U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63–044 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

WHITE HOUSE INSIDER MARK MIDDLETON: HIS

TIES TO JOHN HUANG, CHARLIE TRIE, AND

OTHER CAMPAIGN FINANCE FIGURES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

AUGUST 5, 1999

Serial No. 106–93

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, 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

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on August 5, 1999 ............................................................................. 1

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

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

DNC document .......................................................................................... 22

Exhibits ...................................................................................................... 86

Letter dated May 7, 1999 ......................................................................... 57

Majority staff report .................................................................................. 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho, prepared statement of ................................................................... 52

Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 44

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

of California:

Documents relevant to hearing ................................................................ 78

Letter dated August 3, 1999 ..................................................................... 29

(1)

WHITE HOUSE INSIDER MARK MIDDLETON:

HIS TIES TO JOHN HUANG, CHARLIE TRIE,

AND OTHER CAMPAIGN FINANCE FIGURES

THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:10 a.m., in room

2157, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Burton, Gilman, Morella, Shays,

McHugh, Horn, Mica, Scarborough, Barr, Miller, Hutchinson,

Biggert, Ryan, Chenoweth, Waxman, and Norton.

Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Barbara Comstock,

chief counsel; James Wilson, chief investigative counsel; David

Kass, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; Marc Chretien, senior

investigative counsel; Mark Corallo, director of communications;

Kristi Remington and John (Timothy) Griffin, senior counsels; John

Mastranadi, investigator; Michelle White, counsel; John Williams,

deputy communications director; Corinne Zaccagnini, systems administrator; Carla J. Martin, chief clerk; Lisa Smith-Arafune, deputy chief clerk; Robin Butler, office manager; Kim Reed, staff assistant; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority

chief counsel; Michael Raphael, minority counsel; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; Earley Green, minority staff assistant; Andrew

Su, minority research assistant; and Lawrence J. Halloran, staff director/counsel, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations.

Mr. BURTON. The Committee on Government Reform will come

to order. Good morning. A quorum being present, the Committee

on Government Reform will conduct its scheduled business today,

but before the distinguished ranking member and I deliver our

opening statements, the committee must first dispose of some procedural issues.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ and witnesses’ written opening statements be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

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

Without objection so ordered.

2

I ask unanimous consent that one staff report and compilation of

exhibits regarding this hearing be included in the record. Without

objection so ordered.

[NOTE.—The exhibits referred to may be found at the end of the

hearing.]

[The information referred to follows:]

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Mr. BURTON. Finally, 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 members as

they deem appropriate for extended questioning not to exceed 60

minutes, divided equally between the majority and minority.

Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object. If I might inquire of

the Chair, you’re suggesting we proceed 30 minutes on each side

in questioning?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, that’s correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would that be questioning by members of the committee or staff?

Mr. BURTON. We were considering having members of the staff

question Mr. Middleton, but because we sensed there might be

some objection on your side, we decided to do it with just Members

because we wanted to accommodate you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Then I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

A couple of months ago we had Johnny Chung testify before this

committee. Up until that time, he was 1 of 121 people who had refused to testify about illegal fundraising. At the time I felt we

turned a corner. I felt like we were finally chipping away at the

big stonewall, and we were going to see what was on the other

side. The Justice Department actually agreed to have him testify.

It was the first real cooperation we had from the Justice Department and Janet Reno in over 2 years.

What Johnny Chung told us was eye-opening. He testified that

the head of China’s military intelligence agency, General Ji

Shengde, gave him $300,000 to help President Clinton’s campaign.

This is what General Ji said, according to Johnny Chung ‘‘We really like your President. We hope he’ll be re-elected. We’ll give you

300,000 U.S. Dollars, and you can give it to your President and the

Democratic party.’’

His bank records and his passport stamps have been checked and

backed up his story. As a witness, he was very credible. After the

hearing he shook my hand and said, ‘‘Mr. Chairman, 1 down and

120 to go.’’ He made it sound easy. But as we started to followup

on some of the things Johnny Chung told us, it became obvious

that not very much had changed. Johnny Chung told us that an official at the United States Embassy in Beijing was accepting cash

and gifts in exchange for visas. Chung told us that he saw an Embassy employee, Mr. Charles Parish, receive a paper bag filled with

cash and Chinese passports from the head of the Haomen Beer Co.

Chung said Mr. Parish approved 25 to 30 visas for his Chinese

business associates, and at the same time he asked Chung for more

than $700,000. As a matter of fact, he said he demanded that

money.

I called Mr. Parish before the committee. Once again, unfortunately, he took the fifth amendment. He wouldn’t answer a single

question. So much for witness cooperation. We then tried to question the State Department Inspector General about her investigation of Mr. Parish. The day before the hearing, the State Department Inspector General got a call from the Justice Department.

The Justice Department told her not to talk to us, not to answer

19

any of our questions. So much for cooperation from the Justice Department.

Here is another thing Johnny Chung told us. He said an influential Chinese banker informed him that Charlie Trie had asked the

Chinese Government for $1 million to help President Clinton.

We’ve been trying to talk to Charlie Trie for more than 21⁄2 years

without success. We have a list of people who have refused to cooperate, up to 122 since last week. A lot of those people have taken

the fifth. A lot of those people have fled the country. Charlie Trie

is one of those rare people who did both, fled the country and took

the fifth. He hid in China for over a year. Then he came back, and

he took the fifth.

We would really like to know if Charlie Trie asked the Chinese

Government for $1 million. We would really like to know what the

Chinese Government or an agent of the Chinese Government gave

to him.

Charlie Trie reached a plea agreement with the Justice Department early this summer. He’s supposed to be cooperating with

them. Well, I know he’s not cooperating with us. Press reports have

suggested that he’s not helping the Justice Department very much

either. Yet he’s getting a very, very light sentence, 3 years probation. Here is a man who had his name on a tremendous number

of those illegal campaign contribution documents, and he’s getting

a 3-year probationary sentence. That is it. No jail time. No fine.

Not even community service.

Despite the fact that he just pled guilty in June, they were rushing ahead with an early sentencing date in August. I wrote to the

judge who is supervising the case. I asked him to postpone Charlie

Trie’s sentencing until after he has given his full cooperation to the

U.S. Congress. Given the light sentence Charlie Trie is getting, I

thought it was a pretty reasonable request. Fortunately, the judge

did postpone Charlie Trie’s sentencing, but once again the Justice

Department is fighting us tooth and nail. Why don’t they want

Charlie Trie to talk to Congress? What are they afraid of? Who are

they protecting? Don’t the Congress of the United States and the

American people have a right to know what happened?

I also wrote to the Federal judge supervising John Huang’s case.

Once again, the Justice Department was rushing ahead to sentence

John Huang. He promised to cooperate in exchange for another

light sentence: 500 hours of community service and a $10,000 fine.

John Huang and Charlie Trie’s names were connected to the vast

majority of illegal campaign contributions that went to the DNC,

several million dollars, most of it from overseas, from foreign

sources. Yet they are both getting nothing more than a slap on the

wrist, and Justice does not want us to talk to them.

Well, John Huang hasn’t cooperated with Congress. Is he giving

up anything of value in exchange for his light sentence, or is this

just one more sweetheart deal? If he won’t talk to Congress, we’ll

probably never know. The Justice Department wanted to have

John Huang sentenced this week, rushing to judgment once again.

However, the judge agreed to postpone his sentencing over the objections of the Justice Department because I believe he thinks that

maybe Huang should cooperate with the Congress and talk to us.

20

So much for the cooperation from Janet Reno. She’s trying to block

us at every single turn.

What else did Johnny Chung tell us? He told us about the gentleman we will be talking to today, Mr. Mark Middleton. He told

us that he was nervous about accepting all this money from a Chinese general, the head of their military intelligence agency, Mr. Ji,

General Ji, who was the equivalent of the head of our CIA. He told

his friend Liu Chao-Ying that he did not want to take the money.

Remember, Liu Chao-Ying is the daughter of one of the most powerful generals in the People’s Liberation Army. At one time he was

the head of the People’s Liberation Army. She is a lieutenant colonel in the People’s Liberation Army. Liu Chao-Ying told him not

to worry because they were working with other people, too. According to Johnny Chung, she said that Mark Middleton got a half a

million dollars through a group in Singapore to do good things for

China.

Mark Middleton is here today. He is a former senior White

House aide from Arkansas. He was a close friend of the President.

He was the Special Assistant to the President and Assistant to the

Chief of Staff. For the last 21⁄2 years, he has not cooperated with

this committee’s investigation in any way. Did Mark Middleton

know Liu Chao-Ying? We don’t know. Was he working with the

Chinese Government or other foreign sources to arrange campaign

contributions? We don’t know. Did Mark Middleton get a half a

million dollars to do good things for China? We don’t know.

We have asked Mr. Middleton to come in and talk with us. We

have asked him to respond to all the allegations that have been

raised about him. We have not been able to convince him to tell

us his side of the story. His lawyer tells us that he is going to assert his fifth amendment rights and not answer any of our questions today.

I want to note that we have an opinion from the nonpartisan

Congressional Research Service that indicates that Mr. Middleton

may have effectively waived his fifth amendment rights under DC

law. We are going to be looking into this further. However, I think

it’s unfortunate that we are in this situation to begin with. Mark

Middleton was a White House aide. The taxpayers paid his salary.

For him to say he is going to take the fifth amendment and not

cooperate with the congressional investigation is more than unseemly.

More than 2 years ago the President told the American people

that everyone would cooperate. I remember Chuck Ruff came to my

office and said we would have full cooperation from the White

House, and we have not had any. What happened to that pledge?

Mr. Middleton’s lawyer tells us that he has given his complete cooperation to the Justice Department. He tells us that Mr. Middleton has done nothing wrong, but we do not know, and we cannot

count on the Justice Department.

Mr. Middleton, if you have not done anything wrong, why not

speak up today and say so? If you cooperated with the Justice Department, why won’t you cooperate with the Congress of the United

States?

The more we learn about the Justice Department, the more it

looks like a hollow investigation. We recently learned that the AtVerDate 11-SEP-98 08:08 Apr 06, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\PRESS\63044.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
21

torney General’s staff stopped the FBI from serving a search warrant on Charlie Trie’s assistant while she was destroying documents in Little Rock, AR. Think about that. The FBI knew that

those documents were being shredded or destroyed by Ms. Mapili,

Charlie Trie’s assistant. They went down to Little Rock to get a

search warrant and to serve the warrant and to get those documents. They were called back by Janet Reno and the Justice Department. For 3 months they didn’t get those documents. How

many were destroyed in the interim, and why didn’t they serve

that search warrant? The FBI tells us it is because the Attorney

General said there was not probable cause, and yet they saw this

lady destroying documents. If that isn’t probable cause, I don’t

know what is. The appearance that the Justice Department is obstructing the investigation of Charlie Trie, or was, is pretty clear

to me. They let her continue to destroy documents for 3 more

months.

The Justice Department got Johnny Chung’s Hong Kong bank

records 2 years ago. Two years ago. It showed Liu Chao-Ying wired

Mr. Chung $300,000 from Citibank, a U.S. bank. We received those

same documents in May of this year. Since then, we have subpoenaed and obtained more information from Citibank that shed more

light on Liu Chao-Ying, a colonel in the People’s Liberation Army,

and her financial activities. According to Citibank, the Department

of Justice never even requested these, and here they are right here.

The Justice Department did not even request these. This does not

sound like a thorough investigation to me. We have seen this time

and time again. Is it any wonder that the Congress has doubts

about the Justice Department’s investigation or Janet Reno’s commitment to getting at the truth? Is it any wonder that we want to

interview these same people?

I would like to make one last appeal to Mr. Middleton. I want

to ask one last time that you not invoke the fifth amendment. A

lot of tough things have been written about you over the last couple

of years, and you must want to defend yourself. We received testimony that you were doing something clandestine with agents of the

Chinese military, the daughter of the PLA’s most senior general. It

was very cryptic, but since you have not spoken to us, that’s all we

have to go on. It has been reported that you were trying to raise

money for the President’s campaign in Taiwan.

I am going to put up a DNC document on the screen.

[The information referred to follows:]

22

23

Mr. BURTON. It says that you are bringing in a very wealthy and

powerful family from Indonesia to see DNC Chairman Don Fowler.

Here is what it says: ‘‘The Widjaja family is one of the wealthiest

and most successful families in Indonesia. Mark Middleton will discuss their giving potential at a later date.’’

If you’re being unfairly maligned, then I hope you will defend

yourself. Your attorney says you have not done anything wrong.

Then I hope you will explain that to this committee and explain it

to the American people. We have been trying for 21⁄2 years to find

out what happened, because the American people have a right to

know the truth. I just hope that you really think long and hard

about this. You have never testified under oath, and it’s time you

set the record straight.

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

24

25

26

27

28

Mr. BURTON. I now yield to my colleague Mr. Waxman for his

opening statement.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’re here today for

another hearing related to the committee’s investigation of campaign fundraising in the 1996 election cycle. The purpose of the

hearing is presumably to hear the testimony of Mark Middleton, a

former White House aide. Mr. Middleton has cooperated with the

Department of Justice’s campaign finance investigation, and I’m

glad that he has done so. I feel very strongly that witnesses should

also cooperate with fair congressional investigations. This cooperation is essential if Congress is to fulfill its important oversight responsibilities.

I understand that Mr. Middleton will invoke his fifth amendment

privilege against self-incrimination today. I wish we could have

heard from him today, but I recognize that he has a constitutional

right to choose not to testify. In fact, given the regrettable course

of this investigation, I can understand only too well why he has

made this choice. In a letter to Chairman Burton this week, Mr.

