<DOC>
[DOCID: f:44527.wais]
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
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-527 WASHINGTON :1997
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
PETE SESSIONS, Texas HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey ------
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BOB BARR, Georgia (Independent)
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Richard D. Bennett, Chief Counsel
Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
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
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, Snow-barger, Barr, Portman, Waxman, Lantos, Owens,
Towns, Kanjorski, Condit, Sanders, Maloney, Barrett, Norton,
Fattah, Cummings, Kucinich, Blagojevich, Davis of Illinois,
Tierney, Turner, Allen, and Ford.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Richard
Bennett, chief counsel; Dan Moll, deputy staff director; Judith
McCoy; chief clerk; Teresa Austin, assistant clerk/calender
clerk; Robin Butler, office manager; William Moschella, deputy
counsel and parliamentarian; Will Dwyer, director of
communications; Ashley Williams, deputy director of
communications; Barbara Comstock, chief investigative counsel;
Tim Griffin, Robert Rohrbaugh, Jim Wilson, and Uttam Dhillon,
senior investigative counsels; Dave Bossie, oversight
coordinator; Phil Larsen, investigative consultant; Kristi
Remington, Alicemary Leach, Bill Hanka, and David Kass,
investigative counsels; John Irving and Jason Foster,
investigators; Carolyn Pritts, administrative investigative
assistant; David Jones and John Mastranadi, investigative staff
assistants; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil
Barnett, minority chief counsel; Agnieszka Fryszman, Elizabeth
Mundinger, Kristin Amerling, Andrew McLaughlin, and David
Sadkin, minority counsels; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk;
Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant; and Sheridan Pauker,
minority research assistant.
Mr. Burton. The Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight will come to order. Could we have the doors closed,
please, and could everyone take their seats?
Today, we are going to start our investigation with opening
statements from both the majority and minority sides of the
aisle. We will try to get through these in an expeditious
manner. I would like for Members, if at all possible, to keep
their statements to 5 minutes.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.004
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, 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 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
fund-raiser, Mark Middleton, has also taken the fifth
amendment. Mr. Middleton met on dozens of occasions with James
Riady, John Huang, Charlie Trie and Charlie Trie's business
partner, Ng Lap Seng while he worked for the White House Chief
of Staff, Mack McLarty. When Mr. Middleton left the White House
in February 1995, he turned his White House access and ties to
these individuals into Asian business deals. Mr. Middleton also
remained active in the 1996 campaign and directed donors to the
DNC and the White House coffees.
Mark Jimenez, a former client of Mark Middleton, is the
most recent witness to invoke the fifth amendment before this
committee.
Next, we have Johnny Chung, the infamous hustler, who gave
$366,000 to the DNC, has taken the fifth. It was Mr. Chung who
said, in July of this year, quote, I see the White House is
like a subway. You have to put in coins to open the gates, end
quote.
Mr. Chung should know. He made 55 trips to the White House
and was a frequent guest in the First Lady's office. Mr. Chung
was able to bring a delegation of Chinese businessmen into the
White House for lunch at the White House Mess, among other
perks. In exchange, he was expected to give money.
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 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 control of the Congress in 1994.
Rather, it appears that the seeds of today's scandals may have
been planted as early as 1991.
In conclusion, I would like to note there is a growing
concern that there was real corruption in the financing of
campaigns in this country and that this corruption may have
affected our foreign policy and possibly our national security.
The American people have a right to know whether any
national interests were put in jeopardy by these activities.
Let's get the facts out.
As Abraham Lincoln said, ``Let the people know the facts
and the country will be saved.''
I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits be made a part of
the record and without objection, that will be done.
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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.035
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.
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.308
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.322
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 Wednesday. 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.
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 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
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.323
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.324
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.327
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.329
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.330
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.331
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.332
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 conduct and motivations of the President if we are going to
get to the bottom of this money trail.
As Judge Sirica once said, in a different context, follow
the money, follow the money, follow the money.
Accordingly, I think we should make every effort, in a
bipartisan way, to get eyewitnesses before us. I also sincerely
think that the President should help us in this, particularly
if the witnesses in question remain overseas. Furthermore, some
witnesses who could explain the facts have asserted their fifth
amendment right not to incriminate themselves.
It concerns me, and I think it should concern every
American, that there are so many people close to the President
who believe that they may have committed a crime. That fact
should give us all pause. At least as our investigation relates
to those who have asserted their fifth amendment rights, we
will probably never know the specific role the administration
played unless we are able to get and grant immunity to these
witnesses.
