U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–527 CC 1997

CAMPAIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND

POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT REFORM 

AND OVERSIGHT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 8, 1997

Serial No. 105–50

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

STEPHEN HORN, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey 

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 

DC 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

(Independent) 

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director 

RICHARD D. BENNETT, Chief Counsel 

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk 

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 8, 1997 ............................................................................ 1

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: 

Allen, Hon. Thomas H., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maine, prepared statement of .................................................................. 332

Barrett, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wisconsin, prepared statement of ........................................................... 381

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

Letter dated October 6, 1997 .................................................................... 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14

Condit, Hon. Gary A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 364

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 390

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 418

Davis, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, prepared statement of .............................................................. 325

Ford, Hon. Harold E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, prepared statement of ........................................................... 436

Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of ...................................................... 354

Lantos, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, Republican fundraising letters press packet .................................. 340

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

Florida, information concerning committee expenses ................................ 393

Portman, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Ohio, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 330

Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, lyrics to a song ............................................................................ 377

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Vermont, prepared statement of .............................................................. 368

Schiff, Hon. Steven, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Mexico, prepared statement of ............................................................ 324

Sessions, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 432

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

of Connecticut, prepared statement of ........................................................ 322

Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 399

Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 427

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

of California: 

Letters exchanged regarding the investigation ...................................... 50

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48

(1)

CAMPAIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND 

POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

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

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

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Burton, Gilman, Hastert, Morella, 

Shays, Cox, Ros-Lehtinen, McHugh, Horn, Mica, Davis of Virginia, 

McIntosh, Souder, Shadegg, LaTourette, Sununu, Pappas, Snowbarger, Barr, Portman, Waxman, Lantos, Owens, Towns, Kanjorski, Condit, Sanders, Maloney, Barrett, Norton, Fattah, 

Cummings, Kucinich, Blagojevich, Davis of Illinois, Tierney, Turner, Allen, and Ford. 

Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Richard Bennett, chief 

counsel; Dan Moll, deputy staff director; Judith McCoy; chief clerk; 

Teresa Austin, assistant clerk/calender clerk; Robin Butler, office 

manager; William Moschella, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; 

Will Dwyer, director of communications; Ashley Williams, deputy 

director of communications; Barbara Comstock, chief investigative 

counsel; Tim Griffin, Robert Rohrbaugh, Jim Wilson, and Uttam 

Dhillon, senior investigative counsels; Dave Bossie, oversight coordinator; Phil Larsen, investigative consultant; Kristi Remington, 

Alicemary Leach, Bill Hanka, and David Kass, investigative counsels; John Irving and Jason Foster, investigators; Carolyn Pritts, 

administrative investigative assistant; David Jones and John 

Mastranadi, investigative staff assistants; Phil Schiliro, minority 

staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Agnieszka 

Fryszman, Elizabeth Mundinger, Kristin Amerling, Andrew 

McLaughlin, and David Sadkin, minority counsels; Ellen Rayner, 

minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant; and Sheridan Pauker, minority research assistant. 

Mr. BURTON. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight will come to order. Could we have the doors closed, please, 

and could everyone take their seats? 

Today, we are going to start our investigation with opening statements from both the majority and minority sides of the aisle. We 

will try to get through these in an expeditious manner. I would like 

for Members, if at all possible, to keep their statements to 5 minutes. 

2

I hope to be one of the few who violates that rule, but as the 

chairman I will use my prerogative as chairman to go into a little 

bit more detail than others may be able to. 

As we begin these hearings, we are confronted with questions involving the basic integrity of our Democratic electoral process. We 

must address serious questions regarding the respect that this 

White House has for legitimate oversight and even the criminal 

justice system. 

Before we begin our opening statements today, I would like to 

comment on the recently released White House tapes. In the past 

few days, it has come to light that videotapes of White House coffees were hidden from this committee, the Senate and the Justice 

Department, despite numerous subpoenas which have been outstanding. Ours was outstanding for 7 months. 

Back in March of this year, we subpoenaed these records. We 

specifically asked for videotapes and audiotapes, unedited. 

Let’s look at the language that’s on the screen. When the White 

House failed to respond to our subpoenas, we were forced to move 

to contempt in May of this year. Only then did the President’s men 

commit to a full production of the records. At that time, Mr. Ruff 

told me personally that the contempt citation we were moving was 

the impetus for them coming around. 

On June 27, 1997, the President’s counsel, Mr. Ruff, officially 

certified that the White House, and this is right out of his letter, 

‘‘produced all documents responsive to the committee subpoenas;’’ all documents responsive to the committee’s subpoenas. 

Of course, that was not the case. It is now apparent that even 

when the Senate learned of these tapes, the White House continued 

to provide misinformation on their very existence. As the Washington Post observed yesterday, quote, the attitude of this White 

House toward the truth, whenever it is in trouble, is the same: 

Don’t tell it or tell only as much as you absolutely must, or as 

helps, end quote. 

Now, the President says he will cooperate. Yet our request on 

Monday for the complete logs of all videotaped or audiotaped 

events at the White House by close of business Tuesday was not 

complied with. They continue to run the clock and divert attention 

to other matters. 

In addition to that, we have now been informed there may be 

some fund-raising tapes, up to 150, that we don’t have. And so 

when the President says they have complied, all we have to do is 

look at the tapes. Well, we would like to have all the tapes unedited in their entirety. And we do not yet have them. 

This is not good faith compliance. We intend to fully examine 

this. 

I would also like to enter for the record my October 6, 1997 letter 

to the White House relating to these matters. Without objection, 

that will be so entered. 

[The letter referred to follows:]

3


g:\graphics\44527.001
4


g:\graphics\44527.002
5


g:\graphics\44527.003
6


g:\graphics\44527.004
7

Mr. BURTON. Now to our investigation, there are almost daily 

revelations about troubling actions taken by senior White House 

and Democratic National Committee officials in the frenzy to fill 

the campaign coffers. The American people have a right to know 

what went wrong. There were millions of dollars in campaign contributions that have been returned because of illegal or highly suspicious sources. 

As the chief oversight committee in Congress, the Committee on 

Government Reform and Oversight serves this role in informing 

the American people about how laws designed to govern our free 

elections may have been thwarted. 

We are committed to thorough and fair hearings on the role of 

foreign money in recent campaigns. While the excesses of the 

White House and the Democratic National Committee may have 

propelled this investigation, the committee also is examining matters relating to the Republican National Committee and will continue to follow the facts wherever they lead us, in either party. 

We are here today because we are compelled, by credible allegations of wrongdoing and by our public responsibility, to conduct 

oversight of these matters. Numerous individuals have pled guilty 

to criminal charges relating to campaign fund-raising. In the course 

of our investigation, we have found credible evidence of illegal foreign money funneled and conduit payments made to the Democratic National Committee. 

The committee has amassed considerable evidence relating to the 

activities of former senior DNC official and Clinton appointee John 

Huang, and former Clinton appointee Charlie Trie. We are, however, at the very beginning of this investigation. I have no allusions 

that our task will be an easy or a quick one. This is going to take 

some time. 

This committee’s hearings will cover many subjects, because the 

reported abuses of campaign laws and misuse of Government resources are vast. Our initial focus has been on how political parties 

took or raised contributions from foreign sources. I am gravely concerned about foreign governments, foreign companies or foreign nationals trying to influence our electoral process and also our foreign 

policy. 

Of equal concern, however, is the possibility that the United 

States is perceived by other countries as so corrupt that they would 

believe that they could tamper with our democratic process to further their own agenda. At the end of the day, the individuals who 

are involved must be held accountable. 

It was not, ‘‘the system,’’ which solicited millions of dollars in illegal contributions. The system did not rent out the Lincoln bedroom. The system didn’t withhold subpoenaed records. The system 

is not responsible for individuals ignoring the campaign finance 

laws that we already have. It is individuals who are responsible for 

these actions. It is individuals who must be held accountable. The 

administration and others are using, ‘‘the system,’’ as an excuse to 

change the subject. We are talking about existing laws being broken here. 

Although the Clinton White House is extremely adept at spin 

control and damage control, it claims to be hopelessly incompetent 

when it comes to locating records subpoenaed by this committee, 

8

the Senate committee, or its own Justice Department. As the 

Washington Post asked yesterday, quote, Can anyone believe this 

is on the up and up? end quote. You simply could not make up 

some of the more outlandish actions taken by this, ‘‘anything goes 

White House.’’

Last February, this committee received documents from Harold 

Ickes. We were stunned to see the President’s own handwriting—

he said he didn’t know anything about this initially—but his own 

handwriting ordering, quote, ready to start overnights right away. 

Give me the top 10 list back along with $100,000 to $50,000, end 

quote. 

He didn’t know anything about it and yet his handwriting proved 

otherwise. In this atmosphere, is it any surprise to find Chinese 

arms dealers, drug dealers, leaders and fugitives from justice attending DNC events at the White House with the President? The 

tone was set at the top. And as Harry Truman said, the buck 

should stop there. 

We have learned that the chairman of the Democratic National 

Committee contacted a man named Bob at the CIA on behalf of a 

DNC donor. The National Security Council was overruled on providing access to DNC donors who had been described as hustlers. 

Millions of dollars in conduit payments were made to the DNC. We 

are told, it was simply a mistake; everybody does it; or the system 

is to blame. These are the words of people looking to shift the responsibility and the blame. 

All Americans should understand that these campaign finance 

scandals are unprecedented in many ways and international in 

scope. Over 60 people have taken the fifth amendment or fled the 

country. These people are now unavailable to aid in our efforts to 

get at the truth and let America know what the truth is—American 

people know what the truth is. 

Many of these individuals are close friends of the President. Let’s 

take a look at some of the President’s close friends and associates 

who refuse to cooperate with this investigation. 

First, we have John Huang, who has taken the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Huang has been a friend of the President’s since the 1980’s. 

He visited the White House over 90 times, between 1993 and 1996. 

At a July 22, 1996 fund-raiser, the President praised, quote, his 

long-time good friend, John Huang, end quote, who raised over $3 

million for the DNC. 

Before coming to Washington in 1994, Mr. Huang worked for the 

Riady-owned Lippo Group. We find the Lippo Group and the 

Riadys throughout this whole mess. 

He raised funds for the President and the DNC during the 1992 

election. After President Clinton took office, Mr. Huang requested 

a political appointment in the Clinton administration. After Mr. 

Huang and James Riady met with the President, Mr. Huang finally 

received his appointment to the Department of Commerce in July 

1994. 

At the same time that the Clinton administration hired Mr. 

Huang, and I hope everybody gets this, the Riady family hired 

Webb Hubbell and paid him $100,000 for no apparent work. After 

Mr. Huang worked at the Commerce Department for a little over 

9

a year, there was a concerted effort to move him over to the Democratic National Committee. 

Associates of the Riady family contacted numerous DNC and administration officials on John Huang’s behalf. Mr. Huang and Mr. 

Riady met with the President in September 1995 to request that 

Mr. Huang move to the DNC. According to Bruce Lindsey, Mr. 

Huang felt that he, quote, could be most helpful to the President, 

end quote, at the DNC. More than half of the over $3 million he raised at the DNC was 

pledged to be returned because the contributions were illegal or 

highly questionable. 

Next, we have Charlie Trie who has fled the country. Like John 

Huang, Charlie Trie also knew the President for years in Arkansas 

and visited the White House on dozens of occasions. DNC documents from the summer of 1994 list Trie as an FOB, friend of Bill. 

His $100,000 contribution during the summer of 1994 gave him a 

seat at the President’s head table during the Presidential gala; for a $100,000 contribution. 

These contributions came just days after he received a $100,000 

wire from the Lippo Bank. And Mr. Trie, to the best of our knowledge, never made a lot of money and certainly couldn’t afford a 

$100,000 contribution. He was of moderate income. 

Next, we have the Riady family, who controls the Lippo Group, 

which employed John Huang. The Riadys supported President 

Clinton in Arkansas throughout the 1980’s, made large contributions to the DNC and State parties in the closing months of the 

1992 campaign, and as I mentioned earlier, paid Webb Hubbell 

$100,000. The Riadys are not in the country and refuse to make 

themselves investigable to this committee or other investigators. 

Just last September, however, James Riady was available to attend intimate meetings with the President. And it won’t surprise 

anyone that Webb Hubbell has also taken the fifth amendment and 

refused to cooperate with this committee. 

Hubbell was one of the President’s best friends from Arkansas. 

President Clinton appointed him to the No. 3 position at the Justice Department. In early 1994, Hubbell found himself in the middle of the Whitewater scandal. Because of his legal problems, Hubbell resigned his top Justice Department job in the spring of 1994. 

By the end of the year, while under criminal investigation, Hubbell, with apparent ease, earned over half a million dollars, at least 

a half million dollars, in consulting fees for doing little, if no, work. 

Administration officials and Clinton friends found this work for 

Hubbell because even as Mack McLarty candidly acknowledged in 

notes he took, quote, law firms were reluctant to touch him, end 

quote, meaning Webb Hubbell. 

At what was reportedly a critical juncture in the Whitewater investigation in June 1994, Mr. Hubbell received the $100,000 payment from a Lippo affiliate. This payment followed numerous meetings of the Riadys and John Huang at the White House in June 

1994. 

Former special assistant to the President and 1992 Clinton fundraiser, Mark Middleton, has also taken the fifth amendment. Mr. 

Middleton met on dozens of occasions with James Riady, John 

Huang, Charlie Trie and Charlie Trie’s business partner, Ng Lap 

10

Seng while he worked for the White House Chief of Staff, Mack 

McLarty. When Mr. Middleton left the White House in February 

1995, he turned his White House access and ties to these individuals into Asian business deals. Mr. Middleton also remained active 

in the 1996 campaign and directed donors to the DNC and the 

White House coffees. 

Mark Jimenez, a former client of Mark Middleton, is the most recent witness to invoke the fifth amendment before this committee. 

Next, we have Johnny Chung, the infamous hustler, who gave 

$366,000 to the DNC, has taken the fifth. It was Mr. Chung who 

said, in July of this year, quote, I see the White House is like a 

subway. You have to put in coins to open the gates, end quote. 

Mr. Chung should know. He made 55 trips to the White House 

and was a frequent guest in the First Lady’s office. Mr. Chung was 

able to bring a delegation of Chinese businessmen into the White 

House for lunch at the White House Mess, among other perks. In 

exchange, he was expected to give money. 

One call sheet, prepared for DNC Chairman Don Fowler read, 

quote, Johnny committed to contribute $75,000 to the DNC reception in Los Angeles on September 21st. He has still not sent his 

contribution. Tell him if he does not complete his commitment 

ASAP, bad things will happen. That’s a threat, end quote. 

Lack of cooperation by so many people should not be rewarded 

with a lack of attention, but rather with a commitment or a more 

vigilant investigation. 

How is it that so many highly placed friends of the President 

have ended up taking the fifth or fleeing the country? Sixty-one 

people have refused to cooperate with either our committee or the 

Senate committee’s investigation. We will not allow these obstacles 

to defeat our obligations to the American people. They have a right 

to know. 

Although people may be impatient for hearings, what this committee is doing is slow, painstaking work. We will hold hearings 

when we are satisfied that we can present important pieces of this 

puzzle to the American people and not before. 

The President and the Vice President should assist by reaching 

out to these 60-plus witnesses, many of whom are close friends, 

and ask for their help to get to the truth. 

Mr. President, Tom Brokaw contacted Charlie Trie. Why not 

you? He is a friend of yours. 

Mr. President, aren’t you curious as to how Charlie Trie was able 

to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to the DNC when he 

did not have a successful business venture? Where did you think 

he got all of that money that he gave to the DNC that made him 

a managing trustee? The people have a right to know. 

Mr. President, your long-time friend, John Huang, is reportedly 

sitting at home these days. Why don’t you ask him to come forward 

and explain his fund-raising practices and where the money came 

from? The people have a right to know. 

Mr. President, your former Associate Attorney General and close 

friend and golfing partner, Webb Hubbell, refuses to discuss his 

$100,000 payment from the Riadys, a payment which came shortly 

after numerous visits to the White House by the Riadys and John 

11

Huang were made. Don’t you think the American people deserve an 

explanation? The people have a right to know. 

Mr. President, do you condone this wall of silence erected by your 

friends? If not, Mr. President, tear down that wall. 

We have heard much about campaign finance reform in the past 

few weeks. Mr. President, if you want to be a leader in campaign 

finance reform, then lead by example. Help us find out who broke 

the current laws that are already on the books. The laws that were 

broken were not hazy or fuzzy. They are straightforward laws such 

as it is illegal to funnel foreign money into campaigns and it is illegal to use conduits to funnel money into campaigns. Will you help 

us, Mr. President? Or will we have to wait for a Justice Department that reads the Washington Post for its next investigative 

lead? 

In our constitutional system of checks and balances, Congress 

serves as an independent reviewer of the facts. Among the several 

tools available to us is the granting of immunity to individuals with 

important information for our investigation. Tomorrow, we will 

hear the testimony of three witnesses who have been immunized 

by this committee, the sister of Charlie Trie, Manlin Foung, her 

friend, Joseph Landon, and a Los Angeles businessman, David 

Wang. 

In addition, the committee also has received a proffer from two 

key witnesses. In May of this year, Nora and Gene Lum pled guilty 

to felony conspiracy to violate Federal campaign laws. As a part of 

the Lums’ plea agreement with the Justice Department, they were 

granted immunity by the Justice Department from further prosecution under the Federal election statutes. The attorneys for Nora 

and Gene Lum have provided a written proffer to the committee, 

which outlines the areas about which they will provide testimony. 

The proffer indicates that the Lums will testify on a number of 

significant matters currently under investigation by this committee. The committee consideration of the Lums’ proffer has been 

under way for several months by staff on both sides of the aisle. 

Representatives of the minority were present at a July meeting 

when the proffer was first made by the Lums’ attorneys. Further, 

they accompanied the majority staff at a meeting to discuss the 

matter with the Justice Department officials. 

The Justice Department initially indicated they did not agree 

with the committee’s suggestion to grant immunity to these witnesses, even though they have already themselves granted these 

people immunity. 

On July 23, 1997, I sent a letter to Attorney General Reno requesting an explanation of their position. To date, I have not received any response from the Attorney General, and it has been 3 

months. Sounds like they are pretty busy over there. 

Today, with the permission of the Lums’ attorneys, I am making 

this proffer available to the committee members and the public. I 

plan to schedule a committee business meeting to consider immunity for the Lums before the end of this month. The Lums’ proffer 

and the investigative work that has been done by the committee 

staff indicates that the solicitation and utilization of foreign money 

and conduit payments did not begin after the Republicans won conVerDate 0ct 02 2002 14:16 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\44527 44527
12

trol of the Congress in 1994. Rather, it appears that the seeds of 

today’s scandals may have been planted as early as 1991. 

In conclusion, I would like to note there is a growing concern 

that there was real corruption in the financing of campaigns in this 

country and that this corruption may have affected our foreign policy and possibly our national security. 

The American people have a right to know whether any national 

interests were put in jeopardy by these activities. Let’s get the facts 

out. 

As Abraham Lincoln said, ‘‘Let the people know the facts and the 

country will be saved.’’

I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits be made a part of the 

record and without objection, that will be done. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Objection. 

Mr. BURTON. You do object? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I do object. I want to call the 

Chair’s attention to the fact that the Chair just violated the Rules 

of the House, as I understand them. If the Chair will refer to Rule 

11, clause 2(k)7, it is stated there that no evidence or testimony 

taken in executive session may be released or used in public sessions without the consent of this committee. 

As I understand it, there has been no vote in this committee to 

release any of the facts or testimony contained in depositions previously taken, and the Chair has exhibited on the screen exhibit C–

6 with a statement taken from the deposition of David Mercer. 

Mr. BURTON. Give me just a second to check with my legal counsel, would you please? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Certainly. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman is correct. One exhibit in the information we want to submit for the record should not have been divulged at this time, but all of the other exhibits will be made a 

part of the record, with the exception of the one the gentleman referred to. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and certainly not intending to object to any of the exhibits the 

chairman has offered, and quite frankly, calling the chairman’s attention to the fact, it was the minority side of this committee that 

fought to disclose all of these depositions so that this information 

could properly be brought before the public. I reiterate that the 

chairman should reconsider his position in denying the press, the 

American public, and the minority of this committee the use of 

those depositions at this hearing so that we can properly bring out 

all the facts and information that are relevant to this hearing. 

Mr. BURTON. That is a matter that has been under discussion 

and we will consider to review that. 

Mr. MICA. Regular order. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. No further objection. 

Mr. MICA. Regular order. 

Mr. BURTON. Do I hear an objection? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. No objection.

13

Mr. BURTON. No objection. So the information will be submitted 

for the record, with the exception of the document that was referred to. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton, and the information referred to follow:]

14


g:\graphics\44527.005
15


g:\graphics\44527.006
16


g:\graphics\44527.007
17


g:\graphics\44527.008
18


g:\graphics\44527.009
19


g:\graphics\44527.010
20


g:\graphics\44527.011
21


g:\graphics\44527.012
22


g:\graphics\44527.013
23


g:\graphics\44527.014
24


g:\graphics\44527.015
25


g:\graphics\44527.016
26


g:\graphics\44527.017
27


g:\graphics\44527.018
28


g:\graphics\44527.019
29


g:\graphics\44527.020
30


g:\graphics\44527.021
31


g:\graphics\44527.022
32


g:\graphics\44527.023
33


g:\graphics\44527.024
34


g:\graphics\44527.025
35


g:\graphics\44527.026
36


g:\graphics\44527.027
37


g:\graphics\44527.028
38


g:\graphics\44527.029
39


g:\graphics\44527.030
40


g:\graphics\44527.031
41


g:\graphics\44527.032
42


g:\graphics\44527.033
43


g:\graphics\44527.034
44


g:\graphics\44527.035
45

Mr. BURTON. We will now hear from Mr. Waxman, the ranking 

minority member. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, months ago the Democrats on this 

committee, led by Congressman Gary Condit, asked that we get 

copies of the depositions taken by the Senate. We debated the issue 

in committee, wrote to Senators Thompson and Glenn with the request and we raised the issue several more times with your staff. 

So I was skeptical when I received a tip 2 weeks ago that, in fact, 

you had copies of many of those depositions, and I was disappointed to learn last week that it was true that you did have copies of the Senate depositions, but had not shared them with us. 

You explained this mistake by pointing to staff and administrative error. That has also been the explanation for at least five other 

instances when the minority received misinformation or didn’t receive documents. It is also the explanation given 2 seconds ago 

when it was pointed out that a deposition taken in executive session was leaked right here at this hearing, even though it is 

against the rules of the Congress to release depositions without a 

vote of the committee. In fact, when the Democrats asked that all 

the depositions be made public, the Republicans argued against it, 

saying that they didn’t think it was appropriate. It seems like the 

majority’s view is, release is appropriate on a selective basis if it 

serves a particular purpose. 

Now, the explanation for that is simply another bungle, another 

error, another mistake, somebody else was responsible, probably 

the staff. Now, I have accepted your explanations, but I still find 

this conduct inexcusable. 