Middleton’s lawyer stated—and I want to read from it, but at this

point let me offer, Mr. Chairman, the complete text of the letter to

you from Mr. Middleton’s lawyer for the record.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Mr. WAXMAN. His lawyer stated,

Mr. Middleton’s decision to decline to cooperate with the committee has unfortunately not been a hard one. It has been prompted by a pattern of baseless allegations, burdensome subpoenas, unending harassment of Mr. Middleton, his family,

friends, and employees and business associates, and malicious leaks of confidential

business information. Based on this pattern of malicious and reckless statements,

Mr. Middleton reasonably concluded that the committee’s inquiry was not a search

for the truth, but a campaign to punish. Under the circumstances, he concluded that

while he would cooperate fully with the investigation conducted by the Campaign

Finance Task Force of the Department of Justice and would, in addition, make all

of his business records fully available to your committee, he would not testify or

produce documents in his personal capacity.

That’s the end of the quote from the letter from Mr. Middleton’s

lawyer.

Unfortunately, Mr. Middleton’s characterization of this committee’s approach toward investigation is all too accurate. Our committee’s work is beginning to resemble the search for the Holy Grail.

We keep issuing more subpoenas, combing through more bank

records, making more false accusations, and running down more

blind alleys, all in the hopes of finding something. Given the millions of pages of documents the committee has received and the

hundreds of people we have questioned, it’s remarkable how little

we have to show for this $7 million investigation.

I do want to point out that in this letter from Mr. Middleton’s

lawyer, he indicated that Mr. Middleton was willing to be interviewed by the chairman and his counsel, with the understanding

that the interview would not constitute a waiver of his fifth amendment privilege and would not be followed by a public appearance

before the committee. The lawyer suggested that such an arrangement would furnish the committee with the benefit of whatever information Mr. Middleton might possess that would be of interest to

our investigation, while sparing him the indignity of having to assert his fifth amendment privilege in a public session. And then the

lawyer said, it assumed on your part a legitimate interest in pursuing an independent investigation and a decent respect for prevailing ethical rules which prohibit calling a witness who intends to

claim his fifth amendment privilege. And the lawyer says, ‘‘we were

apparently wrong on both counts.’’

I wish Mr. Middleton could have illuminated our search by testifying today, but given our track record, we probably wouldn’t have

learned much anyway. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Do any of the other Members have opening statements they

would like to make?

If you’d like to go ahead and make a statement.

Mr. HORN. I don’t want to delay the proceedings. If I could just

have it submitted.

Mr. BURTON. We will submit it for the record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Mr. BURTON. Mrs. Chenoweth.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that I

would like to submit for the record.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth follows:]

52

53

Mr. BURTON. Does anyone else have anything they’d like to submit?

Mr. Middleton, would you and your counsel come forward, please.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Middleton, because of your interaction with so

many of these key figures who were involved in illegal contributions, such as DNC Finance Vice Chairman John Huang, Charlie

Trie, the Riadys, and your client Mark Jimenez, as well as your involvement in seeking meetings for foreign nationals with the President, First Lady, and other administration officials, we have sought

your testimony over the past 2 years. Today we would like to ask

you about these connections.

First, we would like to ask you about a November 1, 1995, DNC

document, which reflects then DNC Chairman Don Fowler’s schedule. We are going to direct your attention to exhibit No. 44 on the

second page, which is titled DNC 3022277. It’s a scheduled meeting

with Mark Middleton in the Sinar Mas Group Delegation, which I

would note is controlled by the Widjaja family, which paid you in

excess of $850,000, according to your own bank records. The note

on the bottom of Fowler’s schedule explains that the group was

meeting with the President on November 3 and the First Lady on

November 4. At the end of the note it states, ‘‘The Widjaja family

is one of the wealthiest and most successful families in Indonesia.

Mark Middleton will discuss their giving potential at a later date.’’

Did you ever discuss with Don Fowler the possibility that the

Widjajas or their family, who were foreign nationals, would contribute to the DNC?

Mr. LUSKIN. Mr. Chairman, before we begin——

Mr. BURTON. Just 1 second, Counsel. Counsel, we have been

through this before with previous counsels. The House rule 11(k)(3)

states that witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by counsel

for the purpose of advising them of their constitutional rights. You

are not here as a witness, and you may not address the committee.

I will quote Congressman Tom Lantos, one of my Democrat colleagues, who, when chairing a subcommittee hearing in 1989, informed the attorney for HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce, that ‘‘in essence at this hearing you are, in fact, a potted plant.’’ I will not

go that far, but that’s what he said. Chairman Lantos then prevented the attorney for Secretary Pierce from making any statement. I enforced this rule last week when the attorney for Charles

Parish repeatedly attempted to make statements before the committee, and we must enforce it again today. So if you have anything that you would like for Mr. Middleton to convey it must be

conveyed through Mr. Middleton. Counsels for any witness are not

allowed to testify or make any statement.

Mr. LUSKIN. I have the utmost respect for rule 11(k)(3). I would

ask respectfully that you also enforce rule 11.

Mr. BARR. I ask for regular order. The witness has been instructed.

Mr. BURTON. Counsel, you have heard the rule and the ruling of

the Chair. That is the way we are going to conduct this hearing.

Mr. Middleton, do you recall the question I just asked?

54

Mr. MIDDLETON. I do recall. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of counsel,

I respectfully assert my fifth amendment privilege and decline to

answer the question.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, the fifth amendment is a personal

right. It can’t be asserted on behalf of somebody. Is the witness asserting for his attorney or for himself? Maybe he can clarify that.

He said he was asserting on behalf of.

Mr. BURTON. Would you restate your——

Mr. MIDDLETON. On advice of counsel, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. WAXMAN. The House rules provide that photographers may

not position themselves between the witness table and the members of the committee at any time during the course of a hearing

or meeting, and I understand Mr. Middleton and his counsel were

asserting this rule. I think they have good grounds to assert this

rule, because it is a rule of the House.

Mr. BURTON. Then we will request that the photographer go off

to the side or someplace else.

Mr. LUSKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s the only issue I

wanted to raise.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Middleton, in May 1994, we have records of

your first documented White House meeting with DNC fundraiser

Charlie Trie. Trie shortly thereafter contributed $80,000 to the

DNC and continued to contribute and raise large sums to the DNC

and other Democratic-related sources amounting to over $800,000.

In this timeframe, Mr. Trie also brought his Macau financier Ng

Lap Seng, also known as Mr. Wu, to the White House to meet with

you. In fact, you met with Trie and Ng Lap Seng on six occasions

at the White House, according to our records. Mr. Wu was the individual who wired over $1 million to Charlie Trie in the 1994–1996

timeframe.

Could you tell us about your knowledge of the foreign source on

Charlie Trie’s funds that he used to contribute or used for conduit

contributions to the DNC?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Again, on advice of my counsel, I assert my fifth

amendment privilege and will continue to do so with respect to any

further questions.

Mr. BURTON. Could you tell us about your knowledge of Mr. Wu’s

assistance in providing funds to Mr. Trie that he used to contribute

to the DNC?

Mr. MIDDLETON. My answer is the same, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Could you tell us whether or not anyone at the

White House, including President Clinton, Vice President Gore, the

First Lady, or Harold Ickes knew about the foreign origins of the

money that Mr. Trie used to contribute or used to make conduit

contributions to the DNC?

Mr. MIDDLETON. I answer respectfully the same, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Middleton, I direct your attention to a February 26, 1996, letter, on your company letterhead, exhibit No. 33,

to a Mr. Joe Giroir of the Arkansas International Development

Corp. In this letter you wrote, ‘‘John Huang hosted a very successful event for the President this week. Both the President and

Marven Rosen commented to me about the great job that John is

55

doing. I hope you will relay that message.’’ Presumably this was referring to the February 19, 1996, fundraiser reflected here in this

picture. Do we have the picture? It’s a picture of a $1 million check

with Huang and Fowler. Approximately two-thirds of the funds

raised at this event have been identified as coming from illegal or

foreign sources, some of which have yet to be returned by the DNC.

Did the President know about the foreign origins of the funds

raised at this event, and could you tell us about the President’s

knowledge about the funds raised at this February 19 event?

Mr. MIDDLETON. My answer is the same, sir.

Mr. BURTON. To whom did you want——

Mr. WAXMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. WAXMAN. I believe it’s improper to have repeated questions

of witnesses who invoke the fifth amendment, and I would cite for

you the Legal Ethics Committee of the District of Columbia Bar,

which held that it’s unethical for a congressional staff attorney to

require a witness to claim a fifth amendment privilege in public

session. This opinion states that when it is known in advance that

no information will be obtained, and the sole effect of the summons

will be to pillory the witness, requiring the appearance of the witness to assert his fifth amendment privilege in public before a congressional committee, will violate legal and ethical standards including the obligation of lawyers to avoid the infliction of needless

harm, to refrain from using their positions to harass parties, and

to avoid asking questions of witnesses solely for the purpose of

harassing or embarrassing them.

I also want to point out the fifth amendment is a constitutional

right. When a person asserts this right, it may not be used as an

inference of guilt or innocence. ‘‘In our view,’’ now quoting from a

court case, ‘‘an interrogating official himself gravely abuses the

privilege against self-incrimination when he nevertheless insists on

asking the incriminating question with a view to eliciting a claim

of privilege and thereby creating prejudice against the witness or

some other party concerned.’’ That’s a direct quote from the United

States v. Tucker, U.S. 267 F.2d 212, 215, 1959. I have other citations as well, but I see no purpose, as much as I regret Mr. Middleton taking the fifth, since he has taken it, to have repeated questions of him to which he’s going to only assert a fifth amendment

right that he has.

Mr. BURTON. That is not a valid point of order. The Chair rules.

That is not a valid point of order, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Could the Chair cite legal authority which is contrary to that which I asserted?

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair would yield.

Mr. BURTON. Just 1 second.

Mr. WAXMAN. I might point out last week with Mr. Parish, the

chairman took the view that——

Mr. BURTON. It has nothing to do with House rules, and the

Chair rules it’s not a valid point of order. Mr. Waxman, you can

take it up with the Parliamentarian if you choose.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’m going to appeal your decision. We have a vote

on the floor, and we’ll take it up with the Parliamentarian.

Mr. BURTON. Both John Huang and Charlie Trie——

56

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an appeal of the decision of

the Chair pending.

Mr. BURTON. We will have a vote on it right now.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to table that.

Mr. BURTON. The motion has been made to table the objection by

Mr. Waxman. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All opposed?

The issue has been tabled.

Both John Huang and Charlie Trie, Mr. Middleton, solicited or

obtained most of the contributions associated with this event.

Could you tell us any knowledge that you might have about how

Mr. Huang or Mr. Trie obtained these foreign funds and distributed them for conduit contributions to the DNC?

Mr. MIDDLETON. My answer is respectfully the same, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Vice President Gore had a fundraising event the

following morning, February 20, 1996, for the same donors that

contributed to the February 19 event. We have a picture of you

here at that event with the Vice President. Did Vice President Gore

have any knowledge regarding the foreign origins of the funds from

this or related events?

Mr. MIDDLETON. My answer is respectfully the same, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Middleton, I would like to point out that the

fifth amendment privileges relate to one item and one item only,

and that is the fear of potential self-incrimination. No witness is

entitled to claim the fifth amendment because he may not approve

statements made by Members or because you do not like this particular forum. It is very important for you to understand, and you

are a lawyer, so I presume you do, that in order to validly claim

the fifth amendment, you must fear potential self-incrimination if

you were to testify under oath.

With that being said, my question is, is it your position that if

you were to testify under oath before this committee, you fear the

potential for self-incrimination?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Sir, as I understand it, I have a right to counsel, according to the House rules. My counsel is present here beside

me, and I’d like to defer to him on the basis of any legal opinions.

Mr. BURTON. You can consult with your lawyer. Your lawyer cannot address the committee under House rules. You can answer the

question or confer with him and then answer the question.

Mr. MIDDLETON. I understand, sir, that I have a legally valid

claim to assert the privilege, and I’m doing so here today.

Mr. BURTON. The fifth amendment?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURTON. I will enter into the record letters from your attorney claiming that you have totally cooperated with the Justice Department, and that you have not taken the fifth with Justice. I will

also enter into the record a report from the Congressional Research

Service which indicates that this representation suggests Mr. Middleton has waived his fifth amendment privilege.

[The information referred to follows:]

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Mr. BURTON. It is important to note that it is the committee

which must decide whether the privilege has been validly claimed.

A witness cannot claim the privilege against self-incrimination just

to avoid testifying or because you do not like the forum or Members

of Congress. Instead you must have a real basis for fearing self-incrimination. Again, I think it’s important for the record and for us

to assess whether your claim is a valid claim.

Are you refusing to answer questions on the grounds that your

statements may lead to self-incrimination?

Mr. MIDDLETON. I understand I have a legally valid claim of the

fifth amendment privilege, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Your answer is in the affirmative?

Mr. MIDDLETON. My answer was the answer, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Is it your position that you will not answer questions on the same topics that you addressed with the Justice Department?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Same answer, sir.

Mr. BURTON. You will not answer the questions for the committee?

Mr. MIDDLETON. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BURTON. These questions that were put to you by the Justice

Department and thosse that we may be asking which are in the

same vein, you will not answer?

Mr. MIDDLETON. That’s correct, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. I will reserve the rest of my time until after this

vote. We have a vote on the floor, as I understand it. We will stand

in recess to the call of the gavel.

[Recess.]

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Middleton, would you come back. Mr. Waxman

is not here. We have waited for him, and I assume he’ll be back

pretty quickly, but we thought we’d go ahead with the questioning.

I am going to yield for whatever time he may consume to Mr. Barr,

who’s on my time. Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Middleton, are you an attorney?

Mr. MIDDLETON. On advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my

fifth amendment privilege, sir.

Mr. BARR. Are you a member of the Arkansas Bar Association?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Same answer, sir.

Mr. BARR. Are you saying that you believe simply admitting that

you’re an attorney will tend to incriminate you? I’ve heard a lot of

jokes about lawyers. You’re serious? In all seriousness, you won’t

even admit to this committee whether or not you’re a lawyer?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Same answer, sir.

Mr. BARR. Your attorney, though, has written extensively to the

committee, both to counsel for the committee and to the chairman

and perhaps others, detailing, for example, in a letter dated May

7 of this year and extolling your tremendous cooperation with the

Department of Justice, at which time you not only did not claim

the fifth amendment privilege that you are asserting today, but

that you answered questions and cooperated fully without any restrictions. Your lawyer goes on in that same letter to characterize

70

the results of the Department of Justice investigation which would

be the prosecuting authority, if you, in fact, had done anything

wrong, that would be prosecuted, saying that they found no evidence of wrongdoing by you.

In light of those facts, what is it that you’re worried about if the

Department of Justice, that your lawyer thinks has already determined that you have done nothing wrong, they would be the prosecuting authority, what is it that you’re worried about that causes

you to assert the fifth amendment today when you haven’t asserted

it previously? This committee can’t prosecute you.

Mr. MIDDLETON. Sir, I respectfully give you the same answer.

Mr. BARR. I have a chart that I’d like put up and to which I direct your attention, Mr. Middleton.

Ng Lap Seng, does that name ring a bell with you?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Same answer, sir.

Mr. BARR. Have you ever met Mr. Ng Lap Seng?

Mr. MIDDLETON. I respectfully give the same answer, sir.

Mr. BARR. The committee, during the course of its investigation

in these matters, has uncovered in detailed evidence substantial

cash moneys brought into this country from China by Ng Lap Seng.

Just by way of example, on June 20, 1994, he brought in $175,000,

and, by the way, these figures are verified by the reports that have

to be completed when a person brings a certain amount of cash into

the country. On July 31, 1994, $42,000 was brought in. On October

19, 1994, $25,000 was brought in. On February 15, 1995, $12,000

was brought in, and so forth.

The committee has also uncovered both through testimony and

through official records of the White House that Mr. Ng Lap Seng

met with you at the White House 2 days after bringing $175,000

of cash into this country on June 20, 1994; is that correct?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Same answer, sir.

Mr. BARR. The committee also has evidence through various

sources, including official White House records, that Mr. Ng Lap

Seng met twice with you at the White House, 1 and 2 days later,

after bringing $42,000 of cash into this country on July 1, 1994. Is

that correct?

Mr. MIDDLETON. I respectfully give the same answer, sir.

Mr. BARR. This committee has uncovered evidence, including official White House records, that 1 day after Mr. Ng Lap Seng

brought $25,000 of cash into this country on October 19, 1994, that

he met with you at the White House. Is that correct?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Same answer, sir.

Mr. BARR. This committee has uncovered evidence, including official White House records, that 1 day after Mr. Ng Lap Seng

brought $12,000 in cash into this country on February 15, 1995,

that he met with you at the White House. Is that correct?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Sir, with respect to all these questions, I’m

going to provide you with the same answer.

Mr. BARR. Are the White House records reflecting that you, in

fact, have met on those and other occasions with Mr. Ng Lap Seng

at the White House in error?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Same answer, sir.

Mr. BARR. Were these questions put to you by attorneys for the

Government?

71

Mr. MIDDLETON. I respectfully give the same answer, sir.

Mr. BARR. You did, in fact, answer questions to this effect when

questions on these matters were put to you by the Government

without asserting a privilege; did you not?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Same answer, sir.

Mr. BARR. I would like to refer again to something that the chairman referred to, and these—although his words were similar, these

are the words of a prominent Democrat on this committee, Mr.

Lantos, back in 1989. He said, ‘‘The fifth amendment privilege relates to one item and one item only, and that is the fear of potential self-incrimination. No witness is entitled to claim the fifth

amendment because he may not approve of statements made by

members of the subcommittee.’’ I think it is important for you, and

he’s addressing the witness in that case, to understand this, and

he was addressing it to the lawyer, and as a lawyer, I’m certain

that you do.

Do you understand that the fifth amendment privilege which you

are now asserting is a personal privilege and must relate, if it is

to be sustained, only to the potential for self-incrimination, and it

cannot be a valid basis on which to refuse to answer questions put

to you by a legitimate and duly authorized committee of the Congress simply because you, as your lawyer has indicated, don’t like

the way this committee may operate, you may disagree with what

this committee is doing, or you may be afraid that it might embarrass you or result in so-called leaks? Do you understand that as

being the scope of the fifth amendment?

Mr. MIDDLETON. My lawyer has advised me on the scope of the

fifth amendment privilege, and if you have any further questions,

I would ask that you—that I defer to him.

Mr. BARR. You can defer to him, but he is not a witness today.

You are. Do you understand the scope of the fifth amendment that

you are asserting?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Same answer, sir. I assert my fifth amendment

privilege.

Mr. BARR. You think that even admitting that you understand

the scope of the fifth amendment might tend to incriminate you?

Mr. MIDDLETON. I assert my fifth amendment privilege, sir.

Mr. BARR. This is ludicrous, Mr. Middleton. Are you a bag man

for Ng Lap Seng or any other foreign individual?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Sir, I resent the question, and I continue to assert my fifth amendment privilege.

Mr. BARR. So you’ll answer that. That’s all. I yield back, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. The Chair will yield such time as he may consume

to the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchison.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I just

want to make a few comments, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Middleton, I just want to say at a personal level, I regret the

circumstances of your appearance today, and I remember the last

time that we had an occasion to be together was where we were

both speaking at the Hugh O’Brien Youth Scholarship dinner, and

this is certainly not the same pleasant circumstances. I just want

to say that your statements today are problematic for any Member

of Congress who takes his or her constitutional responsibility seriVerDate 11-SEP-98 08:08 Apr 06, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\PRESS\63044.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
72

ously, and I do, because as I look at your statements through your

lawyer on the May 7, 1999, letter, you indicate that you are cooperating with the Department of Justice. But because, and I’m characterizing, you do not believe this committee is operating in good

faith or you don’t like the personality of this committee, that you

do not wish to cooperate with this committee. And that’s a conclusion that you reach. Then through your attorney, you state in the

record that you have cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and that they have exonerated you.

This committee can call the Department of Justice and ask them

to bring us up to date on Mark Middleton, and they will say, well,

it’s a matter of ongoing investigation so they can’t certainly give us

the information that is helpful in our inquiry.

The other reason it’s very difficult for us is that this is an important area of inquiry to determine what happened in the 1996 election: the flow of money coming into our country, any influence that

was sought or obtained, and the allegations that were made. So

this is just a difficult circumstance that you through your assertion

of the fifth amendment have placed this committee in.

I realize you have a constitutional right to assert that, but whenever—I have to rely upon my background somewhat here. You

waived it in cooperation of the Department of Justice, but assert

it in reference to this committee based upon your own subjective

determination that you don’t like the direction of this committee.

That is really laying down the gauntlet to the U.S. Congress, and

so I think that your assertion really has challenged the integrity,

responsibility, and constitutional authority of this committee. And

I’m speaking of the assertions made through your attorney in the

letter of May 7, 1999.

It looks to me like you leave us with few options. We can ignore

this, which appears to me you set a precedent that future witnesses

come in and just say, we don’t like this committee, so we’re not

going to cooperate, and we’re not going to honor a subpoena. Second, we could hold you in contempt, which is not something any

Congress takes lightly. It’s a very serious step, but that is an option that is out there. And whenever we’re dealing with an important area, it’s just very different, and I’m just relating to you, Mr.

Middleton, my feelings as an Arkansan, but also as a Member of

Congress who takes the responsibility of this committee and believe

that our oversight responsibility is important. I know it’s very difficult on you personally, but if you do believe, as indicated in your

attorney’s letter, that you can be exonerated in this, then I would

encourage you and your attorney to sit down and to cooperate fully

with this committee so that we don’t have to address this further.

We would just simply like to get to the bottom of the inquiry to

know what you know, and I think that that would be very helpful.

I just give you the opportunity, Mr. Middleton, to respond in any

way that you deem appropriate to my comments.

Mr. MIDDLETON. Thank you. I understand and appreciate your

position, Congressman.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barr, you have one more question?

Mr. BARR. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

73

Mr. Middleton, it’s my understanding, even though you won’t

admit it, that you are an attorney, and as an attorney, do you understand that the fifth amendment, as other amendments to the

Constitution, specifically those contained in the Bill of Rights, are

not absolute? Do you understand that?

Mr. MIDDLETON. I’m not appearing here as an attorney today,

sir. I understand as an American citizen I have a valid constitutional right to assert my fifth amendment privilege, which I’ve

done so.

Mr. BARR. As a citizen do you understand that the fifth amendment is not absolute in its scope?

Mr. MIDDLETON. I’m asserting my privilege, sir.

Mr. BARR. As an attorney or as a citizen?

Mr. MIDDLETON. I’m asserting my privilege, sir.

Mr. BARR. You understand that, for example, in a court proceeding, when a witness asserts his or her fifth amendment rights, and

the Government believes that that witness is asserting their fifth

amendment rights improperly, they can go before a court and seek

sanctions against that person if the court, in fact, determines that

the privilege is being asserted improperly or beyond the scope?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Sir, I respectfully assert my privilege.

Mr. BARR. Do you understand that similarly in response to a congressional subpoena, which you are under, that there can be a further test of whether you are asserting your fifth amendment properly or not, and that if you are not, and Congress so decides, it can

seek sanctions against you?

Mr. MIDDLETON. Same answer, sir.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Let me, before I conclude with my time, say that

it is disappointing that the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Middleton, has elected to take the fifth amendment. What is equally or

even more disconcerting to me is that he has said he has cooperated with the Justice Department. When we talk to Justice Department lawyers, they tell us they cannot tell us anything about it.

The same thing is true of Charlie Trie, John Huang, and a host of

others. They are hiding behind rule 6(e) and the grand jury. They

are keeping cases open, I believe, just so that this committee cannot get at the truth. They are granting very light sentences to some

very important people in this campaign finance scandal. It becomes

more and more apparent to me, and I think to the members of this

committee and to the American people, that the Justice Department is building not just a stonewall, but a concrete and steel wall

against the Congress of the United States getting at the truth.

If Mr. Middleton says that he has cooperated with the Department of Justice, and he will not talk to the Congress of the United

States, and the Justice Department will not work with the Congress of the United States, how are the American people ever to

have any confidence whatsoever that all the allegations in the campaign finance scandal are not true? We know that $3 million plus

came in from Communist China, from Macau, from Indonesia, from

all over the world, and we cannot get the Justice Department to

work with us; Janet Reno protecting the President. We cannot get

the people who have cooperated, they say, with the Justice Department, to testify before the committee because they are asserting

74

their fifth amendment privileges. And so the Congress of the

United States, which is duly elected by the people, whose duty it

is to get into these things and make sure the government operates

not only efficiently, but honestly, we cannot do our job.

And I think it is a crying shame. I just wish that the country

knew more about this. The media, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, they do

not report any of this stuff. The only one I have seen this on is Fox

news. It is very disconcerting because the American people have a

right to know that the truth is being kept from them, not just by

the people who may have been involved in this scandal, but by the

Justice Department itself. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr.

Waxman, you are recognized for 30 minutes.

Excuse me, Mrs. Chenoweth, did you have some questions?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. I yield to you the balance of my time.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Middleton, are you asserting your fifth amendment rights as

a private citizen or as an attorney?

Mr. MIDDLETON. As an American citizen.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Through your attorneys, and everyone has

asked you about this, Mr. Middleton, you’ve told the committee

that you’ve answered the questions put to you by the Justice Department. As you can imagine, as you can tell from the questions

being posed to you, this is very puzzling and contradictory in this

course of action that you’ve chosen to take. By invoking your fifth

amendment privilege here, Mr. Middleton, you’re asserting that

testifying before this committee would be self-incriminating, and

yet you expect us to believe that you have cooperated fully with the

Justice Department investigation with no apparent fear of self-incrimination.

I want to ask you, did they agree not—did the Justice Department agree not to question you with any questions that might incriminate you?

Mr. MIDDLETON. I’m not going to discuss the subject matter,

ma’am.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You’re not going to discuss the subject matter?

Mr. MIDDLETON. No, ma’am. I assert my privilege.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, this is astounding, and I think

that the comments from Congressman Hutchinson were very serious as well as the comments from you, Mr. Chairman, as well as

Mr. Barr. I don’t think this committee can take this lightly. We

have had 122 people assert their fifth amendment rights and refuse

to answer questions with regards to clear statutory mandates regarding foreign contributions. It seems this whole administration is

circling the wagons, diving into the bunkers, and building a wall

between themselves and the American people.

This form of Government, this democracy of ours, can only exist

if we have openness in Government and openness in campaign. I

think this not only says a lot about the witness, but even more

about the administration, and more about the Justice Department.

I think it’s very chilling in what we’re seeing, Mr. Chairman, is a

secret Government that is becoming patently obvious. That is very,

very concerning.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

75

Mr. BURTON. I see my time has expired.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman who is before us today has been out

of the administration for 41⁄2 years. Our form of Government can

only function when people respect the Constitution of the United

States and people’s rights. Every court case on the matter has indicated that it is unethical to harass witnesses by asking them over

and over again questions to which they would assert the fifth

amendment.

Our committee has now come to a new and offensive level of establishing procedures that are unheard of in the history of the Congress. We have never had a committee of the Congress until last

week proceed to ask a witness who took the fifth amendment more

than three questions. That took place when Mr. Parish appeared.

Today we have subjected Mr. Middleton to a half-hour of continuous questioning and accusations by the Republican members of this

committee.

It seems to me that this committee is establishing a new low.

We’ve already documented in our report on the committee’s campaign finance investigation that the committee violated and abused

its subpoena power, its deposition power, the way it has granted

immunity, the way it has handled contempt. It was interesting to

see the letter from Mr. Middleton where he said—and it certainly

strikes home now in light of what’s gone on today—that Mr.

Middleton’s decision to decline to cooperate with the committee has

unfortunately not been a hard one. It has been prompted by a pattern of baseless allegations, burdensome subpoenas, unending harassment of Mr. Middleton and others, and the chairman—in this

letter it has been pointed out to the chairman that he himself has

accused Mr. Middleton of criminal conduct on numerous occasions

without any evidence to support these reckless charges.

This committee has acted recklessly, and if anybody has any

doubt about it, just remember that 1 year ago this committee put

out documents, transcripts that were doctored that related to conversations by Webb Hubbell. Whatever anyone might say about

Webb Hubbell, there’s no excuse for what happened to him and

how those——

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my time, and I will proceed

with my time.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I think it’s inappropriate for somebody——

Mr. WAXMAN. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Regular order.

Mr. BARR [continuing]. To impugn the integrity of this committee. Whether he likes it or not, I think it’s highly inappropriate——

Mr. WAXMAN. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Regular order, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman from California has the time, unless

the gentleman from Georgia has a point of order.

Mr. BARR. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. BARR. What is the applicability of the general rule not to impugn the integrity of other Members of the Congress and have

76

Members’ words taken down if they violate that rule? Is that applicable in committee?

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will suspend one moment, please.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am giving a factual statement.

There is no rule that prevents a Member from giving a factual

statement.

Mr. BURTON. We will allow you to continue. Just suspend for just

a minute.

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the time be stopped?

Mr. BURTON. The time, like my time, will not be taken away

from you.

Evidently the statements of the gentleman have not violated the

decorum of the committee, and so he, although it may be offensive

to me and some other Members, is allowed to continue.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we’ve learned today that it’s very

hard to offend the decorum of this committee because the decorum

of this committee, I think, was violated when this witness was subject to harassment and asked repeated questions over and over

again in order to get him to publicly assert his constitutional

rights.

The Constitution of the United States grants certain rights. It

grants the right to freedom and free speech, not to self-incriminate,

and those rights are not subject to being taken away by those who

might not approve of what the individual is asserting. And lawyers

on this committee particularly should be sensitive, I believe, but all

Members ought to be sensitive to the fact that the Constitution is

there to protect all of us. Even a majority of the Congress of the

United States, even a two-thirds majority of the Congress of the

United States, even a unanimous vote of the Congress of the

United States may not take away the rights guaranteed under the

Constitution to any citizen, because those individual rights are supreme and must be respected. I think what we’ve seen here today

is a lack of respect for Mr. Middleton and, more importantly, for

the Constitution and the way the Congress should be proceeding in

any investigation.

And as I was saying about the doctored transcripts of Webb Hubbell, had that taken place in any other setting, it would have been

tantamount to falsification of evidence, so I can understand the reluctance of this witness to come before us and answer questions in

this kind of forum.

Mr. Middleton’s lawyer did suggest that if our inquiry was to try

to get information, that he would appear before the chairman and

the counsel of the committee if his rights were respected not to

waive the fifth amendment privilege, and it would not be followed

by a public appearance. That strikes me as a reasonable offer, and

the reason that offer appears to me to have been rejected is that

it was the desire of the committee to have Mr. Middleton here in

a public spectacle in order to score political points.

I’m highly offended at the way this committee has acted today.

I think it’s been improper. It’s not surprising in light of the history

of the way this committee has conducted its investigation, but I do

think that with all of the outrage that I’ve felt and expressed about

the way the committee has acted, we are achieving a new low in

the way this committee has handled itself today.

77

The process by which we’ve acted today continues to say more

about how this committee is willing to violate people’s rights and

not conduct an investigation that can be taken seriously by the

American people or by our colleagues in the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, you earlier had asserted a CRS opinion that argued that Mr. Middleton waived his fifth amendment privilege. I

want to put into the record a memo on that very point, because I

don’t believe Mr. Middleton has waived his fifth amendment privilege by voluntarily agreeing to answer questions by the FBI and

the Justice Department.

Mr. BARR. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. BURTON. You reserve your right to object?

Mr. BARR. Simply to inquire of the ranking member if he can

identify the source of the document.

Mr. WAXMAN. I am preparing my own memorandum to submit to

the committee record, and I’d like to ask the record be open so that

I can add that document and any other materials.

Mr. BARR. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.

Mr. WAXMAN. I don’t think Mr. Middleton has waived his fifth

amendment privilege, and I think that anyone who looks at the

record of this committee’s hearing today would understand why he

was reluctant to come in and express his answers to questions and

waive his constitutional rights before us.

Now, Mr. Middleton, ordinarily when a committee hearing is

held, the first thing that happens is the witness is asked to make

comments, present any kind of testimony. You weren’t even afforded that right. Immediately you were subjected to questions

being thrown at you in eager anticipation that you take the fifth

amendment repeatedly.

Let me offer to you at this time, and the time is allotted to me,

and I had to wait 30 minutes before I had any time to ask or say

anything, do you have anything you want to comment upon on today’s proceeding?

Mr. MIDDLETON. No, sir, not at this time, but I do appreciate

your offer.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no questions of the

witness. I will put further documents in the record under the unanimous consent agreement that has been reached by the committee,

and I see no reason to prolong this unpleasant hearing today, so

I yield back the balance of my time.

[The information referred to follows:]

78

79

80

81

82

83

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

I will take 5 minutes under the 5-minute rule to respond to a couple of things that have been said, and you will have 5 minutes if

you choose to use them.

First of all, it is not unprecedented for extended questioning

when someone asserts their fifth amendment privilege before a

committee. Mr. Lantos—and we will be glad, very happy, to provide

to you the record of Mr. Lantos’ questioning of witnesses for extended periods of time with the concurrence of the minority, I

might add, which is not the case in this particular case. When the

gentleman from California states that we are doing something that

is a new low, well, if this is a low, then it was established by the

Democrats when they were in charge. Mr. Lantos did it and so did

Mr. Dingell. I would be glad to give you that information for the

record.

With respect to the doctoring of the tapes, which impugns the integrity of the chairman of this committee and the staff of this committee, I want you to know that there were 16 hours of tapes, that

we obtained legally, of the conversations that Mr. Hubbell had.

Those 16 hours of tapes were condensed not because we were trying to alter the tapes, but because we thought that the most salient

issues should be in those transcripts. You will recall that the

minute any doctoring was called into question, the very next day

we released all 16 hours of the tapes.

Mr. Hubbell said in those tapes that his wife was complaining

about the pressure being brought upon her by the White House,

and she was afraid of losing her job. Mr. Hubbell said, well, I guess

I’ll have to roll over one more time. I do not know how you can interpret that, but it can’t be interpreted in too many ways. The fact

of the matter is, exculpatory material that people alleged that we

took out of there was in the tape and was in all of the 16 hours

of tapes that we presented.

I know that the media has made some kind of those representations, and you have, Mr. Waxman, but those tapes were not doctored. They were not doctored at all. They were very clear, and because we wanted to eliminate any doubt about the intent of this

committee, we released all 16 hours of the tapes. I personally resent the implication that I or my staff did anything to try to doctor

those tapes, because they were not doctored.

I would like to also state in conclusion that we would like to have

had the cooperation of Mr. Middleton. We tried to get his cooperation as well as the other 122 witnesses who have evaded this committee, many with the help of the Justice Department. We have

tried to get them to work with us for 21⁄2 years. Unfortunately that

has not been the case. And so no matter what you say about this

committee or how you categorize this committee or what kind of

spin you put on the activities of this committee, whether it’s the

worst committee in history or it’s a new low, I will tell you one

thing, Mr. Waxman, we are not going to be deterred. We will continue to pursue this investigation until we find some answers for

the committee, and for the American people who we represent.

Millions of dollars in money came in from Communist China and

elsewhere. The head of the Chinese military intelligence arranged

for $300,000 to go through a conduit, in large part, to the DNC,

84

and we believe probably to the President’s re-election committee.

People from Macau were giving money. People from other Chinese

entities were giving money to the DNC and for the re-election of

the President. The President was running people in and out of his

office through people like Mr. Middleton on a regular basis, like

John Huang and Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung. There is a pictorial record of that. At the same time all this was happening, millions of dollars were coming in.

You may think that it is not an important thing to look into, but

if the elections of the United States of America are being influenced or redirected by a foreign Government who may not have our

best interest at heart, who may be a potential adversary in the future, by golly I intend, and our committee intends as long as I’m

chairman of it, to try to get to the bottom of it.

Does anybody else have anything they would like to add? If not,

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman from California.

Mr. WAXMAN. It’s hard to accept a reasoning that everything

that’s done in violation of any idea of fairness or respecting people’s

rights can be justified because the Democrats did the same thing.

That’s a very childish explanation, and I’ve heard it over and over

again. It doesn’t—it just doesn’t wash. It’s just immature. At what

point do people start saying, what is the proper way to behave, and

behave that way rather than say, the other guy did it as well. But

it’s also peculiar if you take that attitude to say that the only campaign finance violations that this committee would look at would

be only Democratic—potential Democratic violations and to ignore

completely anything the Republicans might have done in the 1996

campaign. But that’s what we’ve seen in this committee, and it has

been a repeated reason why none of us have been able to take,

among other reasons, this investigation with any seriousness.

But I may be incorrect in my recollection about the Webb Hubbell transcripts. I’ll have to go back and look at it more carefully,

but as I recall, that when those transcripts of Mr. Hubbell’s conversations with his friends and family and even his lawyer was released, the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was so offended

that he demanded the resignation of a key Republican staff person,

and that staff person resigned as a result of the Speaker’s request.

I won’t go back and forth with you about it, Mr. Chairman. I’ll

go back and look at the records again and see whether what you

did was proper, but I remember talking to some friends who were

sitting on the Internet and actually listening to conversations that

Webb Hubbell had with his daughter while he was in prison when

she tried to talk to him about personal matters as she was growing

up as a young girl without a father in the home. I must say I was

tremendously offended that all of that information was made available to anybody who wanted to listen to it, and that information

should never have been made public and was only made public

after the committee released transcripts that were edited to remove

any exculpatory materials or information that related to the investigation. What the public had before it were complete audiotapes

of conversations that Webb Hubbell had with others, and I just

think that, to me, that stands out, I thought, as low as one could

85

imagine. But it sounds to me after today’s hearing that perhaps

this committee hasn’t reached the bottom yet.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barr. If you have any time, would you yield to

me?

Mr. BARR. Certainly. I think the American people who may be

listening to this cannot let the statements of the ranking member

just stand on the record. The absurdity of saying that for the committee Chair to cite precedence of former committee and subcommittee Chairs just after the ranking member has tried to cite

as a precedent for the propriety of this witness asserting the fifth

amendment or the impropriety of this committee requiring him to

so assert it, an opinion, an irrelevant opinion, but an opinion of the

DC Bar is somewhat inconsistent. In other words, the ranking

member is more than willing to put forward items that he thinks

are appropriate precedents, but when the chairman seeks to cite

precedents in response to criticisms of the ranking member of prior

committee and subcommittee Chair actions, he says, oh, this is

highly improper. It just illustrates the inconsistency and the absurdity and the impropriety of the ranking member’s statements.

I would also like to state for the record once again, as you have,

Mr. Chairman, but in light of the fact that this red herring, this

canard keeps coming up every time the ranking member opens his

mouth, those tapes were not doctored. That is an absolutely incorrect, inappropriate, and disgraceful assertion to make against the

chairman, against the committee staff, or against anybody else.

That evidence speaks for itself.

And at this time, Mr. Chairman, I’d be glad to yield to you the

balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. We are drawing to a close here. We do

not want to beat on this any longer, but just to comment on ignoring Republicans. One thing has become clear in this investigation.

The Justice Department has dealt with Republican violations. Republicans got the following fines for conduit contribution violations:

$8 million, $6 million, $5 million. Janet Reno has done fine with

Republicans, but not with the Democrats and foreign money. Only

Mr. Waxman wants to interject this into this hearing.

What we are talking about is illegal foreign contributions, and to

my knowledge, we have not had that kind of a problem with a lot

of the accusations that have been thrown at Republican campaigns.

We have proceeded entirely consistent with previous congressional

practice, and I’ve cited some of those with Chairmen Lantos and

Dingell when they were chairmen. I don’t think it is in the interest

of the Congress to have Members continue to malign the process,

as Mr. Waxman does week after week and month after month.

And with that, Mr. Middleton, we appreciate your being here,

and we stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The exhibits referred to follow:]

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

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

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

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

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

Æ