In my opinion, there comes a time when the people's right
to know may outweigh the necessity to send these witnesses to
jail.
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.
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.333
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.334
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.335
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.336
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.337
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.338
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.339
Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mrs. Morella.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you. Chairman Burton, I want to
indicate my appreciation for your convening today's hearing.
Our committee has a responsibility to investigate the political
fund-raising practices surrounding the 1996 elections. We have
been charged with determining which campaign finance laws have
been broken and how domestic and foreign contributions have
been parlayed into policy.
Both the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the
press have raised serious questions about campaign donations
and fund-raising practices, both illegal and legal, in the 1996
election cycle.
Many of these troubling questions remain unanswered and the
American people deserve answers. Why is the White House
stonewalling this investigation by retaining critical documents
and tapes? Why did the DNC ignore critical information about
donors and fail to do background checks? How did contributors
gain access to the White House? Did these contributors
influence policy? Why have many of our key witnesses left the
country?
Tomorrow, we will hear from witnesses who gave conduit
contributions at the request of Charlie Trie and John Huang.
The witnesses who will testify before this committee are linked
or privy to suspect fund-raising activities, many of which are
illegal.
Clearly, the Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits
contributions by foreign nationals in connection with any
election. But it has become increasingly difficult to
distinguish which campaign practices are legal and which are
not and, most important, which campaign practices should be
illegal.
Soft money began to fill campaign coffers following the
Federal Election Campaign Act amendments of 1979, which allowed
a greater role for State and local parties by exempting certain
grass-roots and generic party-building activities from FECA
coverage. And although they are legal, soft money contributions
have led to questionable fund-raising practices and to the
escalating costs of elections.
This is my hope for our committee's hearings; I hope it is
shared by all the members of the committee: that we thoroughly
investigate the very serious allegations of violations of law,
patterns of misconduct and abuses of power by high-ranking
Government officials; that we do so in a bipartisan manner;
that in the course of our investigation we shed light on what
should be illegal and that our investigation leads to an
overhaul of our existing campaign finance laws.
There is no doubt that loopholes in existing campaign
finance laws invite the kinds of abuses we will examine in the
days ahead. So as we look at violations of current campaign
finance law, we must also address the law's shortcomings. To
ignore this reality is to waste an opportunity to enact real
reform.
As I mentioned, our committee has the responsibility to
conduct this serious investigation, and with this
responsibility comes the duty of each of our Members to seek
answers in a professional, fair manner.
I believe Chairman Burton, I take him at his word, that our
committee's investigation will follow the evidence wherever it
leads, and I will ensure that this is the case.
Campaign finance violations bring all of us down in the
eyes of the American people, the very people whom we are here
to serve.
In the coming months, it is critical that we take a stand
against that which is illegal, no matter which party is guilty,
and reform our laws to curb the excess of soft money and other
abuses that should be illegal.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. I thank
you for the opportunity.
Mr. Burton. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her
time.
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.340
Mr. Burton. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time.
Mr. Shays. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Gilman.
Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues.
Throughout this session of Congress, our Government Reform and
Oversight Committee has performed an arduous task of
investigating campaign finance improprieties and any possible
violations of law. This task became necessary as press
revelations in the weeks prior to the 1996 election period
raised questions about the Democratic National Committee's
fund-raising practices, ranging from funneled foreign
contributions to violations of domestic fund-raising laws.
These revelations include the related activities of John
Huang and Yah Lin Charlie Trie both who reportedly contributed
funds in the names of other people and both reportedly
facilitated the contribution of foreign funds into the
Democratic National Committee. John Huang refused to cooperate
with our committee's investigators by invoking his privilege
against self-incrimination, while Charlie Trie has fled the
country and is thought to be somewhere in the People's Republic
of China.
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.
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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.341
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.342
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.343
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.344
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 fund-raising practices that, while perhaps not
technically illegal, are obviously wrong. I am troubled by the
administration's strategy of lawyerly word games, inadvertent
discovery and delay; troubled that so many witnesses have taken
the fifth, fled, forgotten or simply have refused to cooperate;
and I am troubled when partisanship blocks the path to
individual accountability for abuses and to reform of a system
so eagerly and thoroughly abused.
Our job is to judge the extent and impact of illegal
foreign contributions, money laundering and other campaign
finance abuses that have threatened our national security and
undermined the integrity of domestic political process.