In the same way, I can understand the White House’s explanation for the coffee tape fiasco, but I still find it inexcusable. This 

seems to happen so often with the White House, that I wondered 

whether it is nefarious conduct, as the chairman has concluded, or 

just a lack of competence. I believe Charles Ruff, the President’s 

Counsel, would not intentionally mislead Congress. And since in 

many cases it is the failure to provide the information when first 

requested and not the substance of the information that is damaging, ineptness seems to be a more logical explanation. 

At this point, this seems to me to be the case with the coffee videos. But it is still inexcusable. When you go beyond that, as you 

did this morning, Mr. Chairman, then it becomes clear that partisanship, again, is the dominant theme in our committee. And no 

investigation can be credible so long as it is motivated by partisanship. 

Our committee has, of course, a fundamental obligation to investigate serious abuses of our Nation’s campaign finance laws without regard to the political consequences, whether they be to the 

Democrats or Republicans. Every Democrat on this committee has 

supported such an effort. In fact, on March 6th, all 20 minority 

members signed a letter to Speaker Gingrich supporting an aggressive and comprehensive investigation into all alleged campaign finance abuses. 

We did, however, offer a suggestion: Instead of authorizing two 

identical and duplicative efforts, the House and Senate resources 

should be consolidated into one thorough and bipartisan investigation. 

46

We continue to believe our proposal would have saved money and 

been more effective at uncovering the truth about what really happened last year. 

Well, neither Speaker Gingrich nor any of the Republican members of this committee ever responded to that letter. Instead, the 

House and Senate committees have investigated the same issues, 

deposed the same witnesses and subpoenaed the same documents 

with no coordination between us. 

Everything that the chairman outlined in his opening statement 

this morning for around 15 minutes, we didn’t need to spend a single dime on to investigate because it was all reported by the press 

or the Senate. 

Senator Thompson has now chaired 26 days of hearings and he, 

Senator Glenn and their colleagues have provided a valuable service. The Senate hearings may not have captured the public’s attention, but they have uncovered disturbing conduct and exposed some 

of our campaign system’s most glaring deficiencies. 

In contrast, our committee’s work has been beset by a series of 

problems and raw partisanship. I won’t recite the litany, but our 

low point probably came in July when the Republican chief counsel 

resigned because he said he had not been given the authority to, 

quote, implement the standards of professional conduct, end quote, 

necessary to do his work. 

In addition, Mr. Rowley noted that he wanted to, quote, follow 

where the evidence leads, end quote, while others wanted to use 

the investigation simply to, quote, slime, end quote, the Democrats. 

After Mr. Rowley left, the committee’s Republican staff was without a chief counsel for nearly 2 months. 

Perhaps the best measure of partisanship is that of the 554 subpoenas and requests for information Chairman Burton has issued, 

544 have been directed at Democratic targets. Only 10 have sought 

information for Republican fund-raising abuses. Given those numbers, it is no surprise that Chairman Burton once reportedly predicted that his investigation would ensure Republican control of the 

House in 1998. 

Now, given Senator Thompson’s work, we face a real question of 

purpose. We have already spent almost $3 million without holding 

a single hearing. Before we invest millions more, we should have 

a clear understanding of what we are doing and how it relates to 

what Senator Thompson and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr 

have already investigated. 

Well, we won’t find that understanding today. Instead, we are 

likely to hear a quotable series of partisan but unsubstantiated accusations. 

Keep in mind, as they are presented, that Chairman Burton and 

his colleagues have refused to release the 52 depositions the committee has taken, except in the one instance where they released 

it improperly today, at least a portion of one deposition. 

Those depositions comprise nearly all of the committee’s investigative work, and the reason those depositions remain secret is 

they offer no support for the accusations you will hear. 

One final point. I began my comments by recognizing the serious 

responsibility we have to investigate, but we also have an equally 

47

serious responsibility to legislate when reform is needed, and our 

campaign finance system is in desperate need of reform. 

Several of our colleagues on this committee, including Representative Tom Allen from Maine, Representative John Tierney from 

Massachusetts, and Representative Chris Shays from Connecticut 

have sponsored bills that would improve the system. I have cosponsored their legislation and hope my colleagues won’t be content just 

to investigate last year’s problems. Our system is broken and our 

job is to fix it. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to tomorrow’s hearing and working 

with you, as best we can, and I want to, at the conclusion of this 

statement, put into the record the letters we have exchanged about 

our committee’s investigation and the letters to Speaker Gingrich 

to be included in the record following my statement. 

Mr. BURTON. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman and the information referred to follow:]

48


g:\graphics\44527.036
49


g:\graphics\44527.037
50


g:\graphics\44527.038
51


g:\graphics\44527.039
52


g:\graphics\44527.040
53


g:\graphics\44527.041
54


g:\graphics\44527.042
55


g:\graphics\44527.043
56


g:\graphics\44527.044
57


g:\graphics\44527.045
58


g:\graphics\44527.046
59


g:\graphics\44527.047
60


g:\graphics\44527.048
61


g:\graphics\44527.049
62


g:\graphics\44527.050
63


g:\graphics\44527.051
64


g:\graphics\44527.052
65


g:\graphics\44527.053
66


g:\graphics\44527.054
67


g:\graphics\44527.055
68


g:\graphics\44527.056
69


g:\graphics\44527.057
70


g:\graphics\44527.058
71


g:\graphics\44527.059
72


g:\graphics\44527.060
73


g:\graphics\44527.061
74


g:\graphics\44527.062
75


g:\graphics\44527.063
76


g:\graphics\44527.064
77


g:\graphics\44527.065
78


g:\graphics\44527.066
79


g:\graphics\44527.067
80


g:\graphics\44527.068
81


g:\graphics\44527.069
82


g:\graphics\44527.070
83


g:\graphics\44527.071
84


g:\graphics\44527.072
85


g:\graphics\44527.073
86


g:\graphics\44527.074
87


g:\graphics\44527.075
88


g:\graphics\44527.076
89


g:\graphics\44527.077
90


g:\graphics\44527.078
91


g:\graphics\44527.079
92


g:\graphics\44527.080
93


g:\graphics\44527.081
94


g:\graphics\44527.082
95


g:\graphics\44527.083
96


g:\graphics\44527.084
97


g:\graphics\44527.085
98


g:\graphics\44527.086
99


g:\graphics\44527.087
100


g:\graphics\44527.088
101


g:\graphics\44527.089
102


g:\graphics\44527.090
103


g:\graphics\44527.091
104


g:\graphics\44527.092
105


g:\graphics\44527.093
106


g:\graphics\44527.094
107


g:\graphics\44527.095
108


g:\graphics\44527.096
109


g:\graphics\44527.097
110


g:\graphics\44527.098
111


g:\graphics\44527.099
112


g:\graphics\44527.100
113


g:\graphics\44527.101
114


g:\graphics\44527.102
115


g:\graphics\44527.103
116


g:\graphics\44527.104
117


g:\graphics\44527.105
118


g:\graphics\44527.106
119


g:\graphics\44527.107
120


g:\graphics\44527.108
121


g:\graphics\44527.109
122


g:\graphics\44527.110
123


g:\graphics\44527.111
124


g:\graphics\44527.112
125


g:\graphics\44527.113
126


g:\graphics\44527.114
127


g:\graphics\44527.115
128


g:\graphics\44527.116
129


g:\graphics\44527.117
130


g:\graphics\44527.118
131


g:\graphics\44527.119
132


g:\graphics\44527.120
133


g:\graphics\44527.121
134


g:\graphics\44527.122
135


g:\graphics\44527.123
136


g:\graphics\44527.124
137


g:\graphics\44527.125
138


g:\graphics\44527.126
139


g:\graphics\44527.127
140


g:\graphics\44527.128
141


g:\graphics\44527.129
142


g:\graphics\44527.130
143


g:\graphics\44527.131
144


g:\graphics\44527.132
145


g:\graphics\44527.133
146


g:\graphics\44527.134
147


g:\graphics\44527.135
148


g:\graphics\44527.136
149


g:\graphics\44527.137
150


g:\graphics\44527.138
151


g:\graphics\44527.139
152


g:\graphics\44527.140
153


g:\graphics\44527.141
154


g:\graphics\44527.142
155


g:\graphics\44527.143
156


g:\graphics\44527.144
157


g:\graphics\44527.145
158


g:\graphics\44527.146
159


g:\graphics\44527.147
160


g:\graphics\44527.148
161


g:\graphics\44527.149
162


g:\graphics\44527.150
163


g:\graphics\44527.151
164


g:\graphics\44527.152
165


g:\graphics\44527.153
166


g:\graphics\44527.154
167


g:\graphics\44527.155
168


g:\graphics\44527.156
169


g:\graphics\44527.157
170


g:\graphics\44527.158
171


g:\graphics\44527.159
172


g:\graphics\44527.160
173


g:\graphics\44527.161
174


g:\graphics\44527.162
175


g:\graphics\44527.163
176


g:\graphics\44527.164
177


g:\graphics\44527.165
178


g:\graphics\44527.166
179


g:\graphics\44527.167
180


g:\graphics\44527.168
181


g:\graphics\44527.169
182


g:\graphics\44527.170
183


g:\graphics\44527.171
184


g:\graphics\44527.172
185


g:\graphics\44527.173
186


g:\graphics\44527.174
187


g:\graphics\44527.175
188


g:\graphics\44527.176
189


g:\graphics\44527.177
190


g:\graphics\44527.178
191


g:\graphics\44527.179
192


g:\graphics\44527.180
193


g:\graphics\44527.181
194


g:\graphics\44527.182
195


g:\graphics\44527.183
196


g:\graphics\44527.184
197


g:\graphics\44527.185
198


g:\graphics\44527.186
199


g:\graphics\44527.187
200


g:\graphics\44527.188
201


g:\graphics\44527.189
202


g:\graphics\44527.190
203


g:\graphics\44527.191
204


g:\graphics\44527.192
205


g:\graphics\44527.193
206


g:\graphics\44527.194
207


g:\graphics\44527.195
208


g:\graphics\44527.196
209


g:\graphics\44527.197
210


g:\graphics\44527.198
211


g:\graphics\44527.199
212


g:\graphics\44527.200
213


g:\graphics\44527.201
214


g:\graphics\44527.202
215


g:\graphics\44527.203
216


g:\graphics\44527.204
217


g:\graphics\44527.205
218


g:\graphics\44527.206
219


g:\graphics\44527.207
220


g:\graphics\44527.208
221


g:\graphics\44527.209
222


g:\graphics\44527.210
223


g:\graphics\44527.211
224


g:\graphics\44527.212
225


g:\graphics\44527.213
226


g:\graphics\44527.214
227


g:\graphics\44527.215
228


g:\graphics\44527.216
229


g:\graphics\44527.217
230


g:\graphics\44527.218
231


g:\graphics\44527.219
232


g:\graphics\44527.220
233


g:\graphics\44527.221
234


g:\graphics\44527.222
235


g:\graphics\44527.223
236


g:\graphics\44527.224
237


g:\graphics\44527.225
238


g:\graphics\44527.226
239


g:\graphics\44527.227
240


g:\graphics\44527.228
241


g:\graphics\44527.229
242


g:\graphics\44527.230
243


g:\graphics\44527.231
244


g:\graphics\44527.232
245


g:\graphics\44527.233
246


g:\graphics\44527.234
247


g:\graphics\44527.235
248


g:\graphics\44527.236
249


g:\graphics\44527.237
250


g:\graphics\44527.238
251


g:\graphics\44527.239
252


g:\graphics\44527.240
253


g:\graphics\44527.241
254


g:\graphics\44527.242
255


g:\graphics\44527.243
256


g:\graphics\44527.244
257


g:\graphics\44527.245
258


g:\graphics\44527.246
259


g:\graphics\44527.247
260


g:\graphics\44527.248
261


g:\graphics\44527.249
262


g:\graphics\44527.250
263


g:\graphics\44527.251
264


g:\graphics\44527.252
265


g:\graphics\44527.253
266


g:\graphics\44527.254
267


g:\graphics\44527.255
268


g:\graphics\44527.256
269


g:\graphics\44527.257
270


g:\graphics\44527.258
271


g:\graphics\44527.259
272


g:\graphics\44527.260
273


g:\graphics\44527.261
274


g:\graphics\44527.262
275


g:\graphics\44527.263
276


g:\graphics\44527.264
277


g:\graphics\44527.265
278


g:\graphics\44527.266
279


g:\graphics\44527.267
280


g:\graphics\44527.268
281


g:\graphics\44527.269
282


g:\graphics\44527.270
283


g:\graphics\44527.271
284


g:\graphics\44527.272
285


g:\graphics\44527.273
286


g:\graphics\44527.274
287


g:\graphics\44527.275
288


g:\graphics\44527.276
289


g:\graphics\44527.277
290


g:\graphics\44527.278
291


g:\graphics\44527.279
292


g:\graphics\44527.280
293


g:\graphics\44527.281
294


g:\graphics\44527.282
295


g:\graphics\44527.283
296


g:\graphics\44527.284
297


g:\graphics\44527.285
298


g:\graphics\44527.286
299


g:\graphics\44527.287
300


g:\graphics\44527.288
301


g:\graphics\44527.289
302


g:\graphics\44527.290
303


g:\graphics\44527.291
304


g:\graphics\44527.292
305


g:\graphics\44527.293
306


g:\graphics\44527.294
307


g:\graphics\44527.295
308


g:\graphics\44527.296
309


g:\graphics\44527.297
310


g:\graphics\44527.298
311


g:\graphics\44527.299
312


g:\graphics\44527.300
313


g:\graphics\44527.301
314


g:\graphics\44527.302
315


g:\graphics\44527.303
316


g:\graphics\44527.304
317


g:\graphics\44527.305
318


g:\graphics\44527.306
319


g:\graphics\44527.307
320


g:\graphics\44527.308
321

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ written statements 

be included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statements of Hon. Christopher Shays, Hon. Stephen Schiff, Hon. Thomas M. Davis, Hon. Rob Portman, and Hon. 

Thomas H. Allen follow:]

322


g:\graphics\44527.310
323


g:\graphics\44527.311
324


g:\graphics\44527.312
325


g:\graphics\44527.313
326


g:\graphics\44527.314
327


g:\graphics\44527.315
328


g:\graphics\44527.316
329


g:\graphics\44527.317
330


g:\graphics\44527.318
331


g:\graphics\44527.319
332


g:\graphics\44527.320
333


g:\graphics\44527.321
334


g:\graphics\44527.322
335

Mr. BURTON. The next person to speak will be the vice chairman 

of the committee, Mr. Chris Cox of California. 

Mr. COX. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are here today because it is our responsibility. The very first 

sentence of our Constitution states that it is the purpose of the 

Federal Government to establish justice. But today, as we meet 

here in Washington, DC, at the highest levels of our Government, 

there is no justice. It is fair to say that a single newspaper, the Los 

Angeles Times, has uncovered more evidence about the many Clinton scandals than has the Department of Justice. 

Today, there is no question that John Huang and Charlie Trie 

laundered foreign money for Bill Clinton, the President of the 

United States. But there is no indictment. The Attorney General, 

according to sources quoted in the Washington Post, obstructed the 

FBI from interviewing and investigating high officials of the Clinton administration. 

The Washington Post put it plainly yesterday in an editorial. 

Quote, ‘‘The attitude of this White House toward the truth, whenever it is in trouble, is the same: Don’t tell it, or tell only as much 

as you absolutely must, or as much as helps.’’

Continuing to quote from the Washington Post, ‘‘their first reaction,’’ referring to the White House, ‘‘their first reaction to the 

name John Huang was to suggest they had never heard of him. 

That was before it turned out he had visited the White House 78 

times in 15 months. Call it stonewalling. Can anyone really believe 

they don’t know the answer? Can anyone believe this is on the up 

and up?’’ That is what the Washington Post had to say yesterday. 

The New York Times was just as blunt. Yesterday’s headline described the Justice Department meltdown. Quote, ‘‘It has been a 

full year since Miss Reno was confronted with initial evidence,’’

wrote the New York Times, ‘‘of the biggest political money scandal 

in a generation. Her response shows little concern with her place 

in history as a custodian of the Justice Department.’’ New York 

Times, Tuesday, October 7, column one editorial. 

If the Congress does not commence this investigation, there will 

be no justice. Janet Reno will not investigate Bill Clinton or Al 

Gore. She cannot absolve them. She has shown that Justice has a 

hopeless conflict of interest. She, herself, is part of the President’s 

Cabinet. 

Her letter to this Congress of last Friday states that she has no 

evidence that fund-raising events took place in the White House 

and on that ground refuses to appoint an Independent Counsel to 

begin an investigation. 

One thing is clear. Neither Janet Reno nor Justice has conducted 

an arm’s length investigation. When the Attorney General issued 

her letter on Friday, she claimed to make her decision on the basis 

of, ‘‘all of the information known to me as a result of the Department of Justice’s ongoing investigation into campaign finance allegations.’’ But there is no such investigation, not a real one, not a 

credible one. Two days before her letter was issued, the Counsel to 

the President, Charles Ruff, knew of the existence of the videotapes 

of the White House fund-raising coffees. Mr. Ruff wrote this in a 

letter to the chairman of this committee. He knew it on WednesVerDate 0ct 02 2002 14:16 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00339 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\44527 44527
336

day. He met with the Attorney General on Thursday and he did not 

tell her. 

He did not tell her and she did not ask. Don’t ask, don’t tell, describes not only the Clinton policy on gays in the military, but the 

Clinton policy on White House tapes. 

The next day, the Attorney General issued her letter absolving 

the President of fund-raising in the White House and at White 

House coffees on the basis of evidence discovered in the investigation even though that investigation had actually sought those videotapes, but not discovered them. 

Mr. Ruff’s conduct in meeting with the Attorney General, knowing of this evidence and not telling her when he knew Justice was 

after it, is obstruction and cover-up, pure and simple. 

The chief White House propagandist, Lanny Davis, told reporters, it is up to you to declare us incompetent. But that’s not our 

job. It is up to us to see that justice is done. 

The Justice Department has no conflict of interest investigating 

Congress. Since 1970, over 60 Members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, have been indicted and charged with crimes. 

But this White House and Justice Department cannot be trusted 

to investigate themselves. Despite the national outcry, they have 

steadfastly refused to appoint an Independent Counsel. 

The Senate investigation has a deadline which is soon expiring. 

It is up to us. The Congress must do all we can to ensure that suspected criminals are charged with crimes, that the guilty are punished, that justice is done and that America and our Constitution 

are secure. 

I thank the chairman for convening these hearings and I yield 

back. 

Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman from California. 

The next person to be recognized is Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would prefer to make 

my statement after we cast our votes, if I may. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, we have 15 minutes before this vote will be 

concluded. I would like to move along until we get close to the vote, 

if it is possible. 

Is there someone else on your side? 

Mr. LANTOS. I am prepared to begin my statement. I merely suggest I will not conclude it by the time we need to leave. 

Mr. BARR. You only have 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANTOS. I am delighted to begin. If that is your privilege—

pleasure, I will do so. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, aside from the chairman and the ranking minority member, we wanted to try to confine our statements to 5 

minutes or as close to that as possible, Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. I shall proceed, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, it is very hard to tell whether this 

hearing has the quality of Alice in Wonderland or the theater of 

the absurd. It probably has the quality of both. 

There is an attempt on the part of Members on the other side 

to portray the fund-raising difficulties that this country confronts 

as a battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil. 

337

I find it difficult to believe, and I suspect the American people find it difficult to believe, that $558 million was raised by Republicans and $336 million by Democrats, all of the Republican funds 

raised with virginal purity while the Democratic fund-raising was 

deeply flawed. 

I would like to direct your attention and the attention of my 

other colleagues to today’s Wall Street Journal, page A–10. There 

is a small article which reads as follows: ‘‘Firm is fined $8 million 

in campaign finance case.’’ And the article says, as follows: ‘‘A 

Pennsylvania landfill operation has agreed to pay an $8 million 

fine for campaign finance violations that a prosecutor said involved 

illegally funneling donations to the campaigns of President Clinton, 

former Senator Bob Dole and various congressional candidates.’’ The article goes on to say the charges stem from an allegedly illegal scheme in which campaign donations were funneled through 

conduits, a spokesman for the company said. Donations to the Presidential campaigns of Messrs. Dole and Clinton by company employees and associates of seemingly limited means were the subject 

of an article in the Wall Street Journal in April 1996, and so on. 

This little item, which, of course, is not surprising, although it 

said, more accurately portrays what, in fact, is happening in the 

field of campaign finance than all the violently and vitriolically 

partisan statements of yourself and others. 

It is a fact that our campaign finance system is broke. It is broke 

because it is unenforceable and because both Republicans and 

Democrats have violated a tremendous range of campaign finance 

regulations. And this pose, which is so unseemingly and so unbelievable and so unattractive and so incredible, that somehow all of 

the flaws and mistakes were committed on the Democratic side 

while this virginal purity on the Republican side allows my colleagues with a degree of hypocrisy that boggles the mind to claim 

outrage at all of these things that happened. 

Yesterday, in connection with the coffee tapes, Senator Thompson made the observation that incompetence is wearing thin as a 

defense. Well, let me comment about incompetence, if I may. 

I received in my congressional office an official invitation on September 17th from the Republican leadership of the U.S. Senate cordially inviting me to serve as a Member of the Republican Senatorial inner circle and outlining, in excruciating detail, the incredible 

opportunities I will have of dining, wining, rubbing elbows with, 

conferring and giving advice to the leadership—the Republican 

leadership of the U.S. Senate if I only send in my inner circle membership. 

A member of my staff a bit earlier received another invitation, 

this time from the Presidential Roundtable. Honorary members of 

the Presidential Roundtable are President George Bush, President 

Ronald Reagan, President Gerald Ford. The Presidential Roundtable chairman is also Vice President Dan Quayle and, of course, 

the letterhead lists Mitch McConnell, Steve Forbes and Senator 

Santorum of Philadelphia. 

This is a marvelous letter, which I would like to place in the 

record, and I would like to read a portion of it at this point.

. . . I am pleased to inform you that in recognition of your personal achievements, I have nominated you to serve as one of Virginia’s representatives on the 

338

Republican Presidential Roundtable. This is an exceptional honor that I hope you 

will not pass up. For as America prepares to meet the challenges of the 21st Century, my Republican Senate colleagues and I genuinely need your help in shaping 

the new agenda that will guide both our party and our Nation. 

You see, the Presidential Roundtable is a unique group of only 400 Americans, 

whose membership includes corporate CEOs, small business owners, doctors, bankers, executives, entrepreneurs, community leaders and concerned citizens.... And 

now that a vacancy has occurred among the coveted 18 Presidential Roundtable 

memberships reserved for Virginia, I sincerely hope you will consider stepping forward to claim it.

The letter goes on in very interesting detail, outlining all the 

good things that will come the way of my friend if he steps forward 

and becomes 1 of these 18 members from Virginia of the Presidential Roundtable.

Today, our biannual Roundtable Forums continue to provide opportunities for 

members to meet regularly in both formal and informal settings with the great decisionmakers and political leaders of the 1990’s, including Majority Leader Trent Lott, 

the entire Republican Senate Leadership, the powerful Chairmen of standing Committees of the U.S. Senate, and the GOP’s newly-elected Senators who are well-positioned to lead America far into the first decade of the 21st Century.

Now, I don’t want to read the whole letter, but I will read the 

operative phrase. It says,

I hope you will take a moment to complete your Membership Acceptance and return it today, along with your personal or corporate check, or partial membership 

dues payment of $5,000, $2,500, $1,250 or $1,000.

This will give you an opportunity, I am quoting again, of ‘‘an 

even greater opportunity to forge the lasting friendships with our 

Senators that have become such a hallmark of a Roundtable membership.’’

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Lantos, if I might interrupt. I think you made 

your point and if you could conclude. 

Mr. LANTOS. Not quite, but I have made a portion of my point. 

Mr. BURTON. You are doing very well, but if you could conclude, 

we would appreciate it because we want to stay as close to the 5-

minute rule as possible, sir. 

Mr. LANTOS. Well, when we return, I would like to conclude this 

letter, if I may. 

Mr. BURTON. Your time has expired and, as I said earlier, we 

want to keep every Member as close to the 5-minute rule as possible. We will allow latitude to the ranking member and myself, 

but I don’t want to go beyond that. We have 40-some Members 

here, sir. 

Mr. LANTOS. May I finish then? 

Mr. BURTON. OK. 

Mr. LANTOS. ‘‘We have already arranged for Roundtable members 

to have personal photo sessions with the entire Republican Senate 

Leadership when we gather at the welcoming reception on Tuesday 

evening.’’

The letter speaks for itself. It is signed by Senator Mitch McConnell, chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. 

And I think it deals with the issue of access and payment for access. 

Now, I find the letter nauseating, but no more nauseating than 

similar letters emanating from the Democratic side and if we would 

just get rid of the hypocrisy that permeates this hearing, which 

says that the Democrats are doing these horrible things while we

339

pure Republicans are merely dealing with the public’s business, the 

American people would have a greater degree of trust in their Government. 

I thank the Chair. 

[The information referred to follows:]

340


g:\graphics\44527.323
341


g:\graphics\44527.324
342


g:\graphics\44527.325
343


g:\graphics\44527.326
344


g:\graphics\44527.327
345


g:\graphics\44527.328
346


g:\graphics\44527.329
347


g:\graphics\44527.330
348


g:\graphics\44527.331
349


g:\graphics\44527.332
350

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. And if you accede to the 

wishes of the Republican National Committee, be sure not to do it 

on Federal property. 

The committee will stand in recess. 

Mr. LANTOS. They sent me the letter on Federal property. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BURTON. We will reconvene the meeting. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hastert. 

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think the 

real question of these hearings addressed the searing question of 

have the election laws of these United States been broken? And 

have the election laws of this country been broken or circumvented 

by the campaign committee of the chief law enforcement officer of 

this Nation? 

The real issue here is will these hearings be used by some to divert our attention from that issue and instead use it for a launching platform for, quote, campaign reform, end quote. 

Mr. Chairman, we need to keep our focus on one question: Have 

the election laws of this country been broken intentionally or unintentionally? As chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, I want to simply 

and directly state my concerns about the potential threat to our 

country’s security that may have been and may continue to be 

posed by foreign influences on our electoral process. 

The peril associated with direct foreign influence on our elections 

should be obvious. This Nation is a democracy and a democracy is 

not for sale. And one more point: If foreign governments have been 

contributing to U.S. elections, they have not been doing so for our 

benefit. Any such contributions would, by definition, imperil our 

Nation’s security, since the reasons for contributions would likely 

be to secure favors and extend influence. I won’t belabor the point, 

but it is central to this inquiry. 

The primary inquiry of these hearings, from my perspective, is 

twofold. The threshold question is: Did the Chinese Government 

contribute to the Democratic National party or any other campaign 

organization? 

The second question is: If it can be shown that the Chinese Government was involved in contributing to the Democratic National 

party or any other campaign organization, did the Chinese Government receive any special benefits in return for its contributions to 

the Democratic national campaign organization? 

I am reserving my judgment on both of these inquiries. But as 

to the first inquiry, I do believe that the evidence so far supports 

the proposition that the Chinese did contribute to the DNC. 

Congress has documented that money came from China. This 

money appears to be coming through conduits to the Democratic 

National Committee and literally to the very doorsteps of the 

White House. I await further evidence in either direction on this 

point. 

As to the second question: Did the Chinese Government obtain 

any benefits from the alleged illegal contributions? Was there a 

quid pro quo? I am not a lawyer, but it appears obvious that we 

may eventually need to hear from someone who can detail the conVerDate 0ct 02 2002 14:16 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00354 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\44527 44527
351

duct and motivations of the President if we are going to get to the 

bottom of this money trail. 

As Judge Sirica once said, in a different context, follow the 

money, follow the money, follow the money. 

Accordingly, I think we should make every effort, in a bipartisan 

way, to get eyewitnesses before us. I also sincerely think that the 

President should help us in this, particularly if the witnesses in 

question remain overseas. Furthermore, some witnesses who could 

explain the facts have asserted their fifth amendment right not to 

incriminate themselves. 

It concerns me, and I think it should concern every American, 

that there are so many people close to the President who believe 

that they may have committed a crime. That fact should give us 

all pause. At least as our investigation relates to those who have 

asserted their fifth amendment rights, we will probably never know 

the specific role the administration played unless we are able to get 

and grant immunity to these witnesses. 

In my opinion, there comes a time when the people’s right to 

know may outweigh the necessity to send these witnesses to jail. 

In the realm of national security, one fact bothers me more than 

any other and that fact is this: Shortly after Mr. Clinton became 

President, evidence shows he went out of his way to ensure that 

China obtained extremely sensitive technology. This was technology previously blocked by national security restrictions. Examples of the technology included turbo fan jet engines for missiles, 

sophisticated computers that provide guidance for military aircraft, 

and actual rocket missile guidance systems. 

I await further testimony and documents, but I will confess that 

the campaign fund-raising issue for me leads down many trails. 

And the one that troubles me the most is the one with national security implications. That said, I shall not prejudice the testimony 

we may hear today or which we may expect to hear in the future. 

I shall listen to all the facts with an open mind. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. Does he yield 

back the balance of his time? 

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

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

Mr. Kanjorski. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I begin this set of hearings with disappointment 

today. I first came to this great city and to serve in this great capital some 44 years ago, in 1953, the last Republican Congress before the 104th Congress; that was the 83d Congress. I had the 

pleasure to serve during the first administration of President 

Dwight David Eisenhower. And unaccustomed as I was to this city 

at that time, as a young man I discovered that individuals will be 

attacked in this political system for reality or for appearance. 

And during that administration, a great historical name of Sherman Adams, from the Adams family of Massachusetts, had to surrender his position as Chief of Staff to the President because of 

what was then called a vicuna coat. Since that time, vicuna coats 

have gotten much larger and have become the habit of American 

politics. 

352

I would have been overjoyed and very satisfied with my service 

in Congress if I had known that we were coming together in this 

committee to do something substantive, to really free up what has 

become a cancer on the political process of this country. 

Unfortunately, I do not think any of us have arrived with our 

surgeon’s tools today to treat that disease. Instead, we have arrived 

with pre-conclusions, illogical conclusions, and a willingness to 

jump to facts. Even though most of us are legally trained, I have 

never heard so many lawyers willing to have a finding before the 

evidence is in, and before the facts can be arranged in any logical 

order to force a conclusion. But be that as it may, this is Washington, DC, and I appreciate that. 

I think today, however, Mr. Chairman, you have an opportunity, 

an unusual opportunity, to change the history of the last 9 months 

and to go at this to really leave a legacy to the American democratic system; and it needs help. If honestly we were to propose 

new procedures and effects and go at this investigation in a professional way, without preconceived conclusions or notions, we could 

work great contribution to the American political system. 

If we continue in the type of diatribe we have heard from some 

of the Members this morning, in having previously concluded—I 

don’t know why we are holding a hearing in some instances—or 

seizing upon innuendo, conjecture and conclusions that are not 

warranted by any of the facts or evidence that I am aware of at 

this point, if we have that type of hearing, we are going to have 

nothing but a partisan charade that will accomplish nothing and 

signify something that disturbs me. 

And the thing that disturbs me is that there is an unwillingness, 

it seems, in the Congress, in this committee, to accept the fact that 

in November 1996, there was a Presidential election and the 

present occupant of the White House won that election. 

And I thought that the examples learned in 1993, with trying to 

reverse the 1992 election with Whitewater and everything else that 

has preceded ad infinitum, would not be carried out in the second 

term of this Presidency; that with prosperity in this country beyond 

imagination, with peace in the world that our generation never 

had, and with major problems that this Government and this President could attain to, we in a very partisan way, on both sides, have 

slipped into this quagmire, if you will, to attack personalities and 

people without justification sometimes. 

I cannot excuse some of the mistakes made by this White House 

in providing information to this committee or the Thompson committee, nor will I attempt to do it. But I will not judge it as being 

criminal in intent or malicious in some way. Quite frankly, I would 

hope I would give it in the same way that I sometimes listen to 

the diatribe of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I just 

say they do not really mean to do evil; they just do not understand. 

And I would hope that if we looked at that in the White House, 

we would understand the same thing. 

But going beyond this President and this White House, what opportunity do we really have? Is there anyone on this committee or 

in the Congress today that does not know that special interest 

money, huge corporate money, huge union money, huge wealth 

money, is permeating policy decisions both in this Congress and 

353

probably in the executive branch? And quite frankly, it probably 

has always been that way. But there was some reasonable suppression of it, control of it, guidance of it, exposure of it that today 

seems to be lacking. 

I do fear for American democracy as I have seen it through most 

of my lifetime, because I am not sure my daughter or her children 

are guaranteed to see this process work too much into the future 

if we do not do something to cut out this political cancer that exists, and it exists in money. It exists out there in the press and the 

media and the fact that we cannot talk to constituents anymore, 

but have to spend thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands 

of dollars on single 30-second attack ads in order to elect ourselves 

to office, whether it be here in the Congress or in the Presidency. 

We know that sometimes that money comes with not direct connection to position, but indirect. Certainly, people do not contribute 

millions of dollars—I think Mr. Lantos this morning pointed out an example, an $8 million fine for the contribution to multiparties, 

multi-individuals, most Republican, of $180,000—$160,000 went to 

Republicans—and it was done with the intention of having some 

influence. Should we have known that? Will we know that in the 

future? Can we do something about it? Yes, if the Congress directs 

itself to campaign finance reform. 

Mr. Shays, on the other side, has a reasonable position on that. 

Mr. Tierney on our side has a reasonable position on that. We had 

an opportunity lost in the Senate yesterday. Or are we going to 

waste opportunity and go down this terrible road of being purely 

partisan and enforce what the American people already believe 

about these investigations; that they are nothing but partisan attacks to disturb and dislodge the success of this President in his 

second term? 

If that’s the case, we don’t deserve their attention. But if we 

strive for higher ideals and intentions, we will catch the imagination and the appreciation of the American people. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski follows:]

354


g:\graphics\44527.333
355


g:\graphics\44527.334
356


g:\graphics\44527.335
357


g:\graphics\44527.336
358


g:\graphics\44527.337
359


g:\graphics\44527.338
360


g:\graphics\44527.339
361

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mrs. Morella. 

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you. Chairman Burton, I want to indicate 

my appreciation for your convening today’s hearing. Our committee 

has a responsibility to investigate the political fund-raising practices surrounding the 1996 elections. We have been charged with 

determining which campaign finance laws have been broken and 

how domestic and foreign contributions have been parlayed into 

policy. 

Both the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the press 

have raised serious questions about campaign donations and fundraising practices, both illegal and legal, in the 1996 election cycle. 

Many of these troubling questions remain unanswered and the 

American people deserve answers. Why is the White House 

stonewalling this investigation by retaining critical documents and 

tapes? Why did the DNC ignore critical information about donors 

and fail to do background checks? How did contributors gain access 

to the White House? Did these contributors influence policy? Why 

have many of our key witnesses left the country? 

Tomorrow, we will hear from witnesses who gave conduit contributions at the request of Charlie Trie and John Huang. The witnesses who will testify before this committee are linked or privy to 

suspect fund-raising activities, many of which are illegal. 

Clearly, the Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits contributions by foreign nationals in connection with any election. But it 

has become increasingly difficult to distinguish which campaign 

practices are legal and which are not and, most important, which 

campaign practices should be illegal. 

Soft money began to fill campaign coffers following the Federal 

Election Campaign Act amendments of 1979, which allowed a 

greater role for State and local parties by exempting certain grassroots and generic party-building activities from FECA coverage. 

And although they are legal, soft money contributions have led to 

questionable fund-raising practices and to the escalating costs of 

elections. 

This is my hope for our committee’s hearings; I hope it is shared 

by all the members of the committee: that we thoroughly investigate the very serious allegations of violations of law, patterns of 

misconduct and abuses of power by high-ranking Government officials; that we do so in a bipartisan manner; that in the course of 

our investigation we shed light on what should be illegal and that 

our investigation leads to an overhaul of our existing campaign finance laws. 

There is no doubt that loopholes in existing campaign finance 

laws invite the kinds of abuses we will examine in the days ahead. 

So as we look at violations of current campaign finance law, we 

must also address the law’s shortcomings. To ignore this reality is 

to waste an opportunity to enact real reform. 

As I mentioned, our committee has the responsibility to conduct 

this serious investigation, and with this responsibility comes the 

duty of each of our Members to seek answers in a professional, fair 

manner. 

362

I believe Chairman Burton, I take him at his word, that our committee’s investigation will follow the evidence wherever it leads, 

and I will ensure that this is the case. 

Campaign finance violations bring all of us down in the eyes of 

the American people, the very people whom we are here to serve. 

In the coming months, it is critical that we take a stand against 

that which is illegal, no matter which party is guilty, and reform 

our laws to curb the excess of soft money and other abuses that 

should be illegal. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. I thank you 

for the opportunity. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. 

Mr. Condit. 

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think to a person we 

all support congressional oversight and investigation of this issue. 

Some of us, on both sides of the aisle, think we ought to be taking 

a serious and hard look at the way we finance our political campaigns, but this committee should be willing to look critically at potential violations of law, regardless of political party, and we ought 

to be willing to follow the trail wherever it leads us. 

We started this process several months ago with the idea of—

hope of fixing a broken system. Since then, we have deposed 57 

witnesses. The question is: What have these 57 witnesses told us 

that we didn’t already know or that wasn’t already available? Seeking the truth and doing it in a cost-efficient manner are not opposing views, and that’s the real point I am trying to make to this 

committee, Mr. Chairman, that they are not mutually exclusive. 

We can and we should continue to seek the truth. That ought to 

be our No. 1 goal. But we should do it in a cost-effective manner 

for the taxpayers of this country. We can do both and we should 

do both. 

The amount of redundancy and duplication in this investigation, 

frankly, is ridiculous. Being thorough in our investigation and ensuring that we do not waste money is where our emphasis ought 

to be. We have a dual responsibility. We must seek the truth but 

that doesn’t mean that we have to waste the taxpayers’ money in 

doing so. 

We have spent, as it has been mentioned several times, $3 million in this body alone, to say nothing of the millions of dollars 

spent on the other investigation by the other body. On top of that, 

we have committed hundreds of hours of staff and personnel time 

to this investigation. 

And what about the burden we have placed upon the witnesses? 

We have asked them to come here, share with us the information 

that they have. We have deposed them. For the most part, on their 

own expense they have come and provided that information. 

Ultimately, most of them will never even be asked to testify before this committee. What we ought to be doing is setting our 

sights on ensuring that the money we spend is not being thrown 

away in a very cavalier way. 

If we are sincere in being here today, then we ought to agree on 

a clear focus of this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I wholly—I support 

seeking the truth. I once again think that is the point here. But 

363

to go blasting away in some random manner hoping that we hit 

something or stumble into something is just plain irresponsible. 

The main problem with this investigation is that we are not conducting it in a cost-efficient manner, and I hope by the end of this 

investigation that we can report to the American people that something substantive has transpired. 

Now it is time, I believe, for us to find a solution, and we all 

know that is a very easy thing to say. In reality, it is very hard 

to do. But it is time for us, I believe, to come up with a solution 

and find a legislative remedy. And let us use this hearing as a 

springboard to enact some of those solutions, like campaign finance 

reform. Let’s set a date when this hearing will end, and then move 

forward with that plan or that solution. 

Mr. Chairman, we all support this investigation and the oversight. We need to ensure that we follow the course that is being 

laid out as quickly and as efficiently and as effectively as possible 

and waste as little taxpayer money as we possibly can. We owe 

that to the American people. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Gary A. Condit follows:]

364


g:\graphics\44527.340
365

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

Mr. Shays. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Gilman. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues. 

Throughout this session of Congress, our Government Reform and 

Oversight Committee has performed an arduous task of investigating campaign finance improprieties and any possible violations 

of law. This task became necessary as press revelations in the 

weeks prior to the 1996 election period raised questions about the 

Democratic National Committee’s fund-raising practices, ranging 

from funneled foreign contributions to violations of domestic fundraising laws. 

These revelations include the related activities of John Huang 

and Yah Lin Charlie Trie both who reportedly contributed funds in 

the names of other people and both reportedly facilitated the contribution of foreign funds into the Democratic National Committee. 

John Huang refused to cooperate with our committee’s investigators by invoking his privilege against self-incrimination, while 

Charlie Trie has fled the country and is thought to be somewhere 

in the People’s Republic of China. 

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, contributions in connection with any election are prohibited by foreign governments, by 

political parties, corporations, associations and partnerships, individuals with foreign citizenship and immigrants not lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 

In addition, FECA provides that no person shall make a campaign contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his or her name to be permitted to effect such a contribution. 

Accordingly, the American people are in need of the facts to determine whether or not their political leaders in Washington have 

been abusing current Federal campaign laws and whether the current campaign finance system has been working effectively. 

Furthermore, and more important, the American people need to 

be able to discern whether foreign contributions and resources are 

influencing our Nation’s campaigns. The committee hearings on 

which we are about to embark will hopefully assist us in answering 

these very important questions. 

Our committee’s investigation has included 55 individual subpoenas, 76 bank subpoenas, 39 depositions, all within the past 7 

months. The Department of Justice has yet to appoint an Independent Counsel, even though campaign finance improprieties continue to be revealed and reported on a daily and weekly basis. 

This, in light of the fact that FBI Director Freeh not long ago 

called for and stressed the need for an Independent Counsel in this 

current campaign finance scandal. 

Moreover, along with many of my colleagues, I believe that we 

should adopt meaningful campaign finance reform, something we 

are all interested in. And I am heartened with the course of action 

taken to date by our full committee. The allegations we have been 

investigating follow an election cycle that discussed record amounts 

of money being spent on Federal campaigns. This trend of escalating campaign spending and abuses raises many concerns that 

the campaign finance laws enacted in the seventies are no longer 

adequate and need serious reform. 

366

I believe that our committee is proceeding in the right direction, 

and I look forward to continue to work with my colleagues in ensuring that our Nation’s campaign finance laws are going to be 

adequate and up to the challenge in meeting the current trend of 

increased campaign spending. 

Accordingly, it is of utmost importance that we put an end to any 

current abuses and to restore the American people’s trust. The 

hearings on which we are about to proceed are a positive step in 

that direction. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Mr. Sanders. 

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to 

make two points and pick up on something that Mr. Kanjorski said 

a moment ago, and that is in November 1998, Mr. Chairman, there 

are going to be national elections and what the experts tell us is 

that about two-thirds of the American people are not going to bother to vote. We had the lowest voter turnout of any industrialized 

Nation on earth. There will be districts that Members come from 

where 25 percent of the people will vote. 

Now, there are a lot of reasons why the American people are giving up by the tens of millions in the political process, but I would 

argue that certainly one of the reasons is their belief that our campaign finance system is totally corrupt; that big money dominates 

what goes on here and that for ordinary people and working people, 

low-income people who don’t have the $50,000 to contribute at 

fund-raising dinners or the $100,000 to contribute to the parties of 

their choice, that they are not—that their voices and their needs 

are not going to be heard. I think that is basically a true statement. 

There is a reason why this institution gives huge tax breaks to 

the rich and does not have a national health care system, or we 

had to fight so hard to raise the minimum wage to all of $5.15 an 

hour, and so forth and so on. The American people understand 

that. 

They are not naive and they understand that when somebody 

contributes several hundred thousand dollars, maybe to both political parties, they are getting something for their dollars. 

Now, if these hearings and the work of this committee is nothing 

more than for the—and I say this as an Independent—for the Republicans to say, gee, we are great. We never have any problems. 

Those terrible Democrats in the White House, gee, they are just 

evil, but not us. No one is really going to believe that and they 

shouldn’t believe that. Everybody knows that the system is affecting everybody. 

So if this committee is really going to have an impact on what 

goes on in Congress and what goes to—what I think the American 

people perceive, we are going to have to fight to expose everything 

that is going on and then the direction must be to lead us to real 

campaign finance reform. No one is going to take this seriously if 

all that we do is say that the White House is terrible, terrible, terrible but, gee, no, I am not going to vote for real campaign finance 

reform. I am not going to vote or fight to make sure that big money 

does not continue to control the political process. 

367

So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, and I think Mr. Lantos made 

this point, Mr. Kanjorski, others have made this point, you have 

an enormous responsibility. You can play a role in turning the politics of this country around by leading us in the direction of real 

campaign finance reform and take away the power of big money in 

controlling the agenda here. That’s the first point. 

The second point that I want to make, Mr. Chairman, I make as 

the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Economic 

Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs. As you may 

know, last year Chairman McIntosh of that subcommittee asked 

the GAO, the Government Accounting Office, to thoroughly investigate the computerized Rolodex at the White House. 

This little known investigation into a computer data base has 

ballooned into a substantial portion of this committee’s campaign 

finance investigation. I am not sure that many of the Members 

know that. As the ranking minority member of that subcommittee, 

I am deeply concerned that the subcommittee may be wasting the 

taxpayers’ money in overusing the committee’s deposition authority 

on this obscure inquiry. 

Mr. Chairman, this narrow investigation has eaten up hundreds 

of thousands of committee dollars since its inception over 1 year 

ago. It has consumed——

Mr. MCINTOSH. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SANDERS. Let me finish and then I will yield. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. I will be glad to explain what the money is being 

used for, if the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. SANDERS. Pardon me? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. If the gentleman will yield, I would be glad to 

give a summary of what the money was used for. 

Mr. SANDERS. Let me finish and then I am happy to yield. OK? 

It has consumed 15 of the 57 campaign finance depositions. In 

other words, over one-fourth of the committee depositions were limited to questions about the data base. 

In addition, Mr. Chairman, it has cost the White House hundreds 

of thousands of dollars during just one 3-month period in which the 

White House tracked the cost of responding to this investigation; 

and the related GAO audit, it estimated that the response cost the 

taxpayers $155,000, and that’s over a 3-month period. 

In addition, the witnesses that have been deposed have had to 

hire counsel at a potential personal cost of thousands of dollars. 

This can be a significant burden on the witnesses called by the 

committee, one of whom is an unpaid volunteer, as I understand 

it, at the White House. 

