[Pages H3646-H3666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CALLING UPON PRESIDENT TO URGE FULL COOPERATION WITH CONGRESSIONAL
INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 436, I call up
the resolution (H. Res. 433) calling upon the President of the United
States to urge full cooperation by his former political appointees and
friends and their associates with congressional investigations, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of House Resolution 433 is as follows:

Whereas approximately 90 witnesses in the campaign finance
investigation have either asserted a fifth amendment
privilege or fled the country to avoid testifying in
congressional investigations;
Whereas prominent among those who have asserted the fifth
amendment privilege or fled the country to avoid testifying
are former political appointees and friends of the President
of the United States, such as former Associate Attorney
General Webster Hubbell; former Department of Commerce
political appointee John Huang; former Presidential trade
commission appointee Charlie Trie; former senior Presidential
aide Mark Middleton; longtime Presidential friends James and
Mochtar Riady, as well as family, friends, and associates of
some of these individuals;
Whereas when the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation Louis Freeh testified before the House
Government Reform and Oversight Committee on December 9,
1997, he had the following exchange with the Chairman of the
Committee:
Mr. Burton: Mr. Freeh, over 65 (at that time) people have
invoked the Fifth Amendment or fled the country in the course
of the committee's investigation. Have you ever experienced
so many unavailable witnesses in any matter in which you have
prosecuted or in which you have been involved?
Mr. Freeh: Actually, I have.
Mr. Burton: You have. Give me a run-down on that real
quickly.
Mr. Freeh: I spent about 16 years doing organized crime
cases in New York City, and many people were frequently
unavailable.
Whereas never in the recent history of congressional
investigations has Congress been faced with so many witnesses
who have asserted fifth amendment privileges or fled the
country to avoid testifying in a congressional investigation;
and
Whereas the unavailability of witnesses has severely
limited the public's right to know about campaign finance
violations which occurred over the past several years and
related matters: Now, therefore, be it

[[Page H3647]]

Resolved, That--
(1) the House of Representatives urges the President of the
United States to immediately call upon his friends, former
associates and appointees, and the associates of those
individuals, who have asserted fifth amendment privileges or
fled the country to avoid testifying in congressional
investigations, to come forward and testify fully and
truthfully before the relevant committees of Congress; and
(2) that the President of the United States should use all
legal means at his disposal to compel people who have left
the country to return and cooperate with the investigation.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House
Resolution 436, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and a Member
opposed, each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is just a simple and sincere resolution to resolve that the
President of the United States should use all legal means at his
disposal to compel people who have left the country or taken the Fifth
Amendment to return and cooperate with the investigation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to indulge myself in a quick reminiscence
about one of my favorite situation comedies I saw on TV. Some of my
colleagues may remember Archie Bunker. Archie Bunker was a
conservative. He had a son-in-law that he affectionately called the
``meathead'' that was a liberal.
I remember in one of my favorite episodes of the show, Archie
Bunker's son-in-law discovered that he had sneaked a few parts, spare
parts home from work in his lunch box. And the son-in-law gave him a
stern lecture on integrity and honesty and personal standards of
conduct, and how he had to in fact rue and regret and apologize and
atone for this grievous affront to all the principles we hold sacred.
And then just a few minutes later, Archie's daughter came in and
exposed that the son-in-law had taken materials home from his office.
The son-in-law, when confronted with this by Archie, responded with
horror that even he, with all his virtue, could be corrupted by the
institution.
It was, in fact, one of the greatest laugh lines of the evening,
precisely because we all sat there and thought, pity the poor liberal,
the more they feign moral outrage, the more they set themselves up to
get stuck on their own stick.
Well, last year we were entertained all year long with all kind of
expressions of piety and fidelity to the principles of individual
integrity, openness, honesty, as the liberals in this body railed
against the Speaker that he must step forward, reveal all documents,
answer all questions and, in a word, come clean, because the Speaker of
the House must be, beyond all shadow of doubt, a man of integrity.
Today, when we say to the President of the United States and all with
whom he associates, come forward, come clean, present yourself, tell
the truth, be open, release the documents, their response is, the
system is corrupt. And before we ask any of these questions regarding
who in the White House may or may not have violated the laws of the
United States in their own shortsighted self-interest, what we hear
from the other side is that it is we who are being irresponsible
because we are not changing the system.
Let me say once more, the Nation will not forgive a Congress that
believes that it is correct to change the rules and laws of finance,
campaign finance, rather than to first discern who is or who is not
obeying the law and bring to account those who do not obey the law. It
does not take a great deal of understanding to know that matters of
personal compliance, personal integrity, honesty and respect for the
law are, in the longer run, more important than the law itself.
Mr. Speaker, again we must come to the floor of the House of
Representatives with a resolution that simply says, let us get
everybody together, present yourself and tell the truth. Certainly it
is not beyond the normal expectation that we should expect the
President of the United States to encourage by all means possible any
persons with whom he has an association to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Solomon), and I ask unanimous consent that he be able to
yield the time as he sees fit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, since October 2 years ago I have been extremely
concerned with allegations swirling around the White House, and I am
not talking about personal or domestic scandals. Rather, I am talking
about the compromising of America's national security and potential
economic espionage.
Both of us on both sides of this aisle should be concerned about
political/economic espionage because it costs thousands and thousands,
if not hundreds of thousands of jobs in Members' districts and mine and
all across America, political/economic espionage and national security
breaches.
That is why I have brought this bill to the floor. If Members do not
understand that, I would ask them to get a Central Intelligence Agency
document which is unclassified, which states, ``Applicability of Space
Launch Vehicle Technology to Ballistic Missiles.'' Take a look at it,
because the technology we have been giving to China today can be so
easily converted to intercontinental ballistic missiles. That is not me
saying it; is our Central Intelligence Agency. Read it. That is how
important this debate is on this issue right here today.
Dating back to my first letter trying to find out about John Huang,
and Members all know who he is, and his connections to the President
and senior members of his administration, we have faced nothing but
contempt for legitimate congressional oversight which is our
constitutional authority, duty in this Congress.
All told, I have written over 50 letters and made dozens of inquiries
to over 8 departments, as chairman of the Committee on Rules that has
legislation pending before it on this matter, and agencies of the
Clinton administration, including the President himself numerous times,
trying to get the truth out.

{time} 1330

For just one example, in my very first letter, on October 21, 1996,
coming up to 2 years now, I asked for all information from Secretary
Kantor, do my colleagues remember him, Secretary Kantor at the Commerce
Department, concerning his department's connection with John Huang to
the Riady and the Lippo Group.
Do those names ring a bell, my colleagues? It took numerous letters
and words like ``obstruction of justice'' to acquire the briefing book
of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown that identified his early
connections with John Huang, which dated all the way back to April of
1993.
The consistent pressure was also necessary to force Secretary Kantor
to begin to come clean on John Huang's access, and my colleagues should
listen to this because this is so important, on John Huang's access to
highly classified briefings from a CIA official in the government
regarding Communist China, an area of the world that this same John
Huang was prohibited from having anything to do with.
But lo and behold, and this is a matter now of public record because
we have been able to obtain this information and make it public, lo and
behold, the information was still dribbled out over a period of not
just months, but months and months and months, which ultimately showed
that it was not just 12 or 37 or even 109 classified briefings or
meetings, but it was more like 150. And who knows if even that is
accurate. It could have been a lot more that this man John Huang was
receiving classified information that could deal with national security
breaches and political espionage. In addition, over 400 to 500 pieces
of classified information were passed on to this particular man. Five
hundred.
My colleagues, today, despite all of this and more, John Huang
remains silent and untouched by justice. He refuses to come forward. In
other words, and this is what my colleagues should pay attention to, in
other words, a friend of President Clinton, a frequent White House
guest, a senior political appointee of the President, one of his chief
fund-raisers and vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is
still hiding behind the Fifth Amendment.

[[Page H3648]]

The American people want to know why. What is he hiding; who is he
protecting? Congress wants to find the truth and so do the American
people. Why can President Clinton not help us with his friend?
And that is really what this resolution is all about. And again I
will just read the last section of the resolve clause.

We resolve that the President of the United States should
use all legal means at his disposal to compel people who have
left the country, taken the Fifth Amendment, to return and
cooperate with this investigation.

It ties in with the President's statement back on January of 1998,
which said, ``The American people have a right to get the answers.''
That is what the President said and that is what we are urging in this
resolution.
My colleagues, today, despite all of this and more, John Huang
remains silent and untouched by this justice. But perhaps even more
dangerous are 20 witnesses that have fled the country and 17 other
foreign nationals who have refused to testify. Foreign nationals, my
colleagues, who were in this country.
For example, one of those is a man named Ted Sieong. Do my colleagues
remember that name? Have any of my colleagues read the papers in their
districts back home? Mr. Sieong, now, listen to this, reportedly an
agent for the PRC, that is the People's Republic of China, and a guest
of both the President and Vice President, has recently been spotted in
Phnom Penh, Cambodia, with his business partner Thung Bun Ma, who has
been identified as the leading heroin smuggler in Cambodia, heroin that
is reaching into this country and being shot into the arms of our
children.
Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, a potential spy and drug kingpin sitting
down with the leaders of the free world. What in the world have we come
to?
I wrote to Secretary Albright in the beginning of this year, almost 5
months ago now, to find out more about Mr. Sieong and Mr. Bun Ma's
visit to America. I have yet to hear back from the State Department. Do
they not take this seriously? Why are they stonewalling? Is this
obstruction of justice or what? We need to know these answers.
This delay is running to ground individuals who have compromised our
national security, and I am sorry to say is not uncommon in this
administration, and is entirely unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on talking about the Riadys, who
refuse to cooperate, the largest donors to President Clinton's 1992
campaign and close friends and guests of his. This is one of the
largest international conglomerates in the world, my colleagues. Sure,
they are rich and, sure, they have all the money to continue hiding,
but why can the President not urge them to come forward and tell the
truth?
Or what about Wang Jun, who, while having coffee with the President,
was the chairman of an outfit preparing to smuggle automatic weapons
into America and lobbying to reverse protection on the transfer of
American satellite technology to China. In other words, my colleagues,
and this is not just me standing up here and saying this, according to
recent New York Times reports, this Chinese government arms dealer,
sitting for coffee with the President of the United States, made
billions of dollars for China upon reversal of those protections while
we Americans pay the consequences in potentially deadly breaches of our
national security.
Again, get the CIA report, unclassified, and see what I am talking
about here today. Mr. Speaker, it is that serious. The stability of the
world is in serious jeopardy for the first time since the Cold War.
The President's moral and ethical obligation as Commander-in-Chief,
my colleagues, is to insist with the full power, with the full majesty
of his office that information is made available, and individuals are
compelled to come forward to tell the truth. He ought to be using the
power of that office to get them to come forward, to let the American
people know the truth and to judge for themselves the damage done to
our national security and, consequently, to the future of this great
democracy of ours.
Are we going to have these ballistic missiles once again pointed at
the United States of America? The immense powers and reach of his
executive branch should be commissioned to tell the American people the
truth and to identify just how serious our security and foreign policy
has been compromised.
I fought for a long time frustrating battles trying to impress upon
the administration the severity of this matter, and I have done it in a
nonpolitical way, because we were out after the national security
breaches and out after the economic espionage, not about this sex
scandal. We want to know the truth about how this country has been
jeopardized.
Despite all these frustrations, not all was for naught. We found out
some information, but more often than not that information was even
more disturbing and begged additional questions. Through all of this, I
found some good people in the administration, some very good people,
willing to help get to the bottom of these breaches of our security.
And make no mistake, our national security has been compromised.
But what we need and what the American people deserve, my colleagues,
is cooperation from the very top, from the President of the United
States himself, in answering our questions and bringing his associates
to justice. That is all that we are asking for, is the truth, the
truth, the truth.
This resolution stands for all of those things and will put the
Congress on record strongly behind the effort to get to the truth and
let the American public find out just what has happened to our national
security because of many of these shady associations. And I will talk a
little bit later about some of those shady associations to try to
dramatize just what we are talking about here.
I hope my colleagues across the aisle will join us in a bipartisan
appeal to the President. National security is too important for
partisan politics. It should stop at the water's edge. We should rally
together. We should rally together with the President of this country
to try to get to the bottom of this so that we do not have this
situation facing the future of our country.
So please vote for this resolution. It is reasonable and deserves my
colleagues' support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Does the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) claim the time in opposition to the resolution?
Mr. CONYERS. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a senior member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gap between reality and
the description we have just heard is very, very wide. The suggestion
that the national security of this country has been endangered or is in
danger because of the People's Republic of China, with its relatively
weak military capacity, is an absolutely unjustified denigration of the
military strength of this country. But it also raises an important
question in my mind.
Now, the gentleman from New York was complaining of the President's
failure to listen to him regarding apparently the terrible menace of
the People's Republic of China. But the President is not the only one
to whom he should be addressing his words. It was the leadership of his
party that brought forward recently a bill to grant the People's
Republic of China Most Favored Nation treatment.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I had to check the record. I heard a lot of this
denunciation of the threat that China poses to the United States, and I
had this vague recollection that the Republican leadership had given
the Chinese the single thing they most wanted from this government:
Most Favored Nation treatment. Indeed, if we look at the trade
practices, if there could be one thing the American government could do
that would make the People's Republic of China happier than anything
else, it would be to give them Most Favored Nation treatment.
Now I know my friend from New York was against it, and so was I, but
it was the Speaker of the House, of his

[[Page H3649]]

party, who put it through. Has the gentleman been so focused on the
President that he has forgotten to share his wisdom with the Speaker?
The staffer who sits next to him, who so carefully hands him that paper
every 4 minutes when he forgets where he put it, can the gentleman not
have him with him the next time he meets with the Speaker? The
gentleman should bring that staffer along, because the gentleman will
have to show that paper to the Speaker.
If the gentleman asked the Chinese what they wanted, some missile
technology or the right to sell us $50 billion a year worth of goods, I
think the $50 billion would come first.
Now, I disapprove strenuously of the way in which the Chinese
government runs its people. I think they are oppressing Tibet. I think
they are a threat to some of their neighbors. I was supportive of our
going to the defense of Taiwan. I do not believe they are a threat to
this great strong country. But if I thought they were trying to become
a threat to this country, the last thing I would begin to do is to fund
them, and that is what Most Favored Nation treatment does.
The Chinese government makes far more money because of Most Favored
Nation treatment than anything else. And the gentleman's party put the
bill through. The gentleman's party controls the House.
Now, on the other hand, maybe there is good news, Mr. Speaker. Maybe
the Speaker has seen the light. Because my understanding, until
recently, was that the Republican Party, the leadership of the House,
planned once again to bring a Most Favored Nation bill for the People's
Republic of China before us. Now, I know I would vote against it and my
friend from New York would vote against it, but given the
organizational power of that coalition of President Clinton and Speaker
Gingrich, the People's Republic of China would probably get it.
And, apparently, there is a breach in the coalition, because I
certainly would find it hard to believe that the Republican leadership,
who so excoriated China and so warned us of the danger China presents
to our very national security, surely they are not prepared to give the
Chinese Most Favored Nation treatment.
The gentleman said it is the Cold War again. During the height of the
Cold War, in fact, during the low parts of the Cold War and the medium
parts of the Cold War we never gave Russia Most Favored Nation
treatment. So I guess those of us who voted against Most Favored Nation
treatment for China should take heart: Allies are apparently coming.
Because I am sure that the passionate nonpartisan eloquence of the
gentleman from New York will not spare his Speaker if he were to err
and provide Most Favored Nation treatment for that threatening nation
of China.
The other thing I wanted to talk about briefly was the resolution.
The facts on this are that the President has, I think, been doing
everything he can. I hope no one is suggesting the President has the
right to order people not to plead their constitutional rights. But, in
fact, the suggestion that the President is not doing what he can is
clearly contradicted by the facts.
One of the things the gentleman mentioned were the people who have
fled the country. They fled the country because the Justice Department
is after them. But the Justice Department works, of course, under
President Clinton. We have heard these arguments that said, oh, we must
have an independent counsel. And what is the basis recently for
demanding an independent counsel? Well, the Justice Department cannot
investigate that. How do we know that? Well, we just got facts that
show the Justice Department cannot investigate it. Where did we get the
facts? From the Justice Department's investigation.
The latest revelations which came from Johnny Chung came from the
Justice Department's investigation. The people that have fled the
country, in all honesty, I do not think they fear the gentleman from
Indiana, who chairs the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
as much as they fear the Attorney General and her prosecutors.