Our commitment is to follow the evidence wherever it leads,
without regard to partisan political calculations. But that job
has been made far more difficult because, as has been noted, 39
witnesses have asserted their fifth amendment right against
self-incrimination, 39 witnesses; 11 potential witnesses have
fled the country, 11 witnesses; 11 foreign nationals have
refused to be interviewed; and the number of witnesses with
blank memories grows daily.
Do I believe the former chairman of the Democratic National
Committee, Mr. Fowler, cannot remember when the National
Security Council warned him that Roger Tamraz was a national
security risk? I am sorry. I cannot believe him.
Do I believe the Vice President of the United States did
not know that when he went to the Hsi Lai Temple it was a fund-
raising event? I am sorry. I cannot believe him.
The only difference I see so far between the terrible
abuses in the Nixon White House and the terrible abuses in the
Clinton White House is the Nixon White House abuses happened
under Republican watch and were investigated; the Clinton White
House abuses happened and are happening under Democratic watch.
The administration is still haphazardly finding materials,
obviously within the scope of subpoenas issued by this
committee 7 months ago. And from my review of the transcripts,
it appears the committee minority staff's only contribution to
the examination of witnesses has been to trivialize the
investigation and to apologize to the witnesses for the
inconvenience of having to give a deposition.
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.
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.
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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.345
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?
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, including the resignation of the chairman's legal
team and the delays in the start of this investigation.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope we can work to expose the
deficiencies in the campaign finance laws and that we can work
together toward identifying and acting on a solution to them.
Without a clear objective like that, the investigation is
destined to be dragged down by partisan bickering and finger-
pointing. It is time that we rise above the partisanship that
has plagued this investigation.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.346
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.347
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 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 self-interest.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we begin anew, I
have been sitting here reminding myself that I have sat on this
committee for a number of years now and that, in some sense,
this is not new; that we have been investigating the Clinton
administration since I got to Congress.
First it was Whitewater or Travelgate, Filegate. We had the
data base discussed earlier. And now we have the campaign
finance circumstance.
Now, I have looked at a lot of this information. I have
participated with many others on the committee in various
briefings. All of the information that has been shared up to
this moment indicates that to the degree that a foreign
government had intentions of influencing an election, that
intention was focused at influencing congressional elections
and State legislative elections. And I do note that through
everything that has been said, we always hear these--these cute
phrases that separate the allegation of the Chinese
Government's influence and the abuses that we allege took place
in the Clinton-Gore campaign. And I think it is important to
note that if we are looking for information about the Chinese
Government's influence on elections, we should start with the
evidence that we have, and the first level of that is that they
were interested in influencing the Congress.
Now, what made them think that they could influence the
Congress through financial contributions? I am not sure. But it
is, I think, of import that we, you know, we not try to cover
up this very significant allegation by focusing in on our
favorite target, which is President Clinton; and that we look
truthfully for the answers as to what influence was trying to
be purchased and with whom, and not miss this maybe very
important national security issue by our obsession with going
after President Clinton.
The other thing that is of note is that I saw the other day
that the Governor of California, who ran for President and now
is thinking about running again, suggested that the Republican
party should stop trying to win the next election based on this
scandal mode, chasing Bill Clinton, but perhaps there may be
some other issues of national importance. And I am reminded
that some of my service on this committee has been productive,
and that is, under the leadership of a subcommittee chairman,
Chris Shays, we investigated the whole issue of the chemical
exposure of our troops in the Persian Gulf. That was important.
That was important work that I thought brought appropriate
respect to the work of this committee.
As we go forward now into this investigation, I would hope
that we would look at, to the degree that we are looking for
and searching for those who have broken the law, that we would
remind ourselves--for instance, on the front page of today's
Hill Newspaper, there is a significant article about an
organization of funneling money into Presidential campaigns to
help people avoid contribution limits.
Now, these contributions are focused at Republican
candidates for Congress. So if we are looking for lawlessness,
perhaps we might look at the front page of the Hill Newspaper.
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.
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, 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-discovered 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 fund-raising 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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.348
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.349
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.350
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.351
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.
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.
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
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.352
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.353
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.
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
Clinton-Gore 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.
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 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 Case-
Western 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 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?
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 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 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 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.
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 deja 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.
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 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 Casablanca, 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 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.
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.
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.354
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.355
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,
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 include 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 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 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 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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.356
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.357
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.358
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.359
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.360
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.
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, Thomas 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.361
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44527.362
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 fund-raising 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 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 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.
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.
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.]
-
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
CAMPAIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW
CAMPAIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW
CAMPAIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW
CAMPAIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW
CAMPAIGN FINANCE IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW