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.