SPEAKER TROUBLED BY PARTISAN BEHAVIOR DURING CAMPAIGN FINANCE

INVESTIGATION (House of Representatives - April 28, 1998)

[Page: H2335]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pryce of Ohio). Under the Speaker's announced policy of

January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is recognized during morning hour

debates for 5 minutes.

Mr. GINGRICH. Madam Speaker, I rise with concern and sadness to report to the House on a

letter I am sending the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), Chairman of the Committee on

Government Reform and Oversight, today. I want to read the letter and then I want to explain why I

am sending it and the background of sending it.

`Dear Chairman Burton: I was deeply troubled by the partisan Democrat behavior shown last

week during the vote on granting immunity, to which even the Justice Department is not opposed, to

four key witnesses in your campaign finance investigation.

`This is the exact opposite of previous congressional investigations, in which Republican Members

worked in a diligent and bipartisan manner with Democrats to uncover the truth. According to

David Dorsen, the assistant chief counsel of the Senate Watergate Committee, the `Watergate

Committee voted consistently and unanimously for immunity.' In fact, even during Iran-Contra the

Congressional investigative committees voted unanimously to grant a limited form of immunity to

Oliver North, John Poindexter and Albert Hakim. There is no logical reason for the Democrats'

stonewalling and sharply partisan actions. Again, even the Department of Justice has clearly stated in

writing that they have `no opposition to the committee granting immunity.'

`The Democrats' efforts to block immunity, despite their own administration's willingness to accept

it, cannot withstand the public's demand for the truth. For this reason, I encourage you to vote again

on the immunity issue. It is obvious that these four witnesses would provide a great deal of

clarification and a better understanding of the illegal campaign finance irregularities that took place in

the 1996 election cycle.

`The American people have a right to know exactly what happened during the last election cycle.

The very foundations of a democracy are a well-informed populace with the right to know the truth

and a rule of law ensuring that all are equal in the eyes of justice. Therefore, at this time I strongly

urge you to hold a second vote on granting immunity to the four key witnesses who were denied it

last week.'

My hope is that by next week the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight could vote. I

urge every Democrat who voted no, and it was 19-0, 19 against immunity, to reconsider their vote.

I want to report to the House. Here is what the vote was about. The Department of Justice had

cleared, for the purposes of giving testimony, three witnesses, and had cleared for the purposes of

testimony in an executive session a fourth witness. Let me report to the House who they are:

Irene Wu, Johnny Chung's office manager and primary assistant at Automated Intelligent Systems,

already immunized by the Department of Justice, testified before a grand jury. Instrumental in better

understanding Chung's relationships with foreign nationals with whom he attended political

fund-raising events, formed corporations, and from whom he received money.

Nancy Lee, an engineer at Automated Intelligent Systems, Inc. Witnesses say Lee solicited

contributions to Clinton/Gore '96 from her colleagues and then reimbursed them. That is, of course,

illegal. Already immunized by the Department of Justice; testified before a grand jury.

Larry Wong, close friend of Nora and Gene Lum. Believed to have relevant information regarding

conduit contributions, that is, contributions that were not really from the person who made them

technically, but they came from somebody else, in this case probably foreign money, made by the

Lums and others.

And then under a special arrangement, Kent La, president and registered agent of Loh Sun

International. Believed to have direct knowledge of Ted Sioeng's activities. At a minimum, La and

Sioeng traveled, attended social functions and at least one fund-raiser, and transacted business

together. The Department of Justice does not oppose granting congressional immunity with the

understanding that the committee will only depose La in executive session at this time.