{time} 1345

They are the ones who are threatening them. So what we have here are
people have fled the country because the Justice Department is engaging
in a tough, honest investigation. And so, what do we say? We say, ``Mr.
President, bring them back.'' The only way the President could bring
them back would be to order the Attorney General to stop the
investigation. It is the Justice Department that is involving them in
this investigation.
The gentleman says he wants to pursue this in a nonpartisan way, and
I am glad to hear. I look forward to being here the day he chooses to
do that. Apparently, today was not the day. Because this is a
resolution that is accompanied by rhetoric denouncing the President for
following a policy towards the People's Republic of China, which in
substantial ways is the same as the Speaker of the House and the people
in the other body, because both Houses passed Most Favored Nation.
It is the Administration through the Justice Department which is
investigating these people. And that is what they are taking the fifth
amendment from. They are refusing to testify before the Justice
Department, they are fleeing the Justice Department, and they are
saying, well, what are you doing about it? Well, the President is in
fact, by the toughness of the investigation under the Attorney General,
ultimately the cause of precisely these things.
Now, of course, we want an investigation. And there do appear to be
people who abuse the campaign finance system on both parties. We had
high-ranking fund-raisers in both the Clinton and Dole campaign in 1996
who behaved badly, who appeared to have violated the law. They should
be prosecuted, and we should do it in a nonpartisan way.
But just in summary, first of all, let us not grossly exaggerate the
physical threat that the People's Republic of China poses to the United
States. Yes, they threatened Taiwan. And when the United States sent
military force, they backed down. There is a disparity, fortunately,
between the United States and the People's Republic of China military
that means we are not in any danger from them. Others might be.
Secondly, if they do believe that the People's Republic of China is
such a threat, then how do they put through the House a bill that
continues their Most Favored Nation treatment which does as much to
fuel their economy as any other single thing, is something they greatly
want?
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is not guilty of
inconsistency here. Because he and I agree; we voted against Most
Favored Nation treatment. What happened was, and I know the gentleman
is very busy, he is busy keeping amendments off the floor, the defense
bill, and doing other things, he forgot that the Speaker was for Most
Favored Nation treatment. I understand that. He cannot always remember
everything.
But now that I have reminded the gentleman that it is his Speaker who
was bringing forward Most Favored Nation treatment, I will be glad to
go with him, I will even hand him the document and show him if he
misplaces it to remind him how terrible it is and how he should not
even have it.
Finally, let us note that the investigation from which these people
are hiding, in which they are pleading the fifth amendment, is the
investigation being conducted by the Attorney General and her aides.
And that is, of course, proof that these allegations of cover-up are
pretty silly.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, as Ronald Reagan used to say, we could go to vote right now.
Because the gentleman has made my case, and we won, and we could just
go to vote. But let me comment a little bit.
I do not know how we got into the Most Favored Nation debate here.
The gentleman and I happen to agree with it. But we are talking about
bringing fugitives back to the United States.
The gentleman has tried to make the point that maybe it was the
Republicans that initiated Most Favored Nation treatment. Everybody
knows if they have been here for a while, and the gentleman has been
here for a while, same as I have, I see my colleagues all smiling, but
it has to be the President of the United States that has to initiate a
request for Most Favored Nation. Congress cannot do it. I cannot do it.
In other words, it is the President.

[[Page H3650]]

The President initiates, and then the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon) the day after, which I will do on June 3, the day we get back
here, because that is probably the day my spies over at the White House
tell me the President is going to ask for Most Favored Nation treatment
for China again. Although he may not have the nerve to do it after all
of the votes that we have had here just in the recent couple of days.
But let me just say to him that he wonders had I not been talking to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich). Oh, I have been talking to
the gentleman from Georgia for many, many years about this issue. I
have been talking to Trent Lott, who is the Majority Leader, the leader
of the Senate. Guess what? I made a lot of inroads with the Majority
Leader of the Senate. He is now on our side. And now I have got to work
on the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) a little more. We might
get there.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) also was being a little
miscourteous I believe, I do not know whether it was intentional or
not, when he was referring to the gentleman sitting next to me handing
me papers. It ought to be, for the Record, that the gentleman sitting
next to me is a former Marine fighter pilot in Vietnam. Everybody ought
to know that. That is the kind of people I associate with.
I associate with someone just as important in the next speaker. He is
a former fighter pilot in Vietnam as well, one of the most decorated
heroes of our country. He is the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham). I will let him respond to what I would call an outrageous
statement, without being disrespectful, about the weaknesses of the
People's Republic of China military. What?
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, most of the time the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is very eloquent. People listen to him. He
has got a lot to say. But I would say that the gentleman is grasping at
straws and his last comments are unbelievable, that I do not believe in
my lifetime there will be peace in the Middle East or in Bosnia, not
even northern Ireland. And I strongly believe that China and Russia
today are our biggest enemies today.
The gentleman would like to say the Cold War is over so he can cut
defense more, but that is just not the fact. And to engage in trade
with Bosnia, with China, with the Middle East, we need to engage not
only in dialogue, diplomatic relations, but also trade.
If we look at China, it is a lot different than it was 20 years ago
because we have had an influence in there. But to suggest that trade
equates to giving away military and technological secrets that would
benefit a country in striking other countries and this one is
ludicrous, and that is why I say the gentleman is grasping at straws.
Another thing is that the threat is very evident from China and
Russia today. I have gone through that several times on the floor of
what their threats actually are. And for someone to propose himself as
an expert of military strategy and technology that has never dealt with
it, never donned a uniform, never planned strategic strikes is amazing,
a self-proclaimed expert.
They are a threat, Mr. Speaker. China is a very serious threat. And
to give them the technology that could destroy this country is very,
very serious.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My thanks to the Majority Leader for his fond recollections of the
television production ``All In The Family.'' It was produced by none
other than Norman Lear, with whom I am sure the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Armey) shares many common interests and beliefs.
The President is now being asked in this resolution that everyone who
may have invoked the fifth amendment consider abandoning it. Well, why?
Well, because, as the Chairman of the Committee on Rules said, why are
they hiding behind the fifth amendment? This is technical
constitutional lawyer stuff, but the fifth amendment is for all people.
The fifth amendment is not used for people to necessarily hide behind
it and then have to explain why they invoke the fifth amendment.
I do not think we did that when Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North,
during his crisis, invoked the fifth amendment. People use the fifth
amendment who are totally innocent and have reasons for not wanting to
bring forward information. So I do not think that the test of whether
someone is telling the truth or not or is guilty or innocent can be
arrived at by whether or not they invoke the fifth amendment. I hope
everybody in the Congress will agree on this elementary point of
constitutional understanding.
Now, there have been a lot of names of people who are involved, and
we said over 90 in the resolution. But may I remind my colleagues that
the Senate Banking Committee held exhaustive hearings on some of these
subjects, the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services held
exhaustive hearings on other parts of the people referred to and the
incidents referred to, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held
incredibly lengthy hearings. And the House Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight not only has held lengthy committee hearings but
are continuing to hold committee hearings.
So what are we asking the President to do? We are asking him to state
that he hopes everyone will cooperate with the investigators and tell
the truth. Does anybody on the other side recognize that the President
of the United States, Bill Clinton, has already publicly stated that he
hopes everyone will cooperate with investigators and tell the truth?
Now, it is both bizarre and unprecedented for us to request one party
in an investigation to advise the other party as to how they should
conduct themselves and whether they should, in effect, ignore the
advice of their lawyers.
Again, as raised in the other resolution, do my colleagues on the
other side really mean that that is what they want the President to
tell other people that are being investigated? Again, on their behalf,
I do not think so.
So I will ask the Members considering this resolution, for what it is
worth, I can tell them that I am not favorably disposed toward it and I
feel that it is a totally frivolous amendment that is consuming a lot
of important time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would advise that
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 17 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my colleague on the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me the time.
I think it is important that as we finish this discussion that we try
to step away from the allegations that would create hysteria that
caused my telephone to ring feverishly last night when Americans from
around the Nation considered that we were under immediate attack by
Chinese missiles.
I think the important point is what are we discussing here on the
floor of the House. I take great aversion to anyone being challenged
who has taken an oath of office that they are un-American, that they
would do something to endanger the lives of so many millions of
Americans. I believe this Nation will not forgive a Congress that
itself violates the law.

{time} 1400

We need to have the facts why H.R. 433 and 432 have even been brought
to the floor of the House. I will tell you why they are on the floor of
the House today. One, asking the President to give up his rights to
executive privilege, and, two, asking him gratuitously to tell people
to testify.
The reason, because Democrats thought that someone presiding over an
oversight committee that would call publicly the President a scumbag
and then offer to distort tapes and present them to the American public
as truth needed to step aside from that investigation.

[[Page H3651]]

Our position was not that he needed to step aside from being
chairperson of that committee, but during the time of this
investigation, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight needed
someone else who would not have characterized his bias such that he
would have called the highest officer of this Nation a scumbag.
We always ask for a certain decorum. So the reason why we are on the
floor today is because this is a punitive measure against Democrats and
a punitive measure against the President of the United States.
Members brought a resolution. We will bring a resolution.
Interestingly enough, the resolution that had facts attributable to it
was tabled. Yet, many Democrats voted just last week or this week to
direct that committee to immunize witnesses so that we could get to the
facts.
Democrats are not afraid of an investigation. Democrats are not
afraid of campaign finance reform. We have been arguing for such reform
time after time after time.
These resolutions are what they are. They are political. They are
partisan. Why do I say that? As a Member of the House Committee on the
Judiciary, neither one of these resolutions found their way to the
committee of jurisdiction.
The Committee on Rules, which is the gatekeeper for this particular
body in order to create orderliness, did not get notice of these
resolutions but for 5 minutes before they had to review them.
In fact, the law is clear. Someone taking the Fifth Amendment cannot,
if they were to testify, attribute their allegations and Fifth
Amendment rights to someone who is outside of the realm. So, in fact,
why would the President be fearful of someone coming to testify or why
would the President in any way be impacted by someone taking advantage
of their constitutional rights, the Fifth Amendment?
Why would the President of the United States or anyone other than
your religious leader, your spouse, your family member have any
authority to tell someone that is not part of his immediate family, to
engage them in any discussion about what they do with their
constitutional rights? I ask every American to consider moving aside
the fairness of what we are asking here.
Then the last resolution that passed was about executive privilege.
Executive privilege has been characterized as a sinister tool. Let me
tell you that President Reagan claimed it. President Bush claimed it a
number of times.
Executive privilege is what it is. It is a recognition of a
distinction of three branches of government, the Executive, the
Judiciary, and the Legislative Branch. In fact, John Dean, the counsel
to Nixon, someone who well knew what executive privilege can bring
about, declared just a couple of weeks ago that the President should
appeal determinations made on his use of executive privilege.
If you want to talk about national security, the tampering with
executive privilege will truly tamper with our national security.
What is this about China? I want the facts about China. I absolutely
do not want to see our people in jeopardy. But I would say to the men
and women of this country, I believe you are a fair and honest people.
If you come to the table making allegations of treason, which one of
the Members of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle has
already done, then how can you have a fair and unbiased process when
the Members who are asking for such resolutions have already committed
themselves that the President of the United States has committed
treason? We do ourselves an international disservice.
If we are to presume that we want a fair and unbiased hearing on what
has happened in China, do we need to then make representations, before
we have even heard a single fact, that the President is guilty of
treason?
These resolutions are not what they seem to be. I want those who have
absconded from the law to return and to acknowledge their
constitutional rights, if that is what they so choose, but to respond
to the laws of this land. All of us do.
If the executive privilege is used improperly or illegally, then we
must address that question. But it is an executive privilege that is a
constitutional or a legal provision.
I think we are well to recognize that all is not right just because
it happens to be the law of the land, for the Independent Counsel
statute has already showed us the abuse that can occur, the millions of
dollars that can be spent.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that if these resolutions had come
through the legitimate processes of this House, if they had been
debated in committee, if they had been fairly brought, I would say that
we should go forward. Otherwise, I think these are partisan and unfair,
and I ask for their defeat.
Mr. Speaker, this Nation will not forgive a Congress that violates
the law of equity and the rule of fairness. I must rise today in
opposition to H. Res. 433, a resolution which urges the President to
compel his associates to cooperate with any and all pending
Congressional investigations, for several key reasons. First of all,
this issue is moot. The President has consistently asked all of his
associates and/or friends involved with any investigation pending in
this Congress or elsewhere, to cooperate to the fullest extent of the
law. So with that in mind, what unique kind of petition do the authors
of this resolution honestly expect the President to make, that he has
not made already?
Secondly, the language of this resolution notes that approximately
ninety (90) witnesses connected to the campaign finance investigation
in the House Governmental Affairs Committee have asserted a Fifth
Amendment privilege or have left the country. Do the authors of this
resolution actually intend to imply that the President is somehow
responsible for the actions of these ninety (90) individuals in
choosing to leave the country and/or exert their Constitutionally-
protected rights? As we all know, the Fifth Amendment privilege exists
only for those individuals that may incriminate themselves with their
testimony, not those that may incriminate an outside party like the
President. So what possible relationship does the exercise of this
individualized Constitutional liberty by the President's so-called
``associates'' have to do with the conduct of the President himself?
And finally, I must take exception with the implicit presumption of
Presidential guilt carefully weaved into the language of this
resolution. Why is it necessary to include a statement from a December
hearing with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that
seems to imply that the President is a part of a grand conspiracy to
conceal evidence from this body? If our intentions truly are to simply
compel the President to continue to encourage his friends, colleagues
and associates to cooperate with this investigation, so be it. But I do
not see what the kind of inference made by the FBI Director (that the
only other time he has ever seen such an unavailability of witnesses
was in a organized crime case he handled over 16 years ago) has to do
with the effort to achieve full cooperation by all parties involved in
this campaign finance investigation?
In any investigatory proceeding, the key is always process. If we are
after the truth, why does the language of this resolution imply
Presidential complicity? I need not remind this body that the
cornerstone of the American democratic process is the presumption of
innocence, yet somehow, the United States Congress seems unwilling to
extend that same presumption to the President. I sincerely hope that we
can get to the bottom of the campaign finance investigation in the
Governmental Affairs Committee, but I just do not see how this
resolution is helping to serve that purpose. For all of these reasons,
I urge all of my colleagues to ignore partisan differences and please
vote down H. Res. 433.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair will advise that
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 11 minutes remaining and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) who heads up the Constitutional
Caucus in the House.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. I
understand there is some frustration on the other side about all of
this. This resolution has been cleverly drafted to appear, at first
reading, perhaps, even to be innocuous.
But let me just suggest to my colleagues that we ought not to rush to
judgment in this matter. It has much larger constitutional consequences
then may be first apparent.
The gist of the resolution is to exert the power and the authority of
this House to have people waive their constitutional rights, and we
need to examine the significance of that proposition very carefully.

[[Page H3652]]

First, let us acknowledge that confrontations and disputes in which
the Bill of Rights are invoked often come up under difficult and
unseemly circumstances. That is simply because the Bill of Rights was
designed to protect minority and unsavory points of view, the less
powerful, those out of step with the majority, to protect such people
from the potentially overzealous power of government.
When a criminal asserts a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination, it is easy to condemn it and even easier to forget that
that privilege exists to protect us all from an overzealous government.
Is that not what this recent to-do over IRS reform is all about, for
example?
When a miscreant like Khalid Muhammed gives a vitriolic antisemitic
hate speech, it is easy to condemn it and finesse its protection under
the First Amendment, as this House, unfortunately, did a few years ago.
And easier still to forget the First Amendment's guarantee of free
speech exists to protect all of us against government-imposed
orthodoxy, even those, especially those, with views offensive to the
majority.
When a drug dealer asserts a Fourth Amendment privilege against
unreasonable search and seizure, it is easy to speak grandly about
people who hide behind technicalities, and still easier to forget that
those Fourth Amendment protections exist to protect all innocent
Americans against abuse by government power.
So while, as here, these issues typically come up in a way that
appears to work to the benefit of some questionable behavior, the
intended and enduring beneficiaries of the Bill of Rights are all of
us. We forget that at our great peril.
But this resolution, boiled down to its essence, is an effort to
force Americans to waive their rights. In this case, it happens to be
the Fifth Amendment that would be waived. The point resolution, and the
danger in this is that its reach is much broader, and the precedent is
chilling. If it is the Fifth Amendment today, why not the Fourth
Amendment protection against unfounded searches tomorrow, and the Sixth
Amendment's guarantee of a speedy and public trial the day after.
If it is the Fifth Amendment today, what about the First Amendment
protection against peaceable assembly, or the Fifth Amendment's
guarantee against double jeopardy?
We can all think of many cases in which we wish these protections did
not apply. They are inconvenient. But that is not the issue.
The point is that in order to have these protections for the vast
majority of innocent American citizens, we must also extend those
protections to bad actors.
As a matter of simple logic, if we are willing to compromise those
fundamental principles as they apply to those whom we hold in low
regard, as in this resolution, then we compromise the same principles
as they apply to everyone.
That is a danger and a cost that far exceeds whatever satisfaction we
may derive from this resolution's attack on the rights of individuals
subjected to the delicate and tender ministrations of the investigation
by the gentleman from Indiana.
Some will attempt to characterize a ``no'' vote on this resolution as
if it were endorsing stonewalling. That is just plain silly.
Unfortunately, in order to support the Bill of Rights and its
protections, we have to endorse it, as here, even for cases of people
whose behavior we do not and cannot defend, but whose rights are held
in common with our own.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon)
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, the House is currently debating a series of three
nonbinding resolutions that are heavy in their political content and
very light in their substantive content. They also contain within them
a very substantial degree of vindictiveness.
The resolutions in themselves probably would not be harmful except
that they are in their intention and in their wording and, also,
secondly, because they take away from the House valuable time which it
would be better advised dealing with more substantive issues.
This resolution, first of all, suggests that the Congress urge the
President of the United States to urge other people to waive their
constitutional rights. It says, in effect, that the President of the
United States should behave as some kind of a sultan or dictator and
have people dragged before a congressional committee and submit to that
congressional committee, ignoring completely their rights under the
Constitution and ignoring completely the separation of powers which is
the hallmark of this government.
This resolution in that regard is enormously dangerous. This comes
from the party that asserts itself as being the party of small
government, the party of a weaker, less intrusive government. Yet, in
this very resolution, all of that is denied. All of that is put aside.
This resolution says that this particular party that advocates this
resolution is the party of strong dictatorial government that would
force people to behave in ways that are contrary to their own best
interests and contrary to the basic protections of the Constitution.
It is very difficult to understand the reasoning behind this
resolution, very difficult to understand the reasoning behind its
author who stands for different kinds of things, or at least gives
voice to different perspectives and different viewpoints than are
expressed in this particular resolution.
This resolution says that people should be forced before a particular
congressional committee, even though they do not want to appear before
that congressional committee.
Why might people be reluctant to appear before this particular
committee headed by this particular chairman, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton)? It is quite clear. In doing so, they are simply
being sensible. They are using good common sense.
They have seen the way that this particular chairman behaves. They
have seen that this particular chairman falsifies evidence and
information that comes to his attention and is in his hands. They have
seen that this particular Chairman will take a person's statements and
falsify those statements. He will falsify those statements by
extracting from them words, whole sentences, and whole paragraphs.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a point of order. When
someone is on the floor and makes a statement against another Member by
saying ``falsifying evidence,'' whether those words would really be in
order on the House floor when, in fact, they are not even proven?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer)
requesting that the words of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
be taken down?
Mr. BUYER. I so request. Actually, I ask it by my parliamentary
inquiry, when he makes such allegation that a Member is actually
falsifying evidence, whether those such words would be insulting to the
House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In response to the gentleman's parliamentary
inquiry, Members are reminded to not make personal observations about
other Members of the House.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) may proceed.