I would conclude by saying, I don’t think the American taxpayers 

approve of us wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on a political fishing expedition. I don’t think they want more than one-quarter of the committee’s campaign finance depositions to be on an obscure investigation of a computerized Rolodex. Unless the committee can demonstrate that the White House data base investigation is not a waste of taxpayer dollars, this costly and partisan investigation should be dropped. 

And I would be happy to yield to my friend, Mr. McIntosh. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Bernard Sanders follows:]

368


g:\graphics\44527.341
369


g:\graphics\44527.342
370


g:\graphics\44527.343
371


g:\graphics\44527.344
372

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Sanders. 

Let me say very briefly that this investigation is continuing 

apace. We found out very early on that this White House computer 

data base was used to keep track of the coffees and the use of the 

Lincoln bedroom for campaign fund-raising, something which the 

White House’s own lawyers told staff of the President would be an 

illegal purpose if it were for campaign or political fund-raising. 

We are continuing to depose all of those who were involved in 

creating and using the data base to find out exactly what happened 

and still have many more depositions to go forward in doing that. 

We want to give every opportunity for this White House to justify 

the purpose for something that clearly appears, on its face, to have 

been intended to be an illegal theft of Government property for political purposes. We need to find out what happened and report to 

the American people about this. Thank you. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, I would yield to Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I hope that with the same zeal we look at some 

of the ways Members of Congress have conducted their affairs, 

whether they have made phone calls out of their offices, whether 

they have used their Government allotments for campaign purposes. Maybe we ought to look at their data bases and stuff like 

that. 

I think that it just seems a little bit hypocritical when we see attacks only in one direction and only one partisan direction. I would 

just point that out. 

And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Shays. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by this investigation. I am troubled 

by the serious violations of law. I am troubled by abuse of fundraising practices that, while perhaps not technically illegal, are obviously wrong. I am troubled by the administration’s strategy of 

lawyerly word games, inadvertent discovery and delay; troubled 

that so many witnesses have taken the fifth, fled, forgotten or simply have refused to cooperate; and I am troubled when partisanship 

blocks the path to individual accountability for abuses and to reform of a system so eagerly and thoroughly abused. 

Our job is to judge the extent and impact of illegal foreign contributions, money laundering and other campaign finance abuses 

that have threatened our national security and undermined the integrity of domestic political process. 

Our commitment is to follow the evidence wherever it leads, 

without regard to partisan political calculations. But that job has 

been made far more difficult because, as has been noted, 39 witnesses have asserted their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, 39 witnesses; 11 potential witnesses have fled the 

country, 11 witnesses; 11 foreign nationals have refused to be 

interviewed; and the number of witnesses with blank memories 

grows daily. 

Do I believe the former chairman of the Democratic National 

Committee, Mr. Fowler, cannot remember when the National SecuVerDate 0ct 02 2002 14:16 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00376 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\44527 44527
373

rity Council warned him that Roger Tamraz was a national security risk? I am sorry. I cannot believe him. 

Do I believe the Vice President of the United States did not know 

that when he went to the Hsi Lai Temple it was a fund-raising 

event? I am sorry. I cannot believe him. 

The only difference I see so far between the terrible abuses in the 

Nixon White House and the terrible abuses in the Clinton White 

House is the Nixon White House abuses happened under Republican watch and were investigated; the Clinton White House abuses 

happened and are happening under Democratic watch. 

The administration is still haphazardly finding materials, obviously within the scope of subpoenas issued by this committee 7 

months ago. And from my review of the transcripts, it appears the 

committee minority staff’s only contribution to the examination of 

witnesses has been to trivialize the investigation and to apologize 

to the witnesses for the inconvenience of having to give a deposition. 

Nevertheless, our charge remains twofold: One, find out who 

abused the system; and two, recommend systemic statutory and 

regulatory repairs to fix what is wrong. 

In past investigations, it was not enough then to say the system 

is broken, everybody does it, so let’s just pass a law without bothering those responsible. It is not enough now. Just as it is not 

enough to fix individual culpability without drawing and applying 

a larger lesson to rehabilitate a system that induces otherwise good 

people to do undeniably bad things. 

For the protection of their fundamental freedoms, the American 

people must rely on the wisdom of our laws and the integrity of the 

men and women sworn to uphold those laws. Here we had a failure 

of both. Porous laws were exploited by unscrupulous people. Our 

sworn responsibility demands we investigate and remedy both. 

Until we do both, our work is not complete. Unless we do both, our 

troubles have just begun. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

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

Mrs. Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of very positive things going on in 

America. Unemployment and inflation are at a 25-year low. Crime 

in our major cities is down, with our largest city, New York, leading the way. But Americans don’t think Washington is improving 

their lives. In the last Presidential election, we had the lowest 

turnout in generations; less than 50 percent. The American people 

don’t associate low mortgage and student loan rates with fiscal discipline in Washington, because all they see coming out of Washington is Republicans and Democrats trying to destroy one another 

over campaign finance abuses. 

Each week, there is a new outrage. We learn about a new violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the campaign finance laws. 

Americans are turned off so they are tuning out. They aren’t participating in their democracy because they think their democracy is 

a little out of their price range. 

374

These hearings will clearly demonstrate that soft money, those 

unlimited contributions made to political parties, is at the root of 

the campaign finance abuses this committee is investigating. 

Whether it is delivered by a well-healed tobacco lobbyist or a nun 

who has taken a vow of poverty, soft money is a plague on both 

of our houses, both Democrat and Republican. It creates the impression, true or false, that you have to pay to play and that legislating is just something we try to squeeze in between fund-raisers. 

What soft money boils down to is a loophole that circumvents restrictions on hard money. We can and we must close this loophole. 

Letting it stand, either by doing nothing or cynically undermining 

reform efforts with deliberate poison pills, is nothing less than a 

betrayal of American democracy. 

Washington is not irrelevant to America. The values on which 

Washington was built make America possible. Our broken campaign finance system has placed those values in jeopardy. In footing the bill for this hearing, the American people don’t want us to 

protect the system; they want us to clean it up. They doubt we can 

do it and for good reason. 

Let us work together across party lines to rein in soft money and 

prove once and for all that our democracy is not for sale. 

Tomorrow, we will hear from people who allegedly served as conduits to get illegal money into the DNC, people who were apparently used by others to circumvent contribution limits and to break 

the law. This is not news. Since 1992, the Federal Election Commission has investigated 67 foreign contribution cases. The agency 

is looking into 27 alleged conduit payments. Their records include 

discoveries of a man who couldn’t pay his bills or pay his child support but managed to funnel $600,000 in foreign contributions to the 

Republican party in 1992. 

There are plenty of skeletons in closets on both sides of the aisle. 

This is not a one-party problem. Nor is it a new problem. 

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle enjoy pointing fingers 

at Democratic fund-raising, but when the focus shifts to their own 

fund-raising and the problems of the entire political system, they 

abruptly change tactics. That is why the Senate stopped its investigation in midstream. As Senator Collins, Republican of Maine, 

said last week—and she was quoted in the New York Times, ‘‘For 

the first time, it looked like the focus would be much more on ourselves. It is easier for us to sit in judgment of another branch of 

government, the executive branch, than to sit in judgment of ourselves. I believe we should go forward to learn the truth about 

these abuses, but I will be very surprised if we learn anything that 

is either new or startling.’’

We will hear a lot today, we have already heard a lot today, 

about, ‘‘enforcing the laws.’’ But when it comes to funding the Federal Election Commission, the agency whose job it is to enforce 

these laws, my colleagues are afraid to put their money where their 

mouths are. 

We should let the Federal Election Commission do its job so that 

we can do ours. And our job, Mr. Chairman, is not simply to assign 

blame, but to reform the system. 

375

There are before Congress now 80 different pieces of proposed 

legislation to reform campaign finance laws. Yet not a single one 

of them has made it to a hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop fixing the blame and to start fixing the problem. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BURTON. One second. 

I would just like to make one real quick point before we go to 

the next witness. 

It has been mentioned several times that we have not issued subpoenas that were requested by the minority, and while there have 

been some problems, the minority subpoenas have been withdrawn, 

according to our counsel, and he has been trying to work things out 

with the minority counsel to facilitate some of these subpoenas 

being granted. 

Now, we cannot say we are going to grant all of them, but we 

really can’t grant subpoenas that you requested when you have 

withdrawn that request; and that is one of the concerns that we 

have. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. BURTON. I will be happy to yield. 

Mr. WAXMAN. We withdrew our request for subpoenas after they 

sat pending for over 3 months without any action. We saw no purpose in having those subpoena requests hanging out there and 

being further ignored. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, let me just respond by saying, our new counsel is willing to sit down and try to facilitate some assistance for 

you in getting some of these subpoenas granted. 

The next person to speak is Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. As a 

Cuban American and a congressional representative from south 

Florida, I am especially interested in knowing the relationship between certain alleged illicit contributions made by south Florida 

residents and their effect upon United States-Cuba relations. Specifically, I would like to know why Jorge Cabrera, a convicted felon 

and drug dealer, states that he was approached for a $20,000 contribution to the DNC in exchange for an invitation to a fund-raiser 

with Vice President Al Gore. 

Was his background as a drug dealer not investigated? Even if 

Cabrera’s reputation and past convictions were ignored, did someone not wonder as to the origins of his $20,000 check, which came 

from Mr. Cabrera’s checking account that supposedly includes 

funds from Colombian cocaine deals? 

Mr. Cabrera has been convicted for trafficking in 6,000 pounds 

of cocaine and now sits in a Federal penitentiary fulfilling a 19-

year sentence. The supposed solicitor of this contribution, who Mr. 

Cabrera claims was Vivian Mannerud, is a major contributor to the 

Democratic party, an owner of an airline charter company that flies 

to Havana, and is also a renowned sympathizer of the repressive 

agenda of the Castro dictatorship.

376

Mr. Cabrera claims that he met with Ms. Mannerud at the 

Copacabana Hotel, a posh hotel in one of Havana’s most exclusive 

areas, and I would like to play a little song here. 

[Song played.] 

[The lyrics follow:]

377


g:\graphics\44527.345
378

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. We will hand out the words to the Members. 

And it says that at the Copa, Copacabana, the DNC spot in Havana; and we want to know what the connection is. And the location where this petition took place, Havana, Cuba, home of the tyrannical Castro regime, certainly brings a lot of questions to mind. 

Considering United States-Cuba relations in the past, does not Mr. 

Cabrera’s claims, that the petition for a donation took place in Havana, Cuba, conflict with United States foreign policy? 

If Mr. Cabrera’s claims are true, is the DNC condoning the practice of United States residents visiting Cuba, a country controlled 

by a totalitarian regime, in order to solicit funds in the Cuban capital for the United States Presidential campaign? 

Another concern of mine is the recent testimony given by a plantation Florida businessman, R. Warren Medoff before the Senate 

Governmental Affairs Committee. On October 22d of last year, Mr. 

Medoff attended a $1,500 a plate Coral Gables fund-raiser intending, he said, to urge the President to renew flights to Cuba. These 

flights had been banned since March, when Castro’s fighters killed 

four innocent men and shot down their planes, which were on a humanitarian mission, flying over international waters. 

Mr. Medoff said that he indicated to the President that he could 

offer the Democratic party a $5 million gift. The President, states 

Medoff, responded by saying, you can tell the people that they will 

be able to fly. 

The flights were resumed the same day. 

Based on Mr. Medoff’s claims, one wonders, is the White House, 

in consideration for a substantial contribution, $5 million, willing 

to forgo the loss of American lives who were flying over international waters and who were shot down by Castro in order just 

to fill up its treasure chest? 

And I would like to bring up the ties of one south Florida resident, John Henry Cabanas, a Key West businessman, who has publicly expressed admiration for Castro, saying, ‘‘Fidel is like my father and I believe that he loves me like his son.’’ Federal records 

show that Mr. Cabanas appears to have contributed or helped in 

steering over $62,000 to the Democratic party and its candidates. 

A lawyer at the Treasury Department states that United States 

law prohibits a person from knowingly and willfully engaging in a 

transaction with Cuba or a Cuban national. According to sources, 

Cabanas flouted that law for decades by spending money and receiving payment for his work in Cuba before he left in 1988. 

There is also the issue of Mr. Cabanas’ alleged counterintelligence work. According to two former Cuban intelligence officials, 

Cabanas was a full-time agent of the Interior Ministry State Security Department. A defector and a one-time 20-year Interior Ministry intelligence officer also said that Cabanas’ specific job was to 

spot spies among foreigners in Cuba, including diplomats, journalists and tourists. Mr. Cabanas’ counterintelligence work for the 

Cuban regime is also very alarming. 

Did the Democratic party, in its frenzy to obtain sufficient funds 

to re-elect the President and oust the Republican Congress, allow 

for contributions to be made by ex-spies of a totalitarian and repressive dictatorship? And has this spy been able to influence 

United States policy toward Cuba? 

379

It is necessary to investigate whether any of these contributions 

have resulted in the softening of United States policy toward the 

Castro regime, and I hope that this committee examines to the fullest any intent by the Castro regime and its sympathizers here in 

the United States of influencing United States policy toward the 

Cuban dictator. 

And I thank the chairman for the time. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. 

Mr. Barrett. 

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today, as we begin what will no doubt be a long and extensive 

probe into Democratic party’s fund-raising activities, we start down 

a path clearly defined by the lines of partisanship. We will focus 

on the alleged misuse of funds and the skirting of campaign laws 

by one party and one party only. 

I acknowledge that some wrongdoings may have occurred as a 

part of the fund-raising efforts by the Democratic party during last 

year’s elections. Some of these improprieties have been brought to 

light by Senator Thompson’s investigation. 

I believe that those who have committed illegal acts in the effort 

to finance Federal campaigns should be dealt with accordingly. 

Breaking the laws that regulate our elections cannot be tolerated. 

I also believe, however, that any committee of Congress investigating wrongdoing should not focus all its energies and resources 

on the persecution of one political party, be that party in the majority or the minority. 

Let’s face it, candidates raise money. And last year the GOP set 

new records for raising it, and they didn’t raise it all from widows 

and choir boys. 

In order to fully understand the depth of the problem, we should 

be looking at all methods that are used to abide by or skirt the 

campaign laws. That includes methods used by both parties. 

Now, from the get-go, this committee has brandished a partisan 

flag and the chairman has refused to even go through the motions 

of a fair investigation. Instead, the committee has bungled, blundered and botched this investigation and, as a result, has drawn 

upon this committee serious questions about its integrity. 

Mr. Chairman, we will see a constant theme develop during 

these hearings. We will be told that the laws are murky, compliance is difficult, and the loopholes are too big to withstand the rush 

of money in our elections. All the evidence will lead to one thing 

that this committee will not consider in the course of this investigation, that campaign finance reform is needed now. And without it, 

the integrity of public elections will continue its slide down the 

slippery slope of public opinion. 

This committee is not limited by time and the Republican leadership has indicated that it will not be lacking funding. In fact, the 

committee has a $3.8 million budget with access to an additional 

$7 million. All indications are that the committee will meander on 

into the next legislative year and into the campaign season in 

1998. 

To date, a clear mission for this investigation has not been communicated. We have witnessed several embarrassing episodes, inVerDate 0ct 02 2002 14:16 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00383 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\44527 44527
380

cluding the resignation of the chairman’s legal team and the delays 

in the start of this investigation. 

Mr. Chairman, it is my hope we can work to expose the deficiencies in the campaign finance laws and that we can work together toward identifying and acting on a solution to them. Without a clear objective like that, the investigation is destined to be 

dragged down by partisan bickering and finger-pointing. It is time 

that we rise above the partisanship that has plagued this investigation. 

I would like to applaud the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. 

Shays, for his efforts to bring campaign finance reform to the floor 

of this House. He has shown an uncommon courage and dedication 

to restoring integrity to our electoral process. The Republican leadership, unfortunately, has vowed to keep the bill from being considered, but they may not be able to do so much longer. Hopefully, 

these hearings will prompt Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Armey to reconsider their positions and yield to the will of a good number of members to consider some sort of reform before the end of the 105th 

Congress. 

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

[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas M. Barrett follows:]

381


g:\graphics\44527.346
382


g:\graphics\44527.347
383

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

Mr. McHugh. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, at long last, 

with the start of this hearing, the House, through this committee, 

joins with the Senate in seeking to answer a long and very troubling list of questions involving the possible violation of various 

laws, regulations and, I might add, generally accepted standards of 

proper behavior amongst public officials. 

Over the past year, each day has seemed to bring new revelations about alleged improprieties, indiscretions and violations of 

the public trust, and with each disclosure, the faith and the confidence of the American public in their Government and in their 

elected representatives have sunk to lower and lower levels. 

On this, our first full day of inquiry, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope 

that, above all else, we will pursue and ultimately uncover and reveal the truth. 

The people of this Nation deserve to know what, if any, laws 

were broken and who amongst their elected representatives and 

public officials might have broken them. The people of this Nation 

need to understand that these allegations, if in any way true, will 

not be tolerated. They need to believe that the authority of public 

office does not provide a shield of immunity from the law but, rather, creates a higher standard of adherence to it. 

There are those—and we have heard them today, Mr. Chairman—who would have the people of this country believe that these 

hearings should be designed solely to develop a new set of laws to 

administer the financing of campaigns. They would have the people 

of this country focus blame somewhere other than on those who 

chose to defy the public trust and operate outside the existing legal 

standards. 

True, few thinking people today fail to realize the need to update 

and, where necessary, recraft the current campaign finance structure; and, to the extent that these sessions serve to clarify the best 

path toward that goal, so much the better. But the primary objective of these hearings is no more to identify the need for new laws 

or that the investigation of the crimes of Jeffrey Dahmer was somehow a search for new proscriptions against cannibalism. 

We are not looking at a failure of the law. We are searching for 

the lawless. To those who would absolve the guilty and indict the 

process, I would simply ask, what in the current law has failed to 

earn your respect? 

What phrase, which word or mark of punctuation has led you to 

hold these laws in such contempt, has caused you to conclude that 

the alleged perpetrators are innocent, somehow victimized by a law 

that in your judgment is unworthy of observation? 

I would imagine that at some time in all of our childhood, Mr. 

Chairman, we have used that kind of excuse. We have told our parents, ‘‘But everybody does it,’’ even if everybody wasn’t doing it. 

My colleagues, we are not children. Allegations of corruption, influence peddling, improper use of Federal offices and buildings and 

illegal interference of foreign governments on American electoral 

politics are not child’s play. Let’s not treat it as such. 

Mr. Chairman, in my part of the country, we have a saying, ‘‘You 

can’t fix tomorrow if today is broken.’’ In America today, I fear that 

384

the political system may indeed have been broken, broken by a few 

who apparently were in search of much. 

It is the duty of this committee, through these hearings, to find 

out who, how, and why, if at all, they were indeed broken; and only 

then can we work together to bring about a better tomorrow, a better tomorrow by fixing today. If the American people can’t ask this 

much of us, then we in no way deserve the high honor that they 

have bestowed upon all of us. 

This is their House. This is their Government. We need to vigorously and solely pursue their interests by rooting out the wrong 

that may have been done and holding those who might have acted 

without faith and beyond the public trust fully responsible for the 

actions they chose of their own volition, in pursuit of their own selfinterest. 

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

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

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we begin anew, I 

have been sitting here reminding myself that I have sat on this 

committee for a number of years now and that, in some sense, this 

is not new; that we have been investigating the Clinton administration since I got to Congress. 

First it was Whitewater or Travelgate, Filegate. We had the data 

base discussed earlier. And now we have the campaign finance circumstance. 

Now, I have looked at a lot of this information. I have participated with many others on the committee in various briefings. All 

of the information that has been shared up to this moment indicates that to the degree that a foreign government had intentions 

of influencing an election, that intention was focused at influencing 

congressional elections and State legislative elections. And I do 

note that through everything that has been said, we always hear 

these—these cute phrases that separate the allegation of the Chinese Government’s influence and the abuses that we allege took 

place in the Clinton-Gore campaign. And I think it is important to 

note that if we are looking for information about the Chinese Government’s influence on elections, we should start with the evidence 

that we have, and the first level of that is that they were interested 

in influencing the Congress. 

Now, what made them think that they could influence the Congress through financial contributions? I am not sure. But it is, I 

think, of import that we, you know, we not try to cover up this very 

significant allegation by focusing in on our favorite target, which 

is President Clinton; and that we look truthfully for the answers 

as to what influence was trying to be purchased and with whom, 

and not miss this maybe very important national security issue by 

our obsession with going after President Clinton. 

The other thing that is of note is that I saw the other day that 

the Governor of California, who ran for President and now is thinking about running again, suggested that the Republican party 

should stop trying to win the next election based on this scandal 

mode, chasing Bill Clinton, but perhaps there may be some other 

issues of national importance. And I am reminded that some of my 

service on this committee has been productive, and that is, under 

385

the leadership of a subcommittee chairman, Chris Shays, we investigated the whole issue of the chemical exposure of our troops in 

the Persian Gulf. That was important. That was important work 

that I thought brought appropriate respect to the work of this committee. 

As we go forward now into this investigation, I would hope that 

we would look at, to the degree that we are looking for and searching for those who have broken the law, that we would remind ourselves—for instance, on the front page of today’s Hill Newspaper, 

there is a significant article about an organization of funneling 

money into Presidential campaigns to help people avoid contribution limits. 

Now, these contributions are focused at Republican candidates 

for Congress. So if we are looking for lawlessness, perhaps we 

might look at the front page of the Hill Newspaper. 

Or we might look now at what Chairman Haley Barbour has 

said. He said he went to Hong Kong. He was on a boat in a foreign 

land asking for millions of dollars to help elect Republicans to the 

Congress in 1994. That is now a subject of a grand jury investigation. If we were looking for illegal activities, if we were concerned 

about foreign influences in our elections, perhaps we might look at 

this matter. 

But seemingly the only thing that this committee is interested in 

doing is to somehow bring down this President, and if we can’t get 

him on Travelgate or Filegate or the data base or campaign scandals, maybe we will get him on driving without a license. 

I did note the other day in the papers that he was driving a car 

at a Secret Service facility, and I am not sure whether he is a licensed driver. So maybe the committee soon, after we finish with 

this, can investigate that. 

But in the meantime, there are a number of issues related to 

campaign finances that should draw our attention and they don’t 

all relate just to the Democratic party. 

Thank you. 

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

Mr. FATTAH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Does the President have a valid driver’s license? 

Mr. FATTAH. I know you will look into it. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Horn. 

I am sorry. I guess Mr.—— Mr. HORN. I am waiting until the announcement is done to start. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Horn. 

Mr. HORN. Yes. 

Mr. BURTON. Before we start, reset the clock, please. 

We are going to have, as I understand it, on the floor, a vote and 

a series of three or four votes following that. So we will, of necessity, have to recess the committee. But in the future, if we have 

one vote, what I will try to do is to try to keep the committee moving so we can get through all the opening statements. 

Mr. Horn. 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, some have gone to really great lengths 

to downplay and denigrate this committee’s effort to investigate the 

campaign fund-raising abuses and scandals, the illegalities that occurred in the 1996 Presidential election. 

386

What our colleagues refuse to come to grips with are some 

straightforward facts. 

Fact one: This committee has identified 61 witnesses we want to 

interview regarding specific questions on their involvement in or 

knowledge of the fund-raising practices and activities that raise 

real questions of illegal conduct that have violated all the laws of 

the United States that relate to fund-raising. 

Fact two: None of these 61 witnesses will agree to be interviewed 

or to appear before the committee, except the few to whom we have 

granted immunity. Of that total of 61, 39 witnesses have taken the 

fifth amendment. This group includes key figures such as John 

Huang, Nora and Gene Lum, Mark Middleton, Webster Hubbell, 

and many others. 

Eleven witnesses have left the country to avoid testifying. Among 

these are Charlie Trie, Pauline Kanchanalak and others. Eleven 

more witnesses are foreign citizens who have refused to be interviewed by this committee, the Senate committee or any other investigative arm of the executive branch that are looking into the 

scandal. Among these are Stephen Riady, James Riady, and Stanley Ho. 

What this suggests is that there has been a broad and remarkably consistent effort to delay, obstruct, confuse, divert and derail 

everything we have planned as an investigating committee. Every 

serious attempt to secure firsthand testimony on illegal fund-raising activities has been blocked, at least temporarily, sometimes for 

months. 

That brings me to fact three. We all know that illegal fund-raising occurred in the past Presidential campaign. We know foreign 

money was accepted. We know contribution limits were consciously 

evaded. We know that our current laws were either ignored or deliberately violated. 

The one question this committee is seeking to answer is whether 

or not these illegal activities were the result of sloppy, undisciplined, frankly unconcerned officials at the Democratic National 

Committee. I doubt it. That seems to be the White House defense, 

however. 

The second question is obvious. Was there something more? Was 

it a deliberate, orchestrated effort to evade the laws in a cynical 

belief that the money would all be spent and the election long in 

their past before anyone got around to worrying about it? 

The responses we get from the President, the Vice President and 

their staffs and their mouthpieces are not very reassuring. The 

White House seems intent on preventing the committee from obtaining witnesses, documents, videotapes and a host of other evidence that we have subpoenaed as much as a year ago. 

High-paid officials who work in the White House insist that the 

delays in promoting and producing documents and videotapes have 

been inadvertent. But the pattern over the past year is deeply troubling, and we saw the same behavior in Travelgate, in Filegate, all 

of which was investigated by this committee, and all the rest of the 

efforts of any other committee in the House. 

On nearly every front, we have witnesses in all of these scandals, 

and we have had massive outbreaks of these witnesses of something known as amnesia, sudden urges for extended travel abroad, 

387

temporary blindness whenever file drawers are opened; and a deep 

aversion to prompt and full compliance with legitimate, lawful requests for information. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe every member of this committee, regardless of party, should be troubled by the foot-dragging and the 

game-playing that has met this effort at every single turn. I think 

every Member of Congress, regardless of party, should be troubled. 

I know for a fact that millions of Americans are troubled about 

this. I do not know if it is possible to get at the truth in this matter, but at least we are trying to get at the truth. 

Our democracy rests on the strong foundation of the law. If the 

law is broken or even bent, then our democracy is undermined. The 

American people deserve to know, when this happens, what is 

being done to restore confidence in the laws that protect us all. 

That is the job we begin today. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for your leadership in this matter. 

Mr. BURTON. Does the gentleman yield back the balance of his 

time? 

Mr. HORN. Yes. 

Mr. BURTON. We have about 9 minutes before this vote is concluded. Is there anyone who wants—Mr. Kucinich would you like 

to go ahead—excuse me, Ms. Norton, would you like to go ahead 

and make your statement? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have what I think will be a 

short statement. 

This hearing, for me, has an inevitable context, and that context 

is yesterday’s vote in the Senate. And the reason it has that context for me is that I am remedy-oriented and not hearing-oriented. 

All 45 Democrats voted for cloture, only 8 Republicans did, on 

the McCain-Feingold bill. And we know that that bill has a number 

of controversial aspects, and yet there was a majority view in the 

Senate that we simply had to move forward and it didn’t happen 

as the bill was pulled. 

Senator Thompson, who voted for the bill, indicated that he 

thought nothing would ever happen there because of the rules and 

procedures of the Senate. 

In effect, that says to me it is up to us. It will take the leadership 

of the House and, therefore, of this committee, to make anything 

happen on campaign finance reform. 

This is not a sideshow or entertainment for the television cameras who have come. It is a legislative hearing. There is much 

about our investigation, thus far, that has bothered me. I am bothered by the redundancy of much of the investigation. I am bothered 

by the partisanship of our proceedings. I am bothered by the new 

practices that involve unilateral dealings in subpoenas and the 

like. 

At the same time, I cannot become an apologist even for the 

White House or for a President, who I think has done more for the 

economy of this country than any administration in memory; and 

I think the committee has a right to inquire about witnesses who 

flee or money that is returned and the like. 

I even think that if I were Attorney General of the United States, 

I would want to come either before this committee or before the 

Senate to explain why matters like illegal contributions or late-disVerDate 0ct 02 2002 14:16 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00391 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\44527 44527
388

covered tapes are not cause for a Special Prosecutor. In fact, I believe there is vast confusion, especially among Members of our two 

bodies, as to what the law actually requires, why it is tightly circumscribed; and I think you always do best by coming forward and 

explaining yourself. 

The saddest comment on hearings that have gone on here and 

in the Senate for almost a year is the public apathy. And I think 

you have to face why there is apathy when otherwise hair-raising 

notions are brought forward, albeit without evidence; and I think 

the reason for the apathy is the partnership that is—is that partisanship encourages cynicism in the republic—in the public, cynicism that for the polity and for politics is a danger to both sides. 

I think that our mission and our test is to see if we can, in fact, 

dispose of this apathy. 

For me, there is one question and only one question to be solved 

by these hearings. As much as I am intrigued by whodunits, that 

is not the question for me. I do want to know the answer, but I 

do not believe that that is how we will be judged. 

The question, for me, that these hearings must answer is, did we, 

at the end of the day, contribute to remedies for these practices, 

whether they were illegal or not? 

The question, for me, at the end of the day is, what concrete happened as a result of these hearings? I want to make sure that this 

committee and this House makes something happen, since I believe 

that Mr. Thompson has spoken for the Senate when he says that 

nothing will happen as a result of what that body does. 

The burden is on us, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. 

We will recess until 2:30 p.m., so everyone can get lunch. We will 

stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BURTON. The committee will come to order. I think the last 

speaker was on the Republican side, so we will go to Mr. 

Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 

just say at the onset that I welcome these hearings, and I believe 

that they are long overdue. I welcome the start of these hearings 

not only for the fact that I believe some legitimate campaign fundraising violations may have occurred, but also for the fact that this 

committee has wasted millions of dollars during unprecedented 

delays and disorganization. 

Also I want to state that this committee should have conducted 

bicameral hearings with the Senate. I commend my colleagues on 

this side of the aisle, Mr. Condit and Mr. Towns, for calling for a 

joint House-Senate hearing, because it is the American taxpayer 

who suffers in wasted money and energy. 

My constituents sent me to Washington to allocate their dollars 

in a prudent manner. We must be cost-efficient and effective. It is 

my hope this committee will conduct balanced and fair investigations that will produce answers rather than more controversy. 

While that is my hope, when I consider the fact that the lead counsel for the Republicans has already quit, the former lead counsel, 

and said that he does not believe that we are proceeding in a fair 

389

way, it does concern me. By the way, that was not from the Washington Post, it was not from some newspaper, that is from a Republican who was on the inside conducting the investigation. 

The investigation should help us reform our troubled campaign 

finance system. Instead, the investigation is proving to be a partisan waste of taxpayer money. I do become rather offended when 

allegations are made on the other side that we on the Democratic 

side are not about the business or not concerned about the business 

of finding the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 

fact is that we are very concerned, but our concern goes to trying 

to make sure that we do not, first of all, waste taxpayers’ money; 

second of all, that we do everything in our power to be efficient, 

to resolve this matter, and for it to have some kind of results that 

make sense. At the rate we are going, it does not appear that that 

will happen. 

Over the last 8 months, the majority staff members have hauled 

in numerous individuals and engaged in a fishing expedition in a 

frantic attempt to find anything that tends to embarrass President 

Clinton. I have personally attended some of these inquisitions and 

seen these abuses. 

One of the depositions that I attended was that of Vernon Jordan, one of this country’s most outstanding and honorable people. 

Mr. Jordan was interrogated for hours, even though he had not the 

slightest involvement in campaign finance. 

Not only have my Republican colleagues not attended a single 

deposition, they have continued to deny the American public access 

to these depositions. The American public should know that the 

majority has devoted millions of dollars of their hard-earned 

money, and I emphasize that, their hard-earned money, and they 

do not have much to show for it. 

The hearing that we will hold tomorrow is a sad attempt to portray a foreign government or foreign citizens to influence our last 

Presidential election. From what I understand, we will hear nothing of the kind from these witnesses. Yet, this is the best can do 

after 8 months and millions of dollars spent. 

Mr. Chairman, the House is supposed to be equal to the Senate, 

yet this fiasco makes us look like amateurs compared to the Senate, which has put on many weeks of substantive hearings and now 

is winding down. 

Mr. Chairman, I know the American people expect more. We can 

do better. 

Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

390


g:\graphics\44527.348
391


g:\graphics\44527.349
392

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

Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Government Reform 

and Oversight Committee is charged with the responsibility of conducting investigations, oversight, and the auditing of the performance of the executive and judicial branches of our Federal Government. This additional check, over and above actions taken by legislative and appropriations committees, was established by our Government’s founders nearly 2 centuries ago, and is truly unique 

among all democratic institutions. 

I believe that this separate investigative committee oversight, 

which constantly reviews and scrutinizes all our Federal Government activities, is what keeps us from being a banana republic. It 

is fundamental to keeping our institutions honest, efficiently operated, and responsive to law. I believe that in the long term, it 

keeps our system and operation of Government from becoming corrupt, inept, and self-destructive. 

To those who question the need to conduct these investigative 

hearings, I ask them only to review the purpose, history, and 

achievements of this committee in helping to keep our Government 

honest and always subject to improvement. Yes, there are costs involved in this process, but I also submit that under this new majority, this committee is operating with fewer staff and far less cost 

than expended by the previous majority. 

I would like to offer exhibits for the record since cost has become 

an issue here. Just for the record, and this information is from the 

Clerk, during the 105th Congress we have appropriated 

$11,702,000. During the 103d Congress, when they were in charge, 

for a 2-year period they spent $24,823,000. Last Congress for both 

years, we spent $11,581,000. So the cost is a bogus argument, and 

the record and the facts speak for themselves. 

Also the number of staff that are used—I would like to ask unanimous consent that exhibit 1, the costs, and exhibit 2, be inserted 

in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

393


g:\graphics\44527.350
394


g:\graphics\44527.351
395

Mr. MICA. They had far greater staff and resources than we have 

used to conduct these responsibilities and investigations. 

To those who question the further need to investigate this growing campaign scandal, I must submit that nearly every week the 

media discloses another sordid chapter for our committee to consider. 

Now to the fundamental question of why we are conducting this 

investigation. Many existing laws have been broken, the application of certain laws has been questioned, and this scandal may, in 

fact, be unprecedented in scale, not to mention the shadow it has 

cast over our electoral process and over this administration. 

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle contend that 

this committee’s investigation into the 1996 election campaign finance violations should not take place. I submit that the very foundations of our electorial process and integrity of our representative 

form of government may have been compromised. 

What laws have been broken? Let me cite a few examples, and 

I have here copies of our Federal statutes. First we know that 

there were violations under Title 2 United States Code 441. This 

statute prohibits contributions in the name of another person. We 

have obtained documented evidence that donors were reimbursed 

for contributions in both the Buddhist Temple case and in the Michael Brown pleadings. 

Witnesses tomorrow will testify under a grant of immunity that 

they made conduit payments. These payments, too, are prohibited 

under this statute. 

Does this statute work? Does this statute need revision? What 

went wrong? In May, Democratic fund-raisers Nora and Gene Lum 

pled guilty to a felony charge that they conspired to defraud the 

United States and to cause the submission of false statements to 

the Federal Elections Commission. These are criminal acts in violation of Title 18 United States Code, sections 371 and 1001. The 

Lums were recently sentenced, and the Lums have tentatively 

agreed to cooperate with this committee. 

Michael Brown recently pled guilty to violating section 441 and 

section 437 of the Federal Elections Campaign Act, another violation of law. These provisions of law limit the amount of money a 

person can contribute to a Federal candidate in an election. The 

funds for these illegal activities were provided to Brown by Nora 

and Gene Lum. We will hear more about that. Brown will be sentenced for these unlawful contributions in November. 

The committee also has evidence that suggests during the 1996 

election, John Huang may have illegally solicited campaign contributions at the Democratic National Committee while still a Federal employee at the Department of Commerce. This would be a 

violation of the Hatch Act. 

Violations and interpretation of the 114-year old Pendleton Act, 

which prohibits soliciting campaign contributions on Federal property, also raise significant questions for this committee. 

Violations of current law are already well-known and documented. I have only cited a few here, and we have run out of space, 

but these are just a few of the laws that we know have been broken. 

396

The circumstances of the White House coffees, the Lincoln bedroom sleepovers, and possible campaign fund-raising calls from the 

White House may have violated Title 18 United States Code, sections 600, 607, and 641 by compromising Government access in return for campaign contributions, by soliciting campaign contributions in a Federal building, and converting Federal property, the 

White House, to private use. 

The bribery statute, Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 

201, which prohibits Federal officials, including the President, from 

receiving any benefit in return for any official action, may have 

also been violated. In fact, we have numerous laws on the books 

that may have been violated. 

Our questions in these hearings must be: Do these laws work? 

What went wrong? And, how do we improve them? Those are the 

questions, and determining the facts and truth must be the responsibility of this committee. 

Finally, what is particularly troubling to me is the failure to cooperate, the stonewalling, the attempted blurring and obstructions 

that have been created to stop this legitimate oversight function, 

not to mention that 11 witnesses with information relative to the 

1996 campaign scandal have fled the country, another 11 witnesses 

have refused to be interviewed by investigative bodies, and 36 Senate and House witnesses have asserted the fifth amendment. What 

has happened; what is being covered up; and why haven’t the 

President and this administration, the Departments of Justice and 

State, helped us locate these folks? 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the committee has evidence that 

strongly suggests that laws were broken in 1996. We are now 

learning that the whole electoral process may have been purposefully subverted. We need to conduct these hearings to learn what 

laws were broken, if these laws are adequate, if the system is broken, and to ensure that corrective measures are taken and responsibility and accountability prevail. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

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

Mr. BURTON. You yielded your time a long time ago. 

Mr. Towns. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to use the same clock that Mr. Mica used. 

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say—reset the clock, Mr. Towns. Let 

me just say I really would appreciate it if we could stick as close 

to the 5-minute rule as possible. I have been as lenient as I can 

be, but since we have 44 Members on the committee, 43 that are 

here, we really do have some time problems. Let’s stick as close to 

the 5-minute rule as we can. I will try to be as lenient as I can. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try and cooperate. 

I unequivocally support a thorough and comprehensive investigation into alleged campaign finance abuses of all individuals, and I 

want to make that very clear. 

When I took that sacred oath 10 months ago, I pledged, as I have 

for eight successive terms, to uphold the law and to advocate on behalf of our fellow Americans. 

397

Well, since that time, I have spoken to and I have listened to our 

constituents, and I can say without any reservations whatsoever 

that they are tired of partisan bickering. As hard-working Americans confront and resolve the problems of their lives, I believe they 

would like to see us similarly dedicate ourselves to problem-solving 

instead of personality slandering. 

So, I come to you today as someone with institutional history. I 

have witnessed the outcomes of numerous investigations, and I 

urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pause just for a 

moment, just one moment, from the haste to bring skeletons out of 

the closet and to beat the other guy to the punch and ask yourself 

what is our obligation to the American people, the folks that sent 

us here? What is our mission? Is our purpose to bring about true 

campaign reform, or are we simply concerned with focusing on certain individuals? 

If the answer is, as I truly hope, that our obligation is true reform, then we must be fair, and we must be honest and work in 

the interests of our constituents. We must look beyond partisan differences. 

We are approximately 1 month away from a recess. As the lenses 

of the American public are upon us, the committee is clearly out 

of focus. There has been request upon request and request for request. For instance, there has been 554 requests for information, 

298 subpoenas, 134 document requests. 685,000 pieces of paper 

have already been generated, and at least $2 million has been 

spent at the Department of Commerce alone, not thinking about 

the other agencies that are involved in it. 

Has any of this brought us any closer to accomplishing campaign 

finance reform? The answer to that is no. We now find ourselves 

in this precarious position of beginning hearings when most of us 

are still trying to determine the real issues. It is not fair to these 

subpoenaed witnesses, Manlin Foung, Joseph Landon, and David 

Wang. It is not fair to the public. In a democracy, it is usually the 

will of the people that determines determinant is a course of action. 

That has not happened during this investigation. 

Please do not misunderstand me. Let me be clear. I, like most 

of my Democratic colleagues, am ready to roll up my sleeves and 

get to work on one of the most challenging issues facing this body. 

But this cannot and will not happen until there is real dialog between both sides of the aisle, not this upmanship thing that is 

going on. 

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves how we want to 

be remembered. I hope that we can say unequivocally that we were 

fair, that we were honest, and we were equitable in our treatment 

of all individuals involved. 

Let me close, Mr. Chairman, by saying, I still feel that we are 

wasting taxpayer dollars by not having a joint hearing with the 

Senate. It is a shame, and it is a disgrace. When I look at people 

that are going hungry in this country, people that have no shelter 

in this country, and that people cannot get medical care in this 

country, and many of our rural areas and urban areas in this Nation, and we are sitting here wasting taxpayer dollars, I think it

398

is something we should think very seriously about. 

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman for sticking close to his 5 

minutes. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]

399


g:\graphics\44527.352
400


g:\graphics\44527.353
401

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

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend 

you for holding these important hearings on the investigation into 

campaign finance improprieties and possible violations of law. It 

would be nice if we could hold joint hearings with the Senate, but 

as you know, under Senate rules, that committee disappears in a 

month, and with us just receiving information on videotapes and 

the stonewalling of releasing other information, that, unfortunately, makes it impossible. 

Also if the Attorney General had appointed a Special Prosecutor 

and were looking into these investigations, our oversight responsibilities would be different. Unfortunately, that is not the case. 

This committee is charged by the House of Representatives with 

general oversight responsibilities, which include the duty to conduct investigations of this nature, and there is a long history of 

doing that. The revelations of campaign fund-raising abuse, which 

began to trickle out just prior to the 1996 elections, have raised serious questions as to the practices employed during the 1996 election cycle, especially by the Democratic National Committee and 

the President’s re-election campaign. 

We are all familiar with the reports of White House coffees, overnights in the Lincoln bedroom, and the campaign events held by 

nonprofit organizations. Having begun as an investigation propelled by the press, the campaign fund-raising controversy and investigation has now been elevated to the Congress, both House and 

Senate, as well as to the Justice Department. 

The ultimate goal of these hearings is to get at the truth behind 

what happened during the 1996 election cycle, no matter where the 

truth may lead. I believe it is important for the American people 

to know how their political leaders financed their campaign and 

whether or not any campaign finance laws were broken. This committee, in conjunction with the Senate committee and the Department of Justice, can serve to shed the light of truth on questionable 

fund-raising practices. 

It is extremely disturbing to consider the possibility of foreign 

dollars being purposely used in an attempt to influence the policies 

of the U.S. Government. Along that vein, however, I feel compelled 

to caution against the broad allegations of linking Americans of 

Asian descent to this controversy. This is not a controversy limited 

to Asian Americans. The Asian American community is in reality 

a shining example of the American dream. We must not allow this 

controversy surrounding its 1996 elections to discourage Americans 

of any ethnic origin from participating in the political discourse of 

this Nation fully. 

Having said that, I encourage any party interested in the truth 

to focus on what others have said about the validity of this investigation. In stark contrast to the President’s own statements offering full cooperation with any investigation, the administration has 

instead been stonewalling this committee’s attempts to review the 

elections of 1996. Again, this is not the committee’s perspective or 

my perspective, but the assertions of numerous editorials in the 

Washington Post and the New York Times. 

402

The Washington Post had this to say about the administration’s 

handling of the inconvenient facts surrounding the investigation: It 

puts up a false front, offers a misleading version of events. If and 

when that fails, as often occurs, it puts up another and another, 

as many as it takes. Then administration officials bemoan the cynicism with which they are often greeted with and wonder aloud, or 

pretend to wonder, why they are not believed. The dispensing of 

truth in reluctant dribs and drabs does indeed have the corrosive 

effect the White House itself periodically deplores. 

That is the Washington Post in January. 

A few days later, the White House itself would play dumb, claim 

not to have known anything about the episode, whatever it was, 

and then, confronted with evidence to the contrary, would dole out 

the truth a grudging grain at a time, when it spoke the truth at 

all. 

April 3d, the Washington Post. They, the White House, put out 

a story that may or may not be technically true, but creates a false 

impression. They benefit from that impression, which is allowed to 

stand for as long as it serves, meaning until it is shot down or 

about to be shot down. 

The New York Times also questions the integrity of this administration’s willingness to cooperate with a review of fund-raising 

practices. One editorial, entitled, ‘‘An Instinct to Deceive: What will 

it take to persuade the White House to tell the truth simply and 

promptly once a scandal is brewing?’’ Apparently not even the advice of two lawyers of uncontested loyalty to President Clinton can 

overcome the cover-up instinct that has made a quagmire of Whitewater and is turning the Indonesian fund-raising affair into a matter that neither Congress nor the attorney can ignore. 

That is November 20. On July 3d of this year, the New York 

Times says, the pattern here is familiar. New information keeps 

dripping out while the White House argues that the investigations 

into the Clinton finances have gone on too long. 

This investigation is not just a case of the Congress being interested in the fund-raising practices employed during the 1996 election cycle for partisan gain. This is an investigation that is being 

driven by careless disrespect for our Nation’s current fund-raising 

laws and by the inability of the parties involved to simply comply 

with the judicious review of the events surrounding the 1996 elections. 

The New York Times has even gone so far as to call the ClintonGore re-election campaign the most reckless Presidential fund-raising operation in recent history, July 17, 1997. 

I personally hope this is not true. So far, however, the White 

House and the DNC have acted in a manner that would lead us 

to agree with the New York Times. If the White House would have 

us believe that improprieties were confined to a limited number of 

individuals, the administration must be more forthcoming. 

The first hearings will focus on legitimate issues surrounding the 

apparent laundering of campaign funds through third parties. The 

use of conduits for illegal contributions may, however, just be a 

small part of a larger picture surrounding the 1996 elections. 

403

This committee, in the absence of an Independent Counsel on 

this matter, must continue to ask the question, who knew what, 

and when did they know it? 

Again, this is not just the view of this committee. Look at what 

others have said about this controversy. The New York Times, July 

24: The documents also show the DNC’s clear disdain for laws limiting contributions to candidates as opposed to political parties. 

They also said it was, in short, laundered money. More troubling 

still is the possibility that the White House did know. That was 

July 31st New York Times. 

It is my belief that the statutory requirements needed to activate 

the Independent Counsel statute have been triggered. It is incumbent upon the Attorney General to avoid any appearance of impropriety and to recognize the professional duty to call for independent 

review of fund-raising practices and the subsequent actions of involved parties, wherever they may be. The recent revelations surrounding the Vice President have only added fuel to the fire calling 

for an Independent Counsel. 

The New York Times has also recognized the growing concerns 

in regards to a potential conflict of interest on the part of the Justice Department. 

The Senate hearings, the New York said August 3d, have also 

yielded fresh evidence that the White House and the Democratic 

National Committee chose to look the other way as funds flowed 

illegally from foreign sources into the Clinton re-election campaign, 

greatly strengthening the case for an Independent Counsel to get 

to the bottom of the entire mess. 

On September 14th, the New York Times says, recent weeks 

have brought fresh evidence that the Democrats’ Justice investigators are either lethargic or over their heads. Even worse, Attorney 

General Janet Reno’s failure to seek an Independent Counsel to 

oversee the probe no longer looks like a principled assertion of faith 

in Justice’s career staff. It looks like a political blocking operation 

to protect President Clinton and Mr. Gore from the vigorous investigation that would be aimed at any other officeholder who has received so much suspicious money. 

The Washington Post, October 8th, and now the White House 

has found and turned over to congressional investigators videotapes of some of the coffees the President gave for campaign contributors last year. There may be tapes of as many as 150 such 

events. The investigators asked for them months ago. Only now are 

they being disinterred. It is enough to give good faith a bad name. 

The attitude of this White House toward the truth whenever it is 

in trouble is the same: Don’t tell it, or tell only as much as you absolutely must or as helps. They keep asking indignantly, even a little petulantly over there, why they are not believed as they keep 

putting out their successive versions of the story. Can anyone really believe that they don’t have the answer to that? Can anyone believe this is on the up and up? 

I remain hopeful the Attorney General will trigger the Independent Counsel statute and that this controversy can be completely taken out of the political realm. But until such time as the 

administration’s stonewalling should stop, and as the editorial I 

have quoted from the New York Times and Washington Post that 

404

I quoted earlier make clear, the White House has come perilously 

close to obstruction of justice, and this should stop. The sooner we 

get the facts out, the sooner we can resolve this matter, and the 

sooner we can put it behind us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Kucinich. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. I join with my fellows on this side of the aisle, as well as 

those on the other side of the aisle, in saying that law-breaking 

ought to be exposed and brought to justice. It is our duty. The 

Bible says, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you 

free. 

From the beginning of this investigation, I have wished that this 

committee could work in a relatively bipartisan manner that our 

counterparts with the Thompson committee in the Senate have 

done, and that we not duplicate efforts undertaken by the Senate, 

and that we be respectful of taxpayers’ dollars in the process. Unfortunately, none of my wishes have yet come true. After more than 

$2.5 million of taxpayer money has been spent, mostly by the majority of this committee, after numerous depositions were taken at 

the initiative of the majority, without, I might say, a significant 

yield, after numerous hearings have been scheduled and then postponed, after almost all the committee action has been decided unilaterally and solely on the basis of the majority’s wishes, and after 

the document protocols negotiated by Mr. Chairman and agreed to 

by the minority were scuttled, I arrive at this moment with some 

degree of skepticism. 

I have read the New York Times and Washington Post editorials 

that have been cited. I have also read the New York Times and 

Washington Post editorials which cite the problems I have just articulated with the committee process itself. 

This committee’s investigation is challenged to prove that it is 

more than partisan with respect to the investigation subject and in 

comparison with past investigations. The Watergate investigation 

was a bipartisan investigation. That is why it was successful. That 

is why it achieved a cleansing of the American political process. 

This is not in any way to dismiss the committee’s right to investigate. As a member of this committee, I claim that right, and I 

share the claiming of that right by every other Member. But when 

we claim that right, we ought to be right in the way in which we 

proceed. 

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I come to the 

Congress with a background in speech and communications. I 

taught communications at Cleveland State University and CaseWestern Reserve University, and therefore I am very sensitive to 

all manners of communication and the way in which communication is presented. I say that in this context: I watched the beginning of this committee’s work earlier in the day, and I saw a presentation which disturbs me greatly, because it raises questions as 

to matters of fairness. 

I want to say I believe that Mr. Chairman is a fair person, I sincerely believe that. But there was a presentation put together here 

which I don’t believe was fair. The presentation where we saw the 

image of Mr. Huang appeared as a mug shot. It was grainy, it was 

405

somewhat smeared. I am sure that the gentleman who has been 

the subject of so much publicity, there would have been pictures 

available which could have presented him in a more dignified way, 

notwithstanding his actions. I ask whether that is fair? 

Is it fair to have pictures of Mr. Hubbell and President Clinton 

‘‘high-fiving’’ each other flashed on that screen while at the same 

time discussing possible criminal violations? 

Now, think about that. What that does is it sends out a message, 

certainly undignified and unfair, but it discolors the investigation 

by giving a false impression of complicity. The President of the 

United States ‘‘high-fiving’’ someone who is under investigation. 

We should not proceed with this investigation in a manner which 

smears people, which causes conclusions to be drawn by images 

that we put forward to the public. We can proceed in a manner 

which goes with the facts, to the facts. Otherwise we have discolored the investigation and created an Alice in Wonderland environment of first rendering a verdict and then asking for the evidence. 

Is it fair that another Asian businessman, Mr. Trie, when his 

picture was flashed on that screen, in violation of certain rules as 

Mr. Kanjorski said, but his picture was distorted and blurred in 

this TV presentation? The two Asian Americans were presented on 

the screen, and their pictures were blurred and distorted. 

Computer technology today is a wonderful thing. You can clear 

up a picture, you can distort a picture. You can switch heads with 

people. You can put a person in a picture who wasn’t in that picture. We certainly could have a presentation, a picture that does 

not distort. 

Abraham Lincoln was quoted earlier with respect to finding the 

facts. I, too, would like to quote Abraham Lincoln when he looked 

at a moment of conflict in this Nation. He said, ‘‘With malice toward none.’’ We can proceed with this investigation without being 

malicious. We can get at the truth without trying to rip people to 

pieces. We need to keep in mind that there has to be a higher calling to our presence here, and that is to not just find out what was 

wrong, but to set what was wrong right through addressing a system that is inherently flawed. And until we are willing to do that, 

until we are willing to make that connection between the problems 

which are brought before us, yes, the breaking of the law which is 

brought before us, and a resolution of that through cleaning up the 

system, this whole matter would be an exercise in vain. 

I thank the Chair. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman 

from Indiana. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. SOUDER. There was a discussion about the grainy pictures. 

My understanding from having done some of this on the floor and 

talked with the committee and others is it has been very difficult 

to get pictures of the President with the individuals or the Vice 

President with the individuals, or, for that matter, a picture of Mr. 

Huang, and all we have are newspaper photos, which come out 

grainy when we reprint them. Is that the case and is that why we 

used grainy photos? 

406

Mr. BURTON. The photos we used were from public sources. It 

was not intentional, that we strive to put them in a grainy mode. 

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Inquiry to the Chair. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state his inquiry. 

Mr. KUCINICH. I understand the Chair has a wonderful background in public service, but I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, and 

to my dear colleague, that as we proceed, that care be taken in 

these matters so as not to leave a mistaken impression that we are 

trying to achieve something one way through images that we would 

not dare to try to achieve through our rhetoric. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s point is well taken. We will do our 

best to make sure we show fairness whenever we show a photo of 

anybody under investigation. 

The gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this much anticipated inauguration of this important committee investigation and 

to hearing from our first witnesses tomorrow. The White House has 

hoped to deceive the public into believing that everyone breaks the 

law. The President waxes piously about the need for an overall 

overhaul of campaign finance laws, the moral equivalent of a bank 

robber who, once apprehended, touts himself as an expert on banking reform. 

Rule No. 1 is follow the current law. Our oversight function in 

this committee is not campaign finance reform. It is to find if current laws were broken by this administration and why. We have 

oversight over this administration and its agencies. 

Then, if we find that these are requiring new laws, then new 

laws arise out of that. But first you have to do the investigation. 

I didn’t see a lot of Members from the other party during Watergate suggesting they investigate past administrations; for example, 

President Johnson’s bugging of Barry Goldwater and the cover-up 

after that. 

The goal of the oversight committee is to look into the oversight 

of the current administration, and what we see on the surface is 

an abuse that looks overwhelming: Overnights at the Lincoln bedroom, coffee klatches, hard money, soft money, Citizenship USA, 

the Pendleton Act, the Hatch Act, Buddhist Temples, photo ops 

with felons, Roger Tamraz and Interpol, Nora and Gene Lum, the 

Teamsters and DNC, conduit payments, money laundering and videotapes. 

It is hard to keep track of all the Byzantine dimensions of this 

problem. 

As we look at the recent things and problems, such as the memory recall problem of the DNC chairman and the missing videotapes of the coffee klatches, allegedly misfiled under Democratic 

fund-raising, they raise the questions of obstruction of justice and 

conspiracy to mislead congressional investigators. And for those 

who would try to compare this to the conduct of any previous administration, Republican or Democrat, please, don’t even try. This 

is much more comprehensive. 

We should be, unlike the Attorney General, who now appears to 

be regelated to serving as the President’s defense counsel, and has 

declined repeatedly to appoint an Independent Counsel as the law 

407

requires, investigating the burgeoning fund-raising scandals, regardless of what she does, because she has now put the task to us, 

unless she will appoint the independent counsel. 

We have some very critical questions. Did a foreign government 

or governments, through agents of influence, succeed in buying access to the Oval Office, and did this penetration compromise U.S. 

security? 

Never before in the history of this country has Congress been 

presented with a scandal of such breathtaking magnitude, complexity and pervasiveness. Nearly every agency of Government appears to have been debased to some degree by the stench of political corruption. 

This committee’s work has been nearly crippled by the remarkable disappearance of or lack of cooperation from 60 witnesses with 

firsthand knowledge of the fund-raising scandal. Like Colombian 

drug cartel leaders who boastfully call themselves unextraditables, 

many of Mr. Clinton’s most generous donors and most energetic 

fund-raisers have spirited themselves away from American territory, to China, to Thailand, or back to Indonesia, beyond the reach 

of committee lawyers, subpoenas and depositions. And people want 

to know why it has taken us so long? They are fleeing our Nation, 

and they are obstructing our ability to do justice in the United 

States. 

Among those, John Huang, formerly of the Commerce Department and the Lippo Group. Mr. Huang has taken the fifth amendment. A memo by Mr. Huang, a prodigious fund-raiser for the 

President’s re-election, showed his asking for over $153,000 in foreign money from Lippo Indonesia to be wired to his accounts at 

LippoBank, specifically earmarked for the DNC. The DNC pledged 

to return a $250,000 contribution from a South Korean businessman, which originated at Mr. Huang’s suggestion. 

Another key figure is Charlie Trie, a restaurant owner from Little Rock, AR, a friend of Bill’s. Mr. Trie absconded from the country 

and is said to be in China. Mr. Trie made hundreds of thousands 

of dollars of illegal donations to the Democratic National Committee and delivered bags and envelopes full of small checks and 

money orders totaling nearly $800,000 to Clinton’s legal defense 

fund. Some money orders were numbered sequentially, although 

they ostensibly came from individuals in different States who 

shared the same surname. Trie was awarded with appointment to 

the President’s Commission on U.S. Pacific Trade and Investment 

Policy, which further gave him credibility and clout. 

We already know the Trie donations coincided with a letter faxed 

to the President urging restraint in responding to China’s military 

exercises off the Taiwanese coast prior to its first democratic elections. 

Finally, there is Johnny Chung, a political operative known best 

for his apt quotation comparing the White House to a subway station. ‘‘You have to put coins in to open the gate.’’ Mr. Chung vows 

his contributions were solicited by the DNC finance director Richard Sullivan, despite the fact that a National Security Council aide 

described him in a memorandum as a hustler trying to exploit his 

White House contacts. After the hustler memo, after the hustler 

408

memo, Chung was received 20 more times at the White House, for 

a total of 49 visits. 

The responsibility of this investigatory body is to find out what 

laws were broken; what, if any, breaches of national security occurred; and whether important policy compromises were made as 

a repayment for illicit campaign donations. 

I hope we can have a bipartisan effort. The Attorney General, the 

Nation’s top enforcement officer, has shirked her constitutional responsibility. We cannot afford to shirk ours. Bipartisan cooperation 

requires both sides, not just one side, and I hope some Members 

on the other side have the courage, like Republicans did under Watergate as it unfolded, to step forward to help us in this investigation and getting the truth out, even if that means extradition and 

help from the State Department at some point. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Mr. Owens. 

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I would like not to be redundant. I 

think that these hearings could be of great importance if we deal 

with the underlying issue and not allow them to become trivial. 

This is a vital life-and-death issue with respect to the survival of 

our democracy, the issue of how elections take place and who pays 

for what. The issue is, what is the influence of big money in our 

democracy? 

The issue is, how does laissez-faire work the other way? We have 

all been schooled in the doctrine of laissez-faire in terms of Government leaving the marketplace and the private sector alone, but we 

have never talked very much and there has not been very much 

discussion in colleges and universities about how you avoid having 

the marketplace and the private sector take over Government. 

Laissez-faire should work both ways, and the real underlying 

problem behind all the other details that we have been discussing 

in this hearing is the problem of our Government being for sale. 

Is our Government for sale and to what degree is it for sale? 

We have a Democrat in the White House who was determined 

that if he lost the election it wasn’t going to be because he was outspent or it wasn’t going to be for lack of money. Not only the Democrats in the White House, the President and the Vice President 

were preoccupied with money, but every Member of Congress. 

We had numerous discussions about Democrats taking back the 

Congress and we had most of—a large part, portion of those discussions, related to money. No matter what the merits were, no matter what our positions were, you still had—had to have the money 

to get on television and buy the ads. 

Money begins to dominate the political process in America. That 

is the real issue. That is what the American people ought to take 

a close look at. The details can take us into trivialities sometimes 

that are quite laughable. I agree with Harold Ickes and Jay Leno, 

or whoever started it, who said that, you know, where did you expect the President and the Vice President to make their calls from? 

You know, they live in the White House. They live on Government 

property. That is their home. 

Every Member of Congress knows they can’t avoid some discussion of fund-raising on Federal property. Even if you are so careful 

never to discuss it yourself on the phone, you are going to get 

409

phone calls from other people who are going to discuss it. Are you 

going to hang up on somebody because they call you to say something about a fund-raiser or a fund-raising process? No, you are 

not. 

We go off the Hill to make calls at the various headquarters for 

the parties. We also go home to make calls. We probably make a 

large number of calls at home. The home of the President, the 

home of the Vice President, is the White House and the other facilities that are provided for the Vice President. So it is a little ridiculous to single that out as being so important that it diverts us from 

the real issue of there is too much money required in American 

elections. 

Campaign spending has increased exponentially, according to the 

Federal Election Commission. Spending in Federal elections has increased from $309.6 million in 1975–1976 to $2.738 billion in 1995– 1996. At the same time the voter turnout is going down, the 

amount of money being spent is going up. 

Independent expenditures have greatly increased. Soft money, 

Republicans outraised Democrats in soft money in the 1996 election; $138.2 million to the Democrats, $123.9 million in soft money. 

That is double what the parties raised in 1991–1992. You know, 

tremendous amounts of money being raised; nobody is giving it 

away just because they are good Boy Scouts. There is a process 

which any sophomore in high school or college can tell you, a process of expecting something back in return for the money. 

The Presidents, throughout history, have always had various 

kinds of social activities in the White House. If we turn the microscope on any past Presidents recently, we are going to find the 

same kinds of things were done at the White House that we are 

blown up out of proportion here in terms of people being invited 

into the White House who have influence and who have various 

other kinds of things that the White House wants to get, whether 

it is the money or their influence in some respect. 

In terms of hard money, money spent by Republicans and Democrats, Republicans raised $416.5 million in 1996—for 1996 committee elections, while the Democrats raised $221.6 million. You 

know, tremendous amounts of money are going into these elections, 

and the question that should be on everybody’s mind as we take 

them through the steps of these hearings and we talk to the witnesses and we reproduce and duplicate, replicate what the Senate 

has already done, the question should always be, you know, is this 

the kind of America we want, which is clearly an America where 

the political process is up for sale? 

If nothing else comes out of this, it ought to be the—the searing 

on the imaginations and the minds of Americans of the fact that 

we are drifting into a situation where our democracy will inevitably 

be greatly distorted by the fact that you have these tremendous 

amounts of money that have to be raised. 

We must have campaign finance reform. Eighty-three percent 

of—85 percent of Americans think that special interest groups have 

more influence than the voters; 92 percent think too much money 

is spent on campaigns; almost 9 out of 10 Americans want fundamental change or a complete overhaul of the campaign finance system. 

410

Are we going to engage these questions in this hearing? Are we 

going to ask questions and do things with respect to the witnesses 

and the processes, as we go through this in this committee, which 

do in some way address this profound question? Is our Government 

for sale? Is our democracy in danger because it is being taken over 

by the private sector with large sums of money? 

The laissez-faire that we are so proud of with respect to Government not interfering with business is not going the other way. 

Business money is trying to dominate our Government, and that is 

the issue. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Owens. 

Mr. Scarborough. 

Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have found the speeches on the Democratic side to be entertaining at the very least, unfortunate in many. 

A gentleman a couple of speakers ago talked about how he 

longed for bipartisanship. Well, I long for the type of bipartisan 

also that was evident during the Watergate hearings when we actually had a Senator in the minority there to stand up and ask 

tough questions of the President: What did the President know and 

when did he know it? 

Regrettably, all we hear are the most frantic charges of—I have 

heard ‘‘partisanship’’; I have heard the word ‘‘evil’’ thrown around; 

I have heard ‘‘a witch-hunt’’; and I have also heard ‘‘fishing expedition.’’ We were told a few minutes ago that children were starving 

across America because of these hearings. We were told that people 

were freezing and homeless because of these hearings. It is demagoguery at its worst. 

It also amounts to a political obstruction of justice, and regrettably, we have seen this on this committee for some time. 

I remember when Chairman Clinger, a few years ago, tried to get 

some documents pertaining to Craig Livingstone. We were—the 

same terms were used, that it was a ‘‘fishing expedition,’’ that it 

was a ‘‘witch-hunt.’’ Later we found out, after this ‘‘fishing expedition,’’ after this so-called ‘‘witch-hunt,’’ that the White House had 

illegally and improperly seized 900 FBI files against their political 

enemies. And yet this continues. It is de ́ja` vu all over again. 

One Democrat has said we can do better. Well, I say the Democrats can do better, and I am going to make a plaque. It is going 

to be the Senator Joe Lieberman plaque for the first House Member that actually stands up and shows the courage that Senator 

Lieberman showed on the Democratic side and that Howard Baker 

showed so many years ago. 

This is what Senator Lieberman said on the Senate side, ‘‘The 

pattern of behavior by the White House, as exemplified most recently in the question of these tapes, is unacceptable also. One can 

hear the explanation given that it is a foul-up and not a cover-up, 

but the accumulation of foul-ups begin to raise an understandable 

question in the minds of this committee, which is, ‘What is going 

on over there and why does it happen?’ ’’

That is Joe Lieberman, the one Democrat that has shown a little 

bit of courage over the past few months. 

411

This shouldn’t be about partisanship, and I agree with the gentleman, if a Republican did this, I would hold the Republican to the 

same high standard that I would want to hold this President to. 

And if anybody doubts this, all they need to do is ask Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey or other Members of my leadership that I have 

given problems to over the past few months. 

You can also, if you think that this is about partisanship, that 

you think this is a Republican attack, all you have to do is read 

the newspapers to see what they are saying. Read what the Washington Post said yesterday when, in so many words, they accused 

the White House of lying. They said, ‘‘The attitude of this White 

House toward the truth, whenever it is in trouble, is the same: 

Don’t tell it, or tell only as much of it as you absolutely must.’’ And 

then we, of course, had the New York Times last week, who editorialized on their editorial page that Bill Clinton and Janet Reno 

could no longer be trusted to look into the fund-raising abuses that 

have occurred. 

We have had Newsweek going into it for a year now. They reported last year about possible espionage between a White House 

and DNC official and Communist China, explaining how this official would get briefings from the Commerce Department and then 

was stupid enough to step into a cab, take a cab to the Chinese 

Embassy and then turn in a receipt to get some money back. And 

this happened over and over again, according to Newsweek. 

We have had press reports that the CIA, that the FBI, that the 

INS, that the NSC, that possibly the IRS and obviously the office 

of the President, the office of the Vice President, have been involved to assist the White House, possibly illegally, to elect the 

President and Democrats to Congress. And it expands and it continues to expand, and all we hear is the same thing, ‘‘witch-hunt,’’ or that it is evil or that it is partisanship. 

There is nothing partisan about the New York Times. There is 

nothing partisan about the editorial page of the Washington Post. 

Of course, some of us would suggest that if there was any partisanship, it certainly would tilt heavily against the Republican party. 

But to those editorial pages’ credit, they have had the moral courage to speak out against an administration that is perhaps had the 

most corrupt fund-raising machine in the history of this Republic. 

Why can’t one Democrat—and I see we only have one Democrat, 

so I throw this offer over to you. I will get the Lieberman memorial 

plaque, give it to you after this hearing. Why can’t we have one 

Democrat say, something stinks at the White House, something is 

very, very wrong; let’s get to the bottom of it, and let’s stop trying 

to change the subject? 

I mean, if I hear one more Democrat say, well, this is a wonderful opportunity to re-examine campaign finance laws, that is like 

Marv Albert stepping out of the courthouse and saying, this is—

I have provided us a wonderful opportunity to examine sexual harassment in America. 

I mean, let’s stop trying to change the subject and instead get to 

the bottom of this issue, which is that this White House has continued illegally using its influence to get re-elected, to get Democrats 

re-elected. And after the end of that process then maybe we can 

look at campaign finance reform; then we can look at putting even 

412

more new laws on the books. But before we do that, I say, let’s get 

a—let’s get a White House and let’s get Democrats that are willing 

to abide by the laws that we now have on the books. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you for that entertaining speech. 

Mr.—I want to get this right—Blagojevich, is that pretty close? 

Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. That is exactly on the mark, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

First of all, evidently, I am all alone here. I think my colleagues 

on this side knew I was going to speak and they left. 

Let me also say it was Mo Udall, I believe, who said that everything has been said, but not everybody has said it. I will probably 

do less than 5 minutes since so many Members on both sides have 

said a lot of the kinds of points I want to make. 

And let me just briefly comment on my illustrious colleague from 

Florida, who I have again—and we hear this all the time—I genuinely have high regard for Mr. Scarborough from Florida. He made 

a statement that if a Republican did this, he would be—I think I 

am paraphrasing now—outraged or something to that extent. 

The fact of the matter is, this committee probably isn’t going to 

find out whether or not Republicans did it or not because we are 

going after Democrats in this committee. Probably 9 out of 10 subpoenas that have been issued from this committee are earmarked 

toward Democrats and not Republicans. So I don’t think my illustrious colleague from Florida will have the opportunity to be as 

outraged about a Republican. 

And I think when I quoted Mo Udall about saying the same 

things that others have said, I am going to repeat what virtually 

everybody on this committee in both parties has said. It is that we 

think that we ought to have an investigation, that many of these 

allegations are not only troubling, but potentially criminal in nature and that this investigation is important; that we have to find 

out what actually happened, particularly with regard to fund-raising in the White House. 

There are, however, differences. Those of us here happen to think 

that we ought to not only investigate the White House, we ought 

to investigate the House, we ought to investigate Democrats and 

Republicans, because when I go back home to my district—and I 

have been back every weekend since I have been elected with the 

exception of one—and when I appear at town hall meetings or community forums, I don’t hear a single question, not a single question 

about campaign misdeeds in the White House or in Congress. 

And when I sometimes ask questions, because I want to have a 

sense of what people are concerned about, I get—I get a sense from 

the people back home that they just view this whole process as corrupt or corrupting. They view this whole process as ugly and dirty, 

and they think that we are all politicians just trying to raise money 

and that any excesses and transgressions that may have come out 

of the White House are just business as usual in Washington, DC, 

and in politics in general. 

I must say that I don’t necessarily disagree with them. In fact, 

these allegations about whether or not big money is in the system, 

allegations about whether or not fund-raising and contributors buy 

access to Government is kind of reminiscent of the movie CasaVerDate 0ct 02 2002 14:16 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00416 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\44527 44527
413

blanca, the scene where the Paul Henreid character, they are in 

Rick’s Cafe, if you remember the movie, and they all start playing 

the Marseillaise; and it is a very moving scene, one of the great 

scenes in movie history. And then when it is all over, the German 

officer is there and he tells the Vichy representative, who was 

played by Claude Raines, the Captain Renaud character, shut it 

down, shut down Rick’s Cafe. So he goes up to the Humphrey 

Bogart character and he says, ‘‘Rick, you know, we are closing this 

place down.’’ And Humphrey Bogart says to him, ‘‘what are you 

closing me down for, what are the grounds?’’ And the Claude 

Raines character in the classic line says, ‘‘Rick, I am shocked, I am 

shocked. There is gambling here.’’ He had just placed a bet earlier in the movie. 

The fact is that a lot of these allegations are not shocking at all. 

They are, in fact, a problem with the system, endemic to a system 

that needs reform. 

I hate to disappoint my colleague from Florida, but if these investigations are going to have any merit at all, if we are going to learn 

anything from what we hopefully are going to discover from these 

investigations, I think it is only good to underscore what we already know, which is the system doesn’t work. It is a system that 

is corrupting or corruptible, and it is a system that needs fundamental reform. 

And I am joined by many other Members who are willing to stay 

in this session beyond adjournment unless—for as long as it takes 

to pass some kind of campaign finance reform in this Congress. 

And let me also say that there is a bipartisan effort, Republicans 

and Democrats alike, whether it is McCain-Feingold or the freshman version of—Republican freshmen and Democratic freshmen offering some kind of meaningful campaign finance reform. 

In the post-Watergate era, Congress changed the rules and they 

did it because the American people clamored for it. And I believe 

that unless and until the American people feel that we are going 

to do something about cleaning up a system that has gone wrong, 

they are not going to tune us in and they are not going to be as 

willing to respond to some of the allegations that arguably are 

very, very serious. 

So I hope we can have campaign finance reform, Mr. Chairman, 

as we continue this investigation. And I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. BURTON. Your statements on Casablanca were very accurate. 

Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shadegg. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I begin, let me note for my colleague on the other side, 

eight out of the nine subpoenas issued by this committee may be 

directed to Democrats largely because eight out of nine of the articles that appear in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the 

L.A. Times and virtually every other newspaper in this country, 

where there are investigative reporters at work, focus on abuses 

and violations of law by Democrats. So I think it is quite logical. 

Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, this investigation and 

these hearings go to the very heart of the survival of this Nation. 

While I do not wish to raise expectations about the nature of the 

414

information that will come out of these hearings, the essence of the 

hearings addresses the integrity of our system of Government, and 

the faith, confidence and respect it commands from the people of 

this Nation. 

If the people do not believe that our Government is honest, their 

motivation to abide by its laws will be destroyed. In our system of 

Government, order is maintained by voluntary compliance with 

law. If that compliance is abandoned, anarchy will prevail. If the 

people believe our Government is corrupt, liberty will not survive. 

Again, let me make it absolutely clear. Whether we produce 

shocking evidence, proving violations of the law occurred or not, 

the issue is maintaining credibility within our system of Government. The evidence which is already in the public domain suggests 

that our campaign finance laws were abused and corrupted to an 

unprecedented degree in the 1996 election. 

Sadly, this process has become hopelessly partisan. An immense 

effort has been and is being expended in trying to prevent the 

truth from coming out. And when evidence is brought out, every effort is made to minimize its significance to the greatest extent possible. 

The subject of these hearings is not new to me. For 8 years, I 

served as special assistant to the Arizona attorney general. In that 

capacity, I was specifically responsible for enforcing Arizona’s campaign finance laws. During that time, there were two major revisions of our campaign finance laws, which produced some of the 

strictest and most rigid campaign laws in the Nation. 

In both cases, proponents of the reforms claimed that with these 

radical new limits, the cost of campaigning would decrease. Time 

has shown, however, that not only did the cost of political campaigns in Arizona not go down, but in fact, it has increased. But 

more importantly, these so-called ‘‘reforms’’ drove a large portion of 

campaign spending underground. 

Prior to the changes in our law, it was easy to determine where 

campaign contributions came from and where they went. Regrettably, following reform, this information is almost impossible to ascertain. For example, there are now countless nice sounding organizations that act as fronts for the very special interest groups the 

law was intended to affect. Just one such organization, called Citizens for Excellence in Education, was nothing more, as many of 

them are nothing more, than a front for another organization—in 

this case, the Arizona Education Association from which it obtained 

all of its funding. 

In light of my personal campaign—experience with campaign finance laws, I am greatly disturbed, indeed I am disgusted, by the 

concerted effort of the current administration and of some members 

of this committee to do everything possible to prevent this investigation from moving forward. Over and over again, to date, they 

have constructed roadblock after roadblock to obstruct this investigation. 

To thwart our effort, the White House has stonewalled repeated 

requests for information, concealed other information and produced 

yet still more information only after the committee threatened contempt of Congress. 

415

Conversely, the administration has also engaged in a calculated 

effort to time the release of the information which the administration considers damaging so as to diminish its significance when 

brought forward by this committee in the course of these hearings. 

Just a week ago, there was an effort to force the release of committee depositions the moment they were taken. The obvious motive for that effort was to make any significant revelations at such 

a deposition old news and, therefore, insignificant when the committee hearing focused on that witness and the information the 

witness had produced. 

The recent release of videotapes of the White House coffees is yet 

the latest example of foot-dragging and obfuscation by the White 

House. From the time these coffees came to light earlier this year, 

the White House spin operation denied that they were fund-raisers. 

Yet, when administration officials searched the White House videotape data base for coffees, they found only 49 hits. By contrast, 

when they recently searched for DNC fund-raisers, there were 150 

hits. This, I suggest, is a stunning revelation that these events 

were viewed as political fund-raisers by the White House itself. 

And based on the audio from these now-revealed tapes, the people attending them obviously understood they were fund-raising 

events, with one attendant audibly offering checks to a DNC official in the room. 

As the Senate hearings have shown and as these hearings will 

show, there is one riveting fact this administration cannot escape; 

and that is, the information we have already seen demonstrates 

that the abuses in which they were engaged and which have already come to light were in violation of current law. If current law 

had been followed or if it were currently being enforced, this investigation would not be necessary. 

For my colleagues on the other side who complain about the cost 

of this investigation, they should be reminded that it was the improper actions of the President, the White House and the DNC that 

created any additional burden to taxpayers for the cost of these 

hearings. 

Our job as members of this committee is to oversee the executive 

branch of this Government. It would be irresponsible for any of us 

to turn a blind eye to the blatant disregard for campaign finance 

laws as occurred in the last election cycle. As I said earlier, disregard of existing law, as some would suggest has been flagrantly 

demonstrated by this administration, erodes the public confidence 

and trust, which is essential to our survival as a Nation. 

As Thomas Jefferson said, the whole art of Government consists 

in the art of being honest. 

Mr. President, we simply ask that you be honest. 

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by noting that the appointment 

of a Special Prosecutor is long overdue. The latest refusal of Attorney General Janet Reno, which was followed only hours later by 

the release of the White House videotapes, establishes beyond a 

doubt that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice are 

not doing their job. 

More importantly, not only is Janet Reno not doing her job, she 

is showing contempt for the law and destroying public confidence 

and faith in our system of Government. 

416

Mr. Chairman, I close with a plea to everyone involved in this 

process, from the White House to the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, to the members of this committee, to do what 

is right, proper and honest. The future of our Nation is at stake. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We gather here today, 9 months after the initial investigation of 

allegations of finance campaign abuses from the 1996 election 

cycle, $2.5 million of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money already 

spent. Fifty-seven depositions have already been taken, and several 

witnesses have been unduly harassed. 

While I am encouraged that the hearings will finally begin, I 

cannot help but remain somewhat pessimistic, and I say pessimistic because I do not believe that these hearings will reveal anything that has not already been brought forth by the Senate investigation. The Senate has said what most Americans already know, 

and that is that our campaign finance system in America is badly 

broken and in serious need of repair. 

The real issue before us today is not conduit payments to the 

Democratic National Committee; rather, when will we begin to 

have serious debate on reform in the campaign finance laws? I believe that we have an opportunity to seize the moment and provide 

real reform if the people are to believe that we are serious. 

It is no secret that the current system of campaign finance laws 

is seriously flawed. These laws threaten the very essence of our democracy. It is imperative that we reform the current system and 

send a message that this Government is not for sale. We must 

eradicate the notion that money can buy justice, elections and anything else that you want in America. The current system has too 

much money in it. It is tantamount to capitalism run amok. 

This is perhaps capitalism at its very worst. This is the 

vulnerableness of capitalism which undermines the very essence 

and ideals of democracy. We must send a message that no part of 

our Government system can be bought or purchased. 

Campaign finance reform is one of the critical issues of the day. 

The stakes are too high for us to dally around and do nothing 

about it. 

There have been over 70 bills introduced in this country alone regarding campaign finance reform, and the leadership has yet to 

schedule debate on any of that. Perhaps Gandhi was right when he 

said, possession of power makes men blind and deaf. They cannot 

see things which are under their very noses and cannot hear things 

which invade their eyes. 

It seems to me that those in power want only to perpetuate it. 

However, I urge the American people to meet the power that wants 

to maintain the status quo with like and equal resistance that demands real campaign finance reform. 

History has thrust upon us, upon our generation, a unique and 

important destiny; that is, the opportunity to complete a process of 

campaign finance reform, to make democracy real in the lives of 

each and every American. This is our opportunity to make the 

magnificent words of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence ring true, that this is, in fact, a Government by and for the 

417

people; not by and for the rich and wealthy, but by and for all the 

people, irrespective of income, gender or heritage. 

As the lights dim and the cameras fade on this hearing, I urge 

the leadership to give the people what they want, what they desire, 

and that is real campaign finance reform. And when we give the 

people what they want, when we give the people real campaign finance reform, they will know that the role they play is not contingent upon the size of their pocketbook or that their influence is not 

weighted by the size of their contributions. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. SHADEGG [presiding]. The gentleman yields back the balance 

of his time. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]

418


g:\graphics\44527.354
419


g:\graphics\44527.355
420

Mr. SHADEGG. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a 

pleasure to see you seated in the chairman’s chair. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I appreciate very much the opportunity to 

make remarks today, and I also look forward to tomorrow’s inaugural hearing. Like many members of the panel who have already 

spoken today, I have been frustrated and saddened by the length 

of time that it has taken to get to this juncture in the hearing process. 

However, unlike some of the statements that have been made 

today, I am not perplexed, nor do I wonder as to what the cause 

of the slowness of pace is, the cost or the progress of the fact-finding process. 

My primary vocation, before coming to Congress, was that of a 

county prosecutor. Like other members who serve on this committee who had the honor and pleasure of representing their State 

before the bench, there are many war stories that each of us could 

tell detailing the creative and imaginative tales that defendants 

from time to time had to explain why they had missed their date 

with the judge. 

My personal favorite was, a gentleman called up one day and 

said that a rather painful circumcision had prevented his arrival 

at the courthouse for 2 weeks, but he hoped to be with us soon. 

What causes the raising of suspicions and indeed raises the hackles of many of us on this side of the aisle is the constant evasion. 

A rule of thumb that I adopted in my legal practice was given to 

me by a rather grizzled homicide veteran by the name of Tommy 

Doyle, and he said that the reason that people lie, the reason that 

people hide the truth, the reason that people prevaricate is that the 

truth is worse for them than the lie which they are willing to tell. 

Sadly, the conduct of many during the public observance of this 

series of scandals has put me in mind of many of the wayward defendants of the past and, I would suggest, has had more than a direct result of impeding the orderly progression of any legitimate or 

worthwhile probe. We have seen people who have fled the country 

and the jurisdiction of this Congress. We have seen those who 

would choose to use the fifth amendment as a sword rather than 

as a shield, to frustrate rather than to protect. 

We have seen a variety of statements that would be putting some 

of my old defendants to shame; ‘‘I don’t recall facts or events’’ is 

one; ‘‘there is no controlling legal authority’’; ‘‘everybody does it’’ is 

something that I have heard from my children on many occasion; 

and that ‘‘the Pendleton Act is obscure, antiquated or vague.’’ And 

if I had a nickel for every defendant who claimed that the law 

under which he or she was being investigated or prosecuted was 

vague, I would have been retired long ago. 

But perhaps the classic was in today’s Hill newspaper—and I 

never thought I would see this from anywhere, certainly from Capitol Hill, other than from my children—the caption that ‘‘the dog 

ate my videotapes.’’ Certainly we have reached a new level of excuses in this investigation. 

As a youngster, I remember being fascinated by a photograph 

that appeared in one of the papers of Rosemary Woods who was, 

421

of course, the secretary to President Nixon during the Watergate 

hearings, and the musings of the bemused editorial writers was 

that Ms. Woods must have had some gymnastic ability to reach 

back and somehow cause a gap of minutes’ long in an audiotape 

for a reel-to-reel tape recorder that was located behind her desk. 

I look forward to the coming weeks because the bizarre compilation and editing of the videotapes just recently revealed—released 

by the White House, I suspect will demonstrate skills by their 

video technicians that will rival the Korbuts, the Comanecis and 

the Rettons. 

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that between the two extremes— and that is, those within and without Washington that want these 

hearings to get the President and to get the Vice President, and 

those within and without Washington that will protect the President at all costs and would suggest we do nothing to follow the 

trail of illegality—the vast majority of members on this committee 

and in this House hope that the fact-finding process will develop 

a discovery of who has violated the laws already in existence; and 

that those who have sworn an oath to uphold the laws of this country do their job and do so whether or not American policy and secrets were sold for electoral success in November 1996, and that 

those who stonewall, obstruct and obfuscate are publicly condemned and driven from office. 

And finally, that the flawed manner in which we finance our 

Federal campaigns be examined in the orderly and thoughtful manner that is the hallmark of this institution, and that reform be the 

child of bipartisan labor rather than the spawn of media-driven, 

partisan advantage-seeking, quick fixes that sound good, but at the 

end of the day fail to restore the trust in the way we finance campaigns in this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my time. 

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

And the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want to belabor 

this point, which seems to be something we are all doing a bit of 

here today, but I largely associate myself with the remarks of my 

colleagues, that have been covered, that I would otherwise raise—

in particular, the unfair manner of presentation of information that 

we have seen that has been suggestive and predisposed to a preconceived conclusion; the duplication of the Independent Counsel’s 

inquiries and the Senate’s parallel inquiry; the slow and unfocused 

proceedings that we have had here, including numerous lengthy 

depositions that result in either little or no information that is new 

or relates information which has already been unearthed elsewhere 

and reported publicly; the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to do what the Senate has already done, while not 

ever criticizing the Senate’s job as insufficient. 

I want to point out that this is not the oversight and oversight 

committee; it is, in fact, the reform and oversight committee, and 

that we should be not duplicating what the Senate has done. We 

have said this since the beginning, and out of over 100 Members 

of Congress, tried to persuade this committee to either unearth 

something new that we haven’t heard before; to have this be a nonpartisan approach so that what we do here can be credible; to inVerDate 0ct 02 2002 14:16 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\44527 44527
422

clude us in the planning of this, so that we can get beyond what 

seems to be the inability of the majority here to conduct an investigation that leads to anything new that the American public can 

look forward to; to either join with the Senate to do its investigation with it, so that we don’t duplicate money and spend our resources unnecessarily; or refocus this investigation away from duplicative efforts and into things that are new and will lead us in 

some direction that expanded out just beyond the role of the White 

House—take a look at what happened in the House of Representatives and in the Senate in both parties—to go beyond that and to 

move forward. 

We can stipulate, the American people can well stipulate, that 

the campaign finance system we have right now is not one that 

they enjoy or that they think is working particularly well. We can 

stipulate that both parties have probably had abuses that are not 

unlawful, but certainly unseemly; and this goes back to not the 

past elections but to elections before that. 

And I think that the numbers are there, the information has 

been made public and nobody is now surprised any longer about 

what this committee is coming up with, other than the fact that 

they are surprised probably to learn that most of these witnesses 

have already been deposed and investigated by the Senate. 

Most of these witnesses are giving us information that has already been disclosed to the President, to the Senate; and the fact 

is that we are not unearthing anything new. 

Let’s agree to the fact that we need to move beyond this into a 

better system. Let’s agree that we can do it a lot more economically 

than we have been doing it. Let’s agree to stipulate to what we can 

stipulate, instead of having shows so we can get our face on the 

TV, and move this forward to either new information or to a cooperative effort with the Senate, so that we can preserve resources. 

And then let’s do something that this committee is designed to do. 

It is a group that has had referred to it several campaign finance 

reform proposals, including one of my own that would, in a large 

way, reform the way that we fund campaigns here and give back 

integrity to the system and encourage people to once again be involved as voters and as candidates, with the sense that they own 

their campaign system and that they can move forward here with 

some confidence, that what we do here is in fact their business and 

not the business of hard money or soft money contributors to either 

campaign or either party. 

We can do that. We should do that. We can certainly use the taxpayers’ money better by having a simultaneous track in this House 

of campaign finance reform considerations while the Senate is 

going, either with our help or on its own, to do the rest of the work 

in terms of the investigation. 

That is what we can do. That is what we should be doing. 

And I will yield to my colleague here if he wants to make a point 

that we were discussing earlier about the fact that what we are 

really looking at here is some 30 checks that may be questionable—out of how many? 

Mr. FATTAH. I think I just wanted to add to the record that, as 

I understand it now, there are over 2.7 million individual contributors and, therefore, checks to the DNC in the election cycle; and 

423

some 130 of them are the subject matter of the refunded dollars 

and the questionable contributions. And that is not to minimize 

anything, any illegality that may have taken place, but to put in 

context some of the more outrageous suggestions about the lack of 

controls and so on. 

You know, the vast majority of checks that were raised and processed through the DNC were correct and appropriate contributions; 

and what we are really talking about is something less than 2 percent of all of the contributions being in question. 

So as we go forward, I think we should root out whatever wrongdoing may have taken place on all sides, but we should also keep 

in context that for the most part this was an election run by the 

DNC in which, even with all of these complicated regulations and 

rules, they did their best to comply with. 

Thank you. 

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

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

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. 

Sununu. 

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin with two 

brief points. One is in response to the notion that somehow this 

committee is not uncovering anything new. We can cut right to the 

chase. 

The three witnesses who we are going to hear from this week 

were not contacted by the Senate. They were not contacted by DOJ. 

They have not testified before the Senate committee. Their testimony will be new. Their information that they will have to offer 

us is important. And there are many other revelations, I think, 

that will come out of this committee. But the fact is, we are getting 

right to new and important information immediately in this hearing. 

The second point I would like to make, and I will emphasize it 

later in my remarks, is to counter the assertion that has been 

made repeatedly today—and it is fundamentally flawed—and that 

assertion is that somehow a loophole is an invitation to violating 

the law. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

A loophole, however objectionable we may find it, is simply an invitation to take advantage of a loophole. A loophole is not an invitation to accept illegal conduit payments. It is not an invitation to 

accept illegal contributions from a foreign citizen. A loophole itself 

is not an invitation to violate the law; and to suggest that it is, in 

some way, shape or form, is to misunderstand the nature of our 

law and our obligation to obey those laws. 

Mr. Chairman, today’s hearing marks the beginning of the public 

phase of what has been a long and difficult investigative process. 

Our committee is challenged with the formidable task of shedding 

light on a series of campaign finance abuses. This effort is made 

even more difficult by two significant factors: one, the complex nature of political campaigns, especially those that are national in 

scope; and second, the degree to which this committee has been obstructed in its investigation. 

During the past year, the public has heard testimony detailing 

illegal fund-raising events on church property, illegal campaign 

contributions made through false donors, illegal contributions made 

424

by noncitizens and illegal laundering of union funds for political 

campaigns. 

These events are not alleged. This information is not hearsay. 

Testimony includes many eyewitness accounts. Campaign committees have returned illegal funds and fund-raisers have pled guilty 

to felony charges. The breadth and scope of these abuses are unprecedented since the implementation of Watergate-era campaign 

reforms. 

Those who suggest the system made them do it are all too willing 

to ignore the fundamental legal and moral obligation we have to 

obey the law. Those who claim that changing campaign rules would 

address all of our concerns fail to understand the difference between using rules to one’s advantage and violating Federal law. 

Are we to believe that if Congress fails to change the rules this 

year, then the DNC and its fund-raisers will be forced to continue 

to violate the law? Of course not. A campaign that is willing to accept illegal soft dollar contributions will be equally willing to accept 

illegal hard dollar contributions. 

It is time for those that have violated the law to begin taking responsibility for their actions. Those in positions of responsibility 

must take responsibility for providing answers to these critical and 

lingering questions. 

First, was there a planned effort to systematically violate campaign finance law? A single illegal contribution would be scant evidence of such a pattern. $50,000 or $100,000 in illegal contributions might raise concerns. To date, the Democratic National Committee has returned more than $2.8 million in improper contributions. 

Second, did senior campaign officials know of or condone illegal 

fund-raising? During these past several months, echoes of denial, 

‘‘I don’t specifically recall,’’ and ‘‘it wasn’t our intent,’’ are deafening. Moreover, these claims stretch the limits of credibility. 

And finally, did any foreign government plan to improperly influence America’s political system through an illegal fund-raising network, and was such a plan carried out? 

Unfortunately, the work of this committee continues to be hindered by an unprecedented effort to avoid responsibility. Over 60 

witnesses to these events have refused to tell Congress what they 

know. Twenty-two individuals have fled the country entirely or 

have gone into hiding. These are not the actions of innocent victims. They are the actions of conspirators with something to conceal. 

The committee has been further obstructed by delays in receiving 

critical documentation from the Democratic National Committee 

and the White House. Repeated refusals to properly comply with 

committee subpoenas only suggest the existence of more damaging 

evidence. This week’s production of White House fund-raising videotapes 3 months after subpoenas were issued only highlights the 

egregious nature of these obstructions. 

In the end, these tactics only serve to make us more determined 

in our effort to conduct a thorough and honest investigation of 

these matters. 

This is not a hearing about personalities, as some undoubtedly 

will charge. It is a hearing about securing answers to troubling 

425

questions surrounding the 1996 Presidential campaign, which, to 

date, have received only vague and inadequate answers. 

The long-term health of our Government is dependent on the 

ability of Americans to freely and fairly express their will through 

the election of our representatives. Illegal campaign fund-raising 

undermines the credibility of the election process and of Government itself. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony offered before this committee and I certainly hope we can carry out our duty in a professional manner for the good of the American people. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

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

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These past few days 

have not done much to inspire confidence in any branch of our Government. The White House has engaged in inexcusable delays in 

turning over relevant evidence to the Congress. The Senate has 

killed bipartisan campaign finance reform with procedural devices, 

and meanwhile, the House of Representatives has not even considered a reform bill. 

Is it any wonder that people have lost confidence in our Government? They are discouraged not only by periodic scandals, but by 

the day-to-day abuses committed in the unending quest for campaign cash. They are further discouraged by politicians who seem 

unwilling to reform a system that is clearly out of control. 

Every day it seems the cynicism grows, eroding the trust upon 

which our system of Government depends. Democracy cannot survive without the trust and confidence of the people. 

We have an opportunity to regain some of that confidence today 

as these hearings begin, if we are willing to proceed in a fair and 

bipartisan manner. Tomorrow, we are going to hear from witnesses 

who have admitted to making illegal contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Every Democrat on this committee will 

join me in saying that this illegal behavior is wrong and that it 

cannot be tolerated. 

We need to find out who was behind these illegal practices, how 

widespread they are and how we can prevent them in the future. 

At the same time, I would hope that every Republican on this committee would join in admitting that this practice is by no means 

confined to the Democratic party and that there are problems with 

our campaign finance system that go beyond the criminal actions 

of these witnesses. 

We need to remember that we are not here on behalf of the Republican or the Democratic party. We are here on behalf of the people who sent us here. We are here on behalf of the people who pay 

our salaries, and we are here on behalf of the people who are paying for this investigation. 

The American people want to find the facts. They want to know 

who is behind the illegal and improper fund-raising practices that 

plagued the last campaign, and they want to know what we are 

going to do to prevent future abuses and to reduce the influence 

of big money on our democratic process. 

426

I join with Members from both parties in seeking comprehensive 

reform of our campaign finance system. I have worked with the 

Blue Dog Coalition and the bipartisan freshman task force on bills 

that would ban soft money, require more disclosure and address 

the other loopholes and abuses that exist under current law. 

Just yesterday, I and other members of the Blue Dog Coalition 

filed a modified open rule to bring all of the major reform proposals—Republican, Democratic and bipartisan—to the floor of the 

House for an up-or-down vote. Next week, we will be seeking signatures on a discharge petition to bring this rule to the floor, and I 

invite everyone on this committee to join in that effort. 

These hearings, like the ongoing hearings in the Senate, will 

make two things clear: Campaign finance laws were broken and 

the campaign finance system is broken. We should all be ready to 

address both of these problems in an aggressive and bipartisan 

way. That is our job. 

Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that the work of this committee will 

be productive and that our singular goal will be to devise a campaign finance system that preserves and protects our Nation’s 

grand experiment in representative democracy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Turner follows:]

427


g:\graphics\44527.356
428


g:\graphics\44527.357
429


g:\graphics\44527.358
430

Mr. SHADEGG. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Pappas. 

Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We in the Congress have 

a sacred responsibility to the American people. The Government 

Reform and Oversight Committee is investigating alleged improprieties, and several of us have said we will pursue this investigation 

wherever it may lead. 

Our democracy was founded on a system of checks and balances, 

and we are in a situation where we need to check into potential 

abuses of the campaign finance system. The investigation is simply 

our responsibility as laid out under the Rules of the House. Indeed, 

as the name of this committee states, we have a responsibility to 

oversee the executive branch. 

At the heart of this investigation lies a central question: Did illegal foreign contributions corrupt Government policies? To answer 

this question, the actions of a complex web of Government agencies, administration officials and campaign aides must be untangled. 

As a member of the House National Security Committee, the notion that foreign donors might have tried to subvert the American 

political process to carry out their own agenda greatly disturbs me. 

The consequences and the potential impact that foreign influence 

could have upon our national security is staggering. 

I hope that we can all join together in a bipartisan manner to 

find out the consequences of this alleged foreign influence. 

There are a wide range of issues to be explored in this investigation, and we must pursue them in a neutral and nonpartisan manner as best we can. Justice wears a blindfold as a symbol of impartiality, and so too must this committee throughout the course of 

this investigation. 

Thus far, we have issued subpoenas, conducted depositions and 

reviewed documents. I now look forward to hearing the testimony 

of the witnesses with the hope that what we learn during the 

course of this investigation will help us to fix our current system 

of campaign financing. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. SHADEGG. The gentlemen yields back the balance of his time. 

The committee will recess subject to the call of the Chair. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SESSIONS [presiding]. The committee will come to order. I am 

glad to have the opportunity today to speak before this committee 

and the American people on the issue of illegal campaign fund-raising. 

I want to repeat that. The topic of these hearings is illegal campaign fund-raising. It is illegal for Federal candidates to receive 

contributions from foreign donors. It is illegal to funnel donations 

through straw donors. It is illegal to solicit contributions on Federal property. It is illegal for a Federal candidate to coordinate the 

spending of soft money contributions. These are the issues which 

this committee is reviewing. 

We are trying to determine whether the White House, the Democratic National Committee, the President, the Vice President or 

others may have broken the law. What confuses me is the attention 

that is currently being given to campaign reform initiatives that do 

431

not address the rampant rogue behavior in which this administration has engaged. Nothing in legislation before the Congress would 

have prevented the illegalities we are investigating today. This is 

because the individuals we are investigating have blatantly and 

consistently ignored the law. So I ask members of this committee 

and the American people to have patience as we sit through this 

enormous amount of information that is coming to light in this 

slow, methodical manner. Once we have determined how the laws 

were broken, and only then, will we be able to fix the law. 

The slow release of information to this committee is the result 

of a concerted effort by the White House and the Democrat National Committee to delay the investigation. The White House and 

the Democrat National Committee have resisted our requests for 

cooperation and have snubbed our legitimate subpoenas, which, of 

course, is a slap in the face of Congress. Unfortunately, we have 

come to expect this from the White House. 

I witnessed the repeated resistance from the White House to previous attempts by this committee to get information. What I did 

not expect was the complicity exemplified by my colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle to the stonewalling of this administration. 

When the Congress seeks information, the American people are 

seeking that information, and any attempt to stifle the Congress is 

an attempt to shut out the American people. 

I hope as we hear the depths of corruption that this committee 

has uncovered, that we will see a renewed call from the minority 

of this committee to pursue the information further. However, even 

without that cooperation, I have confidence that our chairman, 

Chairman Burton, and his staff, who I find to be among the most 

professional of professionals in the House of Representatives today, 

will get that done for the American people. 

I hope that as we pursue this investigation, that we can continue 

to begin the process not only of uncovering the violations of the 

law, but also how we are going to attempt very carefully to ensure 

that the American people understand this so that we can avoid this 

in the future. 

That is the end of my statement. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Ford, is recognized for his 

opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Pete Sessions follows:]

432


g:\graphics\44527.359
433


g:\graphics\44527.360
434

Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sessions, as a fellow 

freshman colleague, it is good to see you sitting in the chairman’s 

chair, even if it is for a short period of time. 

Several months ago I was back home in my home district of 

Memphis, TN, for a district work period, and as usual found myself 

watching C–SPAN late one evening. I confess I had a very light 

evening schedule, Mr. Chairman. Although I do not remember exactly what conference, convention, speech or forum was being rebroadcast, I clearly remember the story the Speaker was telling the 

audience, and because I believe that it captures the situation confronting this committee and even this Congress as a whole, I want 

to share it briefly with you today. 

During the middle of the summer, two men met in a small town 

in Arizona and discovered that they were both traveling to the 

same place. One of the men has a horse, and the other has directions to their destination. But because each man has something 

that the other needs, they agree to embark together upon a journey 

to their mutual destination, one man supplying the horse, the other 

the directions. 

For several days they ride together, until one afternoon it becomes so hot that they decide to stop riding until the sun goes 

down. After dismounting, the man who owns the horse proceeds to 

sit down in a small patch of shade created by the horse. Unwilling 

to sit in the sun, the other man tries to convince his traveling companion that he should get to sit in the shady spot, and what ensues 

is a heated argument between the two men over who has the right 

to sit in the shade. 

The man who owns the horse says he is deserving, because, after 

all, it is his horse. The other man counters that the directions are 

as important as the horse, so he, too, should get to sit in the shade. 

As the argument over the shade grows more contentious, the horse 

gallops away, leaving both men standing with the sun beating 

down on them. 

According to our C–SPAN guest, the lesson of this story is not 

to get caught up too long in arguing over shadows, because you risk 

losing what really matters, the substance. When I think about this 

proverb of sorts in the context of our committee’s investigation and 

the Congress as a whole, I can come to only one conclusion: Campaign finance reform is the substance. 

By that I do not mean to imply that we should not devote resources and energy to investigating fully and fairly whether laws 

were broken during the last election cycle. Rather, my point is only 

that as we must not lose sight of what really matters in the end. 

Tomorrow, I anticipate that three witnesses will come before this 

committee and testify that they were used as conduits for contributions to the Democratic National Committee, which, if proven true, 

would constitute a violation of laws. Indeed, if it is true, I am deeply troubled by the fact and would like to know not only why and 

how it happened, but how we can prevent it from occurring again. 

Notwithstanding all of the assertions and claims to the contrary, 

what I do not see is evidence that this violation of the law was part 

of a master plan orchestrated by the Democratic National Committee to funnel overseas money to the Democratic party. 

435

Moreover, it seems to me that if the majority party and members 

of this committee were concerned about the potential impact of foreign or inappropriate contributions to our political system, then 

during the last 8 months the committee would have expanded its 

investigation or at least acknowledged that large sums of foreign 

money have been funneled into the Republican party since 1992 

from sources inside and outside of Asia, including Germany, Japan 

and even Korea. Yet we have heard nothing about these contributions. 

In fact, if I were sitting at home watching this committee’s activities thus far, I might actually believe that all of the allegations 

raised by the Republican Congress represent the first instance in 

which there had been accusations that foreign or inappropriate 

money was contributed to a political party. In addition, I might 

also believe that Messrs. Huang and Trie are the only two people 

that have ever been accused of using conduits to donate money to 

our political parties. 

But the facts are quite different. As recently as July 1997, Thom- as Cramer, a German national, was fined over $300,000 by the 

FEC for making illegal campaign contributions, almost all of them 

to the Republican party. The former co-chair, finance co-chair, of 

the Dole-Kemp 1996 campaign, pled, in what I believe was the 

largest settlement that the FEC was able to negotiate, I believe 

some $5 million to $6 million, Mr. Chairman, for using conduits to 

make contributions to the Dole-Kemp campaign. 

According to the records from the FEC, they are currently investigating 27 conduit payment cases involving 214 respondents, and 

in the past several years have closed over 21 cases involving over 

108 respondents. We must recognize, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that 

the whole system must be fixed. 

In closing, let me say that I want to get to the truth about campaign contributions during the last election cycle, regardless of 

where they may lead this committee, regardless of what party may 

be involved. However, I also want to expose and correct the fundamental flaws in our campaign financing system that have helped 

to give rise to many of the problems we are confronting today. 

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, and other members of this committee, that we would use this opportunity not only to talk about 

the shadow, to argue over the shadow, but also to confront the substance. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Harold E. Ford, Jr., follows:]

436


g:\graphics\44527.361
437


g:\graphics\44527.362
438

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. The gentleman yields back the balance 

of his time. 

Mr. Snowbarger. 

Mr. SNOWBARGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, as could be expected, the minority would like to 

talk about anything during these hearings except the many possible illegal activities of the Democratic National Committee, the 

President’s re-election campaign, and the White House. 

But these hearings are not and should not be about campaign finance reform. These hearings are about the abuse of power. The 

President and Vice President of the United States are accused both 

in this Congress and on the editorial pages of newspapers across 

the Nation of breaking the law and hiding facts from the American 

people. These accusations command this committee’s attention. 

Soon after last year’s election, President Clinton returned to 

Washington to face tough questions about his campaign’s very aggressive fund-raising effort. The President told the American people that the illegal money that was returned by the Democratic National Committee was not connected with his campaign. If you will 

please turn your attention to the monitors. 

[Videotape presentation.] 

[Note.—The videotape can be found in committee files.] 

Mr. SNOWBARGER. Does anyone want to take up this defense 

today? The President seems to be saying that someone else is responsible for those illegal contributions totaling more than $3.5 

million. But this does not square with the evidence provided to the 

committee by the White House. 

Again, please refer to the monitors. 

In this April 17th memo from the President’s chief White House 

fund-raiser, Harold Ickes, to DNC Chairman Don Fowler, the true 

chain of command is laid out. The memo is very clear: Every allocation of money at the DNC must first be approved by the President’s 

White House team. 

The truth is that the President was involved in nearly every aspect of campaign operations, from the drafting of direct mail fundraising letters to routine budget issues. The President was kept informed of goals, projections, and changes in the DNC-Clinton-Gore 

fund-raising strategy. 

Even the administration’s staunchest defenders cannot deny that 

the President knew in advance of the election that the campaign 

plan that his team designed violated the law in many ways. In fact, 

as this last exhibit on the monitor shows, they fully expected they 

would set a new standard for illegality in a Presidential campaign. 

They budgeted for it. The President’s chief political aide told him 

the campaign would likely be hit with more than $1 million in 

fines. That is more than five times the largest fine ever imposed 

on a Presidential campaign to that point. Mr. Ickes knew this, Mr. 

Fowler knew this, and so did the President. They decided to gamble everything on victory in November and sort out the legal defense later. The end, they believed, justified the means. 

Throughout the many months leading up to these hearings, the 

administration has developed a highly refined series of explanations for every charge made, and as far as I can tell, there are 

five steps to this series. No. 1, we didn’t do it; No. 2, we did it, but 

439

we didn’t mean to; No. 3, all right, we meant to, but it is not 

against the law; No. 4, well, all right, it seems to be against the 

law, but the law doesn’t mean what it plainly says; and, finally, 

No. 5, OK, we did it, we meant to, it is against the law, the law 

was clear, but, you see, everyone does it. 

This is something new and disturbing in our political system. It 

is not uncommon for those accused of a crime to deny it. That is 

why we have juries. But what does it do to our system of justice, 

to say nothing of our democratic political process, when the accused 

displays contempt for the law, when they plead innocent by reason 

of collective guilt? It is a sad fact that this administration’s defense 

of last resort is that the more the law is broken, the less significant 

the law is, and, therefore, the less respect it deserves. Their case 

rests not on the truth, but on their ability to convince the American 

people that they cannot trust anyone. 

Rather than lay the facts on the table, they gleefully trot out the 

latest poll showing that Americans have grown even more cynical 

about all public officials, and they pronounce the public singularly 

uninterested in these events. 

Mr. Chairman, whatever the administration would like the 

American people to believe, when it comes to shady campaign practices, not everyone does it. To my knowledge, no member of this 

committee does it. We don’t accept illegal contributions from 

churches, we don’t launder contributions through dummy corporations and impoverished nuns, we don’t rent our offices to the highest bidder, we don’t take money from foreign governments, we don’t 

dial for dollars from our Federal offices, we don’t move money illegally from one campaign account to another, and none of our campaign workers are hiding out in Communist China to avoid subpoenas. We don’t all do it, Mr. Chairman, and to suggest that we 

do is not only unfair to those of us who play by the rules, it is insulting to those who place their trust in us and demeaning to the 

entire concept of representative self-government. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

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

The gentleman from Maine, Mr. Allen, is recognized. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, we are finally here. After millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of documents produced, months of wrangling 

over due process issues, and weeks of depositions, the House hearings are about to begin. 

The questions hang over these hearings. The media may ask, will 

we learn anything new? Maybe, maybe not. But in my opinion, 

there are more important questions that cloud this process. Two in 

particular go to the heart of this investigation and its role in protecting and improving our democracy. 

First, is this committee serious or just playing an elaborate game 

of gotcha on national TV? Second, are the members of this committee as committed to reform as we are to oversight? Or are these 

hearings just an excuse for inaction on campaign finance reform? 

With respect to the first question, there are ways to judge seriousness. We need, and the American people deserve, a full, fair and 

even handed investigation into the 1996 elections. If we rerun the 

440

Senate investigation, we are not serious. If we declaim loudly over 

minor infractions, we are not serious. 

Early in this session this committee had the opportunity and the 

obligation to examine campaign abuses that may have occurred in 

recent Federal election campaigns, both Presidential and congressional, Republican and Democrat. But here we are hearing our first 

witnesses with 1 month left before we adjourn for the year. This 

committee has spent almost $3 million. Chairman Burton has 

issued 127 subpoenas that Senator Thompson has also subpoenaed. 

The committee staff have deposed 21 individuals who were previously deposed, interviewed or subpoenaed by the Senate committee. 

What should we do? Read the Senate transcripts? Read the testimony? Read the Senate depositions that were delivered to majority 

staff of this committee, but not to the minority? 

The Thompson hearings are at the stage of almost winding down. 

We could be more productive if we concentrated on reforming our 

political finance system instead of plowing old ground with this investigation. 

I have been holding community meetings in my district recently, 

and the subject of campaign finance reform always comes up. Last 

week in a meeting in south Portland, one constituent said, when 

my wife and I read about contributions of thousands of dollars, it 

makes what little we have given to candidates over the years seem 

like bubble gum. He added, we don’t want to do it anymore. 

Soft money contributions to the national parties are undermining 

this democracy, not just because the very wealthy get access denied 

to the many. It is also true that soft money, big money, diminishes 

the role of every voter, every small contributor, and every volunteer. Participation in politics is the lifeblood of this democracy. Big 

money is turning participants into spectators, grassroot workers 

into TV ad watchers. It is not a healthy trend. 

One of my constituents gave me $20 for my campaign last year. 

He wrote in his letter urging me when I got to Washington, not to 

forget the people from the grassroots who sent me here. What place 

remains for him in a system so addicted to big money? 

We can’t create the perfect system, but we can make this one 

better. Our Bipartisan Freshman Task Force developed a campaign 

finance reform proposal. It is a good bill. If it had been in place before the 1996 elections, we would not be here at this hearing today. 

I cannot help but believe that this committee, that the public 

would be better off and we would have done a better job discharging our duties, if we spent more time on campaign finance reform than we do with this hearing today. The time has come to legislate, not to continue an investigation that seems futile and duplicative. The American people deserve that. The state of our political 

system demands it. Yet the Republican leadership in the Senate 

yesterday killed campaign finance reform. 

We had another and better option at the beginning of this process. This committee could have undertaken a bipartisan comprehensive investigation of the 1996 campaign. We could have productively educated the American public in a timely manner. That 

did not happen. 

441

Sadly, I have come to believe that the primary function of this 

investigation is to provide the majority with an excuse for inaction 

on campaign finance reform. That is not a good reason for the hearings we begin today. We should legislate, not just investigate. 

I hope, I still hope, that these hearings will reveal new information that will get to the heart of the abuses in the 1996 campaign. 

But I fear that the price we pay for these hearings is inaction on 

campaign finance reform. The Speaker has said he wants to delay 

any action until after these hearings are concluded. It is not clear 

to me when that would be. 

We should have done better, and I believe we still could. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Mr. Barr of Georgia. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, when this committee began to prepare for these 

hearings many months ago, I had high expectations that it would 

expeditiously and comprehensively reveal the details behind the 

many concerns raised over the apparent abuse of Government information, resources and personnel to fuel the re-election effort of 

a sitting President and Vice President of the United States. 

Although the scale of abuse appeared unprecedented from day 1, 

Mr. Chairman, I was confident that this committee’s historic charter to keep the executive branch accountable to the people, combined with your personal dedication to the task, would ensure a 

successful investigation. But notwithstanding your best efforts, Mr. 

Chairman, I am not as sanguine today as I was back then, for the 

events that have unfolded during the course of preliminaries leading to this hearing have raised a question that simply cannot be 

answered even by this committee. 

From the very beginning of this investigative effort, we have witnessed an unrelentingly orchestrated attempt by some on the other 

side of the aisle to change the subject from past wrongs to so-called 

future reforms. Like the youngster who murders his parents only 

to throw himself at the mercy of the court as a poor orphan, we 

have had a steady drumbeat to change the subject from the world 

of past violations to the world of future improvements. 

The constant campaign to change the subject has been insidiously assisted by a concerted effort by the highest officials in the 

executive branch to obstruct, to obfuscate, to dissemble, and to 

delay interminably the production of documentary evidence subpoenaed by this committee. The most recent revelations that tapes existed of White House fund-raising activities that miraculously escaped notice for months of pending subpoenas from this committee 

is only the most recent indication that the official process by which 

we govern ourselves in this republic has been made a complete 

mockery by this administration. 

We read a letter, more accurately, Mr. Chairman, that might be 

described as a defense brief, authored by the Attorney General of 

the United States, stating that selling access to the highest offices 

in the land is OK. Mr. Chairman, with that attitude prevailing at 

the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I suppose it should come as 

no surprise that we are having to deal constantly with delays and 

obstruction from the other side in this committee. 

442

Mr. Chairman, as we open what should be among the most important series of hearings ever conducted in this body, let me make 

three brief observations. One, a refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas has nothing to do with campaign finance reform. 

It has everything to do with illegality. Two, an abuse of public office through its sale to foreign interests has nothing to do with 

campaign finance reform. It has everything to do with illegality. 

Three, obstruction of justice by impeding government investigations has nothing to do with campaign finance reform. It has everything to do with illegality. 

Mr. Chairman, let us be mindful of what history teaches us 

about such matters. Twenty-three years ago this past July, the 

House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend that President 

Nixon be impeached. In its three articles of impeachment, the committee charged the President with high crimes and misdemeanors, 

including obstruction of justice, abuse of office, and unlawful refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas. 

As we look over the past few years of executive branch misconduct, and especially over the last several months, from the unlawful firing of the White House travel staff to make way for political cronies to the securing without any lawful authority the confidential files of the FBI of those persons considered White House 

enemies, to the phone calls from Government offices for hard 

money campaign donations, to the raising of funds from illegal foreign sources, and now to obstruction, we are struck by the sorry 

state to which our executive branch has fallen. 

The people of this republic depend for their common welfare and 

defense on an individual elected to the highest office in the land 

who is sworn to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Mr. 

Chairman, that question, the question that America asks, is where 

is that person? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

We will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock. 

[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ

CAMPAIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND

POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT REFORM 

AND OVERSIGHT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 8, 1997

Serial No. 105–50

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

(

CAMPAIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW

MPAIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW

GN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW

INANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW

ANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF

LAW

AIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND

OSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW