerce diary. On the diary, whether I was

there or not.

Mr. SHAYS. The thing that I feel pretty comfortable having this

conviction is that you had phenomenal relations at the White

House. You were there, I am impressed that you were there a lot.

You had contacts. It would seem to me that it is very plausible that

if Mr. Riady had an opportunity to be at the White House, one, you

would have known about it and two, you would have probably been

helpful, and that is not illegal.

Mr. HUANG. I basically agree with that, sir, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Given that, can you tell me why Mr. Riady would be

at the White House for 41⁄2 hours?

Mr. HUANG. At this moment, Mr. Shays, I really don’t have any

recollection about these events at this time.

Mr. SHAYS. I may try to refresh your memory later on, but I

would yield back my time. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. Mr. Waxman is not here. Mr. Shays, do

you want to go ahead?

Let me continue my questioning, then. We are moving along fairly well, finally. Hopefully we will be able to conclude today. If not,

we will be awfully close. I don’t want to denigrate you, Mr. Huang,

but I understand Mr. Waxman, while I was gone, was saying that

you’re the kind of person that ought to be at the Department of

Commerce. And this isn’t my opinion, but Jeffrey Garten who was

the Under Secretary of Commerce over there after all this came

out, said he wasn’t the kind of person who ought to represent the

American government. The only reason I say that is because of the

problems that you have had. I think it is important that on the

record and before this body that both sides and both opinions be

expressed very clearly. That is why I put that in the record.

Earlier I asked you some questions about Maria Hsia. You

worked with her on fundraising events, isn’t that correct?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. I’m going to read you a passage from the Senate

Governmental Affairs report that relates to Ms. Hsia: ‘‘The committee has learned that Maria Hsia has been an agent

of the Chinese Government, that she has acted knowingly in support of the Chinese Government, and that she has attempted to

610

conceal her relationship with the Chinese Government.’’ We’re talking about the Chinese Government in Beijing, the PRC. ‘‘The committee has also learned that Maria Hsia has worked in direct support of a PRC diplomatic post in the U.S.,’’ i.e., she was spying. A

diplomatic post here in the United States and she was working for

the PRC.

Did you know that?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t even believe that.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t believe that?

Mr. HUANG. Right. I have no reason to believe that.

Mr. BURTON. They got this from intelligence sources.

Mr. HUANG. Based on the dealing, my knowing Maria Hsia, she

might have tried to get the business, but I don’t know whether it

is going to go to the intelligence side and acting as a spy or not.

Mr. BURTON. Let me read this one more time: The committee has

learned that Maria Hsia has been an agent of the Chinese Government, that she acted knowingly in support of the Chinese Government, that she attempted to conceal her relationship with the Chinese Government, and the committee has also learned that Hsia

has worked in direct support of a PRC diplomatic post in the

United States.

You didn’t know any of this?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t.

Mr. BURTON. And you don’t believe it?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t.

Mr. BURTON. Are you aware of any contacts that Maria Hsia had

with officials from the Government of the People’s Republic of

China? Are you aware of any contacts she had with them?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know openly, but I can imagine the most

things that she made a contact is just for her immigration business, occasionally had to go to the Chinese consulate. That is to the

extent I know.

Mr. BURTON. Based on classified information, this is secret information, some of it I cannot give out but I will read to you what

the committee said: The committee has received information that

Hsia worked with Ted Sioeng and John Huang to solicit contributions from Chinese nationals in the United States and abroad for

Democratic causes. Hsia and Huang in particular worked together

to identify non-U.S. citizens overseas who might contribute money

to Democratic causes.

Is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t believe it would be non-U.S. citizens. But if

it was a non-U.S. citizen, if there is any money being raised, probably at least the party has a green card, to the extent I know, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. I don’t know if the committee ever came to that

conclusion. That you and Maria Hsia worked together to identify

non-U.S. citizens overseas who might contribute money to Democratic causes, you say you—— Mr. HUANG. You are saying non-U.S. citizen. I am not disputing

on that part, if they have a green card but is still a non-U.S. citizen. That is to the extent she might have, she probably has.

Mr. BURTON. Like the Riadys?

Mr. HUANG. Not right now.

611

Mr. BURTON. But like the Riadys back then.

Mr. HUANG. Before, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Let’s go on to another subject here.

Did you discuss the February 19 event with Mark Middleton before it took place? This is February 19, 1996. It was a breakfast

event with the Vice President.

Mr. HUANG. Probably I did, yes.

Mr. BURTON. You did.

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did Mark Middleton attend the dinner on February

19, 1996?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t think he attended. He probably stayed in the

back probably the most, I can remember now.

Mr. BURTON. He stayed in the back?

Mr. HUANG. In the dining room.

Mr. BURTON. But he didn’t go to the dinner himself? He just

watched?

Mr. HUANG. He stayed in the back and just watched.

Mr. BURTON. I wonder why he didn’t attend the dinner. Do you

know?

Mr. HUANG. Basically it was an Asia Pacific American as a focus

at that time.

Mr. BURTON. He just didn’t think he should be involved?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know what was the reason, but basically it

was an Asian Pacific American dinner.

Mr. BURTON. Middleton did attend the breakfast on February 20

as shown in exhibit 324, if we can put that up. It is a photograph

of him with Vice President Gore. Can you tell why he attended— do we have that picture?

In any event—— [Exhibit 324 follows:]

612

613

Mr. COBB. He has the picture, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUANG. I have the picture.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know why he did attend that event?

Mr. HUANG. I believe one of the participants during the dinner

and breakfast was a lady called Nina Wang.

Mr. BURTON. Nita Wang?

Mr. HUANG. No, Nina. Nina Wang. I think Congressman

LaTourette yesterday was referring to the head table. That was one

of the persons sitting at the table, Nina Wang. Mr. Middleton is

apparently friends. Maybe he was just being concerned, trying to

be more courteous, to say Nina Wang was there, he just wanted to

tag along. I didn’t remember he was sitting at the table, though.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know if he contributed to that event? I will

yield myself 5 more minutes here.

Mr. HUANG. To the best of my knowledge, no, he did not.

Mr. BURTON. Did he solicit any money for that event?

Mr. HUANG. No, he did not.

Mr. BURTON. And he did bring a guest?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. And her name is Nina?

Mr. HUANG. Nina Wang.

Mr. BURTON. Did you discuss any of the contributions that were

made for that event with Mr. Middleton? Did you talk about any

of the contributions that were given at that event? Did you talk to

Mr. Middleton about them?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t specifically remember I talked to him about

the money, but he can view the situation over there, roughly how

many people coming in. I’m pretty sure he was aware how much

per ticket.

Mr. BURTON. But you didn’t go into any detail on that?

Mr. HUANG. No detail on that, no.

Mr. BURTON. On February 19, 1996, there was an event and

Ernie Green gave $6,000 to this event in a check dated March 8,

1996. This event took place on February 19, 1996 but the check

was dated, postdated to March 8. Trie is listed as the solicitor on

that check. Several days before the $6,000 contribution was made,

Green deposited $2,500 and $3,500 cash into a Riggs Bank account.

Do you know Ernie Green?

Mr. HUANG. I met him before, yes.

Mr. BURTON. How do you know him?

Mr. HUANG. I believe it is through some function through Charlie

Trie.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Green was present at the February 19, 1996

event. Can you tell me why he was there and who invited him?

Mr. HUANG. He just came by himself. He came alone. As a friend

of Mr. Trie.

Mr. BURTON. Nobody invited him?

Mr. HUANG. He knew of the event. I did not really—basically I

did not invite him on that.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know who did invite him? Was it Charlie

Trie or Mark Middleton or who?

614

Mr. HUANG. The best I can guess, probably through Charlie Trie.

Mr. BURTON. Charlie Trie.

Exhibit 328, if you could take a look at that, sir. It is titled

Comm 0326. Do you see that?

[Exhibit 328 follows:]

615

616

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. It is a page from your diary, from shortly before the

February 19 event. You have a reference to Chu-Lei, Mark Middleton, and Ernie Green and Hong China Limited. What do those

notes refer to?

Mr. HUANG. The Hong Kong China Limited related to Nina

Wang. Nina Wang right after the Hong Kong China Limited, there

is a Chinese connector. That is Nina Wang’s Chinese name.

Mr. BURTON. Were you ever in contact with Green about that

event?

Mr. HUANG. I certainly don’t recall contacting him about it. I’m

pretty sure he knew about that event because it was the first Asian

Pacific American fundraising event ever.

Mr. BURTON. On the bottom left of that page, there is a reference

to another company. Can you read your note and does it refer to

a China Hughes or what does it say?

Mr. HUANG. No. Remember you read, Mr. Chairman, read the

Hong Kong China. There is confusion. Could be China Hong Kong,

the name for Ms. Nina Wang’s company. In other words, it could

be a mistake, it could be Hong Kong China or China Hong Kong.

I wasn’t sure at that time.

Mr. BURTON. I see. On March 8, which was several weeks after

the event, Mr. Green wrote a check for $6,000 to the DNC. It was

credited to the February 19 event. Why did Mr. Green contribute

that $6,000?

Mr. HUANG. If I remember correctly, at the end of the event, he

told me he was going to give some money since he was attending.

Mr. BURTON. The event cost $12,500, didn’t it?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. Why did he only give $6,000?

Mr. HUANG. It was not unusual. Some of the people did not give

money at a particular time or give less money. That was their intention. There is different consideration. Some of the people might

have been giving money way ahead of time; historically it has been

known. I would not really in that urgency say you come to this

event, give me the money. And I was quite lenient because of that

relationship basis. If I knew some people were going to give more

money, I was very much willing to wait.

Mr. BURTON. So you let some people in for less money because

you were trying to raise as much as possible.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BURTON. That’s what I thought. Who gave you that check?

Did Charlie Trie give it to you?

Mr. HUANG. I thought——

Mr. BURTON. Excuse me just 1 minute.

Mr. HUANG. I don’t recall exactly.

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. If you would continue.

Mr. HUANG. I have a vague memory it might have been sent in

by mail. Sent in by mail.

Mr. SHAYS. Would you tell me why this check came in so long

after the event? It was because it was sent in by mail?

Mr. HUANG. No, no, no. He was delaying writing checks, I believe.

617

Mr. SHAYS. Did you discuss this contribution with anyone,

whether it was Charlie Trie or Ernie Green?

Does Mr. Waxman want the floor because my time is out?

Thank you.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, let me proceed to answer your question. As I just reported to Chairman Burton, Mr. Green was in the

event. At the end of the event, he said, I’ll give you some money.

I’ll send you some money.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Green’s bank records indicate that on February 21st and 23rd, Mr. Green deposited $2,500 and $3,500 respectively

in cash into his bank account. Do you have any knowledge of these

cash deposits by Mr. Green?

Mr. HUANG. No, I don’t.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you have any knowledge whether Mr. Green was

reimbursed for this contribution by Charlie Trie?

Mr. HUANG. I do not know.

Mr. SHAYS. Why was the $6,000 Green contribution credited to

this event?

Mr. HUANG. Because he attended that event. And I got the check

later on.

Mr. SHAYS. Nina Wang made contributions to this event as well.

Do you know Nina Wang?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t think she made a contribution to this event,

sir.

Mr. SHAYS. Excuse me, I misspoke. She did not make any contribution for the event due to her immigration status. Let me further ask, she is not a U.S. citizen?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. Nor does she hold a green card? She does not hold

a green card?

Mr. HUANG. No. To the best of my knowledge, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. In one interview, I think with the FBI, you indicated

that you knew that Nina Wang’s company had been the target of

a takeover attempt by the Lippo Group. Which company was this?

Did you ever have any dealings with Nina Wang regarding this

takeover?

Mr. HUANG. I think it was relating to Hong Kong China or China

Hong Kong, which I always flip up. It may be Hong Kong China

Limited.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you ever have any dealings with Nina Wang regarding this takeover?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you ever discuss Nina Wang with the Riadys or

other Lippo Group personnel?

Mr. HUANG. I personally did not discuss on that. I would not—

I take it back. The Lippo Group people might have known that

Nina Wang attended that event.

Mr. SHAYS. Who, therefore, invited her to the event?

Mr. HUANG. I believe she came in because of Mark Middleton.

Mr. SHAYS. Evidently we have an exhibit that indicates that

Nina Wang was seated at the head table. Do you know why she

would have been? Did Charlie Trie or Mark Middleton request that

she be seated at the head table?

Mr. HUANG. I believe that Mark Middleton requested that.

618

Mr. SHAYS. Again she did not give any money for this event?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. Did anyone affiliated with Ms. Wang give any money

to this event?

Mr. HUANG. Not that I know of, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. Why would Ms. Wang be seated at the head table if

she did not give any money for the event? What made her so important?

Mr. HUANG. No. 1, she is probably the wealthiest persons in the

world, the woman in the world. That I learned. And also the reason

I knew that reputation is because—my knowledge from previous

employment with the Lippo involving the takeover battle. She did

not relinquish. She was very tough lady. She was giving money to

a lot of charitable organization, a lot of school is what I understood.

One of the conservation I believe she has done something for—just

1 second, Mr. Shays.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. I have learned—sorry. I have learned through Mr.

Middleton she probably did already giving some money to the—

Clinton’s birthplace, some foundation or library of that sort. In

other words, from her what was quite, quite big.

Mr. SHAYS. It’s our indication that you indicated to the FBI that

you found out after the event that Wang had given $50,000 to the

Clinton Birthplace Foundation. First off, what is the Clinton Birthplace Foundation?

Mr. HUANG. The best I know is it might be doing something for

Clinton’s birthplace. They’re trying to buildup something over

there.

Mr. SHAYS. So there’s lots of ways for people to contribute even

if they can’t contribute to campaigns, it appears. How did you find

out that she had contributed this $50,000?

Mr. HUANG. I believe through Mr. Middleton.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you have any idea at the time of that that Wang

was giving funds to the Birthplace Foundation or any other group?

Mr. HUANG. That I do not know of, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you ask Trie to take Wang to her hotel after the

event and did you ask Trie to do anything else special for Wang?

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t hear the first part.

Mr. SHAYS. I’m sorry. I’m going too quickly.

Mr. HUANG. I’m sorry.

Mr. SHAYS. No, you do not need to apologize. You’ve had a long

day.

Did you ask Trie to take Wang to her hotel after the event?

Mr. HUANG. I did not do that, no.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Did you ask Trie to do anything else for her if

not that?

Mr. HUANG. No, not through me, no.

Mr. SHAYS. Now Miss Wang also attended an event on May 13,

1996. We had just been talking about an event in February 1996.

You—evidently, you had some notes about this May 13th event in

your diary. You kept a diary—just a calendar.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

619

Mr. SHAYS. Do I start my new time? Yeah, OK.

This is exhibit 417, and it’s a listing of the head table for the

May 13th event. It indicates Nina Wang sat at the head table. Is

that accurate as far as you’re concerned? This is exhibit 417.

[Exhibit 417 follows:]

620

621

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I did.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, you did what?

Mr. HUANG. I did know. She was arranged at the head table.

Mr. SHAYS. And the question is, did—do you know if Wang contributed any money to this event?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. SHAYS. Again, if not, why was she at the head table?

Mr. HUANG. This time—it’s different now. This time was recommended by Mark Jiminez.

Mr. SHAYS. Mark who? I’m sorry.

Mr. HUANG. Mark Jiminez. J-I-M-E-N-E-Z, something like that— E-Z, E-Z. I’m sorry. Jiminez.

Mr. SHAYS. Exhibit 432 is a page from your diary. We call it a

diary, but is that your calendar?

[Exhibit 432 follows:]

622

623

Mr. HUANG. It’s sort of notebook because I did not have any secretary.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. HUANG. So I was trying to—— Mr. SHAYS. OK. Fair enough. From your notebook from the period around May 13th it states, Nina Wang, quote, public and,

quote, 100 Nina, end of quote. Did you solicit Nina Wang to contribute for this event?

Mr. HUANG. No, I did not.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you know if anyone else asked her to give to this

event?

Mr. HUANG. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. SHAYS. Are you aware of any contributions that Wang may

have made to any other entities in order to attend this event?

Mr. HUANG. That I don’t know either.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Now, let me get back to James Riady. I think

I’ve been—I have been candid with you, and I think you’ve been

candid with me, but I’m left a little uncomfortable with your response about the number of times you might have remembered the

Riadys. These are two important players. I do realize this: If you

ask me what I did upteen years ago and over what span—so I want

to take it slow enough. But during the time you were in Commerce

that’s what I’m interested in. And it may be that by the time we’re

finished with these questions you will have a number of events

with them, and we’ll just say they happened. Or I might draw some

other conclusions. But I at least want to know what the facts are.

My sense is that you really were at the White House with Mr.

Riady, James Riady, more than once or twice during this period.

And this is a longer video than I’m particularly happy about, but

would you put that video in?

[Video played.]

Mr. SHAYS. This is—the event is September 10th White House

radio address. And if you don’t mind I’m going to want you to identify the people. There are just a few people that I think—and we

can fast forward it after—these are people that you don’t really

know right now.

Mr. HUANG. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. These are not your guests, correct?

Mr. HUANG. No.

Mr. SHAYS. They’re not a lot of American people who get to participate in this. This is a big deal. Now are these your guests?

Mr. HUANG. That’s James and Aileen Riady.

Mr. SHAYS. And that’s his wife.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. So they’re going to talk for awhile. If you don’t mind,

we can just speed it up. No, I don’t want you to do it that way.

I’m sorry.

They have a conversation. Now—and this is who?

Mr. HUANG. That’s Mr. Riady’s guest.

Mr. SHAYS. Who is Mr. Riady’s guest?

Mr. HUANG. I can’t spell his name. I believe he was minister of

education of Indonesia.

624

Mr. SHAYS. And this looks like his daughter.

Mr. HUANG. The family, probably.

Mr. SHAYS. Yeah, and his wife. And that’s James Riady.

Mr. HUANG. I remember that the name is Kowodiman or something.

Mr. SHAYS. There was a part of me that didn’t want to show it

because it’s a very touching interaction of family with the President

and that happens all the time. But I thought, you know, there are

not many of my constituents who have this privilege.

Now this is a gift. What is the gift? It’s a knife or some kind of

ceremonial—— Mr. HUANG. Something like that, ceremonial style gift.

Mr. SHAYS. Is that you with your back to us?

Mr. HUANG. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. You had a suit on. They didn’t.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you. I shouldn’t be, right?

Mr. SHAYS. Is the sound purposely off? OK. Right. While I was

talking. Thank you. You can put it back on.

In a second we’re going to have the next people come up.

I have constituents, if they get to look at the White House it’s

exciting. If they get to go in for a visit, it’s a thrill. But they don’t

get to meet the President and go to the Oval Office. And this is

kind of a special opportunity.

Now we’re going to have some people come up, and I would like

you to tell me who the others are.

Mr. HUANG. That is the Ambassador.

Mr. SHAYS. Turn the sound down.

Mr. HUANG. That is Ambassador of Indonesia to the United

States and his wife.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. HUANG. At that time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Riady has come with a minister.

Mr. HUANG. Ambassador at that time, sorry.

Mr. SHAYS. Ambassador. And he—also, the gentleman before I

believe was a government official. Who is this again? That is right

now?

Mr. HUANG. This is my successor, Lippo successor, Joe Hanna.

Mr. SHAYS. So he works for the Riadys.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. And that’s Mark Middleton.

Mr. HUANG. Yes. Then that’s me. I have a coat on. I didn’t have

a tie on.

Mr. SHAYS. He put his arm around you and not Mr. Riady. You

are good friends, and you should be proud of that. You have a longterm relationship with the President.

Now is there anyone else?

Mr. HUANG. To the extent probably that was it, Mr. Shays.

That’s probably all the people, yeah.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, the reason I’m showing this is—the reason I’m

showing this to you is this really should bring back the recollection

of the meeting the day before. Because the day before Mr. Riady

was in the White House at 9:38 a.m., and didn’t leave until 2:30.

And whether or not—I want to be very clear with you, Mr. Huang.

I want to be very clear with you on this point. Whether or not there

625

is a White House document that says you were there, it is important for you to recall whether or not you were there. And it is not

going to be difficult for you to remember. Because this is a very

memorable event.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Shays, thank you for bringing this tape in. You

know, I’m also getting the age and going around so many things

at a time, some things I remember more, much better than the

other. But this will help me on this.

Mr. SHAYS. I’m going to concur. I say it for the record. I pass no

judgment. But now, having seen this, can you provide us any information?

Mr. HUANG. I tell you I did not attend the so-called—that few

hours that you talking about the——

Mr. SHAYS. You weren’t in the White House.

Mr. HUANG. I was not in the White House.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you know what they talked about?

Mr. HUANG. That I don’t know.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. You didn’t talk to Mr. Riady at all about this

event?

Mr. HUANG. I should not say I did not talk to Mr. Riady on that,

because you saw my pictures were there, and I was with him.

Mr. SHAYS. I mean about the event the day before. It’s hard for

me to imagine that as close as you are to the President and to Mr.

Riady that you would not have had some conversation about that

event.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. No, I had a conversation. I was not there during the

day.

Mr. SHAYS. I am clear on that. You were not there at the event.

I want to know if you talked to Mr. Riady at all about the event.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Please, go ahead.

Mr. SHAYS. No, that’s fine.

Mr. HUANG. Congressman, the best I can recollect, and this is

the time, this few days you were talking about, the $100,000 to Mr.

Hubbell. Remember? We’re talking about that. This is probably

some people saw that as a help situation, helping him totally. It’s

not really a job arrangement. I believe these things is done through

Mr. Hubbell. It’s not through me.

Mr. SHAYS. You think the visit to the White House was done——

Mr. HUANG. The arrangements through Mr. Hubbell. And if

there is any meeting—because I indicated to you earlier I did not—

I was not in the White House. I don’t know whether the White

House visit was also arranged by Mr. Hubbell or not, which I

wouldn’t be able to speculate on that.

Mr. SHAYS. But the bottom line is you didn’t arrange the Friday

meeting, but somebody did.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. SHAYS. And we know that he went in to see Mark Middleton.

Do you know—did he talk to you at all to tell you if he met with

Bruce Lindsey or do you know if—in fact if he met with Bruce

Lindsey?

626

Mr. HUANG. I really cannot rule out any of your possibilities, because I don’t know.

Mr. SHAYS. Your testimony is you can’t rule it out, but you don’t

know.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct.

Mr. SHAYS. That was a memorable event that Sunday which you

mentioned. There was the event before which you now recall and

know that you did not arrange, according to your testimony, nor

did you have much of a dialog with Mr. Riady about it. You speculate that it might have been involved with the Hubbell—that Mr.

Hubbell may in fact have provided this opportunity. And it was

during the time of the $100,000 payment by Mr. Riady to Mr. Hubbell. That’s a speculation on your part that he arranged that but

you didn’t.

Mr. HUANG. I didn’t. That’s correct, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. It had to be arranged—— [Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. I shouldn’t use the word speculate. I’m pretty sure

I know that Mr. Hubbell made the arrangement on that.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. How did you know that?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Probably Mr. Riady mentioned about that to me.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. I yield back the time. Thank you. Mr. Chairman,

I yield back the time.

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. The gentelman yields back the balance

of his time.

I think what we’ll do now is go to the counsel. Each counsel

member has 30 minutes. I’m not sure they’re going to use all of

that. They have some questions that they feel need to be asked

that Mr. Shays and I haven’t asked or Mr. Waxman. So we will

now yield 30 minutes.

Mr. SHAYS. Could I ask a question before, Mr. Chairman? I have

no other questions. I just want to ask, in terms of the process, both

sides will ask questions and then will we be given just a short opportunity to make a comment?

Mr. BURTON. Yes. In fact, if Mr. Waxman is here or you or I,

we’ll have closing comments. Then we’ll be through. I don’t

think—— Mr. SHAYS. I have no other questions to ask. That’s correct.

Mr. BURTON. Yield to the minority counsel.

Mr. SCHILIRO. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, this is just a point of clarification. Earlier when

we talked about Maria Hsia, Mr. Huang was asked a question

about that. The chairman read to you the majority report. There

is also a minority report on Maria Hsia. Just to make it part of the

record we ask unanimous consent——

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. SCHILIRO [continuing]. Just to read a short excerpt.

Mr. BURTON. That’s fine.

Mr. SCHILIRO. The minority report said of Maria Hsia that,

The committee received nonpublic information connecting some activities she undertook while an immigration consultant in the State of California in the early to

627

mid-1990’s to Chinese government officials. This information did not involve her activities with respect to fundraising, and there was no information presented to the

committee during its investigation that connected Hsia’s fundraising activities to the

Chinese government. In an affidavit submitted to the committee, Hsia strongly objects to this allegation, outlines her ties to Taiwan and the U.S., and describes her

activities while an immigration consultant in California. In light of the incomplete

investigation of the committee on this issue, the minority believes that the committee lacks sufficient information about Hsia to endorse or rebut these serious allegations. The fact that the majority emphasizes these allegations throughout its report

without putting the allegations in context or addressing this information is troubling.

I only put that in the record, Mr. Chairman, because the witness

before had a different view of Maria Hsia. I don’t know if he has

any response in light of this information.

Mr. HUANG. No, my response to Mr. Chairman stands. At least

still I didn’t have any reason to believe she was conducting that

kind of activity as indicated by the report I’m talking about.

Mr. SCHILIRO. Thank you. We yield back.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back his time.

The majority counsel now has 30 minutes.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Huang, how are you sir?

Mr. HUANG. Good afternoon.

Mr. WILSON. It’s been a very long day for you. I realize that. I’ll

try and be as quick as I can.

Obviously, one of the reasons we have hearings like this is because we want to learn things. One of the things we are very interested in was the relationship between Mr. Charlie Trie and James

Riady, and I think before the hearing began we had an impression

that there wasn’t much or any of a relationship between Mr. Trie

and Mr. Riady. And I wanted to followup and ask you a few questions about Mr. Trie and Mr. Riady.

Mr. LaTourette asked you questions, I believe it was the day before yesterday, and he asked at any time during your acquaintance

with Charlie Trie did you ever discuss with him any travel that

you might have made to Jakarta, and you answered that he had

some business contact in Jakarta.

And Mr. LaTourette then asked was that the subject of conversations that you and he might have had, and you said he was talking

about business contacts, businessmen he knew in Indonesia.

And then later on we learned that Mr. Trie actually went over

and had a meeting with Mr. Riady in Jakarta. If you could please

tell us as much as you can about that meeting.

Mr. HUANG. I did not know that, the detail of the meeting. Basically, the best I learn is he visited Mr. Riady. Mr. Riady had made

a comment to me and said, despite the fact that both were in Little

Rock earlier—as you know, Mr. Trie’s background, he owned the

restaurants in Little Rock. And Mr. Riady also runs a daily banking business, the Worthen Bank in Little Rock. They hardly had

a chance to meet, but although they knew sort of each other they

knew the existence of the persons. He made a comment to me. He

said, well, Charlie Trie is not a bad guy, you know, and—but he

indicating certainly in his words denied a lot of resources, relative

speaking, compared to the Riadys.

Mr. WILSON. Did you have any part in arranging the meeting between Mr. Trie and Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir, I did not.

628

Mr. WILSON. No? Just following up on that one exchange you had

with Mr. LaTourette, Mr. LaTourette said specifically, are you

aware of any relationship between the Trie family and the Riady

family. And your answer to Mr. LaTourette was, no, he had—to the

best of my knowledge, he had no relationship with the Riady family. And I wanted to followup and ask you whether you thought

that was an accurate characterization.

Mr. HUANG. That depends on the period of time. Are you talking

about business relationship? The most closest one we can talk

about is that meeting and also probably something Mr. Trie might

be able to work something in China because he, Mr. Trie, has some

extensive—at least appear to have extensive relationship or contacts in China. And at that time Lippo also developing something

in China. And in light of overall situation as I just made a comment that Riady and Trie’s meeting, maybe Trie might be helpful

in helping with his service to the Riady family on Lippo in some

projects in China.

In terms of that relationship, that’s—at that point, all words, if

talking about the relationship, that’s the first time I knew there

was a relationship. Prior to that, I really did not have any knowledge that they had any relationship.

Mr. WILSON. What I’m trying to get at here is you were asked

if there was any relationship and you said, no, to the best of my

knowledge, he had no relationship with the Riady family.

After that, we showed you a copy of a receipt from a limousine

ride, and it became clear that—at least you told us that you had

a limousine go to Dulles Airport and pick up Mr. Riady. And then

there was a little bit of skirmishing over details, and then it became clear that later that night after a fundraiser Mr. Riady actually stayed and, as did you, with Mr. Trie in an apartment at Mr.

Trie’s place. And the concern that when Mr. LaTourette asked you

whether there was any relationship at all, and your answer was no.

I wanted to followup on that.

Mr. HUANG. I like to clarify that. My interpretation is, family relationship I says no. Now, I took it as that way.

Mr. WILSON. And if you could briefly explain that. Because I

don’t understand that, the family relationship.

Mr. HUANG. The family relation like a blood tie or brother-in-law

or that kind of situation, sir.

Mr. WILSON. OK. Well, following up on the time that you and

Mr. Riady stayed with Mr. Trie in the apartment, who arranged

that?

Mr. HUANG. I did not arrange that. I have learned from Mr.

Riady at that time, Mr. Riady indicating that Mr. Trie invited him

to stay there. He said he decided to stay there instead of staying

at a hotel. He told me that. I did not arrange that, the arrangement—accommodation arrangement on that, no.

Mr. WILSON. So it’s fair to say, then, that Mr. Trie arranged this

independently with Mr. Riady.

Mr. HUANG. That’s my belief, yes.

Mr. WILSON. And do you know how he did that? Was it a meeting or a telephone call?

Mr. HUANG. That I would not know, sir, Mr. Wilson.

629

Mr. WILSON. Did you know that before you picked up Mr. Riady

in the limousine? Did you know that Mr. Riady and yourself would

be staying with Mr. Trie at Mr. Trie’s apartment?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. The best of my recollection is Mr. Riady mentioned

to me he also made the hotel reservation but he also was invited

by Mr. Trie and he was indicating he decided to stay with Mr. Trie.

Mr. WILSON. OK. Now, following up, we had a very brief discussion about after the campaign finance matters became very public

and you were receiving a great deal of media attention, you ended

up staying at Mr. Trie’s apartment for a period of time. And you

indicated it was 1 to 2 weeks that you stayed at Mr. Trie’s apartment. Can you recall with any more specificity how long you actually stayed at Mr. Trie’s apartment?

Mr. HUANG. I cannot give you the exact time. I think during

my——

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Wilson, I distinctly remember during the, you

know, Judicial Watch, the deposition period of time and I reported,

Mr. Chairman, I was move around from places to places. And final

night I went in to Mr. Trie’s apartment in Watergate. And during

that deposition period of time, I was staying with Mr. Trie’s apartment.

Mr. WILSON. How did you arrange that? Did he call you and

make the offer or did you call him and ask him if you could stay

at his apartment?

Mr. HUANG. I believe I initiated that. I was wondering if I could

stay there because the Watergate apartment was relatively secure.

You know, media cannot really just knock on your door and go in

to film you. He also recommend—you know that’s not—and maybe

it’s a mutual situation. But I believe I initiated that, whether I

could stay there, sir.

Mr. WILSON. Have you ever stayed there before, apart from the

time with Mr. Riady?

Mr. HUANG. I’m not certain right now. I—definitely I visited that

apartment before. Whether I stay overnight or not, if—I cannot recall. In the event—I really cannot recall ever staying there. I did

visit that apartment a few times before, yes.

Mr. WILSON. Now, I would like to move along just a little bit to

another subject. You had mentioned that you heard that Mr. Trie

might be helpful with ventures in China, and I wanted to know

whether you ever communicated that to Mr. Riady.

Mr. HUANG. No, that—I learned that in information from Mr.

Riady when he—after the meeting between Mr. Riady and Trie in

Jakarta he briefly he mentioned he might have Mr. Trie to do so

in China, something of that nature. But was not really in the specific form as I was shown on that translated report yesterday.

Mr. WILSON. When did Mr. Riady tell you that Mr. Trie might

be helpful in Chinese ventures?

Mr. HUANG. I believe it was around that period of time, September, you know, around September, maybe—in that period of time,

yeah.

Mr. WILSON. Before that, had Mr. Riady ever asked you any

questions about Charlie Trie?

630

Mr. HUANG. I simply did not recall that, as I made a comment

to you earlier, just now. Mr. Riady had made a comment after the

joint meeting in Indonesia. He said he’s basically not really a bad

guy on that.

Mr. WILSON. Did—have you ever had any—have you had any, in

the last couple of years, any discussions with Mr. Riady about Antonio Pan?

Mr. HUANG. Not with Mr. Riady on Antonio Pan at all.

Mr. WILSON. Do you know where Mr. Pan is right now?

Mr. HUANG. To answer your question, no, I don’t know. But I can

tell you what I knew before, what is his background. He came

from—— Mr. WILSON. Just for the last couple of years. I’m not interested

before that.

Mr. HUANG. Right. That’s what I’m trying to say. He came from

Taiwan. Maybe he set foot in Hong Kong sometimes, could be in

China. But I understand he migrate his family to New Zealand. So

he might have a status in New Zealand. That is the extent I know.

Certainly some time he was traveling to the United States during

that period of time, sir.

Mr. WILSON. Have you had any conversations with Mr. Pan in

the last 2 years?

Mr. HUANG. No, sir.

Mr. WILSON. Apart from Mr. Trie and you discussing how Mr.

Trie visited Mr. Riady in Jakarta, do you know—did you participate in setting up any visits for other government officials or

former government officials with Mr. Riady in Jakarta?

Mr. HUANG. You talking about government official of the United

States?

Mr. WILSON. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. During my DNC time or Commerce time or when?

Prior to that?

Mr. WILSON. We can take both. During the time that you were

at the Department of Commerce.

Mr. HUANG. Sir, I don’t believe so. In the Commerce Department

I’m trying to stay away anything from the Lippo, so I wouldn’t be

able to do that. DNC, I made arrangement not for official, for the

daughter of the Chairman Fowler. She was traveling over to the— the first time as a student I think from Hawaii. Being a father was

a little concerned, coming to the foreign land. He came to me. He

said, I understand you have some friends in Indonesia, somebody

who can take care of my daughter. I said, I’ll be glad to do that.

Which I did. Again, she is not official, but as a tie with some official, title at least the chairman of DNC.

Mr. WILSON. But you didn’t—as far as you recall—you didn’t set

up any other meetings with——

Mr. HUANG. I don’t—I’m trying to search my memory whether I

did or did not. I want to be very careful on that.

Mr. WILSON. That’s understood.

Just moving to something else. We’ve had a little bit of difficulty

coming to a conclusion as to when Mr. Riady left the United States.

And there have been a few exchanges about this subject, and

you’ve told us that Mr. Riady traveled—he had a house in California. He obviously has at least one premises overseas, at least one

631

house overseas, and it’s a little difficult to come to a full understanding of that. You were living in California in the early 1990’s,

correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. WILSON. And Mr. Riady also had a house in California in the

early 1990’s?

Mr. HUANG. In Brentwood, yes. Brentwood.

Mr. WILSON. You were working for one of Mr. Riady’s companies

in California.

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. WILSON. And I know it’s been—we’re sort of going back and

forth on this, but are you able to pin down with any specificity

when Mr. Riady actually moved away from the United States and

set up his principal residence in Indonesia?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Wilson, the definition of a moving away—it’s

very, very difficult for me to do. You know, if it’s talking about a

totally moving out and places, the furniture and everything was

packed everything like that, if that’s the definition, probably was

not done until fairly, fairly—was not too long ago from here.

Mr. WILSON. Was his family in the United States in the early

1990’s?

Mr. HUANG. Let me put it this way: The family enjoyed the

United States. The kids would love to stay in the United States.

Apparently, there was a business situation. They had to spend a

lot of time over there to develop the business.

Mr. BURTON. Excuse me. Let me interrupt. What percentage of

the time did the family spend in the United States?

Mr. HUANG. OK. I’ll be very honest on that part.

Mr. BURTON. I hope so.

Mr. HUANG. Around that period of time, approximately—most

about 3 to 4 months a year.

Mr. BURTON. So 8 months of the year, the majority of the time,

they were living in Indonesia.

Mr. HUANG. Starting from—conservatively saying probably starting from 1990.

Mr. BURTON. 1990. So from 1990 on, the vast majority of his time

was spent in Indonesia.

Mr. HUANG. That’s fair.

Mr. BURTON. That’s how you determine a permanent residence.

So his permanent residence then was——

Mr. HUANG. Oh, no, Mr. Chairman, maybe you have a different

way of looking.

Mr. BURTON. Talking about, you know, here in the United States

we decide I think for the most part people’s permanent residence

is where they spend the majority of their time. You’re saying that

his family was over there probably three-fourths of the time.

Mr. HUANG. No, what I’m—the two-thirds of time is staying over

there physically. When I say the permanent residence—in other

words, you get green card holder is supposedly you have a permanent residency. That’s why I said the permanent residency. I’m not

saying the definition of the——

Mr. BURTON. I know he had a green card, but you said that he

spent 8 months of the year, his family did, over in Indonesia.

632

Mr. HUANG. That sounds right, and family.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you.

Mr. WILSON. Just to followup on this, because we keep getting

it pinned down to a sort of about 1990, what was different between

1990 and 1989? I mean, what change did you notice? Why are you

saying 1990 and not 1989 or 1988?

Mr. HUANG. The reason I’m saying this way is probably at the

beginning of a period of time, although he still maintain very heavy

travel schedule, but family probably was still staying here. And Mr.

Riady himself just going back and forth until later date which I

was saying, conservatively saying, is around 1990 of that time.

Mr. WILSON. You’re telling us today that the family—there was

a change of the family status in 1990?

Mr. HUANG. I believe that’s the situation, yes.

Mr. WILSON. Just shifting a little bit to illegal conduct. We discussed extensively 1992 and 1993 and a number of contributions

that were reimbursed by Lippo organizations, and you told us very

clearly that after that conduct, after the 1993 contributions, you

didn’t do anything else that you thought was illegal. Is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. With the Lippo?

Mr. WILSON. At all.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. I think, Mr. Wilson, you will recall I said there is

one contribution in 1995, came in—I think yesterday one of the Congresses mentioned it was about $12,000.

Mr. WILSON. Right. I wanted to sort of hone down on that subject. After 1993, could you list all the activities that you were engaged in that you think might have been illegal, if any?

Mr. HUANG. OK. 1993, for instance, on the Gore event we’re talking about, Chairman Burton was asking me about the September

event of Gore in southern California. There might be another event

around December. There was some contribution being made. There

were some checks with the Lippo employees. As Chairman Burton

mentioned, he showed me the list yesterday was that all the list

you have, I said there may be a few more names that’s on that.

That’s what I’m referring to. I did say the period covers 1992, 1993,

1994. Possibly there is another check of May 1995.

Mr. WILSON. OK. Then let’s try and be very specific. After 1994,

did you do anything that you now think was illegal?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Except, Mr. Wilson, with the exception of that

$12,000 check to the best of my knowledge after the 1994 I left the

Lippo, yeah. That would be it.

Mr. WILSON. I guess one reason we’re interested is the underlying facts and the other is in your statement yesterday you talked

about how the Department of Justice thought you had been candid

with them, and we’re trying to determine whether you’ve been honest with us. And I wanted to ask you about the contributions that

were—about the exchange you had with Mr. Ickes who was in the

White House.

Mr. HUANG. Right.

Mr. WILSON. He had asked you to round up $10,000 to $15,000

for a congressional campaign. And you were at the Department of

633

Commerce, and you told us that you did contact people and that

what you did benefit the Congressman who was asked, you know,

asked to be benefited. And am I right in remembering that you personally collected $7,000 in checks?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Wilson, I did testify I did collect $7,000 to Mr.

Chairman, and to this day I’m not—I’m—I feel very uncomfortable

in collecting in that capacity to collect the money.

Mr. WILSON. I thought I was right in remembering that you said you collected $7,000 in checks. And after you collected the checks

you dropped them off personally at the DNC.

Mr. HUANG. It was not DNC.

Mr. WILSON. Who did you drop them off with?

Mr. HUANG. No, I believe in the address—I thought it was Jesse

Jackson, Jr.’s, one of the offices over there.

Mr. WILSON. That’s my error. So you actually collected the

money, after somebody in the White House had asked you to round

up money, and then you took the money to a congressional campaign office and you gave them the money, is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. I drop off with the receptionist in that office, yes.

Mr. WILSON. And at that time you were working at the Department of Commerce, correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. WILSON. Do you feel that there is a possible violation of law

in that?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. As I testified yesterday, I did collect the money. I

did not feel comfortable—as of this stage I really don’t know, you

know, about legality.

Mr. WILSON. OK. And just one last area in this basic subject, the

Wiriadinata contributions. I think you’ve said on the record that

the Wiriadinatas came to your attention through a recommendation of Mr. Riady, is that correct?

Mr. HUANG. That is correct.

Mr. WILSON. Now, tell us what you meant by ‘‘came to your attention?’’ Did Mr. Riady call you up and say there are some people

in Arlington or Alexandria or northern Virginia that can give

money?

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Riady was also in town when Dr. Nashim Ning

was very sick in the hospital. Remember—I try to explain.

Mr. WILSON. Right. I do remember that. But did Mr. Riady say

to you there are some people that can contribute money and he told

you their names and arranged something with you?

Mr. HUANG. Yes. He was saying these people can be very helpful

to you.

Mr. WILSON. What precisely did he tell you?

Mr. HUANG. The words I remember is that these people have a

legal status, can give—they are able to give.

Mr. WILSON. Now, one of the most peculiar things about the $450,000 that Soraya Wiriadinata contributed is the fact—and we

discussed this yesterday, but there’s ultimately a question you’ve

not been asked, the fact that your wife was listed as the solicitor

for the money. And we could look at the exhibits again, but—— Mr. HUANG. No, I remember that.

634

Mr. WILSON [continuing]. You recall that your wife was—— [Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. If I remember correctly, the only time that my wife’s

name was related to those was—Wiriadinata contribution—was the

first couple checks maybe during that period of time. The rest of

the times since I joined the DNC my wife’s name was no longer

there.

Mr. WILSON. But you do recall, and I may be wrong on the complete number, but on some of the DNC check tracking forms your

wife was listed as the solicitor of contributions from the

Wiriadinatas.

Mr. HUANG. I’ve learned that since I saw the documents, yes.

Mr. WILSON. Now, you’ve testified that was not correct, is that

right?

Mr. HUANG. That was not correct. My wife did not solicit those

contributions, no.

Mr. WILSON. OK. I guess the simple question is, at that time you

were working at the Department of Commerce, and if the

Wiriadinatas had the money to give and if they were legally entitled to give money, then why would anybody decide to put your

wife’s name on a check tracking form?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. The only thing I know is that I believe that Mr.

Mercer testified that, you know, that my wife’s name was there.

Mr. WILSON. Right. But the question was, if everybody thought

that they were entitled to give the money and they had the money,

and—and I am asking for your speculation here, but if they

thought it was their money and they were allowed to give the

money, then why wouldn’t somebody just put down an honest answer on the DNC tracking form?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Wilson, I don’t know what was the nature of

that. I did not fill out the form. You know, I was not at the DNC.

So——

Mr. WILSON. Did you ever have—did you ever have any conversations with David Mercer about the Wiriadinata contributions?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. They are in the fundraisers. I introduced them together, yes.

Mr. WILSON. And, subsequently, has Mr. Mercer ever discussed

this subject with you?

Mr. HUANG. That’s after when?

Mr. WILSON. After—well, after your wife’s name was put on the

check tracking form, did you ever ask him why did you get my wife

involved in this? She didn’t do anything. That’s not fair to me.

Mr. HUANG. I did not know my wife’s name was on the tracking

form until later I learned from all the news accounts.

Mr. WILSON. OK. Just a couple of final questions here.

Did you ever seek any action at the Federal level on issues regarding the U.S. banking industry? And I’ll limit that to after 1990.

Mr. HUANG. After 1990? If possible, can you repeat the question?

You’re shifting the subject to the banking side right now.

Mr. WILSON. That was a very quick——

Mr. HUANG. Very quick shift.

635

Mr. WILSON [continuing]. Quick shift. I’m sorry for the abrupt

nature.

Shifting to banking, you were involved in the banking industry

for a long time. Did you ever seek any type of Federal action on

issues regarding U.S. banking?

Mr. HUANG. Could you be a little bit more specific? What do you

mean, the Federal actions mean? For buying or selling or whatever?

Mr. WILSON. Did you ever seek any legislative change to any

banking provisions after 1990?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. The only thing I can think of is hopefully the banking legislation will pay attention to one of the issues on the Community Reinvestment Act, i.e., the CRA. I think that basically, as

I testified, you might have found out I was the President of the National Association of Chinese American Bankers. The Chinese

American Bankers was totally ignorant by these issues. I don’t

know I should go into the detail or not to you. I think that’s one—

I spent most of the time on that, if you’re talking about the legislative issues on that.

Mr. WILSON. And does that—did what you were trying to do have

any impact on the Riadys or the Lippo Bank or Worthen bank or

any of the Riady banking interests?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know there’s any impact.

Let me say this: The Lippo Bank of California or formerly Bank

of Trade was a member of National Association of Chinese American Bankers. The thing I was doing is more or less for the overall

umbrella for the other member banks.

I was not the only one who was doing that. Whoever was the

member banks, they were trying to do it collectively. And also

teaming up with the—teaming up with the Independent Bankers

Association as well.

Mr. Wilson, as you know, most of the Chinese American bankers

are not large in size. They are relatively small. But there are

roughly 6,000 to 7,000 independent bankers in the country. They

are also facing a similar issue on the CRA. So at some point there’s

collective efforts for the National Association of Chinese American

Bankers. Where there was an Independent Bankers Association in

some form we did independently on our own for the Chinese American bankers.

Mr. BURTON. Let me ask counsel, how much more time are you

going to need?

I will ask unanimous consent that we give the counsel 5 more

minutes to wrap up. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. WILSON. This time I’ll tell you I’m going to change focus fairly quickly here. If somebody could find exhibit 354, please. I know

I’m shifting focus for you, too.

We’re going to put up on the projectors, and if you can look in

your books, a wire transfer of $1 million which is dated September

18, 1996, from a Tahir account in Jakarta to an account under the

name of Tahir Lippo Bank in California.

[Exhibit 354 follows:]

636

637

638

639

640

Mr. HUANG. Sorry. I was distracted. We were looking for the exhibit.

Mr. WILSON. Exhibit 354.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. WILSON. I know it’s not a very good copy, but if you could

take a look at that, please. And there’s a second page as well, so

it’s not just a single-page exhibit.

Mr. HUANG. Yes, I have those pages.

Mr. WILSON. Do you have any knowledge of this wire transfer?

Mr. HUANG. September, 1994?

Mr. WILSON. 1996.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. WILSON. I guess the simple question is, did you know about

$1 million transfer to the account?

Mr. HUANG. No, I do not.

Mr. WILSON. On the exhibit the payable line on the wire transfer

says, ‘‘your good selves.’’ Do you have any idea what this means?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. HUANG. Which pages is that, Mr. Wilson? There are three

pages.

Mr. WILSON. Yes. It’s on page 2 of the exhibit.

Mr. HUANG. OK.

Mr. WILSON. And it should be on the middle of the page.

Mr. WILSON. Do you have any idea what this——

Mr. HUANG. Just like yourself, I think.

Mr. WILSON. All right. Now, do you know why Mr. Tahir would

transfer $1 million to the United States in September 1996?

Mr. HUANG. I don’t know.

Mr. WILSON. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Tahir about

political contributions that he was going to give in the fall of 1996?

Mr. HUANG. No. I did not.

Mr. WILSON. Did you discuss with James Riady any political contributions he was going to give in the fall of 1996?

Mr. HUANG. I did not. But the only conversation I had with Mr.

Riady was that Mr. Tahir’s daughter has a green card, was able

to give—you know, can invite her for some of the function and—

in fact, in early 1996, she gave, but not related to this transaction.

Mr. WILSON. So just let me try and get this as accurate as possible. You had a conversation with Mr. Riady during which you

suggested to Mr. Riady that there was a Tahir child who had a

green card in the United States?

Mr. HUANG. I did not suggest it. He mentioned to me.

Mr. WILSON. He mentioned that to you.

Mr. HUANG. Right. That’s earlier though, early 1996. Remember

I did the fundraising on February 1996? I believe for that event

Mr. Tahir’s daughter was—or daughters came over for that event.

So there was contribution of that sort. Now that’s way earlier than

September——

Mr. WILSON. Right.

Mr. HUANG [continuing]. So I have no knowledge about what’s

going on in September with that million dollar stuff.

Mr. WILSON. But just cutting down to the basic line here, Mr.

Riady suggested to you that there was somebody with a green card

641

in the United States who might be able to give money to political

campaigns.

Mr. WILSON. More specifically, it would be the daughter, Jane

Tahir.

Mr. WILSON. So he specifically said Jane Tahir had a green card

and could give money.

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct, yes.

Mr. WILSON. OK. Now, if you would look at the—if you would

look at the last page of exhibit 354, please, it’s the signature card for the account receiving the $1 million wire transfer from Indonesia. Do you recognize either of those signatures?

Mr. COBB. The last page of 354?

Mr. WILSON. Correct.

Mr. HUANG. Mr. Wilson, I could not be sure about the signature.

There are only about two signatures there. Am I correct? Are you

with me on that?

Mr. WILSON. Yes. Correct.

Mr. HUANG. I definitely don’t recognize the first one, No. 1.

Mr. WILSON. Yes.

Mr. HUANG. The handwriting on No. 2 looks somewhat familiar.

I don’t know whether that’s Mr. Setiawan or not.

Mr. WILSON. Surprisingly, I was going to suggest whether that

was Mr. Setiawan. Now, you worked with Mr. Setiawan?

Mr. HUANG. That’s correct. Because the committee also refreshed

my memory yesterday. They showed me one of the Hip Hing Holdings—the things. So it just sort of reminded me on that.

Mr. WILSON. So it looks to you, based on what you recollect and

what you saw recently, that that might be Mr. Setiawan’s signature.

Mr. HUANG. Possibly, yeah, on that.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Huang, thank you very much.

Mr. HUANG. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Would you like to sum up, Mr. Shays, for we’re

about to end our hearing?

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just

want to thank our witness and I want to thank his two attorneys.

They enabled us to ask our questions and I appreciate that. I appreciate the candor I think we got. I would say to you, Mr. Huang,

you are unfortunately living proof of the need for campaign finance

reform. For you, that proof came in the form of a felony conviction.

For this committee, it comes as a confirmation of the conduit

schemes and influence peddling that threaten both our political integrity and, frankly, our national security.

For me, your testimony sheds just a little more light into the

dark corners of the incessant corrupting quest for money that pervades every event and all other elements of political campaigns

today.

The public record is now more complete. It remains my hope that

record will serve as the basis for holding offenders accountable and

serve as the basis for real campaign finance reform. And I make

these comments because I really believe that besides holding people

accountable, Mr. Chairman, we have got to reform the system. And

I know that you have put forward a bill on conduit payments that

I think we need to move forward. And I want to say for the record

642

that I know abuses take place in both parties and local governments and State and Federal, but I really think the administration

brought campaign finance abuses to a new art form, frankly, and

they haven’t wanted to face up to it, but I think Congress needs

to step up to the plate and pass meaningful campaign finance reform legislation. And I thank you very much.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Shays. Let me just end by saying

I want to ask unanimous consent to enter an exhibit analyzing the

list of fines given out by the Justice Department which was entered

into the record previously by Mr. Waxman. Without objection, so

ordered. Just expanding on that.

Let me say I appreciate your patience. And I appreciate Mr.

Keeney and Mr. Cobb being so helpful to you in expediting the answers to the questions. I do want to say, though, that it’s still very

murky. Millions of dollars in campaign contributions came in from

foreign sources. We’ve gotten some information from your 3 days of

testimony, Mr. Huang, but there’s still a lot of questions unanswered. We will continue to try to get to the bottom of all this so

that 1 day we can make sure that no foreign contributions, conduit

contributions, are allowed, and that those who do that will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The campaigns of the United States of America and the candidates elected in the United States of America should be elected

by the people of this country, and their campaigns should be funded by the people of this country. Mr. Shays has one opinion on

campaign finance laws. I have a little different opinion. I believe

there should be full disclosure and hopefully we can get the legislation he just talked about passed, which will eliminate foreign contributions.

But in any event, we appreciate your being here. I’m sorry it took

3 years to get you here. I hope we don’t have to talk to you again.

I think we’ve pretty much completed all the questions we need. But

as I said, we will continue to try to get to the bottom of all the campaign finance scandal. Once again, thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, before you hit the gavel, could we just

compliment the staff on both sides?

Mr. BURTON. Yes. I’m glad you said that. I wish my staff a very

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I know that you’ve

worked very, very hard and Mr. Shays knows the staff has worked

very, very hard. You didn’t go home, some of you, for Thanksgiving

because you were working. And I know the Democrat side has

worked hard as well, so thank you very much. You don’t get a pay

raise but you do get my congratulations for a job well done.

Mr. SHAYS. I would just like to say I’m very impressed with the

staff quality on both sides. This was excellent preparation. Thank

you.

Mr. BURTON. Merry Christmas to all. We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:14 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The information referred to follows:]

643

644

645

646

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752

753

754

755

756

757

758

759

760

761

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

769

770

771

772

773

774

775

776

777

778

779

780

781

782

783

784

785

786

787

788

789

790

791

792

793

794

795

796

797

798

799

800

801

802

803

804

805

806

807

808

809

810

811

812

813

814

815

816

817

818

819

820

821

822

823

824

825

826

827

828

829

830

831

832

833

834

835

836

837

838

839

840

841

842

843

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

851

852

853

854

855

856

857

858

859

860

861

862

863

864

865

866

867

868

869

870

871

872

873

874

875

876

877

878

879

880

881

882

883

884

885

886

887

888

889

890

891

892

893

894

895

896

897

898

899

900

901

902

903

904

905

906

907

908

909

910

911

912

913

914

915

916

917

918

919

920

921

922

923

924

925

926

927

928

929

930

931

932

933

934

935

936

937

938

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

946

947

948

949

950

951

952

953

954

955

956

957

958

959

960

961

962

963

964

965

966

967

968

969

970

971

972

973

974

975

976

977

978

979

980

981

982

983

984

985

986

987

988

989

990

991

992

993

994

995

996

997

998

999

1000

1001

1002

1003

1004

1005

1006

1007

1008

1009

1010

1011

1012

1013

1014

1015

1016

1017

1018

1019

1020

1021

1022

1023

1024

1025

1026

1027

1028

1029

1030

1031

1032

1033

1034

1035

1036

1037

1038

1039

1040

1041

1042

1043

1044

1045

1046

1047

1048

1049

1050

1051

1052

1053

1054

1055

1056

1057

1058

1059

1060

1061

1062

1063

1064

1065

1066

1067

1068

1069

1070

1071

1072

1073

1074

1075

1076

1077

1078

1079

1080

1081

1082

1083

1084

1085

1086

1087

1088

1089

1090

1091

1092

1093

1094

1095

1096

1097

1098

1099

1100

1101

1102

1103

1104

1105

1106

1107

1108

1109

1110

1111

1112

1113

1114

1115

1116

1117

1118

1119

1120

1121

1122

1123

1124

1125

1126

1127

1128

1129

1130

1131

1132

1133

1134

1135

1136

1137

1138

1139

1140

1141

1142

1143

1144

1145

1146

1147

1148

1149

1150

1151

1152

1153

1154

1155

1156

1157

1158

1159

1160

1161

1162

1163

1164

1165

1166

1167

1168

1169

1170

1171

1172

1173

1174

1175

1176

1177

1178

1179

1180

1181

1182

1183

1184

1185

1186

1187

1188

1189

1190

1191

1192

1193

1194

1195

1196

1197

1198

1199

1200

1201

1202

1203

1204

1205

1206

1207

1208

1209

1210

1211

1212

1213

1214

1215

1216

1217

1218

1219

1220

1221

1222

1223

1224

1225

1226

1227

1228

1229

1230

1231

1232

1233

1234

1235

1236

1237

1238

1239

1240

1241

1242

1243

1244

1245

1246

1247

1248

1249

1250

1251

1252

1253

1254

1255

1256

1257

1258

1259

1260

1261

1262

1263

1264

1265

1266

1267

1268

1269

1270

1271

1272

1273

1274

1275

1276

1277

1278

1279

1280

1281

1282

1283

1284

1285

1286

1287

1288

1289

1290

1291

1292

1293

1294

1295

1296

1297

1298

1299

1300

1301

1302

1303

1304

1305

1306

1307

1308

1309

1310

1311

1312

1313

1314

1315

1316

1317

1318

1319

1320

1321

1322

1323

1324

1325

1326

1327

1328

1329

1330

1331

1332

1333

Æ

THE ROLE OF JOHN HUANG AND THE RIADY

FAMILY IN POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 15, 16, AND 17, 1999

Serial No. 106–142

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

THE ROLE OF JOHN HUANG AND THE RIADY FAMILY IN POLITICAL FUNDRAISING