{time} 1415

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would direct the attention of the House
to the recorded dialogues and the way in which those dialogues were
handled by this particular committee, and ask the Members of the House
to make judgments for themselves with regard to the way that those
conversations were transcribed, and observe that in those
transcriptions, certain words and sentences were omitted and observe in
those transcriptions that words in fact were inserted into those
transcriptions, which gave entirely different meanings to the sentence
and paragraphs allegedly therein transcribed. I think if people will
look at that, they will be able to judge for themselves exactly what
was taking place there.
Now, with regard to these three nonbinding resolutions and all the
time

[[Page H3653]]

that these three nonbinding resolutions have taken from the House, it
would be one thing if we had all the time in the world to dwell on
these political issues. But the fact of the matter is that languishing
in committees in this House are important measures that are critical to
the health, safety and well-being of millions of Americans.
Languishing in committees in this House is are legislation dealing
with the safety of patients in hospitals; languishing in committees in
this House is legislation dealing with the regulation of HMOs.
Languishing in committees in this House is legislation dealing with the
reauthorization of the Federal Superfund. We need to bring that
legislation to the floor and have it voted on.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a very great American from Monticello,
Indiana, and a chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel of the
Committee on National Security.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, one of my former Democrat colleagues came to the floor
and said he recognizes that there a general level of frustration in the
House, and I think he is accurate and correct. The level of frustration
is there because I believe that the correct body to conduct such a vast
investigation should be an independent counsel.
We have asked for an independent counsel for a very long time from
the Justice Department, and that is who I think the proper body is.
Even the Speaker of the House has an idea to have a select committee,
and different people are trying to grope with it. My preference is to
have the Attorney General appoint the Independent Counsel, and the
momentum of the evidence is building.
I can recall how disturbed I was when I learned that the Attorney
General in the fall of 1995 had been warned by our security sources
that China was attempting to influence our elections, and then that she
thought enough about that concern to pick up the phone and call the
National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, but he was not in and she
never bothered to call back personally again.
That really bothered me. I asked her if she ever had a peculiar
feeling about not having exercised her due diligence, and she said no,
it did not bother her at all. See, that kind of bothers me. It bothers
me because if I had a friend whom I knew was about to be shot or
killed, I would want to warn them. When the Attorney General finds
themselves in that position of having such information, they should
have in fact warned the President that there are individuals who were
going to seek to have monies come into this country to influence the
process.
We find out now it was influenced from so many different angles,
there are different allegations. Whether the debates are in this House
with Loral and whether or not they have transferred, whether it is
satellite, to dual use technologies in the ballistic missile category,
it is very, very concerning.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to come to the House just to share this. I
am very bothered that over 90 witnesses would come forward and take the
Fifth Amendment. That is their Constitution right. The gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is absolutely correct, and so is the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). That is their constitutional right. But
how do you get around that Fifth Amendment? You have the Independent
Counsel, or Justice, you take them before the grand jury. Then they
give them that immunity, and if they do not testify, then they end up
going to jail. But there is a proper mechanism for us to get here. I
understand the general level of frustration by the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to a very distinguished
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
(Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, as part of the discussion on this
administration's lack of cooperation with the Congressional
investigations, as well as the continuous assertion of executive
privilege, I thought my colleagues would be interested and surprised to
learn of another stonewalling situation and another assertion of
executive privilege by President Clinton's White House. It involves the
waiver granted by this administration for the burial of Ambassador
Larry Lawrence at Arlington National Cemetery.
I would ask, why on the Earth would the President of the United
States not want to reveal to the Congress what happened in the White
House in decisions involving matters not even remotely connected to
national security? It is stonewalling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as part of this discussion on this Administration's lack
of cooperation with Congressional investigations, as well as on
assertions of executive privilege, I thought my colleagues would be
interested and perhaps quite surprised to learn of another stonewalling
situation and another assertion of executive privilege by President
Clinton's White House counsel. It involves the waiver granted by
President Clinton to the former surgeon general, Dr. C. Everett Koop,
for burial at Arlington National Cemetery, and the waiver granted by
the Secretary of Army for the burial of Ambassador Larry Lawrence at
Arlington.
As Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, I asked the White House for information and documents
regarding the White House role in the waivers for Dr. Koop and
Ambassador Lawrence. My colleagues will certainly recall the
Subcommittee's discoveries that Dr. Koop is the only living person with
a waiver, a violation of Arlington's regulations and that Ambassador
Lawrence had falsely claimed heroic wartime service in the U.S.
Merchant Marine.
The White House has declined to provide responsive answers to the
Subcommittee's questions about Dr. Koop's waiver, which was
subsequently withdrawn after its existence became public knowledge.
That's the long and the short of it.
And, Mr. Speaker, I was totally surprised and amazed, when the
President's counsel, Mr. Charles F.C. Ruff, not only did not provide
responsive answers to the Subcommittee's questions about Ambassador
Lawrence, he asserted executive privilege with respect to certain
documents that the privilege log enclosed with his letter of January
23, 1998, described as a ``Memorandum to President from Deputy Counsel
to the President and Deputy Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs
regarding Ambassador Lawrence's burial at Arlington Cemetery'' and
``Cover memorandum to President from Assistant to the President and
Staff Secretary attaching a copy of document ANC 0000018 described
above and a list of persons buried at Arlington Cemetery.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask, why on earth would the President of the United
States not want to reveal to Congress what happened at the White House
in decisions involving matters not even remotely related to national
security. I don't have the answer to my question, and I don't know if
the White House is hiding anything, but I am going to keep on trying to
find out.
I do believe this is the first time the Veterans Affairs Committee
has ever been confronted with an assertion of executive privilege as it
attempts to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities, and
I want America's veterans to know what the White House is doing,
because I think it is the wrong way to conduct the people's business,
particularly when it comes to veterans. I hope veterans will let the
President know how they feel about it. I can't imagine any good public
policy reason to be hiding away information and documents under these
circumstances, and I hope the White House will reconsider its position.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute the to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
from Alabama helping draw it all together in a logical way.
Mr. Speaker, I would first say to the gentleman from Indiana, the
Justice Department is doing the investigation. He said the way to get
around their invocation of the Fifth Amendment is to get them before a
grand jury. It is the fact that the Justice Department, or Attorney
General Reno, is trying to bring them before the grand jury, that has
led them to do this. That investigation is going on.
Finally, I do want to say apparently something I said was
misinterpreted as in some way reflecting on the very able staff, and I
regret that, because we are very well served here by our staff.
I did mean to call attention to what I thought was the
uncharacteristically repetitive argument of my good friend from New
York. In no way did I mean to reflect on the first-rate staff work he
depends on. This was between Members, and I apologize, because
apparently something I said may have had that inference.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I just have to call attention to the fact that no one
has

[[Page H3654]]

criticized a particular sentence or particular paragraph in my bill.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry. I thought the time had expired.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon) yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. SOLOMON. No, we have 5 minutes to close.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thought the gentleman was yielding to
me to close.
Mr. SOLOMON. To close for your time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon)
controls the time, and has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, may I please start over again.
Mr. Speaker, I just have to call attention that no one has criticized
a particular sentence or paragraph in the bill. Let me just again refer
to the very last section, paragraph in the bill. It says that the
President of the United States should use all legal means.
Now, you have heard the lawyers on that side stand up and say oh,
they are infringing on the Constitution. But all I am saying is to use
all legal means at his disposal to compel people who left the country
to return and cooperate with the investigation.
Who are those people, Mr. Speaker? If you look at this fellow with
the mutton chops right here, I do not know if you can see it from here,
but his name is Ted Sieong. The media has identified him as a PRC,
People's Republic of China, communist agent. He gave hundreds of
thousands of dollars to the Clinton-Gore campaign and the Democratic
National Committee. He had dinner with the President. He appeared at
the temple, the famous temple with Al Gore.
Ted Sieong, whose business is cigarettes, and you have heard that
referred to here, bought and then changed a Chinese newspaper in Los
Angeles to support the People's Republic of China communist viewpoint
against Taiwan. Even worse, this Ted Sieong guy you are looking at
right here, is in business with Thung Bun Ma, the other man identified
in the picture, over here, people who have been at the White House.
Thung Bun Ma is the leading Cambodian heroin kingpin that is
exporting heroin into this country, into the arms of our children. He
sponsored the coup, and I want you to listen to this now, these are the
people we are trying to get to come here and testify, he sponsored the
coup in Phnom Penh in Cambodia that brought Hun Sen, you know who he
is, they brought him to power, reinstating the deadly Khmer Rouge
influence. Do you remember the Killing Fields? Have any of you seen
that? That murdered over 2 million people.
These are the kind of thugs we are talking about, trying to get the
President to cooperate with you and I to bring here. I wrote to
Secretary Albright in January, 5 months ago, to learn more about these
thugs. I requested again in February, asking the Secretary of State to
accelerate the process, and my committee has yet to hear back one word.
Mr. Speaker, here are about 50 news accounts. This is not just me
saying it. It is not just people on our side of the aisle. This is the
news media from across the country and the world that speaks to the
proxy have just mentioned. These are the people we want to come back
here and to testify. I will include these articles for the Record.
Mr. Speaker, let me say just one more time, on a bipartisan basis, we
are urging, we are pleading with the President of the United States to
use his legal means, legal means, to get these people to come forward
and tell the truth about the national security breaches and the
economic espionage that is costing thousands of Johns in this country,
but, more than that, is jeopardizing the future of this democracy. Let
that is all we are asking for.
Mr. Speaker, I include the articles referred to earlier for the
Record.

[From the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 30, 1996]

Fund-Raiser Huang Surfaces, Testifies

(By Robert L. Jackson)

Washington.--Democratic fund-raiser John Huang emerged from
hiding Tuesday and insisted that his evasion of a subpoena in
recent days did not mean he wanted ``to run away from the
issue'' of his past activities as a Commerce Department
official or a Democratic Party fund-raiser.
Huang, who is at the center of a controversy over illegal
campaign contributions, testified for more than four hours
behind closed doors in a freedom-of-information civil suit
brought by a conservative legal organization seeking to show
that Commerce Department trade missions overseas solicited
money for the Democrats.
A videotape of his testimony released later showed he took
the position that he never acted illegally or improperly. He
denied that there were any fund-raising aspects to overseas
trade missions in which he participated.
Even as Huang surfaced for questioning. Republicans stepped
up their assault on the issue of Democratic fund-raising.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona and four Republican House
committee chairmen asked Atty. Gen. Janet Reno to apply for
the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate not
only Huang's activities, but also a variety of other alleged
improprieties by Democrats in raising funds from foreign
sources.
The Republicans accused Huang of ``the apparent deliberate
flaunting of federal election law . . . with the apparent
cooperation of President Clinton and Vice President [Al] Gore
and the Democratic National Committee.''
McCain and the four House chairmen--Bill Thomas of
Bakersfield, William F. Clinger Jr. of Pennsylvania, Benjamin
A. Gilman of New York and Gerald B.H. Solomon of New York--
told Reno that the Justice Department could not be counted on
to carry out an inquiry that will be considered fair and free
of outside influence.
For that reason, they called on Reno to ask a special
federal court to name an independent counsel. Reno gave no
immediate reply.
Huang, of Los Angeles, resigned from the Commerce
Department in December to join the staff of the Democratic
National Committee--where his fund-raising activities led to
questions that forced him into hiding earlier this month. At
the DNC. Huang solicited more than $800,000 from Asian
interests that violated or may have skirted the prohibition
on foreign contributions to American political campaigns.
He was not asked about his DNC Activities Tuesday because
the Judicial Watch civil suit is limited to Huang's work at
Commerce, and his lawyers raised objections to questions they
felt went beyond that.
On the subject of his work at Commerce, Huang said he had
``played a very passive role'' in the trade missions at issue
in the law-suit. ``The whole Commerce Department objective
was to try to help American business overseas.''

* * * * *

Judicial Watch attorney Larry Klayman said he may have more
questions today if a federal judge permits them.
Huang said he never traveled on any of the foreign trade
missions, which were led by the late Commerce Secretary
Ronald H. Brown. And described his only role as participating
in ``preparation meetings'' at the department before some
overseas trips.
While at Commerce. Huang said, he also never had sought to
advance the interests of the world-wide Lippo Group, in which
he had been an executive before joining the government. Lippo
Group is an Indonesian conglomerate founded by the wealthy
Riady family, who have been longtime Clinton supporters.
Huang did acknowledge that over the years he had met
``quite a few times'' at the White House with the president
and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and members of the
Riady family. He did not describe the purpose of those
meetings or say what had been discussed.
While hiding from public view. Huang said, he felt
encouraged when Asian American friends told him that Mrs.
Clinton had said: ``John's a friend of mine. We all support
him.''
Huang insisted that he had not been dodging federal
marshals who last week tried to serve him with a subpoena in
the Judicial Watch suit, but rather was avoiding
``harassment'' by news media representation seeking to
question him about his fund-raising.
``I didn't think it was the proper time to show up,'' he
said, adding that he spoke by phone from time to time with
Democratic committee officials who did not press him as to
his whereabouts.
Huang, who was a high-ranking official with Lippo Group
banking enterprises for nine years, said he accepted the
Commerce Department position in 1994 because ``as a member of
the Asian American community, we have so few working for the
government.''
He charged that press reports about his fund-raising ``have
tainted the reputation of anyone in our Asian American
community.''
In calling for the appointment of an independent counsel,
the Republicans cited a number of questionable contributions,
including:
$450,000 from Arief and Soroya Wiriadinata, an Indonesian
couple who lived in Washington's Virginia suburbs before
returning to Indonesia at the end of last year.
$325,000 from Yogesh Gandhi, a great-grandnephew of Mahatma
Gandhi.
$250,000 from a South Korean company called Cheong Am
America.
$140,000 from individuals at a fund-raiser in April at a
Buddhist temple in Hacienda Heights.
In a related development, the Democratic committee
continued to delay filing a preelection report that would
disclose contributions or expenditures made during the first
* * *.

[[Page H3655]]

However, the DNC did file with the Federal Election
Commission what party representatives said was a comparable
set of ``raw data.'' Ann McBride, president of Common Cause,
the nonpartisan citizens lobby, termed illegal and
``outrageous'' the Democrats failure to file a formal
preelection disclosure report.
____

[From the Washington Times, Oct. 30, 1996]

5 GOP Lawmakers Ask Reno for Outside Probe of Funding

(By Jerry Seper)

The chairmen of four House committees and a senator
yesterday formally called on Attorney General Janet Reno to
seek the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate
suspected illegal campaign activities by the Clinton
administration and the Democratic National Committee.
In a letter prompted by ongoing probes into the campaign
activities of the Lippo Group, a $6 billion Indonesian real
estate and investment conglomerate, the Republican lawmakers
cited ``eight specific instances'' in which the
administration and the DNC may have violated federal campaign
laws.
They asked that a decision in the request be made by Miss
Reno no later than Friday. Justice Department officials had
no comment yesterday.
``The magnitude of the funds involved, the high rank of the
officials involved and the potential knowing and willful
violations committed make it impossible for any officials of
this administration's Justice Department to carry out an
investigation that will be considered fair and free of
outside influence,'' they said.
* * * Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the House
Oversight Committee; William F. Clinger of Pennsylvania,
chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight
Committee; Benjamin A. Gilman of New York, chairman of the
House International Relations Committee; Gerald B.H. Solomon
of New York, chairman of the House Rules Committee; and Sen.
John McCain of Arizona.
Mr. McCain, who has questioned whether ``foreign
influence'' altered U.S. foreign policy on Indonesia, was the
first to ask Miss Reno to appoint an independent counsel. He
has said Congress needs to know whether President Clinton
arranged a ``quid pro quo'' to soften human rights policy on
Indonesia in exchange for the contributions.
The eight areas cited were:
The involvement of Mr. Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and
the DNC in questionable campaign contributions from Cheong Am
America, a South Korean electronics firm whose illegal
$250,000 donation was returned, and Arief and Soraya
Wiriadinata, Indonesian landscapers who gave $452,000 to the
DNC while living in Arlington.

* * * * *

The acceptance of questionable contributions from Yogesh
Gandhi, from individuals at the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple in
Los Angeles, from individuals at the Hay-Adams Hotel in
Washington and from the Wiriadinatas.
The fund-raising activities of DNC executive and former
Commerce Department official John Huang.
The possible improper influence of official government
decisions as a result of campaign contributions to the DNC by
associates and allies of Mochtar Riady, who controlled Lippo.
The DNC's use of tax-exempt facilities at the Hsi Lai
Temple for fund-raising purposes.
The possible attempt by Mr. Huang, with either the
knowledge or approval of the DNC, to obstruct an
investigation of his activities by evading a subpoena.
The DNC's September FEC report listing the DNC's address as
the home address of at least 31 contributors.
At the center of GOP concerns are the millions of dollars
in contributions to the DNC solicited by Mr. Huang, the
group's vice chairman for finance.
____

[From the Washington Times, Nov. 1996]

Foreign-Money Scandal Grows as $15 Million Offer is Revealed

(By Jerry Seper)

A local businessman told two of Taiwan's leading newspapers
this week he was present when the chief financial manager of
the ruling Nationalist Party offered to donate $15 million to
President Clinton's re-election campaign.
The businessman said the offer was made to Mark E.
Middleton, an Arkansas lawyer and former top aide to White
House senior adviser Thomas F. ``Mack'' McLarty. Federal
election laws forbid such a contribution from foreign
residents, and there is no record the donation was ever made.
News of the offer capped a day in which:
The White House said there are two John Huangs--one a fund-
raiser embroiled in a scandal over contributions to the
Democratic National Committee, the other, a former IRS
employee working on Vice President Al Gore's ``reinventing
government'' initiative. A John Huang visited the White House
78 times in the last 15 months. The White House says the
visits weren't all by the DNC fund-raiser--but it doesn't
know how many were.
The DNC filed its overdue financial report, which revealed
it returned a $10,000 contribution on Oct. 16 to Kyung Hoon
Lee, chairman of Cheong Am America Inc., the South Korean
electronics company that illegally donated $250,000 to the
Democrats earlier this year.
In the Taiwanese connection, Mr. Middleton, who left the
White House in February 1995 to work in Washington as an
international business consultant, arranged a controversial
meeting in September 1995 between Mr. Clinton and the
Nationalist Party financial officer, Liu Tai-ying, during a
critical moment in U.S.-Taiwan relations, said businessman
Chen Chao-ping.
The Los Angeles Times said Mr. Middleton escorted Mr. Liu
to the Clinton meeting after telling the Taiwanese party
chief he had ``a direct channel'' to the White House.
At the time, relations with China had plummeted to the
lowest point in years after Mr. Clinton allowed Taiwan's
president, Lee Teng-hui, to visit Cornell University in June
1995, breaking a pattern of barring Taiwan's leaders from
U.S. visits. China responded with missile tests at sea near
Taiwan, causing Taiwan's stock market to plunge and
international airlines to reroute flights.
Mr. Middleton denied, in a statement, ever soliciting funds
for the DNC or Mr. Clinton during several business trips to
Taiwan, or arranging for ``any contributions to the DNC or
any candidate from any foreign source.'' He said, ``Any
statements to the contrary are completely false.''
Congressional investigators are looking into Mr.
Middleton's Taiwanese contacts, along with those of James C.
Wood, another Arkansas lawyer and friend of Democratic fund-
raiser John Huang, to determine if they used their White
House ties to solicit contributions from Taiwanese
businessmen and government officials.
Both Mr. Middleton and Mr. Wood are friends and confidants
of Mr. McLarty's.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department is reviewing accusations
of illegal campaign activities by the White House and the
Democratic National Committee to determined if calls by
Republican lawmakers for the appointment of an independent
counsel is warranted.
The review, required under the Independent Counsel Statute,
will include a 30-day preliminary inquiry to determine if
suspicions that campaign funds were illegally sought and
delivered to the DNC and the Clinton administration are
credible and if a formal, 90-day criminal probe is warranted.
That criminal probe would determine whether Attorney
General Janet Reno should ask a federal appeals court panel
to appoint an independent counsel.
Earlier this week, the chairmen of four House committees
and a senator called on Miss Reno to seek the appointment of
an outside counsel to investigate suspected illegal campaign
activities. Targeting the Lippo Group, a $6 billion
Indonesian real estate and investment conglomerate, the
lawmakers cites ``eight specific instances'' in which the
White House and the DNC may have violated federal campaign
laws.
They said the ``magnitude of the funds involved, the high
rank of the officials involved and the potential knowing and
willful violations committed'' made it impossible for the
Clinton Justice Department to carry out an investigation
``that will be considered fair and free of outside
influence.''
The letter was signed by Reps. Bill Thomas of California,
chairman of the House Oversight Committee; William F. Clinger
of Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Government Reform and
Oversight Committee; Benjamin A. Gilman of New York, chairman
of the House International Relations Committee; Gerald B.H.
Solomon of New York, chairman of the House Rules Committee;
and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Mr. McCain has questioned whether ``foreign influence''
altered U.S. foreign policy on Indonesia and has said
Congress needs to know if Mr. Clinton arranged a ``quid pro
quo'' to soften human rights policy on Indonesia in exchange
for the contributions.
During a press briefing on Thursday, Miss Reno acknowledged
she had received the request, saying, ``We are looking at it
in the context of the Independent Counsel Statute.'' She said
the act ``prescribes certain deadlines, and we will operate
under that and do everything we can based on the evidence and
the law.''
Miss Reno said the matter had been referred to the
department's public integrity section, which is staffed by
career lawyers who investigate and prosecute corruption cases
involving public officials and the electoral system.
Mr. Wood, who has been unavailable for comment, was named
in 1995 to head the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a
private foundation on contract to the State Department to
maintain unofficial ties with Taiwan. As head of the AIT, he
effectively served as U.S. ambassador to Taiwan.
Published reports said senior officials in Taiwan
complained that Mr. Wood pressured businessmen for donations,
suggesting Mr. Clinton should be rewarded for his pro-Taiwan
policies. On a visit to Taiwan this year, Mr. Wood was
accompanied by Mr. Huang in what the DNC said was a fund-
raising trip.
Mr. Wood practices international-trade law in Washington
and has clients with economic interests in China and Taiwan.
Mr. Middleton helped raise $4 million in the 1992 Clinton
presidential campaign.
____

[From the Washington Times, Nov. 27, 1996]

Commerce Dept. Queried on Lippo, Vietnam Policy

(By Jerry Seper)

The chairman of a House committee probing foreign-linked
campaign gifts to the

[[Page H3656]]

Democratic Party asked Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor
yesterday to explain the role three Lippo executives played
in President Clinton's 1994 decision to end a 30-year trade
embargo with Vietnam.
Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon, the chairman of the House
International Relations Committee, demanded ``all
information'' concerning contacts, agreements or ``other
dealings'' involving the Lippo Group; Mochtar Riady, the
company's founder; his son. James, a Lippo executive; and
John Huang, a former Lippo and Commerce Department official,
in ``any influence of U.S. policy and the normalization of
relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.''
In a letter, the New York Republican said he wants
clarification on Vietnam policy meetings called and attended
by Mr. Huang while he was deputy assistant secretary of
international economic policy at Commerce and on efforts by
Lippo to end the Vietnam embargo.
In a handwritten note on the bottom of the two-page letter.
Mr. Solomon said: ``This is important, I ask you.''
Mr. Huang is at the center of a controversy over foreign-
linked campaign donations to Mr. Clinton and the Democratic
National Committee.
After the embargo was lifted, talks began within the
administration on formulating trade policies toward Vietnam.
Mr. Huang moved from Lippo to the Commerce Department during
this process and began a vigorous campaign to open Vietnam to
U.S. trade.
Mr. Solomon wants to know whether Lippo sought to influence
U.S. policy toward Vietnam while the company was making trade
overtures to that country. He asked Mr. Kantor for similar
documents in October. Mr. Kantor responded with some but did
not include Vietnam-related files.
Commerce spokeswoman Maria Cardona said yesterday Mr.
Kantor had not seen the letter and therefore had no comment.
The panel's interest in Lippo's role in the end of the
embargo surfaced in October When it got Mr. Huang's
appointment calendars and found that he began an aggressive
campaign for a new trade policy toward Vietnam a day after
his July 1994 appointment. He pushed that policy for the next
17 months while Lippo, his former employer, sought to expand
its investment empire into Vietnam.
Mr. Huang's Commerce Department calendars show that
immediately after he left Lippo with a $780,000 bonus, he
began a series of meetings with White House officials, key
associates, international bankers and corporate executives to
discuss an expansion of trade with Vietnam.
Republicans have suggested his activities on Vietnam
represented a conflict of interest, and they have called for
congressional hearings and the appointment of an independent
counsel to investigate the matter.
The Justice Department is reviewing a request by Mr.
Solomon and the chairmen of three other House committees for
the appointment of an independent counsel. Assistant Attorney
General Andrew Fois has said the case is being examined by
the department's public integrity section.
Mr. Huang's first involvement in Vietnam policy as a deputy
assistant secretary came on his first day on the job, July
19, 1994, when he scheduled a 9 a.m. meeting on ``U.S.-
Vietnam policy.''
Mr. Clinton lifted the Vietnam embargo on Feb. 4, 1994,
reneging on a 1992 campaign pledge to first get a ``full
accounting'' of Americans missing from the Vietnam War.
Mr. Solomon, in his letter, asked Mr. Kantor to explain
meetings Mr. Huang had in July and October 1994 and in
January, February and August 1995 that are listed as Vietnam-
related.
Mr. Solomon also asked for information on an April 1993
meeting involving Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown and 40
Asian community leaders in Los Angeles to discuss most-
favored-nation trade status for China and the normalization
of relations with Vietnam.
Mr. Huang, then an official at Lippo Bank in Los Angeles,
attended that session, congressional investigators said.
At least 11 House panels, including Mr. Solomon's, are
probing foreign contributions to the DNC, looking at Mr.
Huang's ties to Vietnam policy, and examining his appointment
calendars to determine with whom he met, what was said and
what agreements were reached, particularly those that could
directly benefit Lippo.
While Mr. Huang was at the Commerce Department, the Lippo
Group, based in Indonesia, sought to expand its $6.9 billion
investment empire into Vietnam.
Mochtar Riady led a trade mission of Asian bankers to
Vietnam in September 1993. Lippo opened trade offices in Ho
Chi Minh City and Hanoi after Mr. Riady's visit.
James Riady, Lippo's deputy chairman, has said Mr. Huang
was ``my man in the American government.''
____

[From the New York Times, Dec. 3, 1996]

Letters Show How Indonesian Donor Family Lobbied Clinton

(By Alison Mitchell)

Washington, Dec. 2.--Mochtar Riady, an Indonesian
businessman with longstanding ties to President Clinton,
recommends to the President that the United States normalize
ties to Vietnam and pursue economic engagement with China.
Mark Grobmyer, an Arkansas businessman, lets Mr. Clinton
know that Indonesia's President Suharto would like to address
the Group of Seven industrial nations.
And an Alabama insurance executive asks Vice President Al
Gore for a letter congratulating his company for a venture
with a Riady company.
These letters--details of which were made available today
by White House officials--are among more than a dozen pieces
of correspondence to and from the White House concerning the
Riady family. White House officials are preparing to turn
over the documents to Congressional committees looking into
questionable fund-raising practices by the Democratic
National Committee.
White House officials said they were still culling records
and could not yet say whether more letters would be found or
when the materials would be delivered to Congress.
Representative Gerald B. Solomon, the chairman of the House
Rules Committee, wrote a letter to the White House asking why
he had not been told of the correspondence in October when he
asked for information about the Riadys from Commerce
Secretary Mickey Kantor.
``I would appreciate convincing assurances that it was not
an attempt to cover up embarrassing information before the
election,'' Mr. Solomon, Republican of New York, said.
As described by White House officials, the letters cast
little light on the questions Republicans are most interested
in: whether the Riady and their associates affected American
policy toward Asia or benefited from helping raise millions
in donations for the Democratic committee.
Replies to the Riadys and their associates from the
President and Vice President, also described by the White
House, often seemed little more than form letters. Some of
the correspondence was social. Mr. Clinton sent a brief
birthday note to Mr. Riady on May 7, 1993, for instance.
But the letters do help paint a fuller picture of the
relationship between the Clinton White House and the Riady
family, which became a focus of Republican attacks after the
Democratic National Committee suspended John Huang, a fund-
raiser who had been a top executive in the United States for
the American interests of the Riady family.
In a four-page letter to Mr. Clinton on March 9, 1993,
Mochtar Riady thanked the President for seeing him briefly
during Inaugural festivities and then offered detailed advice
about how the United States should approach trade relations
with Asia.
He argued that the Administration should normalize
relations with Vietnam, saying in passing that he had two
managers there looking for investment opportunities. Mr.
Riady said Suharto, the Indonesian ruler, wanted to attend
the G-7 summit. And he urged that the Administration allow
economic engagement with China as the best way to bring about
reform. Mr. Clinton in 1992 had assailed President George
Bush for seeking to use economic engagement to change China.
But once in office, he followed essentially the same policy.
Mr. Clinton has acknowledged discussing policy with Mr.
Riady's son James, once an Arkansas businessman, but said Mr.
Riady never influenced policy decisions. Speaking to
reporters today, Mr. Clinton the March 1993 letter was ``a
letter like tens of thousands of other letters I get.'' He
called it ``a straightforward policy letter, the kind of
thing that I think people ought to feel free to write the
President about.''
Michael D. McCurry, the White House press secretary, said
that the President had been interested in input from business
executives regarding economic policy in Asia. And while the
Administration decided in 1994 to lift the United States
embargo against Vietnam, Mr. McCurry said that ``to suggest
that any particular individual's views, whether it be a
financial contributor or not, would have a disproportionate
thinking on the work of the Administration is a little bit
less than credible.''
In another letter to Mr. Clinton in March 1993, Mr.
Grobmyer a Little Rock lawyer who has been active with the
Riadys and others in Asian business dealings, wrote to Mr.
Clinton about a recent trip he took to Asia. He too said that
Mr. Suharto wanted to address a meeting of the Group of Seven
in Tokyo.
Mr. Grobmyer said he had already spoken to Thomas F.
McLarty 3d, then the White House chief of staff, and Nancy
Soderberg, an official at the National Security Council,
about his trip. He said the Riadys had helped him in his
travels and attached a draft thank you note that he said the
President might consider sending to them, with suggestions on
increasing American competitiveness in Asia. There is no sign
among the correspondence that Mr. Clinton sent such a letter
to the Riadys and the United States did not back Mr.
Suharto's attendance at the meeting. Instead, Mr. Clinton met
Mr. Suharto in Tokyo during the summit.
Vice President Gore also got a letter in 1994 about the
Riadys. The White House has found the second page of a letter
to the Vice President from W. Blount of the Protective Life
Corporation saying that his company was forming a joint
venture with one of the Riady companies, the Lippo Group. He
asked for a letter of congratulations, noting that it would
help with the Riadys if the letter affirmed that his company
was known to the Administration. Several months later the
Vice President wrote to James Riady expressing
congratulations on the joint venture.

[[Page H3657]]

[From the Washington Times, Dec. 1996]

While Lippo Eyed Vietnam, Huang Pushed at Commerce

(By Jerry Seper)

John Huang began aggressively arguing for a new U.S. trade
policy toward Vietnam only one day after his July 1994
appointment as a top Commerce Department official--and pushed
the idea for the next 17 months while his former employer,
the Lippo Group, sought to expand its investment empire into
Vietnam.
Republican legislators believe Mr. Huang's efforts to open
Vietnamese markets after his former company paid him a
$780,000 bonus is a conflict of interest, and they have
called for congressional hearings and the appointment of an
independent counsel to investigate the matter.
``Mr. Huang's prior involvement with Lippo and his
activities at Commerce with regard to Vietnam is an absolute
conflict of interest,'' says Rep. Gerald B. H. Solomon, New
York Republican and chairman of the House Rules Committee.
``It's just outrageous that these kinds of things can happen,
these kinds of things can happen, and we're going to insist
that we get to the bottom of it.
``If this was Wall Street or the New York Stock Exchange,
this kind of insider information would result in people going
to jail.''
The Justice Department is now reviewing a request by Mr.
Solomon and the chairmen of three other House committees,
along with Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, for the
appointment of an independent counsel. Assistant Attorney
General Andrew Fois says the case is being examined by the
department's Public Integrity Section.
Mr. Huang's attorney, John C. Keeney Jr., says he and his
client ``were not in a position to respond'' to questions
concerning the Vietnam accusations.
Now at the center of a growing controversy over foreign-
linked campaign donations to President Clinton and the
Democratic National Committee, Mr. Huang met several times
with White House officials, key friends and associates of Mr.
Clinton, international bankers, and corporate executives to
discuss an expansion of trade ties with Vietnam, according to
his personal appointment calendars.
In fact, his first involvement in the topic as a deputy
assistant secretary for international trade came during his
first full day on the job, July 19, 1994, when he scheduled a
9 a.m. meeting on ``U.S.-Vietnam policy.'' Several other
meetings are listed in his personal calendars as Vietnam-
related.
Mr. Clinton, discarding a 1992 campaign pledge for a ``full
accounting'' of Americans missing in action during the
Vietnam War, ended a 30-year trade embargo against Vietnam in
February 1994. Several companies, including the Lippo Group
and its U.S. affiliates, were scrambling to take advantage of
new market potential.
Five months after the embargo was listed, while talks
continued on formulating new trade policies with Vietnam, Mr.
Huang moved to Commerce with his $780,000 Lippo bonus and
immediately began a vigorous campaign to open up that country
to U.S. trade.
Three House committees probing suspected illegal foreign
contributions to Mr. Clinton and the DNC are looking into Mr.
Huang's ties to Vietnam trade agreements and have begun to
examine his appointment calendars to determine with whom he
met, what was said and what agreements were reached--
particularly those that might have benefited the Lippo Group
directly.
Investigators also have focused on assertions by James
Riady, deputy chairman at Lippo and son of Lippo's owner,
Mochtar Riady, that Mr. Huang was ``my man in the American
government.''
Mr. Solomon says preliminary inquiries have shown that
``extremely large contributions'' were made during the 1996
presidential campaign but it is not clear what concerns the
Lippo Group had in giving the money or what the company
received in return.
The request for an independent counsel is backed by Mr.
Solomon; Mr. McCain; and Reps. Bill Thomas of California,
chairman of the House Oversight Committee, William F. Clinger
of Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Government Reform and
Oversight Committee, and Benjamin A. Gilman of New York,
chairman of the House International Relations Committee.
Eight specific areas of concern, including ``the fund-
raising activities of DNC executive and former Commerce
Department official John Huang,'' were cited.
According to Mr. Huang's calendars, copies of which have
been obtained by the committees, he scheduled several
Vietnam-related meetings with government and corporate
officials between his 1994 appointment and his December 1995
resignation to join the DNC as a fund-raiser.
At the time, the Jakarta-based Lippo Group, where Mr. Huang
was a banking executive and vice chairman, was seeking White
House and Commerce Department help in expanding its $6.9
billion real estate and investment holdings into Vietnam,
where the firm had huge financial interests.
Mochtar Riady had led a trade mission of Asian bankers to
Vietnam in September 1993 to appraise business opportunities
there--five months before Mr. Clinton's decision to lift the
embargo. By early 1995, the firm had put together a joint
marketing venture with First Union Corp. of North Carolina to
finance trade efforts in Southeast Asia.
James Riady and Mr. Huang are longtime friends of Mr.
Clinton and were officers at Worthen National Bank in Little
Rock (which has become Boatmen's Bank of Little Rock, a
subsidiary of Boatmen's Bank of St. Louis) when Mr. Clinton
was the governor of Arkansas. In 1992, they approved a $3.5
million loan to the Clinton presidential campaign just before
the New York primary.
Mr. Huang also raised $250,000 in contributions for the
1992 race and was responsible for raising $4 million to $5
million in donations for Democrats in 1996.
Most actively involved in the Vietnam venture was Lippo
Ltd., a privately held finance and real estate subsidiary of
the Lippo Group. the firm reported $3.6 billion in assets,
with 143 subsidiaries in 11 countries. The Riady family
controls 54 percent of Lippo Ltd. stock and oversees it
subsidiaries, one of which was Worthen.
Also involved was Lippo Bank, publicly held and based in
Jakarta. With assets of $3.3 billion, it has more than 260
branches in 90 cities in Indonesia, as well as offices in
Vietnam and California.
____

[From the Washington Times, Dec. 1996]

Secrecy on Riady Letters Ripped

solomon warns of more scrutiny

(By Jerry Seper and Paul Bedard)

A House committee chairman probing campaign contributions
to the Democratic Party yesterday accused the White House of
balking at Congress' request for letters detailing the
controversy while it conducts a public-relations campaign
through the press.
``I found it offensive that instead of paying me the
courtesy of faxing the March 1993 letter from Mochtar Riady,
the White House prefers to let the press view the Clinton-
Riady correspondence under controlled conditions and with its
own self-serving spin,'' said House Rules Committee Chairman
Gerald B.H. Solomon, New York Republican.
``For four years, this has been the standard White House
reaction to exposure of its own actions. The White House is
now in no position to complain of increased congressional
scrutiny,'' he said. ``In fact, they can count on it.''
The complaint came as the White House released new details
on the letters between the president and Indonesian
billionaire Mochtar Riady and his son, James, but continued
to put off congressional demands for the documents.
Mr. Solomon, who Monday denounced the White House's refusal
to release documents, said a March 9, 1993, letter from
Mochtar Riady calling for an end to a 30-year trade embargo
on communist Vietnam was critical in determining the scope of
pending hearings and whether they should be conducted by a
special or standing committee.
He said the hearings are necessary because of Attorney
General Janet Reno's decision last week to reject his request
for the appointment of an independent counsel to look into
accusations of campaign-finance irregularities.
The White House letters suggest a strong friendship between
the Riady family, which runs the Lippo Group, and the
president and his aides, as well as a reliance by Mr. Clinton
on the Riadys' advice on Asia policy. A key to this
relationship is the March 1993 letter calling on Mr. Clinton
to lift the embargo. The president did so in February 1994.
In that letter, Mr. Riady thanked Mr. Clinton for meeting
with him on Inauguration Day in 1993 and suggested that
normalizing business relations would snowball into political
reforms in the communist country. He also urged Mr. Clinton
to continue U.S. engagement in China and suggested he let
Indonesian President Suharto attend the 1993 Group of Seven
economic summit in Tokyo.
The White House said Mr. Clinton responded by referring Mr.
Riady's letter to Robert E. Rubin, who at the time was Mr.
Clinton's top economic-policy adviser and now is Treasury
secretary.
The letters detailing the president's links to Mochtar
Riady also indicate that former Democratic National Committee
fund-raiser John Huang wielded influence over the president.
For example, after the White House delayed nearly two months
in writing a letter congratulating Mr. Riady for receiving an
award from Golden Gate University in San Francisco, Mr. Huang
weighed in.
In April this year, he wrote Nancy Hernreich, deputy
assistant to the president and director of Oval Office
operations, seeking a Clinton letter. Seven days later, Mr.
Clinton wrote a congratulatory note to Mr. Riady.
The White House said it will release the texts of the
letters once it completes its search for all records of the
Clinton-Riady relationship.
Many of the letters also detail the relationship between
the president and his aides and James Riady, the chairman of
Lippo and a longtime Clinton friend.
A Clinton associate, Little Rock businessman Mark Grobmyer,
wrote the president about his May 1993 trip to Indonesia and
Asia and asked him to write James Riady a thank-you note for
aiding in the trip. In May 1993, the president wrote to Mr.
Riady, applauding his efforts to strengthen U.S. business
ties to Asia. He also thanked Mr. Riady for giving him a
specially made nameplate.
The White House also detailed a letter from William E.
Blount of Protective Life Corp., whose firm joined in a
venture with Lippo in Asia. In January 1994, Mr. Blount asked
Vice President Al Gore for a letter

[[Page H3658]]

congratulating the firms on the venture. That April, Mr. Gore
wrote Mr. Riady to express the administration's satisfaction
with the venture.
____

[From the Washington Times, Dec. 1996]

Clinton Says Lippo Letter Didn't Sway Hanoi Policy

(By Jerry Seper and Paul Bedard)

President Clinton acknowledged yesterday that he received a
letter from the head of the Indonesia-based Lippo Group
seeking normalization of trade relations with Vietnam, but he
denied the 1993 letter influenced his decision to end a 30-
year trade embargo on that country.
The chairman of a House committee probing the role of three
Lippo executives in the decision to end the embargo angrily
denounced what he called a possible ``cover-up'' in Mr.
Clinton's failure to release the letter from Mochtar Riady,
Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon, New York Republican, demanded that
the president immediately make it public to avoid the
perception of an ``obstruction of justice.''
Mr. Solomon, chairman of the House Rules Committee, had
asked the White House and the Commerce Department in October
for all communications, correspondence or ``any other
dealings'' involving Lippo; Mr. Riady; his son, James, a
Lippo executive; and John Huang, former Lippo and Commerce
official, regarding efforts to ``influence'' U.S. trade
policy with Vietnam.
The committee chairman also sought clarification on Vietnam
policy meetings called by Mr. Huang while a deputy assistant
secretary for international economic policy at Commerce and
on Lippo efforts to end the embargo at a time when it was
moving its $6.9 billion real estate and investment empire
into Vietnam.
``Failure to do so could only be construed . . . as a
continuation of the pattern of stonewalling begun before the
recent elections,'' Mr. Solomon said. ``There could be no
other possible explanation of your failure to produce the
letter. Such an invitation would also invite suspicions of
obstruction of justice, whether such suspicions are warranted
or not.''
Mr. Clinton promised to make the letter available, but not
before he first delivers it to congressional oversight
committees--probably sometime next week. Its existence was
first reported yesterday by the Wall Street Journal.
``It's a letter like tens of thousands of other letters I
get, people suggesting every day . . . what our policy ought
to be in various areas,'' Mr. Clinton told reporters at a
ceremony to honor spaceshuttle astronaut Shannon Lucid. ``You
will see it's a straightforward policy letter, the kind of
thing that I think people ought to feel free to write the
president about.''
Mr. Clinton also dismissed threats of hearings. ``They'll
have to do their business. They can do whatever they think is
right. I'm going to spend my time working on what I can do,''
he said.
His spokesman, Michael McCurry, tried to say there was
nothing new in the Journal's story. He said that the letter's
existence was ``largely known'' to other reporters and that
Mr. Riady's representative had made reference to the letter's
having been sent.
``I think we never formally disputed the notion that there
was such a piece of correspondence from Mr. Mochtar Riady,''
Mr. McCurry said.
The letter was not released, he said, because the
administration wanted first to answer congressional inquiries
about the affair.
Mr. McCurry also rejected suggestions that Mr. Riady
influenced policy toward Vietnam: ``To suggest that any
particular individual's views, whether it be a financial
contributor or not, would have a disproportionate thinking on
the work of the administration is a little bit less than
credible,'' he said.
The March 9, 1993, letter called on Mr. Clinton to
normalize relations with Vietnam, noting that two Lippo
executives were scouting investment opportunities there. The
president responded on April 5, 1993, saying the letter had
been sent to Robert E. Rubin, then chairman of the White
House National Economic Council and now Treasury secretary.
Mr. Huang and the Riadys are at the center of a growing
criticism over foreign-linked campaign donations to Mr.
Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, with as many
as 11 House committees looking into the matter.
James Riady and Mr. Huang were among 14 donors of $100,000
or more to the 1993 Clinton inaugural festivities--a
contribution coming at a time when the administration was
considering a change in U.S.-Vietnam relations.
The rules panel has targeted Lippo's role in the
president's Feb. 4, 1994, decision to end the Vietnam embargo
despite a 1992 campaign pledge to first get a ``full
accounting'' of Americans missing from the Vietnam War.
After the embargo was lifted, talks began within the
administration on formulating trade policies toward Vietnam.
Mr. Huang then moved from Lippo to Commerce and began a
campaign to trade with Vietnam, where his former employer had
opened offices in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City.
The administration fully normalized relations with Vietnam
in July 1995.
Mr. Solomon wants to know whether Lippo sought to influence
U.S. policy toward Vietnam while the company was making trade
overtures to that country, and he asked Commerce Secretary
Mickey Kantor for similar documents in October. Mr. Kantor
responded with some documents but did not include Vietnam-
related files.
The panel's interest in Lippo's role in the embargo
surfaced in October when investigators obtained Mr. Huang's
Commerce appointment calendars and found he began an
aggressive campaign for a new Vietnam trade policy a day
after his July 18, 1994, appointment. He pushed that policy
for the next 17 months while Lippo sought to expand into
Vietnam.
Mr. Huang's calendars show that immediately after he left
Lippo with a $780,000 bonus he began a series of meetings
with White House officials, key associates, international
bankers and corporate executives to discuss an expansion of
trade with Vietnam.
Republicans have suggested his role in the matter was a
conflict of interest and have called for hearings to
investigate the matter.
____

[From the Washington Times, Dec. 14, 1996]

Clinton Ties to Russian Visitor Questioned

(By Jerry Seper)

The chairman of the House Rules Committee has asked the
White House for records of all meetings and correspondence
between President Clinton and Grigori Loutchansky, a White
House visitor and head of a firm identified as being tied to
Russian criminal activity.
Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon, New York Republican, this week
also sought records on Sam Domb, a New York real estate
executive who brought Mr. Loutchansky as guest to a White
House dinner in October 1993 and donated $160,000 to the
Democratic National Committee over 12 months after the
dinner.
I do not take pleasure in noting that the selective and
carefully controlled release of information by the White
House has obliged Congress to make repeated following
inquiries about possible fund-raising irregularities and
conflicts of interest,'' Mr. Solomon said in a letter to the
president.
``Public accounts have placed you, Mr. President, and Vice
President Gore with both Mr. Loutchansky and Mr. Domb at
least once,'' Mr. Solomon said in his request for the
records.
Mr. Loutchansky, head of an Austrian-based commodities
trading firm known as Nordex, got a private two-minute
meeting with Mr. Clinton and his picture taken with the
president. He also was invited by the DNC to a fund-raising
dinner with the president at the Hay-Adams Hotel in July 1995
but did not attend.
A Russian who now lives in Israel, Mr. Loutchansky was not
available for comment yesterday. Mr. Domb also was
unavailable but has said he took Mr. Loutchansky to the
dinner as part of a business venture that ``didn't work
out.''
``Any DNC invitation to Loutchansky in 1995 would show a
severe lack of scrutiny and appalling bad judgment. It would
be unwise in the extreme for there to be any ties between the
U.S. government and Loutchansky or Loutchansky's company,
Nordex,'' R. James Woolsey, who headed the CIA from 1993 to
1995 and is a partner at the Washington law firm of Shea and
Gardner, has said.
``At a congressional hearing in April, the current director
of central intelligence, John Deutch, identified Grigori
Loutchansky's company, Nordex, as an `organization associated
with Russian criminal activity'. Next to Loutchansky, the
Lippo syndicate looks like the Better Business Bureau.''
The Indonesian-based Lippo Group is at the center of a
growing scandal over foreign-linked campaign donations to Mr.
Clinton and the DNC. The real estate and investment firm was
founded by Mochtar Riady, a longtime Clinton supporter and
campaign contributor.
In a four-page report in July, Time magazine said Mr.
Loutchansky's firm was linked with nuclear smuggling, drug
trafficking and money laundering and that Nordex was
established to ``earn hard currency for the KGB.''
Te magazine reported that, during the past three years, the
National Security Agency ``found indications that Nordex was
engaged in nuclear smuggling.'' It also said Mr. Loutchansky
was the sole subject of a two-day Interpol meeting involving
11 nations in 1995.
More than a year before Mr. Loutchansky was invited to the
1995 White House dinner; Canada blocked him from entering
that country because he failed a background check.
Questions this year about Mr. Loutchansky's visit to the
White House--and that of convicted drug dealer Jorge
``Gordito'' Cabrera--prompted a review by the Justice
Department into procedures used for screening guests.
In November 1995, Cabrera gave $20,000 to the DNC. He
accepted invitations a month later to a White House Christmas
party and a Miami fund-raiser.
____

[From the Stars and Stripes, Dec. 9-15, 1996]

'93 Lippo Letter Renews Hill Scrutiny of Move To End Viet Embargo

(By Mark Allen Peterson)

President Clinton's 1994 decision to end the U.S. embargo
with Vietnam has come under renewed scrutiny in the light of
correspondence on the issue received by the White House from
Indonesian businessman Mochtar Riady.
The Wall Street Journal last week revealed that the White
House had received a letter

[[Page H3659]]

dated 9 March, 1993, filled with policy advice from Riady,
who gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic
National Committee. Among other thing, the letter urged the
president to normalize relations with Vietnam.
President Clinton 2 Dec. described the letter as being
``like tens of thousands of letters I get of people
suggesting what our policy ought to be in various areas.''

solomon Disturbed

White House press secretary Mike McCurry denied Riady's
suggestions played any part in the president's decision to
lift the longstanding embargo.
But the Journal story created a furor on Capitol Hill,
where several committees have expressed interest in probing
the gifts by Riady's Lippo Group to the Democrats. One of
those most disturbed was Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-NY), head of
the Government Rules Committee, which is planning hearings on
the issue.
In October, and again last month, Solomon requested from
Secretary of Commerce Mickey Kantor ``all information''
involving contacts, agreements or ``other dealings'' with the
Lippo Group, its founder Mochtar Riady, his son, Lippo
executive James, and former Lippo executive and Commerce
official James Huang and ``any influence of U.S. policy and
the normalization of relations with the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam.''

More Information

In particular, Solomon said, he wanted more information on
Vietnam policy meetings called by Huang while he was deputy
assistant secretary of international economic policy at
Commerce and on efforts by Lippo to end the Vietnam embargo.
After reading the Journal story, Solomon fired off a letter
to Clinton, asking why he had not been given a copy of the
letter after his request for information, and requesting the
White House to fax the letter to the Rules Committee.
The White House 4 Dec. faxed the letter to the House
Committee on International Relations, which subsequently made
it available to Solomon and other interested lawmakers and
reporters.
Sources in Congress said the Rules Committee's
investigation would be asking two key questions: First, was
Clinton's decision to lift the U.S. trade embargo with
Vietnam influenced by the Lippo Group's six-figure
contributions and, second, did the administration leak
advance information to Riady that the embargo was going to be
lifted.

trade initiatives

``The media has overplayed the idea that the president was
influenced to lift the embargo and downplayed the second
scenario,'' said a source close to the investigation. ``But
we really think the second scenario is the more likely.''
The committee is particularly interested in whether advance
information about the decision played a part in Vietnam
``trade initiatives'' hatched between Hong Kong-based Lippo,
Ltd. and North Carolina's First Union Corp., sources said.
The lifting of the trade embargo was a difficult move for
the president because of the emotional issue of POWs and MIAs
still unaccounted for in Southeast Asia.
In 1992, Clinton said he did not think lifting the Vietnam
embargo was a good idea.

reversal

``I don't think we should normalize and then get an
accounting [of American POWs and MIAs],'' he told The
Washington Times. ``I think we ought to know where our people
are. That's putting the cart before the horse.''
But after several visits to Vietnam by presidential
advisors and lobbying by several visits to Vietnam by
presidential advisors and lobbying by several congressmen,
including former POW Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Clinton
reversed his position, saying, ``I am lifting the trade
embargo against Vietnam because I am absolutely convinced
that it offers us the best way to resolve the fate of those
who remain missing and about whom we are not sure.''
____

Solomon Staffers Widening Huang Probe

WASHINGTON.--John Huang, a central figure in the
investigation into Asian donations to Democrats, had more
access to government secrets during his short tenure at the
Commerce Department than previously disclosed, documents
show.
The Commerce Department has identified 109 meetings in 1994
and 1994 attended by Huang and at which classified
information ``might have been discussed,'' according to
information released Tuesday.
Previously, the department disclosed 37 intelligence
briefings Huang had attended while a deputy assistant
secretary.
Investigators for House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald
Solomon, R-Glens Falls, say they also have tracked other
dates in which Huang received ``secret'' documents, then
called the Los Angeles office of his former employer, the
Indonesian-based Lippo Group.
Solomon has been investigating whether Huang, who later
became a vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee,
passed any secrets to Chinese government and business
interests or to Lippo, a financial conglomerate with
substantial interests in China.
In addition, the Justice Department is investigating
whether the Chinese government plotted to influence U.S.
elections last year by funneling illegal contributions to
candidates and parties.
Huang, who had a top-secret security clearance while at the
Commerce Department, has broadly denied wrongdoing. But he
has refused to cooperate with congressional investigators,
citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
His lawyers did not immediately return calls to their offices
Tuesday.
One week in May 1995 has stood out to investigators looking
at Huang's activities at Commerce.
According to a summary prepared by Solomon's office, Huang
received a document classified ``secret'' at 10 a.m. on May
4, 1995. Four hours later, Huang had a 10-minute call with
Lippo's office in Los Angeles.
On May 9, 1995, Huang had a meeting scheduled with other
senior Commerce officials on the ``status of Dragongate,'' a
multibillion-dollar Taiwanese power plant project. That
afternoon, he made two short calls to Lippo. Taiwan was one
area of interest for Huang.
The next day, Huang received additional secret documents
and made two short calls to Lippo's office in Los Angeles.
____

[From the Washington Times, May 1997]

Solomon: Is Cosco ``Strategic Threat''?

(By Rowan Scarborough)

A senior House Republican yesterday asked Navy Secretary
John H. Dalton to report whether the Chinese Ocean Shipping
Co. (Cosco) represents a ``global tactical or strategic
threat'' to the Navy.
The effort by Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon, chairman of the
House Rules Committee, to force the Navy to make an
assessment is the latest development in a campaign to block
Cosco from taking over the abandoned Long Beach Naval Station
in California.
``In order to understand the magnitude of the growing
threat of the PRC [People's Republic of China], I would like
you to state the U.S. Navy's position on [Cosco],'' Mr.
Solomon, New York Republican, wrote in a one-page letter to
Mr. Dalton.
``Considering their potential world-wide information
gathering capabilities, a history as the delivery system of
weapons of mass destruction to terrorist countries and the
size of this fleet under direct control of the communist
regime--does Cosco pose a potential global tactical or
strategic threat against the U.S. Navy?''
The Solomon letter represents a more specific question for
the Navy. Before, congressional inquiries have centered on
whether Cosco at Long Beach would be a regional threat. The
congressman wants to know if Cosco, and its 600-ship fleet,
poses a danger to the Navy itself.
Mr. Solomon was one of the first in Congress to speak out
against the Chinese-Long Beach connection.
``This is almost a caricature of Lenin's prediction that
the West will hand the rope to its Communist executioners,''
he said March 10. ``The Clinton administration seems to be
going out of its way to help the most serious threat to
American security, the so-called People's Republic of
China.''
Cosco plans to lease 144 acres to operate a large container
terminal, giving Beijing an important beachhead in making
Cosco one of the world's largest carriers.
Lawmakers in recent weeks have emerged from closed-door
intelligence briefings with conflicting interpretations.
Conservatives who oppose the deal say the intelligence
shows Cosco is a tool of the Chinese People's Liberation
Army, trafficking in weapons of mass destruction to known
terrorist states such as Iran.
But local Long Beach legislators say the briefings show
Cosco is not a threat.
President Clinton personally backed the city of Long
Beach's overture to Cosco, after a commission had targeted
the station for closure as part of armed forces downsizing.
The negotiations occurred at a time China is suspected of
funneling millions of dollars in illegal campaign
contributions into the United States in a government-
sponsored operation to influence the 1996 election.
Some Republicans wonder if there is a connection between
Cosco's expansion plans and the Democratic fund-raising
scandal.
Reps. Duncan Hunter and Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, both
California Republicans, want to stop the Cosco-Long Beach
marriage through legislation attached to the 1998 defense
authorization bill. The House National Security Committee is
schedule to write the bill next month.
However, the Cosco transaction may die before the Navy
officially transfers the property to the city's Harbor
Commission.
A coalition of conservationists and history buffs have
filed suit to stop the project, which calls for leveling
every naval station building.
A judge in Los Angeles has ordered the city to terminate
the Cosco lease and re-evaluate the plan's environmental
impact.
The New York Times reported yesterday that a Clinton
appointee, Dorothy Robyn, in November urged the
preservationists to abandon their effort to save any
buildings.
Miss Robyn, who serves on the National Economic Council,
told the paper she made the calls as a favor to Long Beach's
mayor. She said she had no contacts with Cosco officials.
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, has asked
the Federal Maritime Commission to report whether Cosco is
guilty of predatory pricing.

[[Page H3660]]

____
[From the Washington Times, May 1997]

Solomon Seeks Details as Number of Huang Briefings Rises

(By Jerry Seper)

The chairman of a House committee asked Commerce Secretary
William M. Daley yesterday to explain briefings in which
former Democratic fund-raiser John Huang may have receive
classified information at 146 separate meetings instead of
the 37 originally claimed or the 109 later acknowledged.
In a letter, Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon, New York Republican
and chairman of the House Rules Committee, also asked whether
President Clinton or Vice President Al Gore attended some of
those briefings, which the Commerce Department now says may
have taken place at the White House.
Mr. Solomon's concerns were raised by a May 9 letter from
Mr. Daley, who sought to explain published reports last month
that Mr. Huang, now at the center of the growing campaign-
finance scandal, received 109 classified intelligence
briefings during his 18 months at Commerce, not the 37
previously acknowledged.
Mr. Daley said a recheck of the records showed that Mr.
Huang received 37 ``intelligence briefings'' and may have
attended 109 other meetings, including, some at the White
House, ``at which classified material might have been
discussed.'' He said 70 of those meetings were in 1994, and
39 were in 1995.
``These 109 meetings were not intelligence briefings,'' Mr.
Daley wrote, although he acknowledged that classified
information might have been made available.
Mr. Solomon, who first questioned Mr. Huang's possible ties
to national-security violations and economic espionage and
urged the FBI to investigate, told Mr. Daley his letter
``begged more questions than it answered.''
``With great concern and no little irritation, I now
discover that John Huang received secret and top-secret
information not merely 37 times, as the Commerce Department
originally wanted Congress and the American people to
believe, but possibly as many as 146 times,'' he said, adding
that the questions surrounding Mr. Huang ``have long since
gone beyond campaign financing to include possible
espionage.''
``Until such time as Mr. Huang, who pled the Fifth
Amendment, agrees to return to Washington and cooperate with
Congress, the information I'm requesting would be helpful,''
he said. ``What's more, some of those meetings taking place
at the White House may have included the president and vice
president.''
He told Mr. Daley he wants a list of the 109 meetings at
which classified material may have been discussed.
Last month, Mr. Solomon asked Mr. Clinton for a list of all
meetings he had with Mr. Huang, and explanation for Mr.
Huang's 1994 appointment as deputy assistant commerce
secretary for international economic policy and a list of
``all meetings'' Mr. Huang had with other White House
officials.
Sources close to the Rules Committee said Mr. Solomon is
concerned about briefings in which Mr. Huang received
classified information including documents stamped
``secret,'' after which telephone logs show he made calls to
his previous employer, the Lippo Group.
Phone logs show 70 calls by Mr. Huang to Lippo Bank in Los
Angeles and other calls to prominent Arkansas businessmen and
lawyers with financial ties to Asia. The bank is controlled
by the Lippo Group, a $6.9 billion conglomerate based in
Indonesia. Mr. Huang was vice chairman of the bank until his
Commerce appointment.
House investigators want to know how Mr. Huang received a
top-secret security clearance five months before he reported
to Commerce. Such a clearance was explained in a January 1994
memo as necessary ``due to the critical need for his
expertise in the new administration'' of Commerce Secretary
Ronald H. Brown.
He also was issued a ``consultant top-secret'' security
clearance after he resigned at Commerce to become a fund-
raiser at the Democratic National Committee. That clearance,
issued in December 1995, remained in effect until December
1996, although it is not clear how he used it as a Democratic
fund-raiser.
Mr. Huang, who became a U.S. citizen in 1976, has not been
available for comment but previously denied any wrongdoing.
He is believed to have returned to California.
____

Solomon Questions Security at Former Base

Washington.--A high-ranking Republican lawmaker wants the
Secretary of the Navy to determine if a Chinese shipping
company seeking to lease a former naval base in Southern
California poses a national security threat.
Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-Queensbury, wrote to Secretary of
the Navy John H. Dalton Friday, asking if the Chinese Ocean
Shipping Co., known as COSCO, poses ``a potential global
tactical or strategic threat against the U.S. Navy.''
Dan Amon, a spokesman for Solomon, said the injury by the
House Rules Committee chairman is simply an attempt to
resolve controversy over COSCO's proposed lease of a $200
million shipping terminal to be build at the former Long
Beach Naval Station.
The Clinton administration supported the city of Long Beach
when it contacted the Chinese government-owned COSCO about
leasing the naval base, which was a victim of military
downsizing. But two California Republicans, Reps. Duncan
Hunter and Randy Cunningham, want to stop the deal with an
amendment to next year's defense spending bill. They say the
lease will allow China to spy and smuggle weapons.
The controversy comes as the Justice Department
investigates whether the Chinese government tried to
influence 1996 elections with illegal campaign contributions

* * * * *

____

[From MSNBC, June 10, 1997]

Huang May Have Passed Trade Secrets

(By Robert Windrem)

Washington.--U.S. intelligence agencies told the Senate
Intelligence Committee last month that they have found there
is evidence that former Assistant Commerce Secretary John
Huang ``collected'' and ``passed'' U.S. trade secrets on to
his former bosses at the multibillion-dollar Lippo Group of
Indonesia, NBC News has learned.
According to a congressional staffer familiar with
intelligence matters, the evidence was picked up at a U.S.
electronic eavesdropping site targeted on trans-Pacific
communications. The United States maintains an extensive
network of eavesdropping sites around the Pacific Rim, from
Yakima, Wash., to Pine Gap, Australia.
Huang raised millions of dollars for the Democratic
National Committee from the Asian-American community after he
left the Commerce Department in December 1995 to work as a
Democratic fund-raiser. He is the focus of both congressional
and Justice Department investigations.
By all accounts, Huang was an instant success, bringing in
more cash from Asian-Americans than had been given to any
previous president. But on Oct. 18, 1996, Huang was suspended
from his job at the DNC after news surfaced that he had
solicited a $250,000 South Korean donation in violation of
U.S. laws against foreign political contributions. More
questions were raised by Huang's dozens of visits to the
White House in 1996. It could create a bad impression to have
a fund-raiser spending so much time in the White House.
The congressional source said the focus of U.S.
intelligence efforts now is what Huang did in the last few
months of 1995 just before leaving for the DNC. Congressional
critics, in particular Rep. Gerry Solomon, R-N.Y., have noted
various meetings and phone calls in which Huang dealt with
Lippo officials just before or just after a Commerce
Department briefing.
One typical incident: According to phone records and logs,
Huang called Lippo's Los Angeles office on Sept. 19, 1995, at
2:45 p.m., just 15 minutes before a classified briefing.
After the briefing, at 5:34 p.m., he called Lippo back.
____

[From the San Diego Union-Tribune, May 11, 1997]

Navy Asked To Rule on Threat of Chinese Using Old Base

(By Alice Ann Love)

Washington.--A high-ranking Republican lawmaker wants the
secretary of the Navy to determine whether a Chinese shipping
company seeking to lease a former naval base in Southern
California poses a national security threat.
Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., wrote to Secretary of the Navy
John Dalton on Friday, asking whether the Chinese Ocean
Shipping Co., known as COSCO, poses ``a potential global
tactical or strategic threat against the U.S. Navy.''
Dan Amon, a spokesman for Solomon, said the inquiry by the
House Rules Committee chairman is an attempt to resolve
controversy over COSCO's proposed lease of a $200 million
shipping terminal to be built at the former Long Beach Naval
Station.
President Clinton's administration supported the city of
Long Beach when the city contacted the Chinese government-
owned COSCO about leasing the base, which was a victim of
military downsizing.
But two California Republicans, Reps. Duncan Hunter of El
Cajon and Randy Cunningham of Escondido, want to stop the
deal with an amendment to next fiscal year's defense spending
bill. They say the lease would allow China to spy and smuggle
weapons.
The controversy comes as the Justice Department
investigates whether the Chinese government tried to
influence 1996 U.S. elections with illegal campaign
contributions.
The Long Beach Harbor Commission says the new lease to
COSCO, which has had a presence in the port for 16 years,
would create 1,600 construction jobs over 1\1/2\ years, 600
permanent shipping jobs once completed and several hundred
jobs elsewhere in the city.
The port would receive about $20 million a year in rent,
while the city stands to reap about $1 million in taxes
annually.
Local resistance has also stalled the lease. A group of
Long Beach environmentalists and preservationists opposes the
deal, saying historic buildings would be torn down.
Harbor commissioners face a hearing Tuesday before a Los
Angeles Superior Court judge to prove that the project would
comply with state environmental laws.
____

[From the Los Angeles Times, June 13, 1997]

Huang Accused of Espionage--Solomon Says Fund Raiser Shared Classified
Information to Lippo Group

Washington--John Huang, the former Clinton administration
appointee and star

[[Page H3661]]

Democratic fundraiser, conveyed ``classified information'' to
the Indonesia-based Lippo Group, Rep. Gerald Solomon alleged
Thursday.
Solomon, R-Queensbury, chairman of the House Rules
Committee, said he is aware of electronically gathered
evidence--presumably telephone calls monitored by a U.S.
intelligence agency--verifying that Huang relayed the
information.
``I have received reports from government sources that say
there are electronic intercepts which provide evidence
confirming what I suspected all along, that John Huang
committed economic espionage and breached our national
security by passing classified information to his former
employer, the Lippo Group,'' Solomon said.
The congressman and his aides declined to elaborate. They
would not say, for instance, whether Solomon based his
allegation on information provided directly by intelligence
or law enforcement officials. The congressman does not serve
on either the House Intelligence Committee or a separate
panel that has jurisdiction to investigate Huang's
activities.
FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, in recent weeks, has briefed
members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees about
the bureau's ongoing investigation of Huang and others. An
FBI spokesman declined Thursday to comment on any aspect of
the inquiry.
If Solomon's allegation proves credible, it would magnify
the significance of the fund-raising scandal that already
besets both President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.
Documents disclosed earlier by the Commerce Department show
that Huang made scores of calls on government phones to Lippo
offices in Los Angeles. Some of those calls were made close
to times when Huang was scheduled to attend classified
briefings convened by the Commerce Department's Office of
Intelligence Liaison.
The possibility that Huang passed classified data to Lippo
is especially sensitive because the conglomerate is closely
aligned with China.
____

[From the Wall Street Journal, July 1997]

China, After Request From U.S., Searches for Campaign Donor

(By a Wall Street Journal Staff Reporter)

Shanghai, China--Responding to a request from Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright, Chinese authorities are looking for
Charlie Trie, an Arkansas-based restaurateur involved in the
U.S. campaign fund-raising controversy.
Agents of China's State Security Ministry have made
inquiries with people who may have been in touch with Mr.
Trie since he came to this country, possibly to avoid
questioning in the U.S. Some of those who were contacted say
the authorities didn't appear to know his location.
Mr. Trie, a Taiwan-born entrepreneur who became close to
Bill Clinton when they both lived in Little Rock, Ark., owns
a restaurant in Beijing and has been involved in property
projects in Shanghai and other Chinese cities. He contributed
heavily to Mr. Clinton's reelection campaign, and tried to
give $600,000 to the president's legal defense fund. (That
money was rejected because of questions about the money's
origins.)
In June, Mr. Trie came to Shanghai for an off-camera
interview with NBC News, but acquaintances say he isn't
living here.
Yesterday, Rep. Gerald Solomon (R., N.Y.) disclosed that
Mrs. Albright last week asked the Chinese government to help
find Mr. Trie. The State Department instructed the U.S.
Embassy in Beijing to underscore that request, Barbara
Larkin, assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs,
wrote in a letter to Mr. Solomon.
____

[From the New York Times, July 23, 1997]

State Department Asks China to Help Find Former Fund-Raiser

(By Leslie Wayne)

Washington, July 23--Under pressure from House campaign-
finance investigators, the State Department has asked the
Chinese Government to help locate Yah Lin Trie, a central
figure in the Democratic fund-raising controversy, according
to a State Department letter released today.
The letter was made public by Representative Gerald B. H.
Solomon, the New York republican who heads the house Rules
Committee and who is an outspoken critic of Democratic
campaign fund-raising practices.
``I am pleased to inform you that, on July 14, the
department communicated to the Chinese Government your
interest in determining Mr. Trie's location,'' said the
letter, which Mr. Solomon received earlier this week.
It continued: ``We informed the Chinese Government that
this is a high priority in which Secretary Albright is
personally interested. In order to emphasize the importance
we attach to this matter, we have also instructed our embassy
in Beijing to communicate your request to the Chinese
Government there.''
Mr. Trie, a onetime Little Rock restaurateur and longtime
friend of Mr. Clinton, raised more than $645,000 in donations
that have been returned because of their questionable origin.
In addition, investigators are looking at $470,000 in money
transfers to Mr. Trie from an account in Macao. They were
made about the time he brought cash donations to the
Democratic Party or money from donors who cannot be found.
Mr. Trie, a naturalized American citizen, returned to China
after the campaign finance investigations began. He has
refused to testify before Congressional investigators. In an
interview in Shanghai with NBC News in June, Mr. Trie said he
had no plans to return to the United States.
``They'll never find me,'' he told NBC.
Three weeks ago the Clinton Administration said it
preferred not to ask China for help finding Mr. Trie, citing
questions of conflict of interest between the White House and
the Congressional investigation.
____

[From the Washington Times, July 23, 1997]

State Department Asks China to Help Locate Elusive Trie

(By Jerry Seper)

The State Department has asked China for help in finding
Democratic fund-raiser Charles Yah Lin Trie, a key figure in
congressional and Justice Department investigations into
accusations that foreign governments sought to influence the
1996 elections.
Barbara Larkin, assistant secretary of state for
legislative affairs, said in a letter yesterday to Rep.
Gerald B. H. Solomon, chairman of the House Rules Committee,
that a request was made of the Chinese government on July 14,
and that the U.S. Embassy in Beijing would make a follow-up
request in person.
``Secretary [Madeleine K.] Albright has repeatedly made
clear her commitment to do everything within her authority to
assist Congress in its investigations regarding alleged
violations of federal campaign financing laws,'' Mrs. Larkin
wrote. ``We informed the Chinese government this is a high
priority in which Secretary Albright is personally
interested.''
Mr. Trie disappeared in China after surfacing in the
campaign-finance probes of Congress and the Justice
Department. Mr. Solomon asked the White House on July 3 for
help in finding him.
The New York Republican, who described Mr. Trie as a key
figure in Congress' inquiries, wants the department to assist
congressional investigators in locating and obtaining
evidence from the Arkansas businessman. He has questioned Mr.
Trie's ties to the fund-raising scandal and his relationships
with John Huang and Chinese arms dealer Wang Jun, both White
House visitors.
Mr. Trie, who was interviewed in Shanghai by NBC's
``Nightly News'' but who has eluded congressional and federal
investigators, has boasted he could hid in Asia for 10 years
and has said he had no plans to return to the United States
to answer questions by congressional investigators.
A subpoena was issued for him in February by the House
Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
Mr. Trie, who ran a Chinese restaurant in Little Rock near
the Arkansas State House where he first met Bill Clinton,
then governor, came to public notice after the President's
Legal Defense Fund announced it was returning $640,000 in
donations he collected.
The cash, delivered in two envelopes, was returned when
fund executives said they did not know its source. The
donations included checks with signatures that matched those
on other checks and money orders numbered sequentially but
from different cities.
In a statement, Mr. Solomon said it was ``refreshing to see
a Cabinet secretary in this administration willing to take a
strong personal interest in helping us get to the bottom of
such serious matters.''
Besides the Legal Defense Fund donations, House
investigators want to know what role Mr. Trie played in
getting Mr. Wang, chairman of China's Poly Technologies Ltd.,
to a White House meeting in February with Mr. Clinton. Two
months later, Poly Technologies, which makes weapons for the
Chinese military, was identified by U.S. Customs Service
agents as a target in a sting operation to deliver 2,000 AK-
47s to the United States.
White House records show Mr. Wang, as Mr. Trie's guest, met
with Mr. Clinton at a reception with several Democratic
campaign contributors. Mr. Huang arranged for Mr. Trie to
attend a White House coffee with Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Solomon said that China could ``easily return Mr. Trie
. . . if it had a will to do so.''
____

[From the New York Times, July 27, 1997]

Saving Facepowder

(By William Safire)

Washington--It was mid-October, the final month of the 1996
Presidential campaign. A column in this space titled ``The
Asian Connection'' had just appeared, followed the next day
by a front-page article about John Huang's fund-raising in
The Wall Street Journal. Though TV lagged, The L.A. Times and
New York Times were advancing the story of illegal Asian
money flowing into the Democratic campaign.
But silence from the Republicans. Not only were they not
the original source of the story, they offered little
newsworthy reaction. I ran into Haley Barbour, then chairman
of the Republican National Committee, campaigning in
Birmingham, Ala., and put it to him: Did he have a statement?
His reply: ``This is something for Ross Perot to hit
hard.'' That struck me as curious; why Perot, the third-party
candidate--why not Dole and Barbour? I put it down to the
Republican inability to react swiftly to news.

[[Page H3662]]

Now it comes clear. Haley must have been worried that the
Asian connection would boomerang.
The Republican think tank he headed--an adjunct to the
R.N.C.--had in 1994 borrowed $2 million on the collateral of
Ambrous Tung Young, a citizen of Taiwan.
Haley made the deal aboard a yacht in Hong Kong and was
reluctant at first to blast Clinton for foreign fund-raising.
At the Thompson hearings, that G.O.P. fund-raising chicken
has come home to roost. As usual, most media coverage of the
Barbour appearance centered on the witness's performance--
``spirited,'' ``well-prepared,'' ``combative''--and less on
the evidence of wrongdoing developed. We cover the show but
ignore the case.
The case is that a top Republican official solicited a huge
loan from a foreign national. The millions traveled through
an affiliated think tank to the National Committee and--
because money is fungible--materially helped G.O.P. political
campaigns.
Barbour insists this shell game was legal; if so, the law
needs tightening. He borrowed from a foreigner on the
anticipation of a favorable I.R.S. ruling on a think tank's
status; that was foolish and--most damaging to his
reputation--politically debilitating. His Republicans stiffed
Mr. Young for half his loan and now the R.N.C. must make him
whole.
The Asian lender used a colorful expression to explain his
loan: not just to gain influence and access, but ``to put
powder on my face.'' That usually derisive Chinese
phrase--tu zhi mo fen, ``rouge and powder''--means ``to
hide blemishes with makeup,'' its extended meaning ``to
improve one's image with superiors.''
That's behind some foreign giving. But to equate the one-
time ethical lapse of a G.O.P. campaign chief with the
sustained, widespread, and probably espionage-ridden marriage
of Asian money to the Clinton-Gore White House is to fall for
the ``everybody does it'' excuse.
``Everybody doesn't do it,'' said Barbour (meaning, ``Not
everybody does it''). He's right; the scale of the Clinton-
Gore Great Asian Access Sale is unprecedented, its pattern of
cover-up unique.
The White House-Commerce cover-up has spread to the Justice
Department. Lest credible evidence be developed by the Senate
implicating a ``covered person'' (Vice President Gore), Janet
Reno resisted allowing victimized nuns to testify publicly.
Not even Democratic senators could swallow that insult.
In the same way, when the House's Burton committee
subpoenaed Justice Department records of $700,000 in wire
transfers from Vietnam to an account in the Bank Indo-Suez
supposedly controlled by Ron Brown, Justice responded three
days later with a subpoena for all Chairman Burton's election
records.
Dan Burton is undeterred. His committee will hire a D.C.
superlawyer or former U.S. Attorney as counsel this week.
Its staff is quietly taking depositions from aides to White
House chiefs of staff and now-unprivileged counsel.
The vital power to depose witnesses under oath was voted at
the behest of House Rules Chairman Gerry Solomon, who last
week induced Secretary of State Albright to help bring
Charlie Trie back from his Chinese hideout. Solomon, first in
Congress to blow the whistle on espionage, gets few headlines
but gets results.
Republicans who make mistakes and try to brazen their way
out will get roughed up in the investigations; that's
healthy.
But let us keep our eye on the main arena: the Clinton-Gore
sale of influence to agents of Beijing.
____

To Avoid Such a Disgrace

(By William Safire)

If by the first week in October Attorney General Janet Reno
does not seek appointment of Independent Counsel, she may
well be the first Cabinet member since William Belknap in
1876 to be impeached.
That is the clear import of three coordinated letters, all
dated Sept. 3 and delivered to the Justice Department last
week.
One is a 23-page missive signed by every member of the
majority of the House Judiciary Committee, delineating
evidence that Federal crimes may have been committed by
officials covered by the Independent Counsel Act. The crimes
include bribery, use of the White House for political
purposes, misuse of tax-exempt organizations and extortion of
campaign contributions.
The second letter, from every member of the majority of the
House Rules Committee, notes that the weak excuse given by
Ms. Reno for refusing to trigger the act--that Vice President
Gore's solicitations from the White House were only for
``soft money''--had been shattered by the revelation that the
Democratic National Committee allocated funds raised by Gore
from Federal property as ``hard money'' for the Clinton-Gore
campaign.
Because Congressional committees do not issue threats, a
third letter came from an individual member, House Rules
Chairman Gerald Solomon, to inform her of the serious
consequences of her continued stone-walling
``With credible evidence reported by Mr. Robert Woodward in
today's Washington Post that Vice President Gore . . . may
have committed a felony,'' wrote Solomon. ``I can not
conceive you can so willfully neglect your duty . . . I
should inform you that the mood in Congress to remove you
grows daily.
If it should ever come to that. Ms. Reno's best defense
would be to blame the egregious ineptitude of the vaunted
``career professionals'' in what Justice laughably calls its
Public Integrity Section.
It is now 11 months since the Asian Connection story broke.
In all that time, it never occurred to those humbling Justice
bureaucrats to travel a few blocks over to the D.N.C. to find
out if money raised from inside the White House was used to
buy Clinton-Gore commercials. They waited to read about the
crime in the Washington Post. Their lame excuse: ``The focus
of our energies was elsewhere.''
But those conflicted, slow-walking ``energies'' have not
been focused on tracking down and bringing back Little Rock's
Charlie Trie, a suspected dirty-money conduit now lying low
in Beijing. We rightly criticize Whitewater Independent
Counsel Ken Starr for being slow; Clinton's in-house
Dependent Counsel are hip-deep in Democratic molasses.
The sad part of all this is that Reno and Gore are paying
the price for the political fund-raising strategy set not by
them but by Bill Clinton in his infamous Sept. 13, 1995, Oval
Office sellout to Rlady, Huang and company.
Gore is a serious person, solid on foreign affairs except
for some global warming nuttiness, and I confess to liking
and often admiring him. But Clinton's anything-goes political
morality reduced Gore to describing 86 wrongful calls as ``a
few occasions.'' John Huang, D.N.C. fund-raising vice
chairman, brought a Buddhist leader into Gore's office to
arrange a temple event; the event illegally raised $100,000;
now Gore professes to never have known it was a fund raiser.
But here's a campaign memo from Gore's scheduler asking him
to choose: give a speech to a long Island Jewish group or
``do the two fundraisers in San Joe and LA.'' Gore replies,
``if we have already booked the fundraisers then we have to
decline.'' To call that Buddhist fundraiser ``community
outreach'' takes a long reach.
Gore's followers, who see him as a Clinton with integrity,
are circling the wagons, expecting two years of assault by
Independent Counsel when Reno chooses honor over impeachment.
Martin Peretz, owner of the New Republic, has just fired his
editor-columnist, the gutsily gifted Michael Kelly, for
taking too strong a stand against Clinton-Gore campaign
crimes.
But John Huang and Johnny Chung will be flipped; Web
Hubbell will be re-indicted and Jim Guy Tucker convicted;
House committees will surprise: the F.B.I. will shake its
shackles; media momentum will build; and justice, despite the
Department of Justice, will be done.
____

[From the Washington Times, May 1997]

No MFN Without Trie, Solomon Hints--Urges Clinton to Pressure China

(By Jerry Seper)

The chairman of a House committee yesterday asked President
Clinton to help find Arkansas businessman Charles Yah Lin
Trie, who disappeared in China after surfacing in Congress'
campaign finance probe, and he suggested that China's most-
favored-nation status could be in jeopardy if the president
refuses.
Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon, New York Republican and chairman
of the House Rules Committee, said that because of Mr. Trie's
ties to the growing fund-raising scandal and his
relationships with John Huang and Chinese arms dealer Wang
Jun, Mr. Clinton should direct Secretary of State Madeleine
K. Albright to determine his whereabouts.
``If Mr. Trie is indeed in China, it is vital he be
returned before any renewal of the most-favored-nation
trading status even be considered,'' Mr. Solomon said. ``That
is not to say the return of Mr. Trie would convince me and a
number of other members that renewing China's MFN status is
advisable, considering that nation's performance in other
areas.
``But Congress also has the duty to investigate any undue
influence on U.S.-China policy, and Mr. Trie would be helpful
in that regard,'' said Mr. Solomon, an outspoken opponent of
giving China MFN status.
Congress is scheduled to begin debate next month on Mr.
Clinton's expected decision to extend China's most-favored-
nation trading status for another year. MFN status gives
China's products low-tariff access to U.S. markets, similar
to those enjoyed by most other U.S. trading partners.
Revoking it would price most Chinese products out of the
market.
White House Special Associate Counsel Lanny J. Davis
declined comment on the letter, but said, ``I can state as a
general matter, the president is fully committed to
cooperating with the congressional committees and encourages
others to do so.''
House investigators want to talk with Mr. Trie, former
Little Rock restaurateur and Democratic National Committee
fund-raiser, about his delivery of $640,000 in questionable
contributions to Mr. Clinton's legal-defense fund. The
contributions were later returned when legal-defense fund
investigators found they could not establish the source of
the money, which included checks with signatures that matched
those on some other checks, and money orders that were
sequentially numbered but purportedly came from people in
different cities.
They also want to know what role Mr. Trie played in getting
Mr. Wang, chairman of China's Poly Technologies Ltd., into a
White House reception last February with Mr. Clinton. Two
months after that reception, Poly

[[Page H3663]]

Technologies, which makes weapons for the Chinese military,
was identified by U.S. Customs Service agents as a target in
a sting operation that had been about to deliver 2,000 AK-47s
to U.S. criminals.
Mr. Wang, according to White House records, met with Mr.
Clinton at a reception with several Democratic campaign
contributors. The records show he was Mr. Trie's guest at the
event.
Mr. Trie and Mr. Huang have been described as longtime
Arkansas friends of the president. It was Mr. Huang who
arranged for Mr. Trie to attend a White House coffee with Mr.
Clinton. Both men are now at the center of investigations by
a Justice Department-FBI task force and Congress into
irregularities involving money that was raised for Mr.
Clinton's reelection and his legal-defense fund.
Mr. Clinton, who appointed Mr. Trie to the Commission on
U.S. Pacific Trade and Investment Policy in April 1996, has
said he did not know his longtime friend was collecting money
for his legal-defense fund until after the fact.
Mr. Solomon said the Chinese government could ``easily
return Mr. Trie to the United States if it had a will to do
so,'' and that refusing a request by Mr. Clinton--through
Miss Albright--``would certainly raise even more questions
about any nation wanting good relations with the United
States.''
Mr. Solomon also asked Mr. Clinton to turn over any
background reports or investigations the White House
possesses regarding Mr. Trie's appointment to the Commission
on U.S. Pacific Trade and Investment Policy.
____

[From the Washington Post, July 17, 1997]

Was John Huang Debriefed?

(By Robert D. Novak)

A previously missing government form that should have
indicated whether John Huang was debriefed by a security
officer before the left the Commerce Department two years ago
turned up last Friday. But the place where the now infamous
Democratic fund-raiser was supposed to have signed is blank.
Any government official with top-secret access--Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Commerce Huang included--must attest
to the return of all classified information when debriefed as
he leaves the government. But Huang's unsigned debriefing
document underlines questions about what he did with
government secrets and how well they were protected.
Complete answers can come only from investigators with
subpoena powers. Contrary to the White House mantra, current
Senate hearings concern much more than campaign finance
reform--such as Huang's security clearance, dubious on its
face. Immediately following CIA briefings, Huang would
regularly contact the Chinese Embassy. Yet, even after
resigning from the government and going to the Democratic
National Committee (DNC), he received another security
clearance. The CIA, which had given him documents, was not
alerted to Huang's change of status.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, the conservative
weekly Human Events several weeks ago obtained from the
Commerce Department Huang's ``Separation Clearance
Certificate,'' noting that his ``effective date of
separation'' was Jan. 17, 1995 (though he actually went to
the DNC in December). Commerce officials signed the document
on Jan. 22, noting Huang's return of government charge cards,
his parking permit and his diplomatic passport. ``Security
debriefing and credentials'' was noted and signed by a
Commerce Department security officer named Robert W. Mack.
At that debriefing, Huang should have signed a Standard
Form 312 acknowledging return of classified material. But an
official Commerce spokesman told Human Events editor Terrence
Jeffrey two weeks ago: ``The recollection of our security
personnel is that he [Huang] was debriefed but that a
Standard Form 312 has not been located.''
What's more, there are indications it was never given to
congressional investigating committees. On July 3, Rep. Jerry
Solomon (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Rules Committee,
wrote Commerce Secretary William Daley demanding the Form 312
by July 9.
That deadlines came and went, but late on Friday, July 11,
the pieces of paper was dispatched to Solomon. It showed that
on July 18, 1994, Huang signed for his security briefing. But
Huang never signed the debriefing acknowledgement that ``I
have returned all classified information in my custody.''
If security officer Mack signed off for the debriefing, why
didn't Huang? ``For reasons that we have not determined,''
Commerce press officer Maria Cardona told me. I called Mack
himself, but he said he could not reply. ``When you're as low
on the totem pole as I am . . .'' he said, trailing off.
However, an unsigned Commerce document of Dec. 9, 1996,
supplied to Solomon earlier this year, quotes Mack as saying
that ``he personally briefed Huang and had him sign a SF-
312'' in July 1994 but adds: ``Mack has no recall of the
debriefing'' the following January. The memorandum continues
that ``he does recall'' a call from a high-ranking official
``to make sure that Huang did not lose his top-secret
clearance'' but kept it as a ``consultant.''
``Mack said to the best of his knowledge, Huang never
worked as a consultant, but DISCO [Defense Industrial
Security Clearance Office] did issue a top-secret clearance
to Huang. . . . DISCO has never been notified to cancel the
clearance,'' the memo continued. The memo writer said the
clearance, issued on Dec. 14, 1995, was still valid on Dec.
9, 1996.
Yet another mysterious document: Commerce security officer
Richard Duncan--Mack's colleague--on Feb. 13, 1995, wrote an
internal memo listing Huang among other officials as signing
SF-312s. Was this an attempt to create a paper trail?
This is the curious conclusion of John Huang's access to
secret information. It began with the official request Jan.
31, 1994 that the required background investigation for Huang
be waived because of ``the critical need for his expertise .
. . by Secretary [Ron] Brown.'' When Huang resigned a year
later, Assistant Secretary Charles Meissner proposed the
consultant's role, in order for Huang to retain access to
classified documents. Brown and Meissner both perished in the
tragic plane crash in Croatia, but their patronage of John
Huang remains a fit subject for scrutiny.
____

[From Time Warner Pathfinder, Nov. 4, 1997]

Inquiry Sought Into China Stocks

(By Marcy Gordon, AP Business Writer)

Washington (AP).--A senior congressman wants an
investigation of the possibility that China may be skirting
U.S. disclosure laws in sales of stock in its big government-
owned companies.
Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., who heads the House Rules
Committee, recently told the chairman of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Arthur Levitt Jr., that the Chinese
actions represent ``a potential threat to our country.''
He urged Levitt to take appropriate action, possibly
including an investigation.
At issue is the sale to U.S. investors a chunk of giant
state-owned China Telecom. Its special New York shares began
trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Oct. 22.
In an Oct. 20 letter to Levitt, Solomon cited a Bloomberg
News story that quoted China's communications minister as
saying the government would ease accounting rules to boost
China Telecom's profits.
The statement by Wu Jichuan came in mid-October as shares
of companies backed by China plunged on the Hong Kong stock
market.
Solomon called Wu's reported statement ``cynical,
manipulative and direct evidence of fraud.''
``The highest priority of American securities law is to
provide accurate information to the American investor, and
(China's) actions flout that objective,'' he wrote Levitt.
The lawmaker expressed similar concerns about two other
government-owned companies, China Southern Airlines and
Beijing Enterprises, which also are expected to sell special
shares in the United States.
At the same time, Solomon and Sen. Lauch Faircloth, R-N.C.,
are pushing House and Senate bills that would establish a new
Office of National Security within the SEC to monitor foreign
involvement in U.S. securities markets, financial
institutions and pension funds. The legislation doesn't name
any countries specifically.
Solomon is to testify Wednesday at a hearing on the issue
by the Senate Banking subcommittee on financial institutions.
SEC spokesman Christopher Ullman declined comment on
Solomon's letters to Levitt and the proposed legislation.
Spokesmen at the Chinese Embassy didn't immediately return a
telephone call seeking comment.
____

[From the Washington Times, November 1997]

17 in House Want Clinton Impeached--Barr Leads Charge To Force Hyde To
Begin Inquiry

(By Mary Ann Akers)

The House Rules Committee yesterday took the first step
toward initiating impeachment proceedings against President
Clinton after 17 House conservatives raised the issue in a
formal resolution.
Talk of impeachment, which was laughed off by the White
House and dismissed as incredible even by most Republicans,
was sparked by Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican. His
resolution calls for an ``inquiry of impeachment'' on
everything from the 1996 campaign fund-raising scandal to the
FBI files and White House travel office issues.
``I believe William Jefferson Clinton . . . has violated
the rule of law, and however difficult it may be to go down
the dark tunnel of impeachment, at the end of the tunnel
there is light,'' Mr. Barr said.
Although the resolution has little chance of passing the
House or making its way to the House Judiciary Committee for
a formal review of impeachment, it is still likely to spark
yet another line of investigation of the White House--this
time by the Rules Committee.
Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon, New York Republican and chairman
of the panel, indicated he would hold hearings soon relating
to ``the matter of the president and others in their
potential illegal activities as custodians of the executive
branch of the United States.'' He did not set a date.
This investigation would be parallel to the one being
conducted by the House Government Reform and Oversight
Committee under Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana Republican.
Mr. Barr's plan was to have his resolution go to the Rules
Committee first, then to the Judiciary Committee, which has
jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings, and finally to the
House floor.

[[Page H3664]]

But House Judiciary Chairman Henry J. Hyde, Illinois
Republican, made it clear yesterday that he wants no part of
the impeachment inquiry and disagreed with Mr. Barr's
assessment that the current fund-raising scandal is as
serious as Watergate.
``The state of play is quite different now than it was
then,'' Mr. Hyde said.
Among the differences Mr. Hyde noted: President Nixon's
approval ratings were very low; two former attorneys general,
John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst, along with Mr. Nixon's
general counsel, John Dean, had been convicted of felonies;
Mr. Nixon himself had been named an unindicted co-
conspirator; and a rash of other administration officials had
either pleaded guilty to crimes or been forced to resign.
By contrast, Mr. Clinton has been enjoying unusually high
approval ratings lately, no one in his administration has
been indicted for anything relating to fund raising and the
ongoing Justice Department or congressional probes have not
yet demonstrated that crimes were committed by anyone in the
Clinton administration.
``Impeachment is a very political act. It is a Draconian
act, and ultimately it must be a bipartisan act,'' Mr. Hyde
said.
Only one president in U.S. history has ever been
impeached--Andrew Johnson in 1868 for firing his secretary of
war without cause and without consent of the Senate.
House Republican leaders, meanwhile, indicated they were
not as actively behind the impeachment inquiry resolution as
Mr. Barr had implied to reporters.
``The speaker is aware of what we're doing here today, is
supportive of it,'' Mr. Barr said. But a spokeswoman for
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Georgia Republican, said only,
``Speaker Gingrich is aware of Mr. Barr's resolution and
feels it quite sobering that 17 members find this
appropriate.''
At the White House, Mr. Clinton said of Mr. Barr, ``He's
always had a rather extreme view of these things.''
White House Press Secretary Michael McCurry added: ``In any
body of 535 people, there will always be a denominator that's
lowest. And we've seen this from Barr before. . . . Every
time things get a little quiet on the [scandal] inquiry
front, he pops off about impeachment to get you all
excited.''
____

White Water--China Hawks Warn of Beijing's Bonds

(By Timothy W. Maier)

The China hawks are armed with a get-tough-on-China bill
that could limit Beijing's access to the U.S. capital market.
The bill, called the U.S. Market Securities Act, sailed
through a Senate Banking subcommittee last month and now is
traveling full-speed ahead for a possible vote next year in
the House and Senate.
Supporters say the measure takes the first step in
providing both national-security protection and a safeguard
for taxpayers by creating a screening process at the
Securities Exchange Commission, or SEC, to monitor fund-
raising activities of companies with ties to Beijing.
Opponents say it will be an expensive federal regulatory
nightmare that won't work.
But to Wall Street's dismay, the legislation is gathering
strong support on Capitol Hill. The China hawks claim Beijing
fails to disclose its business dealings with military
enterprises. They fear that of the funds being raised by the
Chinese communist regime, close to $7 billion from bonds, may
be finding their way into the arms of the People's Liberation
Army, or PLA--the same army that rolled tanks into Tiananmen
Square to crush a pro-democracy demonstration in 1989.
The U.S. Treasury Department does not restrict foreign
countries from the bond market unless they are subject to
embargo or trade sanctions, even if a national-security
concern exists. The legislation doesn't sit too well with
Wall Street. Economists warn that the day the bill is passed
the Hong Kong flu that rocked the American stock market two
days before the subcommittee held hearings on it will return
with a vengeance.
A temporary market setback, however unlikely, is a small
price to pay to ensure national security, says Roger
Robinson, a senior director of international economic affairs
at the National Security Council under President Reagan and
one of the principal architects of the bill. ``If China is
not doing the wrong thing, it has nothing to worry about,''
he insists. ``All we want is a list of names. The American
people have inquiring minds and they want to know. What we
want to know is who were the funders and suppliers that paid
for weapons of mass destruction now held by Iraq. We can't
answer that because we don't know.''
Charles Wolf, dean of the Rand Institute's graduate school
of political studies, doesn't buy the story that the money is
supporting missiles for the PLA. Wolf says, ``The hawks start
the premise by saying China is doing as much as they can get
away with, but that's like asking, How many angels can sit on
the head of a pin? There is some indirect borrowing or some
indirect leakage to the military, but it is not all that big
a deal. What is a big deal is pursuing military
modernization, especially the Russians. But that's something
the intelligence agencies and military should do. I don't
think that is the purview of the SEC.''
But Robinson points to China International Trust and
Investment Corp., or CITIC, which is run by kaffeeklatsch
guest and PLA arms dealer Wang Jun, to show it's not the
amount of money but the potentially devastating quality of
some of these weapons. For example, CITIC received $800
million from 15 bonds, and some of those funds may have
drifted into Wang's weapons company, Poly Technologies--which
last year was caught smuggling 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles to
California street gangs and which tried to sell rockets
capable of bringing down jetliners.
``How would we feel if a street gang shot down a national
airliner?'' Robinson asks. ``When you have the wrong
management with the wrong reporting structure and not a true
corporate identity, you have the ingredients in today's
information and technology age for world-class incidents and
national-security challenges.''
Leading the charge that is gaining considerable support on
Capitol Hill are Senate Banking subcommittee on Financial
Institutions and Regulatory Relief chairman Lauch Faircloth
of North Carolina and House Rules Chairman Gerald Solomon of
New York. The bill these conservative Republicans introduced
in the Senate and House also asks the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corp., a federal agency, to issue annual reports on
communist China's securities that are held in the portfolios
of pension funds--a protection for the American taxpayer.
On Nov. 5, Solomon spelled out the significance of the bill
be predicting economic warfare soon will supersede more-
traditional forms of conflict. ``With the emergence of the
new global economy creating megamergers involving
many foreign conglomerates, some of which are reported to
involve international Mafia connections and drug-cartel
monies, this Office of National Security within the SEC is
an absolute must. In other words, we need a special
watchdog agency specifically committed to making sure no
entity can engineer fluctuations that could bring our
markets down.''
And Faircloth tells Insight the bill simply is trying to
protect the hard-earned savings of the American taxpayer.
``We must take steps to ensure that the average American
investor enjoys the same market protection abroad that he
does here stateside,'' Faircloth says. ``In other words, the
American investment must be alerted to the insider trading,
adulterated disclosure and manipulated accounting standards
commonly practiced in the debt and equity markets of
countries such as China. Further, the American people need to
be aware that through their pension and mutual-fund
investments they may be unwittingly supporting the
modernization of the Chinese military.''
The bill has bipartisan support from the left-wing,
Berkeley-based environmental watchdog group International
Rivers Network, or IRN. The group last month launched an
advertising blitz calling on American investors to order
their fund managers to dump all investments tied with China's
State Development Bank, which is behind the huge Three Gorges
Dam project. IRN Executive Director Owen Lammers calls it one
of the ``largest and most environmentally and socially
destructive projects on Earth,'' claiming it will not improve
flood control or provide the electrical power needed but
instead will displace 1.9 million people. ``We're asking
investors to tell their fund managers to get out of those
bonds supporting this,'' Lammers tells Insight.
Investors probably have very little idea about how the
money is spent based on the perspectives the Beijing banks
provide. The State Development Bank supplies a list of 10
projects under development and less than 200 words about the
Three Gorges Dam. ``They technically disguise this project
claiming it will cost $30 billion but unofficially will
likely cost $75 billion because they are building a dam that
would stretch from Boston to New York,'' Lammers says.
Insight also obtained hundreds of pages of SEC documents
involving other Chinese companies, and what is apparent is
what is not present. Red Chinese entities are short on
specifics and background information, especially regarding
Wang Jun and his ties to the military. The lack of detailed
prospectuses is one of the reasons why Randolph Shih Shung
Quon, a Chinese-American financial consultant who worked in
Hong Kong as an adviser to the Chinese Central Bank from 1993
to 1995, is demanding that the SEC investigate Beijing's
offerings underwritten by some leading investment firms such
as Goldman Sachs & Co. and Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter,
Discover & Co. The SEC is not commenting.
Quon wants to know why foreign countries such as the
People's Republic of China are not held to the same threshold
of disclosure as American companies. Now based in Washington
at the Free Congress Foundation, a conservative think tank,
Quon claims he fled to the United States after reporting
fraudulent activities among the Beijing princelings'
children. ``Whether the Chinese government can be trusted to
play by the rules, I have serious doubts,'' Quon tells
Insight. ``This is the time to lay down the law in Asia.
There is no level playing field. They are like 19th-century
barons.''
Quon, who testified at the subcommittee hearings, called
for SEC investigations into several high-profile stock and
bond deals claiming disclosure violations. For example, he
says that just before the $4.2 billion China Telecom offering
Wu Jichuan, communist China's minister of posts and
telecommunications, stated the government soon would hand
over valuable assets to the new company. Wu also declared he
would allow China Telecom to book certain networks that
normally would go through state companies. In addition, Quon
notes the China Telecom prospectus filed with the SEC failed
to disclose

[[Page H3665]]

Hong Kong billionaire Li Kashing had been found to be
involved in an insider-trading scheme and that Li controlled
companies that in turn controlled 10 percent of China
Telecom.
Michael J. Evans, managing director of Goldman Sachs, the
firm that handled the offering, did not return repeated phone
messages left at his offices in Hong Kong, London and New
York. However, Evans has claimed in other interviews that his
firm followed the letter and spirit of U.S. securities law,
that Wu only repeated points made in the China Telecom
prospectus and that any fee adjustments would have to be
reviewed by SEC.
Some economists and Wall Street watchers warn that the
legislative proposal creates a costly layer of bureaucracy
and is impossible to enforce because, they argue, once funds
go to a state-owned company, Beijing still could covertly
divert the money to the PLA. ``This is a chapter out of Alice
in Wonderland,'' says Steve Hanke, a professor of economics
at Johns Hopkins and former Reagan economic adviser. ``I
can't conceive how you would make certain the money would
stay in state-owned enterprises. Even if it could be done,
would it make any difference? The answer is no.''
Hanke says the money just would be funneled from another
source and there is no possible way to monitor every single
dollar. ``This is a full-employment bill for bureaucratic
parasites that want to be doing something. It's jobs for the
boys--for the bureaucrats in Washington who want to regulate
something that is over China. The effect of this bill in
China? You couldn't find it on the radar screen. You won't
have any effect in what's going on in China. The
administrative expense will cost us and it will cost them.
It's going to raise the cost of Chinese doing business. It
will be more difficult to make these bond issues.'' v. . . .
Intelligence specialists including Robinson strongly disagree
with Hanke's evaluation, claiming this simply could be done
with one person plugging names into a computer and sending
information to Congress for intelligence reviews.
``The idea that it is some costly process is rubbish,''
insists Robinson, who President Reagan credited as being
``the architect of a security-minded and cohesive U.S. East-
West economic policy.'' If it is done, Robinson predicts huge
defaults that ultimately would be paid by U.S. taxpayers.
To understand the seriousness of the situation, one must
look no further than Beijing's major banks, which effectively
are bankrupt because of $90 billion in nonperforming loans,
says Robinson. Beijing acknowledges that 20 percent of all
the bank loans have turned sour, although most analysts say
that is an underestimate. Consider the recent bank failure in
Japan--triggered by 8 percent nonperforming loans. The
People's Republic of China has a banking crisis, with U.S.
taxpayers potentially picking up the bill, Robinson says.
The Economist refers to these banks as ``unstable and mired
in debt,'' because the ``banks' senior executives rarely are
given reliable information by their loan officers.'' Peter
Schweizer, a scholar at the Hoover Institution, says
investing in bonds issued by these banks could be a disaster
waiting to happen. ``U.S. pension funds and individuals who
have invested in these bonds could end up holding worthless
paper,'' he says.
Is Red China's debt really cause for concern? Tom Byrne,
vice president and senior analyst at Moodys' Investors
Service in New York, tells Insight he thinks the debt is
manageable. ``It is a major problem, but unlike other
countries external borrowing is fairly well-controlled,''
Byrne says. ``Long-term borrowing is fairly tight and the
short-term debt is at a reasonable level. They have
controlled it, and they have sent out signals that they will
continue to control it.''
Robinson counters, ``I received the same assurances about
the Soviet Union that Moscow's debt was entirely manageable.
They said I was overreacting then. Well, what was the
epilogue? Very simply, roughly $100 billion in Soviet debt to
Western governments was lost in a 25-year rescheduling.''
What did the Soviet Union do with all that U.S. cash? They
made their attack submarines quieter and enhanced their range
so that now ``they can threaten every American city with no
advance warning sign,'' Robinson says.
But there is a significant difference between Russia and
China in these matters because, unlike bank loans, the bonds
cannot be rescheduled. Instead, if it can't pay the debt,
Beijing simply will default--forcing U.S. taxpayers to bail
it out.
The whole Asian picture is cause for alarm in light of
recent events with more than $100 billion in bailouts already
expected. South Korea leads the pack with $50 billion;
Indonesia is at $37 billion; Thailand, $17 billion; and
Malaysia at $10 billion. The United States is responsible for
bailing out 25 percent of it. Now throw Beijing into that
picture and the result 10 years from now could be another
$100 billion bailout.
And disclosure may be imperfect, Robinson admits. But he
says a do-nothing approach could bankrupt the future of
American children even as our money and credits, aid and
trade, are used to finance building Red China into a military
superpower. ``Taken alone, the widespread proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic-missile delivery
systems constitutes a sufficient argument for the
establishment of an Office of National Security at the SEC,''
Robinson says. ``After all, foreign governments are by far
the largest category of proliferators--but you may be certain
the American people will not want to discover in the future
that their leaders bankrupted them to fund enemies in an epic
global tragedy.''

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The resolution is considered read for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 342,
nays 69, answered ``present'' 12, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 177]

YEAS--342

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman

[[Page H3666]]

Tiahrt
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--69

Ackerman
Andrews
Becerra
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Carson
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cummings
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dicks
Engel
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Furse
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Pickett
Rangel
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Thompson
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Wexler
Wynn
Yates

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--12

Berman
Bishop
Clayton
DeFazio
Frank (MA)
Kind (WI)
Maloney (NY)
McGovern
Sanchez
Tauscher
Watt (NC)
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--10

Bateman
Franks (NJ)
Gonzalez
Harman
Johnson, Sam
McDade
Meeks (NY)
Parker
Pelosi
Torres

{time} 1447

Messrs. THOMPSON, CUMMINGS, MORAN of Virginia and OBERSTAR and Ms.
McKINNEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut, Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, and Messrs.
HINOJOSA, ROTHMAN, COSTELLO and MANTON changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
Mr. WATT of North Carolina and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from
``no'' to ``present.''
Mrs. MALONEY of New York and Ms. WOOLSEY changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``present.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________